On the other hand, Zinner omits to mention that one of the first teachers of Copernicus was apparently a master with the indubitably Polish name Mikolaj Vodka – who later latinized his name into Abstemius... Cf. L. A. Birkenmajer , Mikolaj Wodka z Kwidz yna zwany Abstemius lekarz i astronom polski XV – go stulecia ( Thorn, 1926). See also notes 10 and 89.
29
Quoted by Prowe I, 2, p. 177.
30
Flosculorum Lutheranorum de fide et operibus ανδηλογιχον ( Cracow), 1525, quoted by Prowe I, 2, p. 172.
31
Compare below p. 156 seq., the equally complicated compromise formula for the publication of Rheticus' Narratio prima.
32
The date of the Commentariolus is uncertain, but internal evidence points to the years 1510-14. See Zinnerop. cit., p. 185, and A. Koyré, Nicolas Copernic Des Revolutions des Orbes Célestes ( Paris, 1934), p. 140.
33
Nicolai Copernici de hypothesibus motuum coelestium a se constitutis commentariolus. I have translated "Commentariolus" as "Brief outline". Hand-written copies of it were still circulating among scholars towards the end of the century. Then the treatise vanished from sight until two copies were found independently in 1878 and 1881 in Vienna and Stockholm. The full text was first published by Prowe, together with a German translation of the opening section. _A complete English translation was published by Edward Rosen (op. cit.).
34
That is to say, the planet's angular velocity is not uniform relative to the centre of its epicycle; it is only uniform relative to another point, the puncture equans situated on the axis major of its orbit. See below p. 202 f. seq.
35
Epistolae diuersorum philosophorum, oratorum, rhetorum sex et viginti ( Padua, 1499).
36
Bessarionis Cardinalis Niceni et Patriarchae Constantinopolitani in calumniatorem Platonis libri quatuor ( Padua, 1503).
37
Quoted by Prowe II, pp. 132-137.
38
De revolutionibus, prefatory matter.
39
Quoted by Prowe I, 2, p. 274.
40
"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes round instead of the sky, the sun and moon, just as if somebody moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! That fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." ( Luther Tischreden, ed. Walch, p. 2260. quoted by Prowe I, 2, p. 232.)
41
Quoted by Prowe I, 2, p. 233.
42
Georg Joachim Rheticus, Narratio prima – Encomium Borussiae ( Danzig, 1540), transl. Rosen, op. cit., p. 191. In subsequent quotations from the Narratio prima I have followed E. Rosen's translation except for some minor paraphrasings.
43
Op. cit., transl. Rosen, pp. 192-5.
44
Cf. above, p. 144, and note 31.
45
Op. cit., transl. Rosen, p. 186 f.
46
Ibid., p. 187.
47
Ibid., p. 126.
48
Ibid., p. 131.
49
Johannes Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. III, Munich, 1937.
50
"Kepler to Longomontanus, spring 1605", Gesammelte Werke, Vol. XV, Munich, 1951, p. 134 seq.
51
Rheticus, op. cit. , p. 163 f.
52
Ibid.,p. 188
53
Ibid., transl. Rosen, p. 195.
54
See below, note 13 to ch. 2.
55
Canon Alexander Sculteti, about whom more below. Not to be confused with Bernard Sculteti, see above pp. 131, 146.
56
De Lateribus et Angulis Triangulorum, Wittenberg, 1542.
57
Zinner, op. cit., p. 243.
58
Ibid., p. 244.
59
The full text of Osiander's preface is as follows (transl. Rosen, op. cit., p. 24 f.):
"TO THE READER CONCERNING THE HYPOTHESES OF THIS WORK
Since the novelty of the hypotheses of this work has already been widely reported, I have no doubt that some learned men have taken serious offence because the book declares that the earth moves, and that the sun is at rest in the centre of the universe; these men undoubtedly believe that the liberal arts, established long ago upon a correct basis, should not be thrown into confusion. But if they are willing to examine the matter closely, they will find that the author of this work has done nothing blameworthy. For it is the duty of an astronomer to compose the history of the celestial motions through careful and skillful observation. Then turning to the causes of these motions or hypotheses about them, he must conceive and devise, since he cannot in any way attain to the true causes, such hypotheses as, being assumed, enable the motions to be calculated correctly from the principles of geometry, for the future as well as for the past. The present author has performed both these duties excellently. For these hypotheses need not be true nor even probable; if they provide a calculus consistent with the observations, that alone is sufficient. Perhaps there is someone who is so ignorant of geometry and optics that he regards the epicycle of Venus as probable, or thinks that it is the reason why Venus sometimes precedes and sometimes follows the sun by forty degrees and even more. Is there anyone who is not aware that from this assumption it necessarily follows that the diameter of the planet in perigee should appear more than four times, and the body of the planet more than sixteen times, as great as in the apogee, a result contradicted by the experience of every age? In this study there are other no less important absurdities, which there is no need to set forth at the moment. For it is quite clear that the causes of the apparent unequal motions are completely and simply unknown to this art. And if any causes are devised by the imagination, as indeed very many are, they are not put forward to convince anyone that they are true, but merely to provide a correct basis for calculation. Now when from time to time there are offered for one and the same motion different hypotheses (as eccentricity and an epicycle for the sun's motion), the astronomer will accept above all others the one which is the easiest to grasp. The philosopher will perhaps rather seek the semblance of the truth. But neither of them will understand or state anything certain, unless it has been divinely revealed to him. Let us therefore permit these new hypotheses to become known together with the ancient hypotheses, which are no more probable; let us do so especially because the new hypotheses are admirable and also simple, and bring with them a huge treasure of very skilful observations. 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, and depart from this study a greater fool than when he entered it. Farewell."
