The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory_ Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science Toruń, Poland 1973 ( PDFD

THE RECEPTION OF COPERNICUS' HELIOCENTRIC THEORY
THE RECEPTION
OF COPERNICUS'
HELIOCENTRIC THEORY
PROCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSIUM ORGANIZED BY THE

NICOLAS COPERNICUS COMMITTEE
OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY
OF SCIENCE
TORUN, POLAND 1973
Edited by
JERZY DOBRZYCKI
Springer-Science+Business Media, B.Y.

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Ossolineum in 1972.
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1972

The book has been prepared in the series Studia Copernicana, V: Colloquia Copernicana, I, by
the Research Centre for the History of Science and Technology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in
Warsaw. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm,
or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.
ISBN 978-90-481-8340-1 ISBN 978-94-015-7614-7 (eBook)

DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-7614-7
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-95980

FOREWORD
In 1965 the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science founded
the Nicolas Copernicus Committee whose main task was to explore the means by
which different nations could co-operate in celebrating the 5th centenary of the great
scholar's birth.
The committee initiated the publication of a collection of studies dealing with the
effect that Copernicus' theory has had on scientific developments in centres of
learning all over the world.
An Editorial Board, consisting of J. Dobrzycki (Warsaw), J. R. Ravetz (Leeds),
H. Sandblad (Goteborg) and B. Sticker (Hamburg), was nominated. We found that
our initiative aroused a lively interest among Copernicus scholars; the present
volume, with 11 articles by authors from nine American, Asian and European
countries, contains the result of their research. It appears in the series 'Studia Coper-
nicana' by agreement with the Polish Academy of Science, and we hope to publish a
number of other contributions in a subsequent volume.
We are happy to say that our efforts have been fruitful and that this volume presents
not only several in-depth studies, but also a more general survey of the rules governing
the evolution of science, rules set within the framework of Copernicus' theory as
it developed among various nations and in various scientific institutions over the
centuries.
It has been shown once again that, 500 years after his birth, the work of Copernicus
remains a source of scientific interest and continues to stimulate fresh study and
research.
Warsaw, January 1972 Jerzy Bukowski

Chairman, Nicolas Copernicus
Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword 5
ROBERT S. WESTMAN (Los Angeles), The Comet and the Cosmos: Kepler,
Miistlin and the Copernican Hypothesis 7
KRISTIAN P. MOESGAARD (Aarhus), Copernican Influence on Tycho Brahe 31
HANS BLUMENBERG (Munster), Die Kopernikanische Konsequenz fUr den
Zeitbegriff 57
BARBARA BIENKOWSKA (Warszawa), From Negation to Acceptance (The
Reception of the Heliocentric Theory in Polish Schools in the 17th and 18 th
centuries) 79
KRISTIAN P. MOESGAARD (Aarhus), How Copernicanism took root in Den-
mark and Norway 117
SHIGERU NAKA YAMA (Tokyo), Diffusion of Copernicanism in Japan 153
JOHN L. RUSSELL, The Copernican System in Great Britain 189
HENRIK SANDBLAD (Goteborg), The Reception of the Copernican System in
Sweden 241
JUAN VERNET (Barcelona), Copernicus in Spain 271
HARR Y WOOLF (Baltimore), Science for the People: Copernicanism and New-
tonianism in the Almanacs of Early America 293
JOLAN ZEMPLEN (Budapest), The Reception of Copernicanism in Hungary (A
Contribution to the History of Natural Philosophy and Physics in the 17th and
18 th centuries) 311
Index of Names 357
ROBERT S. WESTMAN
University of California at Los Angeles
THE COMET AND THE COSMOS: KEPLER, MASTLIN

AND THE COPERNICAN HYPOTHESIS 1
Of all the initial factors involved in Kepler's decision to become an advocate

of the Copernican system, there is no doubt among historians that a paramount
weight must be assigned to the role of his teacher of astronomy at the University
of Tiibingen, Michael Miistlin (1550-1631)2. There are no sceptics here simply
because Kepler himself tells us, with typical candor, that it was Miistlin who first
acquainted him with the difficulties inherent in the usual opinion of the world and
that, subsequently, he was stimulated to pursue and defend the views of Copernicus
on mathematical and "Physical or, if you prefer, Metaphysical" grounds 3 • But
beyond a few well-known statements by Kepler to this effect, little has come to
light on the precise nature of Miistlin's influence nor on his attitude toward the Co-
pernican theory 4. Did MiistIin then do no more than familiarize Kepler with the fun-
damentals of the new astronomy? Not at all.,Although the evidence is incomplete,
enough of it is available to enable us to reconstruct an important discovery by Miistlin
that was to affect both his own and Kepler's acceptance of the Copernican hypothesis.
That discovery concerned the orbit of the Comet of 1577.
1 An earlier version of this essay was read at the Winter Meeting, 1969 of the British Society
for the History of Science. I am immensely grateful to Dr. Chester Raymo (Stonehill College) for
his constructive criticisms of that paper and for his valuable suggestions and generous encourage-
ment which have helped to make possible the appearance of this article in its present form. I should
also like to thank my colleague, Dr. John G. Burke, for reading and commenting on the final draft.
Any errors are, of course, entirely my own.
2 See, for example, Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers (New York, 1963), 247-48; Max
Caspar, Kepler, trans. C. Doris Hellman (London and New York,1959), 46-47; William Whewell,
History of the Inductive Sciences, 3rd ed., I (London, 1857), 293.
3. Johannes Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, ed. Max Caspar, I (Munich, 1938),9: 11-21 (here-
after cited as G. W.)

4 C. Doris Hellman has a lengthy description of Miistlin's work, but she has virtually no
discussion ofMiistlin's influence on Kepler (The Comet of 1577: Its Place in the History of Astl'OIl-
omy (New York, 1944), 137-159).
8 Robert S. Westman
Our first, and most significant, clue regarding the influence of MastIin comes
from a passage in the Cosmographic Mystery which, hitherto, has been overlooked.
Here Kepler informs us:
I did not follow this way of life rashly, nor without the profoundest authority of my teacher,
the famous Mathematician Mastlin. For he was also my first leader and guide in that [he introduced
me] to the art of philosophical argumentation and to other things, and therefore, he ought rightly
to receive the highest mention. Indeed, he showed me a ... reason [in support of Copernicus} by
another special argument: for he found that the Comet of the year '77 moved constantly with re-
spect to the motion of Venus professed by Copernicus; and he conjectured from its superlunary
height that [the Comet} completed its orbit in the same orb as the Copernican Venus. But if one
considers how easily falsehood is inconsistent with itself and, on the contrary, how the truth is
always consistent with itself, then one may perhaps begin from this [argument} alone to correctly
understand the most important argument for the arrangement of the Copernican orbs 5 •
Kepler reaffirms this point in an early letter to MastIin in which he summarizes
the three principal arguments he intended to use in the Cosmographic Mystery:
"The third (argument] is yours: the Comet of Venus"6. Yet, with the exception of
a few scattered references in his later writings, this "most important argument"
receives no further mention. The reason for its disappearance will become clear at
the end of our account. But let us now turn our full attention to the comet
of 1577 and Mastlin's decision to embrace the Copernican theory.
Like Kepler, Mastlin began his studies in pursuit of a career in theology; but,
unlike the former, whose vocational plans were altered abruptly by his appointment
as an instructor of mathematics at Graz in 1594, Mastlin became a deacon at Back-
nang in Wurttemberg in 1576. Four years later, we find him ensconced as a professor
of mathematics at the University of Heidelberg and, in 1583, he succeeded his former
5 Neque tamen temere, et sine grauissima praeceptoris mei Maestlini clarissimi Mathematici
authoritate, hanc sectam amplexus sum. Nam is etsi primus mihi dux et praemonstrator fuit, cum
ad alia, tum praecipue ad haec philosophemata, atque ideo iure primo loco recenseri debuisset:
tamen alia quadam peculiari ratione tertiam mihi causam praebuit ita sentiendi: dum Cometam
anni 77 deprehendit, constantissime ad motum Veneris a Copernico proditum moueri, et capta
ex altitudine super/unari coniectura, in ipso orbe Venerio Copernicano curriculum suum absoluere.
Quod si quis secum perpendat, quam facile falsum a seipso dissentiat, et econtra, quam constanter
verum vero consonet: non iniuria maximum argumentum dispositionis orbium Copernicanae vel ex
hoc wlo coeperit (G. W. I, 16: 39-40 17: 1-10).
6 The entire passage reads as follows: "First, I offer some theses with regard to Sacred Letters
and I show how, in a like manner, its authority agrees with these [Copernican theses] and, if anyone
should protest that Copernicus is not in agreement [with Scripture}, then it will be impossible [for
him] to refute [Copernicus} by such an appeal. Next, I shall put forth three reasons by which I have
always adhered to the Copernican motions [quibus molus semper Copernico adhaeserim}. The
first is astronomical, where I shall reply to those who believe that the true occasionally follows from
the false and that, therefore, it is most likely that Copernicus assumed a false [premise} so that he
might demonstrate that even from this [falsehood] the truth might follow most beautifully. I deny
this possibility. The next premise is Physical, where I promise that I shall defend the entire mass
of Copernican hypotheses much more correctly and uniquely from Nature [ex Natura fontibus}.
The third [argument] is yours: the Comet of Venus. On the basis of these premises I agree with the'
substance itself". (Kepler to Mastlin, October 3, 1595, G. W. XIII (1945), 34-35: 43-52).
Kepler, Mastlin and the, Copernican Hypothesis 9
teacher, Philip Apian (d. 1589) at the University of Tiibingen 7 • It was presumably
while he was a student that he observed the supernova of 1572. We know of
his findings from a reprint which Tycho Brahe published in his Astronomiae
./nstauratae Progymllasmata 8 •
Three indications of Mastlin's early attitude toward the Copernican theory
stand forth in this brief work. First, Mastlin claimed that the new celestial light-
had neither a "natural cause" nor did it resemble a comet - "unless we wish to
say against Aristotle and all the Physicists and Astronomers that Comets can be
generated not only in the Elementary Region but also in the Stellar Orb, which,
according to Copernicus, is the outermost sky containing everything in itself, and,
therefore, the Sky is not free from generation and corruption". Here he departs from
Copernicus' belief that comets exist in "the highest regions of the air" 9 ; instead,
he maintained the possibility that imperfect, transient objects, such as comets, might
flourish above the moon in the celestial region. Secondly, Mastlin attributed his
inability to measure the star's magnitude and "Height from the Center of the World':
to the "immense Height of the Stellar Orb" whose distance, according to Coper-
nicus, was unknown. And finally, we are told that Copernicus, "Prince of Astrono-
mers after Ptolemy", had demonstrated "the certain distances of all the Planetary
Orbits from the Center of the World".
One is impressed as much by Mastlin's concern with celestial distances as by
his conclusion that there must be change in the hitherto uncorruptible heavenly
sphere. Not only did the size of the Copernican universe offer an explanation of
why the parallax of the New Star could not be obtained, it also contained a persua-
sive assessment of the distances of the planetary orbs. This interest again surfaces in
Mastlin's lectures at Ttibingen where he used tables of planetary distances whose
values, he told Kepler; "I copied straight down from Copernicus himself"lo. And it
is altogether likely that Mastlin's early concerns lay behind Kepler's great desire
to verify his well-known polyhedral hypothesis, purporting to show the metaphysical
causes of the mean distances among the six planets, using the most reliable data
available. Indeed, it was Mastlin who constantly stressed the need to "reform the
motions of the celestial bodies" according to more accurate observations l l , who
7 For further biographical details, consult Hellman, op. cit., 139 if. and Caspar, Kepler,
op. cit., 46 if.

8 Tycho Brahe, Opera qmnia, ed. I. L. E. Dreyer, III (Copenhagen, 1916), 58-62 (hereafter
cited as "Brahe").
9 De revolutionibus orbium caelestium, Book I, Chapter 8.
10 Miistlin to Kepler, Feb. 27,1596, G. W. XIII, 55: 20-23. Excerpts from these tables appear
in Kepler's correspondence until he acquires his own personal copy of the De revolutionibus (Nu-'
remberg, 1543) sometime between September 14 and October 3, 1595. I should like to thank Dr.
Martha List (Kepler-Kommission der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) for providing
infoflY!:1tion on the date when Kepler first obtained his volume of Copernicus' work.
1 I s..:,~. t'): example, MiistIin's letter to the Prorector of the University of TUbingen, End of
May, 159, G. W. XIII, 84: 24 if.

10 Robert S. Westman
expressed doubt about discrepancies between Kepler's beloved scheme of the regular
solids and the relative planetary distances 12 and who provided supportive evidence
for his pupil's theory by affixing an appendix to the Cosmographic Mystery entitled,
"De Dimensionibus Orbium et Sphaerarum Coelestium Iuxta Tabulas Prutenicas,
ex sententia Nicolai Copernici"13. If the much praised relationship between Tycho
and Kepler was a vital one, then we have surely to thank Miistlin for setting Kepler
on the road to their meeting. And yet, in spite of Miistlin's early attraction to the
harmonious dimensions of the Copernican universe, there is so far no convincing
testimony to cause us to believe that, in 1572, he accepted it as the true system
of the world.
The appearance of a new and errant body in the heavens of November 1577 was
a momentous event not only for Miistlin but also for a great many writers with an
awe of its astrological consequences, yet no training in astronomy14. It was destined
to become one of the greatest subjects of astronomical investigation in the last
quarter of the sixteenth century. Of the many observers who witnessed this "fiery·
apparition" there were five who concluded that it was located in the area beyond
the moon: Tycho Brahe l5 , Helisaeus·Roeslin (1544-1616), a physician and astro-
loger l6 , William IV, Landgrave of Hesse Cassel (1532-92)17 Cornelius Gemma
(1535-79)18 and Miistlin l9 • As a student and even as a child Kepler heard much
about this comet20 •
What effect did the absence of measurable cometary parallax have in persuading
these diverse observers to favorably consider the Copernican theory? Generally
12 Ibid., 54: 10 If.

13 Ibid., 56: 63 If.; I, 132-145.
14 See Hellman, op. cit., Chapters 6-8.
'5 Brahe, De Mundi Aetherei ... Phaenomenis (1588), IV. On those who believed in the comet's
supra-lunar position, see Hellman, Chapter 4.

16 See Plate No. 1. Helisaeus Roeslin, Theoria Nova Coelestium 1\.1ETEQPQN, Argentorati,
1578. Roeslin later adopted a geoheliocentric universe which he portrayed in comparison with the
other two cosmologies (De Opere Dei Creationis, Frankfort, 1597); cf. Brahe, 306-316.
17 Brahe, 212- 245.
18 Ibid., 288-305.
19 Ibid., 245-288. Michael Miistlin, Observatio et demonstratio cometae aetherae qui

anna 1577 et 1578 constitutus in sphaera Veneris apparuit cum admirandius eius passiollibus I'arietate
scilicet motus loco orbe distantia a terro centro etc. adhibitis demonstrationibus geometricis et calculo
arithmetico cuius modi de alio quoquam cometa nunquam visa est, TUbingen, 1578 (hereafter cited as
" Miistlin").
20 In 1603, Kepler reported to his friend David Fabricius concerning the comets which he had
observed: "The problem is very obscure. I have not seen many; I saw the one in Nov. '96; I never
was able to see the one of the year '93. I did not even hear about the comet of the year '90. Concern-
ing the Comet of the year '77 I heard the most of all; I was even led up to a high place by my
mother in order to view it, although I was but a boy [of six years]. I think that I saw one or the other
of the years '80 or '82 for I saw the brightest star and the shortest tail; but I think that I was only
a boy often years [at the time]" (Kepler to David Fabricius, July 4,1603, XIV (1949), 416: 285-92).
Kepler, Mdstlin and the Copernican Hypothesis 11
speaking, historians have called attention to the comet's role in undermining some
of the essential features of the accepted cosmology. The new evidence contradicted
Aristotle's widely held theory of comets as atmospheric or meteorological phenom-
ena - dense, dry exhalations from the earth which burned until consumed in
the highest portions of the atmosphere 21 • It called into question the fundamental
dichotomy between the perfect celestial region and the corruptible sublunary sphere
by showing that the heavens were not immutable 22 • And, it has been argued, if
indeed the comet was moving in the area above the moon, then its path would
intersect the crystalline spheres which, for those astronomers who countenanced
their reality, meant that they had to be abandoned 23 • Thomas Kuhn states this case
succintly when he maintains that any break with the Aristotelian cosmological
tradition worked for the Copernicans.
Somehow, in the century after Copernicus' death, all novelties of astronomical observation
and theory, whether or not provided by Copernicans, turned themselves into evidence for the Coper-
nican theory. That theory, we should say, was proving its fruitfulness. But, at least in the case
of comets and novas, the proof is very l>trange, for the observations of comets and novas have
nothing whatsoever to do with the earth's motion. They could have been made and interpreted
by a Ptolemaic astronomer just as readily as by a Copemican 24 •
In a broad sense, I think, Kuhn's intuition is correct: the existence of an alter-

native cosmological scheme opened the way to a radically different interpretation
of long-known phenomena. But while specific issues, such as the rejection of crystal-
line spheres and the imperfection of the celestial sky, might urge further examination
of the new world view, they were not sufficient conditions for the overthrow of the
ancient one. For such adverse testimony to the physical foundations of the old cos-
mos said nothing about its mathematical structure. In an interesting and unfore-
seen way, however, the comet of 1577 did force a reconsideration of the old
order of the planets. And, at least in Mastlin's instance, this reordering of the
planets followed directly from his attempts to compute the comet's orbit.
The desire to find an orbit for a purely transitory, ephemeral phenomenon marked
an important shift in the theoretical interpretation of comets: an atmospheric effect
now oame to be treated as though it were a celestial body and, therefore, subject to
all astronomical theories and techniques of mensuration. In principle, this was a fun-
damental step in the right direction; in practice, however, the techniques developed
in planetary astronomy were to prove of limited value in determining the comet's
orbit. The information obtained by Mastlin for the comet of 1577 differed from
ordinary planetary data in two significant ways. In the first place, with only a small
21 Meteorologica 344a 9-344b 18.

n Marie Boas, The Scientific Renaissance: 1450-1630 (New York, 1962), 119; Thomas
s. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (New York, 1959), 207.
23 Ibid., Boas, 113-115.
24 Kuhn, op. cit., 208.