60
Copernicus' letter, dated 1 July, 1540, is lost.
61
Osiander's answer was dated 20 April, 1541. It is quoted in Kepler Apologia Tychonis contra Ursum, published in Kepler Opera Omnia, ed. Frisch, I, pp. 236-276.
62
Same source, loc. cit.
63
Ibid.
63
De Revolutionibus, Dedication to Paul III.
64
Johannes Kepler, Astronomia Nova, Prefatory matter, Gesammelte Werke, Vol. III. I have followed Rosen's English translation of the passage.
65
Johannes Praetorius to Herwart von Hohenburg. The letter was first published by Zinner, op. cit., p. 454.
66
Ibid., p. 453.
67
Ibid., p. 424.
67a
It is equally suspect that Kepler, having se
en the whole Osiander-Copernicus correspondence, quotes Osiander's letters to Copernicus and Rheticus verbatim, but summarizes the much more important reply from Copernicus to Osiander in a single phrase about Copernicus' "stoical firmness of mind". The Artronomia Nova attempts to put the Copernican system on a physical basis, and Kepler could not admit that Copernicus had any doubts concerning its physical reality or was prepared to compromise on that question.
68
Private communication, 5 August, 1955.
69
Careful reading of Osiander's preface will show that his charges of "improbability" and "absurdity" are directed against geometrical details of the Copernican system, but not against the basic concept of the earth's motion. On this central idea he shared Copernicus' beliefs, as shown by his letters to Copernicus and Rheticus, and by his devotion to the project. His stressing of the formal or fictitious nature of the system was partly prompted by diplomacy, but partly by a genuine disbelief in the reality of the epicyclic machinery. Copernicus' attitude was essentially the same; the long and heated controversy on this point is mostly based on a failure to distinguish between the heliocentric idea and the epicyclic detail of the system. Concerning the former, the text of the dedication to Paul III is alone sufficient proof that Copernicus was convinced of its physical truth. Concerning the latter, a series of passages in the text show that he regarded epicycles and eccenters as not more than computing devices. Hence Copernicus was neither a "realist" (to use Duhem's terms) nor a "fictionalist", but a realist regarding the immobility of the sun and the fixed stars, and a fictionalist regarding the motions of the planets. The fictionalist attitude is particularly evident in the treatment of the rectilinear oscillatory motions of all planets in latitude, of Mercury in longitude and of the earth's axis, which could not be represented by any model with even a remote semblance of reality.
For a brief and sensible discussion of the issue, with a Est of some relevant passages in the Revolutions, see Armitage, op. cit., pp. 84-87.
70
The only protest on record came from the loyal Giese, who saw the printed book only after Copernicus' death. Copernicus died in May 1543, when Giese was away in Cracow to attend the marriage of the King of Poland. He returned to Prussia in July, and found two copies of the Revolutions, which Rheticus had sent him from Nuremberg with a personal dedication. Only now did Giese see Osiander's preface, and he considered it a desecration of the memory of his dead friend. He wrote (on 26 July) to Rheticus, blaming both Osiander and the printer Petreicus, and suggesting that the operung pages of the book should be reprinted, Osiander's preface eliminated, and Rheticus' biography of Copernicus, as well as his theological defence of the Copernican system, inserted in its place. He also asked Rheticus to intervene with the Nuremberg City Fathers (to whom Giese had written directly) that they should force Petreius to comply. Rheticus did as he was asked, but the Corporation of Nuremberg, after investigating the matter, resolved on 29 August: "To forward to Bishop Tiedeman at Culm the written answer to his letter by Johan Petreius (after eliminating its harshness and toning it down), with the comment that in view of the contents of the answer, no action could be taken against him." (Cf. Prowe I, 2, p. 535 seq., and Zinner p. 255 f.)
Petrieus' answer is lost, but it is evident that he made out a good case against Giese's accusation that he had acted against the author's wishes. It is equally evident that if Copernicus had given his explicit or silent consent to the compromise suggested by Osiander, he would have kept the matter from Giese who, in the light of their past arguments, would be certain to disapprove.
71
Zinner, op. cit., p. 246.
72
Prowe II, pp. 419-421.
73
Orationes de Astronomia Geographica et Physica ( Nuremberg, 1542), reprinted in Prowe II, pp. 382-386.
74
Eng. Brit. XVIII-162c.
75
Prowe I, 2, p. 334.
76
Loc. cit.
77
The full Latin texts are published by Prowe II, pp. 157-168.
78
Prowe II, p. 157.
79
Prowe II, pp. 158-9.
80
Prowe I, 2, p. 325.