section of the orbit with which to work (about 60° of motion in longitude) and the
absence of conjunctions and oppositions, Mastlin was forced to base his calculations
of the comet's mean motion in its entire orbit upon its average motion ovet: roughly
one-sixth of the complete revolution. Secondly, the great inclination of the plane
of the comet to the ecliptic prevented a separate treatment of the latitudes as was
customary in planetary astronomy. This was the first time that any astronomer
had attempted to reconstruct the orbit of a body moving out of the plane of the
ecliptic by more than a few degrees; and many of Mastlin's difficulties and his
greatest errors may be traced to this source 25 •
Yet, if Mastlin's solutions to t):lese new problems were frequently founded upon
arbitrary assumptions and trial and error, they also reveal a measure of genuine
innovation. Had his work not been so rapidly superseded and overshadowed by
Tycho Brahe's comprehensive study of the comet, in which the latter put forth
a geoheliocentric orbit for the new body, then perhaps Mastlin's contribution would
be more widely recognized today. For it was not Tycho who directly influenced
Kepler, but Mastlin. And this is significant because Kepler's cautious teacher be-
lieved that only the Copernican hypothesis could save the appearances of the comet.
If we are therefore to reconstruct the arguments used by Mastlin in his lectures at
Ttibingen and their effect upon Kepler, then we must try to discover how it was
that he reached this important conclusion. Can we be sure, for example, that Mastlin's
decision to use heliocentric astronomy to find the comet's trajectory was the only
viable alternative open to him? Could not the comet's motion have been saved by
some combination of Ptolemaic epicycles? Was Mlistlin's investigation of the comet
in fact a necessary factor in converting him to Copernicanism? These are the main
questions that we shall attempt to answer below.
Having determined that the comet showed no parallax, Mastlin's first task
was to find its longitude and latitude with respect to the ecliptic26 • This he did using
only a piece of thread held up to the eye and without even the aid of an astrolabe.
His method for locating the comet's position was to choose four reference stars
whose coordinates were known, picking them in such a way that the comet lay on
the great circle passing between pairs of them. The point of intersection of the two
circles then set the true angular position of the comet. This point could be easily
25 Observations of cometary appearances before 1577 had not been used to establish an orbit
for any particular comet. However, Paolo dal Toscanelli (1397-1482), who observed Halley's
Comet in 1456, left enough detailed observations for the comet of 1433 such that its orbit might
have been calculated (Hellman, op. cit., 74).
26 In chapters 3 and 4, Miistlin proves to himself that the Comet cannot be located in the ele-
mentary region and then proceeds to argue against the many advocates of "Alistotelica Philosophia"
who find nothing in the works of the Master in favor of this view. But, wrote Miistlin, using a famil-
iar weapon against the Peripatetics, had Aristotle known of the method of parallax he would have
changed his opinion (Miistlin, 16-17).
Kepler, Miistlin and the Copernican Hypothesi~ 13
calculated employing a simple trigonometric theorem 27 • In Table I, a summary of

Mastlin's actual observations is presented indicating the date and time of obser-
vation, the comparison stars used and the computed angular position of the comet.
In all cases, four stars must have been employed although Mastlin does not always
list that many. The longitudes and latitudes of the reference stars were taken directly
from Copernicus' stellar tables 28 •
TABLE J29
MASTLIN'S OBSERVATIONS OF THE COMET OF 1577 WITH

CALCULATIONS OF ITS LONGITUDE AND LATITUDE,
NOVEMBER 12, 1577-JANUARY 8, 1578
Date Time Reference Stars Comet

Long. Lat.* Long. Lat.
Nov.
12 6a. m. I 88°()()' 44°30' 245°51' 7°05'
251 00 1 30 (3 43 p)
270 40 730
31920 430
17 8a. m. 26300 15 30 26258 1526
272 20 5030 (20 50 }»
27040 730
300 20 2300
24 6a. m. 27835 21 18
(547 't:::::)
27 Ibid., chapter 5. In modern terminology: Given a spherical right triangle ABC with right
angle C; then, sin b = tan a cot A.
a
A
b
28 Ibid., 31. See De revolutionibus, Book 2.
29 Based upon Ibid., 28-34. Miistlin made a total of eight observations of the Comet quan-
tum mihi nubes coelum obtegentes concedebant (30). At the end of his treatise, however, he presents
a table of data which furnishes information on the comet's motion from November 5 (one week
before Miistlin had even seen the object) to January to. These figures were calculated from his hy-
pothesis of the comet's orbit.
TABLE 1 (continued)
Date Time Reference Stars Comet
Dec.
2 6p.m. 267 10 29 10 28925 2446
28930 25 10 (17 17~)
29050 2450
9p. m. 28933 2447
(1725 =.)
7 6p.m. 26750 4900 29825 21 30
29840 21 30 (26 20~)
9p.m. 29835 21 30
(26 30-::::t,)
15 6a.m. 319 30 2900 30148 2720
272 20 19 10 (12 40~)
30240 1650
300 00 4400
31 6p.m. 311 00 34 15 311 38 2832
312 10 1800 ( 9 30)-0
313 50 1600
Jan.
8 6 (?) 31440 2840
(1232)-0
* Unless otherwise noted, all latitudes are North.
Now, any pairs of these observations would have allowed Mastlin to establish
the great circle of the comet and the longitude of the intersection of that circle with
the ecliptic together with its angle at that point. And clearly, if all points do, in
fact, lie on the same great circle, then all pairs of data should give the same values
for the angle of inclination of the comet's plane. This is essentially what Miistlin
discovered when he tried various combinations of observations 30 . But the determi-
nation of a plane (an angle of 28°58' at 21 ° longitude in Sagittarius)31 suggested that
he was not dealing with a series of random points; instead, it implied that the phenom-
enon possessed at least some regularity of motion. From this evidence Mastlin
had an additional reason to conclude that the comet's location was not in the Ele-
mentary World: "... the circle in which all appearances occur regularly in time
proves this: for it could in no way be [so regular] were it excited like those other
exhalations which wander about in an uncertain manner illuminated in some higher
region of the air 32 ".
30 The value for the inclination of the plane seems to have been found from the observations
of Nov. 12 and Dec. 15.

31 Mastlin, 35.
32 Ibid., 34.
Kepler, Miistlin and the Copernican Hypothesis 15
Having discovered the comet's plane, Mastlin could then turn to the next prob-
lem - the determination of its circle. Here he recognized at once that distortions
would be created by the inclination of the plane: " ... the obliquity brings forth
a huge diversity in the phenomena as the Zodiac and Equinoctial testify [i. e. as
one knows from relating angles between those two planes]; for the comet's motion
wiIl not be in the Ecliptic, but in its own obliquely-numbered circle"33. He resolved
this question to his own satisfaction by dividing one quadrant of the comet's circle
into 90°, measured from the node at 21 0 Sagittarius, and then computing the longi-
tudes and latitudes of each of these points through spherical trigonometry. From
these calculations, he constructed a table showing the correspondence between
angles in the ecliptic and those in the cometary circle 34. Using this table Mastlin
could now convert each of his observations made between November 12, 1577 and
January 8, 1578 into angles in the comet's circle. It should be noted that he excluded
the observation for December 7 - no doubt because the computed latitude looked
somewhat out of line 35 . The results are shown below.
TABLE 236
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMET'S ANGULAR POSITION IN THE ECLIPTIC
AND ITS ANGULAR POSITION IN ITS OWN CIRCLE
- - .
• ..
"I
, tabdl:l motus C~merl.l!}n ruo ,Cfrculo.
.'
L.ocus Comccx in I t'-1o(Us Cumc{~in -:-:---
ZodilCO • . I fila Circulo. .
.:~ .. , '. I -- Sig. g rer I () '. lcr _.;...._-~_-
.-~7·
- , 24 ..' .,.:.
I 'p
pj~ t""i":Nouembrrs:y--J)"";4,
-~ .
1050'
·5 47
I
I 14 19-
H~-t;"-5-'----'-~--
4 8 ;7
r Die:, 1- PmmbrIS:-I- . t;:; %7 17 1:--...;.59-'43----'~'
. ~L_'__'__'.,.:-. __1_9_4_0_~_, 7.!~0_ _ _ _ _ '
I )(
~
" 3I . ' . 9· 3 0
\ 79 54
Di~ 8.- , Ianu:'!Tij. )( Pt! 81,0
~---~----~-----------
What struck MastIin, upon examination of this scheme, was the great change
in the velocity of the comet: it decreased from almost 4° jday to about 20' j day in
the space of nearly 90° of revolution 37 . How could this surprising, radical inequality
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., 36,
35 See Table 1,
36 Reproduced from Mastlin, 37,
37 Hos motus si quis examini subijciat, animaduertet, etsi magna fuerit eorum inaequalitas, qua
factum est, ut intra primos quinqs dies Cometa confecerit de suo circulo 18, gradus cum dodrante:
in fine vero diebus octo non nisi 2, gradus cum besse: nihilominus tamen sub hac anomalia admirandum
of motion be accomodated to the axiom of uniform, circular motion? Up to this

point, Mastlin's procedure had been fairly straightforward; now, however, he found
himself in the throes of a serious dilemma: "The difficulty, of course, is that I began
to attack the problem from a very small arc so that I might consider what would
be discovered in the entire revolution of the hitherto unknown body"38. But all
of his efforts to find a geocentric orbit that would save these extraordinary appear-
ances were in vain.
Although I contemplated and played with the spheres with unwearying mediation, according
to the customary hypotheses, I discovered nothing from all this work that might save the motion
of the comet. Still, J could not give up in defeat: having put aside these [old hypotheses], I withdrew
to the world harmony of Copernicus, after Ptolemy, truly the Prince of Astronomers ... Indeed,
the usual hypotheses utterly reject the anomaly of this comet; but that other [hypothesis] does not;
rather, it reconciles the greatest inequality of the appearances most remarkably well in order to
yield the greatest equality ... 39
At this critical junction in his treatise, Mastlin keeps a virtual silence on the
"usual hypotheses" that he evidently tried without success and the special problems
which resisted solution. It is unfortunate that he does not tell us more here for we
would then have a clear understanding of the causes for his abandonment of the
Ptolemaic theory. That habit of complete candor, so characteristic of the student
Kepler, was not a prime virtue of the teacher. Yet, we are not completely unen-
lightened. MastIin has left to us a few threads of testimony from which we may
hope to reconstruct the fabric of his unsuccessful efforts; and through our knowledge
of the comet's actual orbit, we have some further basis for interpreting these frag-
mentary references.
Let us review the situation to this point. Mastlin had three parameters with
which to work: (l) the plane of the comet's orbit; (2) the comet's longitudes and
latitudes projected from the ecliptic into its own plane; (3) its angular velocity with
radical variation over approximately 90° of motion in longitude. However, without
the usual parameters of planetary computation - especially a value for mean mo-
tion, from which the eccentricity is derived - Mastlin would have lacked the basic
material (and there is nothing which he could have withheld) necessary to save the
motion of the comet. In the circumstances, there was only one remaining course
of action: conjecture.
There exist two bare clues that suggest the possible direction of Mastlin's thought
at this point. First, he inferred from the comet's variable motion that its appearances
could best be saved with an epicycle. He wrote: " ... it [the comet] had the most
remarkable velocity in November which, little by little, grew slower until finally,
aequalitatem latere, quae non permiserit, ut velocitas ilia subito quiescerel, sed sensim tantum, cerIa
seruata proportione, remitteret (Ibid.).
38 Arduum sane est, quod tentare coepi, ut ex paruulo arcu integram conuersionem corporis ante
non cogniti, me inuenturum considerem ... (Ibid.)

39 Ibid., 37-38.
Kepler, Milstlin and the Copernican Hypothesis 17
just after this time, it came to rest entirely; this proves that its place was not in some
concentric or eccentric orb travelling about the earth, but that is complied generally
with the command of an epicycle"40. Secondly, Miistlin must have taken the impor-
tant theoretical step of assuming that the comet's orbit was contained within one
of the planetary orbs. This was certainly a natural assumption to proceed from
insofar as it required no radical adjustment of the frame of the world (e. g. no addi-
tional orbs) and no discarding of the solid spheres. There was, however, another
precious advantage to be gained from this supposition: if Miistlin could show that
the parameters of one of the planets could be applied to his data from the comet,
then he could borrow those values in determining the comet's path. This he ultimately
succeeded in doing on the Copernican hypothesis by assigning the comet to the
sphere of Venus. Why, then, had he failed to arrive at a similar interpretation utili-
zing the Ptolemaic hypothesis?
In the absence of more specific assistance from Miistlin, it seems most reasonable
to conclude that he simply tried "all the spheres", as he said, attempting by trial
and error to find a deferent and epicycle that would accord with the appearances.
First, he must have placed the comet on the epicycles of the various planets. This
hypothesis evidently did not work. For even if he had tried the eipcycle of Venus,
he would have found that the comet was moving in the wrong direction and in the
wrong part of the sky. Subsequently, he might have undertaken to add a separate
epicycle for the comet to each of the planetary deferents. As we shall see later, such
a scheme would have yielded satisfactory results in the case of Venus only with
the use of a circle of libration, a device which he apparently did not use at this
time. It seems likely, then, that Miistlin was truly forced to give up at some point
upon realizing that his trials were leading nowhere. But since he had already deve-
loped some confidence in the Copernican system, while investigating the nova of 1572,
it is perhaps not surprising that he should have turned to the heliocentric hypothesis
in search of similar aid for the comet. Cautiously, he wrote: "I do not wish to
approve it [the Copernican hypothesis] on the grounds that I have been deceived
and fascinated by love of novelty, but rather, compelled by necessity, I came to it
with reluctance ... " 41 Mastlin's unwillingness to declare a public conviction in the
physical reality of the Copernican system would not prevent him from using all of
the computational benefits which it had to offer.
Our analysis has so far traced the main source of Miistlin's difficulties to his
lack of sufficient information in order to construct an orbit for the "bearded star".
Yet had his data been more complete he would still have expressed amazement at
the great dissimilarity between the comet's motion and the normal trajectories of
planets. Through modern cometary theory, hindsight reveals another source of the
40 Primo autem mira eius velocitas in Novembri, quae paulatim deinde remissior facta est, donec
quam proxime quiesceret totus, euincit, sedem eius non /uisse in aliquo orbe concentrico vel eccentrico
terram ambiente, sed eum ommino ductu epicycli cuiusdam obseruare (Ibid., 40).
41 Ibid., 54.
2 - The reception ...

obstacles which confronted Mastlin. It is now believed that comets, as members of

the solar system, obey Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and follow paths
which are known, generally, as conics (i. e. the ellipse, parabola and hyperbola)
with the sun located at one focus 42 . Unlike the planets, the orbits of comets are
usually quite elongated and, upon approaching the sun, as Edmund Halley wrote,
"by their Falls acquire such Velocity, as that they may again run off into the remotest
OEC.19
.~:.------.---~~
NOV. 29 OEC.19
Figure 1. Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of the Orbit of the Comet of 1577. The axis of the
orbit is inclined to the ecliptic at 104°. Several positions of the Earth are shown with cor-
responding positions of the Comet over the period of observation. Positions of the inferior planets
are given for reference. All dates are on the Julian Calendar.
Parts of the Universe, moving upwards with such a perpetual Tendency, as never
to return again to the Sun"43. And it was Halley who first claimed that the orbit
of the comet of 1577 was parabolic. Using Tycho's figures, Halley concluded that
the inclination of the orbit to the ecliptic was 74°32' 45"44 - a figure that was accep-
42 Cf. M. Proctor and A. C. D. Crommelin, Comets; their nature, origin, and place in the
science of astronomy, London, 1957.
43 Edmund Halley, A Synopsis of the Astronomy of Comets, trans. from Original, printed at
Oxford (London, 1705), 20.
44 Ibid .• 7.
Kepler, Miistlin and the Copernican Hypothesis 19
ted by J. J. De Lalande in the eighteenth century 45 and evidently remained uncon-

tested until F. Wolstedt's inaugural dissertation at Helsinki (1844)46. The most
recent catalogue of cometary orbits, upon which our diagram is based (Figure 1),
lists a value of 1040 with perihelion on October 27, 157747 • Little did Miistlin know
what monster he had by the tail.
A glance at Figure 1, showing a modern reconstruction of the orbit of the comet
of 1577, should impress upon the reader the very formidable task facing Miistlin.
This diagram demonstrates the quite steep angle of inclination of the comet to
the ecliptic as well as the period of the comet's course during which Miistlin made
his observations. The great inclination of the plane would explain the unusual
changes in latitude found by Miistlin, even on the geocentric model. It is significant
that he never bothered to work out the comet's angle of inclination on a heliocentric
interpretation, for this would have ruined his final solution. Faced with these new
apparent motions, plagued by the inadequacy of his data and limited by the Platonic
axiom that all celestial motions must be circular and uniform, it is a wonder that
Miistlin did not abandon his astronomical investigations and merely close with
a dire astrological forecast. But he did not.
Having examined everything in Copernicus' book, [wrote MiistiinJ I discovered at last a certain
orb, in Book 6, Chapter 2, where the latitudes of Venus are explained; and since I found out that
its size and revolution corresponded to, and satisfied, the Comet's appearances exactly (as will be
demonstrated in the following chapter): it was then established that the Comet chose no other
place than the Sphere of Venus itself48 •
Now had MiistIin found in Copernicus' theory of Venus a solution to the problem
which had eluded him using geocentric premises? Was his hypothesis entirely arbi-
trary? Naturally, we have more evidence for a reintegration of his successful ap-
proach than we do for his failures. Below, I shall suggest the most probable route
which Miistlin followed. Of the possibilities open to him, there was at least one
basic factor which pointed toward Venus. This initial clue was, in all likelihood,
the comet's limited elongation from the sun - although one cannot absolutely ex-
4S J. J. De Lalande, Astronomie, ill (paris, 1771), 365.