81
Oxford, 1934. The Oxford Glossary of Later Latin ( 1949) has "Soldier's concubine".
82
See note 55.
83
Prowe I, 2, p. 364.
84
Ibid., p. 360.
85
Zinner, op. cit., p. 222 f.
86
Prowe I, 2, p. 366 f.
87
Shortly after he took possession of the Ermland see, in January 1538, Dantiscus procured a canonry for one of his favourites. This was the future Cardinal Stanislaw Hosius ( 1504-79), the moving spirit of the Counter-reformation in Poland, the man who introduced the Jesuit Order into Prussia, and had a decisive part in bringing the semiautonomous parts of Prussia under Polish and Catholic rule. He was variously known as "the Hammer of the Heretics" and "the Death of Luther"; the Polish Queen described him as a person who united the innocence of a dove with the cunning of a snake. He was the symbol of the new age of fanaticism and godly massacre, which followed the age of humanism and tolerance, of Erasmus and Melanchton. Dantiscus, the friend of Melanchton, was a child of that earlier age, and himself never became a fanatic; but as an experienced diplomat he knew the forces that were active in Europe, and he was aware that the Prussian border province which he ruled must either become Protestant and German, or Catholic and Polish. Not only his religious and national allegiance, but his whole philosophy made him opt for the continuity and traditions of the Roman Church, and the civilizing influence of Poland in the golden age of the Jagellones. Accordingly, when he accepted the vacant Bishopric of Kulm, his efforts were already aimed at Ermland; for Kulm, which belonged to "Royal" Prussia, was safe for Poland, whereas Ermland was the strategical and political key to the whole of East Prussia, the former domain of the Teutonic Knights. The Bishop of Ermland enjoyed de facto the status of a ruling Prince; he had great influence in the Prussian Diet, over which he presided, and his Chapter fulfilled the functions of government and administration.
By arranging a canonry for Hosius, Dantiscus introduced a kind of Trojan horse into the Chapter. A bare few months later, Hosius was nominated as a candidate for a precentorship, which had become vacant. The Chapter, jealous of its quasi-autonomous status towards the Polish Crown, blocked this move by electing to the post another member: Alexander Sculteti. In spite of considerable pressure by Dantiscus, Sculteti refused to yield. This was the beginning of a long and bitter struggle, apparently between two individuals, Hosius and Sculteti, in fact between the Polish Crown on the one hand, and certain powers at the Papal Court on the other, who backed Sculteti in an attempt to thwart Polish ambitions and to keep Ermland under the direct influence of Rome. Though Sculteti did have several children by his housekeeper, the accusations brought against him of leading an improper life, and holding heretical views, must be seen against this political background. In 1540, he was expelled from the Chapter and banished by royal edict from all territories under Polish sovereignty. The next six or seven years, Sculteti lived in Rome, fighting various legal actions, which ended with his vindication by the Papal Court. The Ermland Chapter, however, under Polish pressure, refused to acknowledge this, with the result that all its members in residence at Frauenburg were excommunicated. The whole complicated intrigue ended with the victory of Hosius, who, in 1551, became Bishop of Ermland, and made it safe for the Polish Crown.
88
Prowe I, 2, p. 361.
89
Thus the otherwise so scholarly and reliable Zinner explains Dantiscus' demand that Copernicus should part with his housekeeper, by Dantiscus' "hatred and urge to oppress his intellectual superior and to deprive him of the leisure required to complete his work. Dantiscus achieved his aim. The work was never completed." (p.
224).
In describing the relations between Copernicus and Dantiscus, Zinner omits to mention that Dantiscus sent Copernicus a contribution (see below) to be included in the Revolutions. He refers to Dantiscus' contribution only in an aside, in a different context (p. 239). Zinner's bias against Dantiscus again seems to have a political motivation. He describes him as a careerist (p. 224) who "entered the service of the Polish King and supported Polish claims against his own country, Prussia" (p. 221). He also repeats the legend according to which Copernicus refused to obey Dantiscus' "order" to break off relations with Sculteti, and declared that "he had a higher regard for Sculted than for the other Canons". In the light of Copernicus' letters to Dantiscus this seems hard to believe. The source of this version is a Polish author named Szulc, quoted by Prowe ( I, 2, p. 361). Prowe, however, points out in a footnote that Szulc does not give his source for the alleged statement by Copernicus "though otherwise he always does so". Prowe himself is scrupulously fair to Dantiscus and displays a detached attitude to the nationalist controversy.
90
Prowe II, p. 168.
91
Prowe II, p. 418 f.
92
Prowe I, 2, p. 554.
93
Zinner, op. cit., p. 244.
94
Ibid., p. 245.
95
Quoted by Zinner, p. 466.
95a
Ibid., p. 259.
96
Loc. cit.
97
In his letter to Rheticus of 26 July, 1543 (see note 70), Giese says that the "elegant" biography of Copernicus which Rheticus had written requires only the addition of the facts about the master's death to be complete. In the same letter he also refers to the treatise which Rheticus had written to prove that the doctrine of the motion of the earth does not contradict Holy Scripture.
98
Zinner, op., cit., p. 259.