46 F. Wolstedt, De gradu praecisionis positionum Cometae anni 1577 a celeberrimo Tychone
Brahe per distantias a stellis fixis mensuratas determinatarum et de fide elementorum orbitae, quae
ex illis positionibus deduci possunt, Helsingforsae, 1844.
47 F. Baldet and G. de Obaldia report the following elements for the comet of 1577: Time
of perihelion passage = Oct. 27, 4477 (Julian); argument of perihelion = 255°, 6400; longitude
of ascending node = 25°, 3400; inclination of orbit = 104°, 8383; perihelion distance = 0, 17750
(Catalogue general des orbites de Cometes de l'an 466 d 1952 (paris, 1952), 12-13). These data
represent corrections of information published in Astronomische Nachrichten (24, (1845), 7-8).
The figures submitted to that journal were the results of Wolstedt's dissertation; hence, data from
which the acutal orbit has been computed derive, ultimately, from Tycho Brahe.
48 Miistlin, 38.
elude the possibility that he had found inspiration in a passage from the ninth-century
Arab astrologer, Albumasar (786-886), in which the latter claimed to have observed
a comet above the moon in the sphere of Venus 49 • With angular measurements
alone, Mastlin found that, "the Comet submits itself to those same motions [passio-
nes] to which Venus and Mercury are addicted, in digressing from the sun and
returning in the same certain interval, and likewise borrowing the sun's mean mo-
tion in the limit of its greatest distance... Although a place was given to it in Mer
cury's sphere, the narrowness of the sphere did not sustain it: for the Comet digressed
perhaps 60° from the sun. Therefore, the only sphere that would suffice is that of
Venus"so.
From here Mastlin could postulate further parameters of the comet by identifying
it fully with Venus - and this he did by adopting the magnitude of Venus' eccentricity
(246/10000 parts) and its angular orientation (16°13' Il)s1. Could a satisfactory
heliostatic orbit now be found which would fit within the sphere of Venus? Consider
49 In a very stimulating article, Professor Willy Hartner has suggested that Tycho Brahe's
hypothesis on the comet was inspired by this passage from Albumasar, through an intermediary,
Jerome Cardan (1501-1576). As Tycho is known to have placed considerable faith in astrological
authorities, Hartner proposes that he turned to this account of Albumasar and used it as the
initial basis for his own solution of the Comet's orbit. (Cf. W. Hartner, Tycho Brahe et Albumasar,
in La science au seizieme siec/e (paris, 1960, 137-150). Professor Hartner's essay caused me to won-
der whether perhaps Miistlin, knew of Albumasar's report and whether it served him as a working
hypothesis. A brief search of Miistlin's treatise on the Comet of 1577 turned up the following re-
ference: "Albumasar, qui circa annum Christi 844 fioruit, refert, suo aeuo quendam Cometam supra
Veneris sphaeram conspectum esse. Quae huius fuisset causa Physica, si Cometarum alius nullus
locus, quam elementaris regio, nec alia materia, quam exhalationum fumi, credenda est?" (Mastlin,
19).
It is certainly reasonable to assume that Mastlin was encouraged by Albumasar's statement
to view the comet as a planet - in any case, it would certainly have affirmed the possibility of a comet
in one of the planetary orbs. But, in context, Mastlin cites Alburnasar for the ostensible reason that
he was an old and respectable authority (ex historijs probari potest) whose testimony lent support
to the supra-lunar position of comets and the corruptibility of the heavens (Ex his duobus exemplis
[i. e. Albumasar and the nova of 1572] Iiquido patet, coelum non plane omnis alterationis expers,
nec tamen quicquam eius perfectioni, contagione peregrinae impressionis derogatum esse. Ibid., 20).
There was nothing unusual about this use of ancient authorities to support a position; it was a nor-
mal feature of Renaissance proofs. Elsewhere, when discussing his attempt to find the comet's
orbit, Miistlin makes no mention of Albumasar; he merely says that he proceeded through trial and
error (cf. pp. 00 and 00 above). Even after he had discovered a place for the Comet in the sphere
of Venus he did not cite the authority of Albumasar in support of this conclusion. But this is per-
haps understandable: presumably, Albumasar's comet, if it had an orbit, possessed a geocentric
one; and Miistlin had already failed to discover such an orbit on the old scheme. Thus, had Mastlin
interpreted Albumasar's claim as a rational, astronomical hypothesis on the Ptolemaic theory, he
would have discoveled it to be wrong! It was only when he turned to copernicus that the technical
requirements (of which we shall speak) were at last satisfied.
50 Mastlin, 40. Unlike Venus, however, the comet never returned - a conspicuouns fact
which Miistlin never explained.
51 Ibid., 43.
Kepler, Mastlin and the Copernican Hypothesis 21
Figure 2. This diagram, based upon Mastlin's hypothesis, represents the various
positions of the earth in its orbit together with the comet's angular positions observed
with respect to the sun. This scheme actually shows the projection of the mean earth
into the plane of the comet's circle - an incorrect handling of the latitudes. Fortu-
I /
o·_ _ _-+-_...,.~~_lf__t--------....:;;/,~:..:SU:..:.N:.-----------
.Q C ECCENTRIC CENTER ~.
, FOR COMET AND
~ ~N~
cf
&
f:J
§'
t::,
~
;:"..
\!l ...
u'" ...
'" ""
Au
...
0
U
0
III
90·
Figure 2. Mastlin's Discovery of the Comet's Circle, showing the position of Earth on dates when
Mastlin made observations and lines of sight to the comet with respect to the sun. Since Miistlin
had no way in which to determine the comet's actual distance from Earth, he first assigned to the
comet the same eccentric center as Venus; then, by trial and error, he tried placing various points
on the lines of sight until he obtained a smooth heliocentric curve.
nately, his ignorance of this error did not prevent him from continuing on his way
to a personally-acceptable solution. His immediate problem, however was to find
where on the lines of sight the comet should be situated. Mastlin probably tried
several curves before he discovered that circle nearest in radius to Venus which would
intersect the lines of sight in an orderly way. He describes the predicament of finding
the comet's radius in the following manner:
Since, in other difficulties of this sort, I saw that the innermost secrets of nature might be ap-
proached through enigmas and, as it were, underground passages ... I hoped that the same freedom
might be granted to me [in solving this problem] if only I might set forth nothing against those most
certain observations or the equality of motion. Therefore, weighing and balancing the calculations,
I noticed that the phenomena could be saved in no other way than if HO and HF [the comet's
radii]32 were assumed to be 8420 parts when DB, the semidiameter of the great orb, is 10,000;
and likewise, when the semidiameter of Venus' eccentric is 7193 ... And from this, the true dimen-
sions of the Comet's orb became clear, not deviating at all from the observations, as no other hy-
pothesis could be offered that would correspond to them 53 •
The discovery of a circle for the comet, which was essentially in accord with the
observations, provided firm support for Mlistlin's hypothesis that the comet could
be located in the sphere of Venus; for the comet's radius, found by construction to
be 8420 parts (earth-sun radius
= 10,000 parts), was not much
greater than the semidiameter of
Venus' orbit (7193 parts).
The main wall of obstacles had
been dented, but not breached; it
remained now for Mlistlin to con-
solidate his attack by explaining the
body's non-uniform motion and its
distance from the earth.The first dif-
ficulty proved to be the more for-
midable In order to keep the
comet's motion uniform on its
eccentric, Mlistlin hit upon a ge-
ometrical device which was used by
Copernicus to account for small
changes in planetary latitudes - the
Figure 3. circle of libration. The idea occur-
red to him while reading the very
same section of the De revolutionibus (VI. 2) in which Copernicus discus-
ses the latitudinal variations of Venus 54 • Mlistlin's use of this geometrical
technique is interesting because he applied it to an end different from the one for
which Copernicus had initially intended it. In Figure 3, a reproduction of Mlistlin's
hypothesis, PRSQT is the circle in question. A point on this small circle revolves
twice, with respect to the earth (B), for each revolution of the major circle (GPEL).
The status of the small circle was purely computational since the comet did not
move on it, but on the eccentric circle. The comet's position on the latter was deter-
mined by points projected onto it from the small circle, e. g. R to 0 and
S to F. And the circle of libration was placed at right angles 55 to the plane
52 See Figure 3 (ibid.)
53 Ibid., 45.
54 Ibid., 38-39.
55 Ibid., 44.
Kepler, Miistlin and the Copernican Hypothesh 23
of the orbit as required both by Copernicus' latitude usage and, apparently,

in order to conserve space between the spheres of Venus and the Earth. The ratio
of movements appears to have been a completely arbitrary decision since Mastlin
was using it for a different purpose than Copernicus and lacked sufficient data to
confirm its usage in detail. Indeed, if he had had further information his hypothesis
would have been falsified. He was successful only because he had such a small
piece of the comet's motion to fit; in retrospect, we have demonstrated that his
construction did not reproduce the actual motion of the comet in space.
Now only a value for the mean motion of the comet in its own circle was necessary
in order to plot the complete orbit. Once again, the insufficiency of the data forced
Mastlin to make a desperate maneuver. Without a full revolution, as we have indi-
cated, he had to take the comet's average motion over the short period of obser-
vation and to postulate that this value was constant for the entire orbit. To be sure,
this step was not announced to the reader but it can easily be deduced from a table
of the comet's motion in anomaly with respect to the mean sun 56 . How stubborn
was Mastlin's determination to find a complete orbit for the ephemeral object!
With all of the necessary parameters finally at hand, Mastlin was able to work
out computations for several dates which he found, to his delight, agreed quite
well with his "certissimas observationes"57. And, from the relative distances of the
comet, he could establish its actual distance from the earth by substituting Coperni-
cus' figure of 1142 earth-radii as the mean distance of the earth to the sun58 . At
the end of his treatise, Mastlin presented a table summarizing both the comet's
angular motions (in its own circle and with respect to the ecliptic) and its linear
distance from the earth between November 5 and January 10. While the distances
changed non-uniformly in equal times, his results showed that the body conti-
nually increased the space traversed from the earth, moving from 155 earth-radii to
its last computed position of 1495.
Mastlin had cause to rejoice. "Could this calculation correspond in all its parts
and with such perfection," he wrote, "if underlying it were false hypotheses?"59
The answer was self-evident: if the hypothesis worked, then it must be correct.
But his publicly proclaimed confidence in this conclusion leaves unanswered two
important issues that question the credibility of his arguments. These problems
are (1) the equivalence of the Ptolemaic and Copernican hypotheses and (2) the
difficulty of accounting for the comet's retrograde motion using the sphere of
S6 Ibid., 42.
51 Ibid., 46-48.
S8 Ibid., 48. For example, on Dec. 2, FB (Comet-Earth radius) = 4954 parts; DB (Earth-Sun
radius) = 10,000 parts. Now, substituting Copernicus' figure of 1142 earth-radii for DB, Miistlin
obtained the comet's semidiameter in identical units. Thus: 1l42/x = 10,000/4594 = 565.7 earth
radii. The calculation for Nov. 17 should give a result of 265. 5, but Mastlin entered 277 semidiame-
ters-again, no doubt, in order to keep the figures smooth in the final table.
S9 Ibid. Cf. Cop e In i c u s (Pref., iij verso): "Nam si assumptae illorum hypotheses non
essent fallaces, omnia quae ex ilIis sequuntur, verificarentur proculdubio".

Venus. It is widely recognized today that the Copernican and Ptolemaic hypotheses
commute; thus, if one can save the phenomena using one model, then, of necessity,
on has a geometrically-equivalent solution on the other 60 • And in the case in ques-
tion, the comet of 1577, it can be shown that the appearances are saved on the geosta-
tic theory by simply translating the Copernican solution into the former frame of
reference. Figure 4 shows a schematic reconstruction of Mastlin's hypothesis for the
comet's position on January 8, with the Copernican model for comparison. All of
the angular parameters are constant; the circle of libration performs the same func-
tion in both reference frames; but, in the Ptolemaic version, the comet moves on
an epicycle. Did Mastlin not realize that such an equivalent construction was pos-
sible? Was Kepler's teacher perhaps antecedently convinced, on philosophical
ground, that the Copernican system was true and thus determined to show, at all
costs, that it alone could save the appearances of the comet?
Upon reflection, this view seems quite unlikely. Sixteenth-century astronomers
generally understood that either theory could readily predict planetary motions,
but there is little evidence to suggest that they comprehended the complete inter-
changeability or formal equivalence of the two models 61 • Kepler was, in fact, the
first to draw graphic comparisons between the major astronomies by showing that
what the old theory could demonstrate with a plurality of initial assumptions,
the new theory could establish with fewer. There is, however, a further argument
against the possibility that MastIin deliberately ignored a translation of his hypoth-
esis into the Ptolemaic coordinate system. Above all, his treatise was a demon-
strati0 62 , a dramatic description of the comet of 1577 and how its appearances in
the aetherial region could be explained with geometry. Publicly, at least, it was not
a defense of the Copernican system. Unlike Tycho, in his work on the comet,
Mastlin put forth neither general cosmological arguments nor a schematic represen-
tation of the new cosmology. The Copernican theory was employed simply as a cal-
culational tool. If, in fact, Mastlin's motive was to use the comet openly as a support
for Copernicus, then he scarcely exercised his material to the greatest advantage.
Since he was not a university professor at the time, he could have no fear of censure
from those conservative quarters. In all likelihood, then, it was not preconceived
judgment, but rather the existence of a convenient and viable alternative, that
drove Mastlin to the Copernican hypothesis. And his success with it, in cont-
rast to the earlier failures, must have confirmed his positive inclinations toward
the new theory.
60 Cf. D. J. de Solla Price, Contra-Copernicus: A Critical Re-Estimation of the Mathematical
Planetary Theory of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler, [in] Critical Problems in the History of Science,
ed. M. Clagett (Madison, Wise., 1969), 202 ff.
61 Dr. Price has only recently had to remind modern historians of science of this equivalence
(Ibid., 197 ff).

62 Cf. the definition of Demonstratio in Lee A. Sonnino, A Handbook of Sixteenth Century
Rhetoric (London, 1968), 69-71.

Let us now turn to the final problem of "he comet's motion - its motion retro-
grade with respect to the planets. Mathematically, at least, MastIin's hypothesis
had accounted for the comet's path; but did he also believe that the comet was
transported on a solid sphere around the sun? The philological evidence points
to an affirmative answer. In general, Mastlin speaks of the "orbis"63 of the comet
although he also refers to its "circulus"64 and "cursus"6S. He never speaks of a sep-
arate cometary "sphaera". That term is reserved for the planets. In an analysis
of Copernicus' language, it has been shown that he sometimes regarded the planet
as affixed to a three-dimensional sphere and sometimes simply as a two-dImensional
great circle of the sphere 66 . The ambiguity arises from the term "orbis" which may
possess both meanings. In spite of his varying terminology, Mastlin leaves no
doubt concerning his position: "Cometa est in Veneris Sphaera"67. Here, it seems
apparent, he wished to avoid the addition of an extra sphere to the universe thereby
upsetting the other planetary dimensions. If, however, the comet were moving in
an eastward direction within the westward-revolving sphere of Venus then Mastlin
would have two bodies turning simultaneously in the same sphere - but in opposite
directions. We find no comment from Mastlin upon this obvious contradiction.
His diagrams of the comet, moreover, were purely mathematical construction
which give no indication concerning the physical reality of the model. It was left
for Tycho Brahe to take the next logical step: to abolish all crystalline spheres.
Tycho's solution of the comet's path was basically similar to MastIin's. The
comet circles the sun outside the orb of Venus, he wrote, "as if it were an adventi-
tious and extraordinary planet"68. One wonders whether, indeed, Tycho had been
led to his own hypothesis on the comet from reading Mastlin's work, for the quick
praise he lavished on his German colleague may not be idle eUlogy: "It is clear
that this discovery of Mastlin shows great sagacity and industry and it smacks of
the remarkable quality of genius"69. But, for the Dane, the only way in which to
remove the discrepancy in Mastlin's hypothesis was to give up the physical basis
upon which it rested. He wrote:
... in fact, there are really no Orbs in the heavens, which Miistlin openly thinks exist, and those
which Authors have invented to save the Appearances exist only in the imagination, for the purpose
of permitting the mind to conceive the motion which the heavenly bodies trace in their course ...
thus, it seems futile to undertake this labor of trying to discover a real orb, to which the comet may
be attached, so that they would revolve together 70 •
63 MiistIin, 39 ff.
64 Ibid., 37.
6S Ibid., 40.
66 Cf. Edward Rosen, Three Copernican Treatises, 2nd, ed. rev., (New York, 1959), 12 ff.
67 Mastlin, 38. Tycho wrote of MastIin: Postea e COPERNICI Hypothesibus inuestigat
Orbem quendam circa Sphaeram Veneris ... (Brahe, IV, 266).

68 Brahe, Ibid., 190.
69 Ibid., 266; see footnote 49. It would be useful to learn when he acquired Miistlin's work.
70 Ibid. Also quoted in Boas, op. cit., 114, and Rosen, op. cit., 12 n. without the reference
to Miistlin.
Using the benefits of our previous analysis, we are, at last, prepared to return
to our brief reference from Kepler where he credits Mastlin with providing him
a "special argument" in favor of the Copernican theory. In the first place, it is now
more than evident why Kepler would have mentioned the comet in his defense of
the Copernican system. Mastlin's own decision to adopt the new hypothesis had
SUN
\
\
\
--
Figure 4. Copernican and Ptolemaic construction for the Comet (January 8) showing the Circle
of Libration. The problem of the interchangeability of the two constructions is complicated by the
fact that the three bodies (comet, sun and earth) do not move in the same plane, as is the case with
the planets. Mastlin's Copernican solution did save the appearances as he understood the problem;
and this is the significant point. But by failing to deal properly with the great heliocentric latitudes,
the hypothesis was, in fact, wrong. The equivalent Ptolemaic solution, found in retrospect, is, iron-
ically, closer to the mark.
been decisively confirmed by his investigation of the comet. In spite of the conjec-
tural nature of his conclusions - founded often upon very questionable assumptions
and inadequate evidence - MastIin thought that the appearances could only be
satisfied as he had done. Although he recognized it as a "conjectura", such a dra-
matic demonstration of the potency of the new hypothesis in accounting for the
trajectory of this ephemeral phenomenon, where the old theory had failed, must
have strongly affect the young and impressionable Kepler. In short, the system had
proved its mettle. As Kepler wrote:
My first faith in Copernicus was sustained by the most admirable accord between his conceptions
and all the phenomena which appear in the sky; an agreement which not only permits him to dem-
onstrate previous motions, reported since antiquity, with absolute certainty, but in all cases, much
more exactly than Ptolemy, Alfonso [the Wise] and the other astronomers ... once this hypothesis
[of Copernicus] is set forth, it will be able to demonstrate anything at all which truly appears in the
sky, to go forward and backward, to deduce one [premise] flOm another, and to do anything you
please which [agrees] with reality: ... the most intricate demonstrations always return to the initial
hypotheses themselves 71.
If a true hypothesis must be true in all respects, as Kepler maintained, then the
case of the Comet patently implied that the Ptolemaic hypothesis was founded upon
false premises 72. The Comet not only exposed the falseness of the ancient hypothe-
ses, however, it also provided "the most important argument for the arrangement
of the Copernican orbs". The meaning of this assertion can now be more deeply
construed in light of our study of Mastlin and the comet. According to Kepler,
Mastlin had established that the comet could only complete its orbit "in the same
orb as the Copernican Venus". To accept the place of Venus on this model, however,
was to admit the new order of the inferior planets. Mastlin had not only introduced
Kepler to the basic tenets of the Copernican hypothesis, a theory whose harmo-
nious treatment of the planetary distances had initially attracted for both of them;
he had also furnished him with operational evidence that the Copernican order
of the planets was the necessary and sufficient condition for saving the new ap-
pearance, and perhaps for saving all celestial phenomena. Yet where Mastlin had
been outwardly timid in using the Comet as a specific argument in support of the
Copernican theory, Kepler saw and proclaimed it as a profound confirmation of
his belief.
What remained unstated by Kepler - and which the reader may already have
wondered himself - was that the Comet could be viewed as an argument in favor
of either the Tychonic or the Copernican hypothesis or, to be more precise, in favor
of that part which the two held in common, namely, the order of the inferior plan-
ets. Miistlin, however, must surely have recognized this point. On May 15, 1588,
Tycho had sent Mastlin a copy of his major work, De Mundi Aetherei Recentio-
ribus Phaenomenis (See Plate No.2), a gift which, as we learn in an irate letter from
the former, was never acknowledged by the latter73 • When, therefore, Kepler listened
to Mastlin's lectures in the early 1590s, the Tiibingen master would have been fa-
miliar not only with Tycho's system of the world, but also with Tycho's objections
to his cometary hypothesis 74 • How much Mastlin spoke of the work of Brahe we
do not know. What we can say from later evidence is that Mastlin completely oppos-
ed Tycho's arrangement of the universe on the grounds that the symmetry and
proportionality of the world would be disrupted. In his important introduction to
Rheticus' Narratio Prima (1596) he referred, critically, to Tycho's cosmology.
71 G. W. I, 14: 29-35; 15: 15-19.

72 See page 8.
73 Tycho to Miistlin, April 21, 1598, G. W. XIII, 204.
74 Brahe, op. cit., 245 if.
'" in fact, these corrections to the ancient hypothesis do nothing but fix up the old, worn toga with
a new patch, which shall probably be damaged in time. For I declare that by this arrangement
[of Tycho] the centers of motion and motor virtues are destroyed and tom apart and that the remain-
ing motions and orbs (or whatever else that has an orb) will be entangled by many very nonsensical
intricacies; nor will magnitudes and motions be united by some proportion of order 7s •
Thus, by rejecting Tycho's "new patch", it is probable that Mastlin also dismissed
his scheme for saving the motion of the comet. In this same document, Mastlin
gives us reason to believe that he had gone well beyond Tycho by espousing the
Copernican theory of gravity76.
Whether influenced by Tycho or whether, as seems more likely, he had
arrived at this conclusion on his own, Kepler too had decided that the Ada-
mant spheres were dispensable 77 • Hence, Tycho's objection concerning the
existence of crystalline spheres would have formed no serious obstacle to Kepler's
initial acceptance of MastIin hypothesis. But neither would Brahe's purely geome-
trical hypothesis have bothered Kepler. Although the Cosmographic Mystery was
7S G. W. I, 84: 41-47. Miistlin added further criticism of Tycho to the 1621 edittion
(cf. 436-439).
76 Ibid., 83: 12 If.
77 Kepler had abandoned solid spheres at least as early as October, 1595 (Kepler to Miistlin,
XUI, 43: 389-99) and this view was reflected in his earliest work (1, 56: 15-20). Tycho was evi-
dently unaware that Kepler had adopted this position when he wrote to the latter in April, 1598
(XIII, 198-99: 61-67) and Kepler's marginal note gives no indication that he had been influenced
by Tycho: Idem etiam per me licet, et per libe/lum meum, he wrote in response to Tycho's admoni-
tion on the reality of solid orbs (Ibid., 201: 78-79). In a subsequent letter to Kepler, Tycho gives
indications that he had read the Cosmographic Mystery more carefully, yet still criticized the younger
man for ascribing "a certain reality" to the celestial orbs (Tycho to Kepler, Dec. 9, 1599, XIV, 94:
190 If.). Our final evidence again supports the position that Kepler may have arrived at a rejection
of the solid orbs independently of Tycho. In his unpublished Apologia Tychonis Contra Ursum (com-
posed between 1600 and 1601), Kepler tells us: Primum hoc illi [to Ursus] facile concessero, solidos
orbes nu/los esse. In quo et Tychonis rationibus facile subscribo et privatas etiam habeo (Joannis Kep
le,.i astronomi opera omnia, ed. Christian Frisch, I (Frankfurt/Main and Erlangen, 1858), 247).
Plate No. 1. Helisaeus Roeslin's diagram of the sphere and circle of comets, reproduced from
his Theoria Nova Coelestium METEilPilN (1578). This is probably the most complex early repre-
sentation of the comet of 1577 and illustrates an interesting, though crude, attempt to explain its
unusual orbit. All the various circles of reference are drawn in the plane of the zodiac and are related
to the line joining the two solstices, the solstitial colure. Roeslin's determination of the "Pole of
Comets" seems to have been entirely arbitrary, for it is exactly opposite the "Pole of the World"
and 23 1 / 2 ° from the "Pole of the Zodiac". The "Great Circle of Comets", which includes the comets
of 1532, 1533, 1556, 1577, and the nova of 1572, passes through the aequinoctial points. There is
also a "Sphere of Comets and Stars" which is concentric with the Circle of Comets and by means
of which Roeslin hoped to olfer a physical explanation for the comet of 1577 and the New Star
of 1572. The sphere resembles the zodiac in that its band has the same width (16°), but Roeslin thought
of it as a small tropical circle with a radius of 60°. Roeslin's hypothesis is interesting because it is
basically unlike the final schemes of MiistIin and Tycho. Where the latter two had used planetary
theory as a model for explaining the comet, Roeslin used only stellar coordinates.
SPHlERA NDVA. COriIETARVM ET MIRA
CVLORVM PEl, AVTilORE MEDICO.!;'ELISAEO ROESLIN.
o
t'I
~ .
.
.t.
Plate No.!.
. ..' !G .
TrCHON../S B8.JHE 'DAN}
o ( . DJ<
,
ilf;rf~'I1L~ ..'c;;;)~.¥:.~~ .fl;{f~. . . .
v
j11Ad,-r.j '. II(t~.t(/~ "7J't:"51 MVNDI AETHEREI
,. ~k"7UJ?;t.t1 1JI-- f','!f1"r " c,r~Mi It E C E.N T lOR J B V S
. Arf1~ ?!!""ft'.?ndtl'-u-r1t?X-??c- ./
PHAENOMENIS
'-,.:!iftc.- ~/#tk fI~)"//~~1i V'1H
. jrd~...~ : ..o"')"~IU":u,
,
I . ~ t. / LIBER SECVNDVS
' 0
'P"I '-'II- (1?1-#
..i;:::.4.:-J'~ 4'j. .' .~' .,'<:.'-, ~:.. f..
QYI "EST DE .ILL'VSTltl STELLA CAVDATA
, . ."f;r~";~ ~~ cllpfo f(r~ triCfltc Nourmbris Anoi I f7 7·.VCqi
. \ .in Ilncm bou.trij fequcntis
• .con~pclla•
,\ . 1r,#:: ~. '1" ,_ .,
. "': ' . .~ .-. ... ' .... , ~,
I ;~ : ~". • :1' ~
"'!.t.:, , 11 ••:', Un' /.., ,t., " .f.<t,';/l; 1- ",.,.
.-' :1. '.'. "..;J, ••• Lr., U; '.;,1".· '(./""). . "f':"/"
~"'",' fl·· ... · - , • • /,1
C, ?~.:. ft' 7:':t·:~ , ,.,.lif,<·" . I, i7 <, /'Pft-S , - .r..... ~
i.~..: ... } ,~ Go(' - '; .fo,"(';' h' !f-', ,.l .-r .,1,;"" .....;"'fI :-;.t~-:-
"' . "" T.. ,/,,~ {•.,..·,.c ....~t- 4.ffp~,,., . ft o Jlf pe - ' . =" ," ."
. ' . ....; . - :-
". ,; ' Rt.;lt ,1{..!!fftt--.,
. - [cd . ';,
. ' .' • ....- ' )1 -- . , '.
~ • •" : ' " . : . " 'II ". ' ' " .' ~ ~N--V~..
.. .• . ., .,' .~
'~'1'/~1('~rg
,. dtIf. VltANIBVRGl
. -... . .,. . .' .
:~!,)./!.!."1I:.:-:1,,tflj0.f-;"::f~v1 '.Ii- "/~ +t-~ t6•...Ir':!."";r...- ·- ~ ' j
'.
CVH ,aIVI~l';Glo.
.;;,~ L"I!.."q,.2!~- I>'~-"i;y""~"/

- ".Tf/F-::--s-_. ("0$' .."'''
. d~/ " II _'P.~
'11'/~ -If/I]. ",. J'\ '
-ti., '].,;.,:;:,....... . i ? ·.A·C; "-:'-'- -~ /./0
:.-- .1,. ••• ~ 4. •
" . (... ,,>£.;y - '. .
, :'I:"htt,.~{ S;lo\'"'YtfJ- .;
Plate No.2.
Kepler, Miistlin and the Copernican Hypothesil 29
primarily directed against Ptolemy,. Kepler had already begun to attack the Tychonic
system while still recognizing the element shared by both theories. He wrote:
Although he [Tycho] was in disagreement with Copernicus regarding the place of the Earth, never-
theless, he retained the hitherto unknown cause of things: to wit, the fact that the Sun is the center
[of motions] of the five planets 78 •
Had he extended this argument to Tycho's hypothesis of the Comet, Kepler,

I think, would have seen the Comet's trajectory as a confirmation of the correct part
of Tycho's system of the world. Ironic though it may seem, it was the hypoth-
esis of a circular, heliostatic orbit - erroneously conceived (as we now know)
by both Brahe and Mastlin - which Kepler saw as a significant counter-instance
to the Ptolemaic theory and which helped fundamentally to form his initial
commitment to the Copernican system.
What became of this cometary argument in Kepler's subsequent writings? After
a cursory mention in the Cosmographic Mystery Kepler seems to have abandoned it.
What had impressed Kepler as a young initiate must have seemed less convincing
to the mature man. Some eight years later, in a short digression within his Ad Vite/-
lionem Para/ipomena (1604) entitled "Appendix concerning the motion of Comets"79,
we encounter the first explicit indication of the Comet's fate.
Those who demonstrated the comet's motion of the year 1577 undertook a most difficult task;
nevertheless, it did not generally tum out to be successful because they did not suppose that it ought
to be investigated more diligently. Much greater difficulties are encountered if they assume the same
notions in demonstrating other comets.
After this poke at his predecessors, Kepler continues:

In most [comets] for which I have obtained observations, the following path turned out to be
easier: viz. if, because it suits the nature of things [quod natura rerum suadet], I attributed straight
lines to them, then, frequently, they would travel equal [distances] in equal times - only a bit
slower at the beginning and end and, when nearby, at rest, as is usual with other trajectories.
Thus, even before he had studied Halley's Comet (1607), Kepler had concluded
that all comets have rectilinear paths. He now applied this theory to the comet
of 1577.
78 G. W. I, 16: 11-14.
79 G. W. II (1938), 287-88.
Plate No.2. Michael Miistlin's copy of Tycho Brahe's De Mundi Aetherei Recentioribus Phaeno-
menis (1588). This document proves that Miistlin was familiar with both Tycho's criticisms of his
hypothesis on the comet of 1577 and with his world system several years before he lectured to Ke-
pler at the University of Tiibingen. Various underlinings in the volume indicate that Miistlin had
actually read and studied it. The work, now in the British Museum, was signed by Tycho and in-
scribed to Miistlin. Underneath Tycho's inscription Miistlin wrote: " ... oblatus est mihi liber hic
die 15 Augusti 1588", with an additional reference to the messanger, GeIIius Sascerides Hafnienses
(d. 1612), who delivered the book. Sascerides, a medical student, was evidently an important link
between the two men. The remaining notations are those of subsequent owners of the book.
30 Rober S. Westman
.. , by introducing the Earth's motion, it [the Comet] easily reconciles circularity to itself. Thus,
in the case of that Comet in 1577, if the straight line originating at the Tropic of Capricorn were
perhaps to be inclined a bit towards the North Pole, then that straight line would have ascended
at the same time that the Earth, while revolving about the Sun, induces a circular species of motion
to it [the Sun] nevertheless, in the same way, it [the Earth] will unite the same circular species with
the comet as though it were revolving about a motionless body ...
One is impressed by the ease with which Kepler compounds distinct motions
in the same body; and his hypothesis of rectilinear cometary motion comes much
closer to a satisfactory explanation for the comet of 1577 than the earlier specula-
tions of Tycho and Miistlin. A lengthy footnote in the second edition of the Cosmo-
graphic Mystery (1621), which refers to that now familiar passage on the comet,
rejects the first efforts of his masters as "bare credulity and general conjecture"80.
The comet had outlived its original usefulness as an argument in support of the new
cosmology. By then, however, there was no need for it.
aD G. W. VIII (1963), 41.

KRISTlAN PEDER MOESGAARD
University of Aarhus
COPERNICAN INFLUENCE ON TYCHO BRAHE
Preface
The reception of Copernicanism in Denmark and Norway was dominated by

one man of genius, Tycho Brahe, and by two of great distinction, the astronomer
Longomontanus and the philosopher Caspar Bartholin. The final acceptance ran
parallel to the progress of Cartesianism at the time of the outstanding astronomer
Ole R0mer, and was at last openly expressed by his pupil and successor Peder Hor-
rebow.
So my story naturally falls in two distinct sections, viz. the present one treating
how Tycho's astronomy developed through his acceptance and his rejection of
Copernican ideas, and a later one (p. 117 ff.) dealing with the lesser figures, more
representative of the educated community of their time. Among these, I give a fuller
analysis of the works of the said authors, and describe positions taken by other
Professors from the late sixteenth century to the early eighteenth century.
There still remain writings of students and others on astronomical and cosmolog-
ical topics. For the sake of brevity I have omitted these from my contributions
to this volume; but I retain them in the combined bibliography (po 145 ff.) to the two
essays.
My accomplishing these studies on the history of Copernicanism has been pos-
sible only due to a special grant offered by The Research Foundation of the Univer-
sity of Aarhus. I am greatly indebted to the History of Science Department for
placing accomodations at my disposal, and I am particularly grateful to Mrs. Kate
Larsen and to Prof. Olaf Pedersen for many valuable suggestions during the prep-
aration of the manuscripts.
I. TYCHO THE COPERNICAN
Tycho's lecturing on 'Copernican' astronomy (1574-75)

From the 23rd of September 1574 until early in 1575 Tycho Brahe (1546-1601)
gave, on the request of students, friends, and finally the Danish King, a series of
32 Kristian P. Moesgaard
lectures on astronomy at the University of Copenhagen. In his opening lecture

De disciplinis mathematicis oratio [19: I, 143-173; cf. 119: 73-78]1 he introduced
Copernicus to the Danish world of learning in the following way:
In our time, however, Nicolaus Copernicus, who has justly been called a second Ptolemy,
from his own observations found out that something was missing in Ptolemy. He judged that the
hypotheses established by Ptolemy admitted something unsuitable and offending against mathemat-
ical axioms: he did not either find the Alphonsine computation meeting the heavenly motions.
He therefore arranged, by the admirable skill of his genius, his own hypotheses in another manner
and thus restored the science of the celestial motions in such a way that nobody before him has
considered more accurately the course of the heavenly bodies. For although he devises certain
features opposed to physical principles, ego that the Sun rests at the center of the Universe, that
the Earth, the elements associated with it, and the Moon move around the Sun in a triple motion,
and that the eighth sphere remains unmoved, he does not for all that admit anything absurd as
far as mathematical axioms are concerned. But if we examine the matter thoroughly it appears
right to blame the current Ptolemaic hypotheses in this regard. For they dispose the motions of the
heavenly bodies in their epicycles and eccentrics as irregular with respect to the centres of these
very circles. This is absurd, and by means of an irregularity they save unsuitably the regular motion
of the heavenly bodies.
Everything, then, which we now-a-days consider evident and well-known concerning the rev-
olutions of the stars has been built up and transmitted by these two masters, Ptolemy and Coper-
nicus" [19: I, 149].
In the subsequent lectures Tycho passed over the subject of the daily motion
and chose to expound the doctrine of the secunda mobilia "according to Copernicus'
mind and using his numerical values, but referring everything to a stable Earth".
He carried through this programme for the fixed stars, for the Sun, and for the Moon
explaining their models geometrically by means of triangles, as well as arithmetically
according to the Prutenic Tables based upon a Copernican foundation - Tycho
had, at his own expense, bought some copies of the Prutenic Tables for distribution
among the poorest students [19: I, 172-173]. He had intended to deal with the mod-
els of the remaining planets in a similar manner, but his lecturing was interrupted
by his extensive travelling in 1575, so he gave only a general exposition on these
planets showing, however, how the phenomena might in this case, too, be brought
into accordance with the idea of a stable Earth without deviating from the Coper-
nican parameters. In addition he criticized Peucer and Dasipodius for their illegiti-
mate mixing up Copernican calculation with Ptolemaic hypotheses.
This short account makes it evident that Copernicus and Copernican astronomy
was introduced in Denmark in a thorough and competent way by an expert. It shows
Tycho's genuine admiration of Copernicus as a mathematical astronomer, too,
and reveals his general attitude towards Copernican cosmology as unacceptable
for physical reasons. Although the Tychonian world system had not at that time
come into existence it nevertheless appears that Tycho had already, within each
separate planetary model, managed to get round the stumbling-block of the moving
1 For Bibliography see pages 145-151.

Copernican Influence on Tycho Brahe 33
Earth. Consequently astronomers were from now on free to make use of Copernican
astronomy without troubling about his cosmology; on the other hand, naturaJ
philosophers could unscrupulously adhere to traditional views on these matters.
And during the century following Tycho's lecturing a great many authors did so.
Copernican parameters in Tycho
The life and work of Tycho Brahe is excellently pictured by Dreyer [119]. I shall,
accordingly, confine myself to bring only scattered details of the development of
Tychonian astronomy to the extent I have thought them important in relation to
my main theme.
You cannot give a satisfactory description of how Tycho, the founder of modern
observational astronomy, was influenced by Copernicus without touching on prob-
lems of observation and numerical calculation. Everywhere in Tycho's books,
letters, and diaries of observation one finds comparisons with Copernican or Pru-
tenic numerical values abundantly spread in the form of inserted remarks, parallel
computations or summarizing tables. In sum, it is clear that throughout his career
Tycho considered the Copernican models and the Prutenic Tables to be, next to
the heavens themselves, the most prominent touch-stone for his own work. He
aimed at doing better himself, and so he did.
In his youth Tycho was surely convinced that the Prutenic Tables were far su-
perior to the Alphonsine ones. Perhaps for a time he even hoped that astronomy
might be restored by a redetermination alone of the parameters of the Copernican
models. The origin of this position may be sought in the fact that already as a young
student at Leipzig Tycho had observed the great conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter
in 1563 and had found discrepancies of a whole month and a few days respectively
on comparison with the Alphonsine and the Prutenic Tables [19: I. 40; V. 107;
II9: 18-19]. In his De Nova Stella (1573) he considered the Prutenic Tables to be
superior to the Alphonsine "hodge-podge" because by numerous observations
he had found that the motions set forth by Copernicus squared better with the heav-
ens than did the Alphonsine or any other tables of the heavenly motions [19:
I. 23]. He calculated all the data concerning the lunar eclipse in December 1573
according to the Prutenic Tables in order to invite astronomers to a more careful
investigation of eclipses than could be obtained by ephemerides [19: I. 42]. It
has already been mentioned that in 1574 Tycho lectured on Prutenic astronomy,
and in his Horoscope of Prince Christian (1577) he preferred the Prutenic to the
Alphonsine planetary positions when he had not himself made observations of the
planets in question [19: I. 185-190].
However, as time went on and Tycho at Hveen observed and investigated one
heavenly phenomenon after the other, the fact grew increasingly obvious that also
the Copernican parameters were far from reliable. Moreover the Copernican long
term partial motions, designed to save the supposed inequality of the precession

of the equinoxes, the slow motions of the planetary apsidal lines, and the variation
of the solar eccentricity, turned out faulty or fictitious. This meant that in all fields
Tycho had to rebuild the very foundations of astronomy which, in turn, enormously
increased the preliminary work of observation to be done. Consequently he did
never achieve his main end, viz. a complete restoration of theoretical astronomy,
but had to leave this task to his pupils, Kepler and Longomontanus. In 1598 Tycho
in his In solis et lunae motus restitutos prolegomena admits that his own more accurate
emendation had hardly been possible without the work of his predecessors from
Hipparchus to Copernicus [19: V, 173]; but a little later he deplores that Copernicus
did not arrive at more reliable measures of the year and the month since that would
have spared Tycho a great toil and much money and time [19: V, 178-179]. In
a letter to Holger Rosenkrantz from the same year Tycho, having noticed that
Martin Everhart uses Prutenic stellar coordinates, puts the question: "How great
troubles and how many thousand Joachimsdaler could I have spared, if these po-
sitions had been the true ones? [19: VIII. 62]. A similar line of thought is revealed
already in 1588 in a letter to Caspar Peucer [19: VII. 139].
Morsing's journey to Frombork (Frauenburg) (1584)
Tycho's way from reliance on Copernican numbers in his youth to the attitude
of annoyance and lenience revealed in his later writings has of course gradually
taken him through a variety of intermediate stages. His emendation of the latitude
of Frauenburg as determined by Copernicus deserves special attention because it
is particularly illustrating of Tycho's way of working and of his position towards
Copernicus.
In his Progymnasmata Tycho gives a detailed account on how careful investi-
gations of the solar apogee and eccentricity during several years, and a comparison
with the values set forth by Bernhard Walther, caused him to suspect that Copernicus
had erred by about 0 ;3° in his determination of the polar altitude of Frauenburg.
In 1584 one of Tycho's assistants, Elias Olsen Marsing (Cimber; died 1590, see 75:
179, cf. however 119: 123), was sent to Frauenburg and Konigsberg in order to
determine the latitudes of these localities. Morsing stayed at Frauenburg from the
13th May until the 16th June observing the solar height and the fixed stars. Much
pains was taken to ensure that the sextant he used should not be damaged during
the journey and, indeed, after his return to Hveen the latitude of Frauenburg was
found to be greater than Copernicus' value by 0;2,45° [19: II. 29-32; cf. II. 156,
VI. 58, 72, 103-104, VII. 298, and Dreyer's summary in 119: 123-125; Morsing's
observations are found in 19: X. 345-348, and the calculations of the latitude of
Frauenburg in 19: V. 305-307].
This result obviously strengthened Tycho's selfconfidence and made him realize
that he did better to trust his own results than those of his predecessors. Thus he
frankly made similar emendations of the latitudes of Ntirnberg [19: II. 39; cf. IV.
258] and Wittenberg [19: III. 146, 147], the places where Walther and Reinhold
had made their observations; he considered his corrected values to be right within
0; 0,15°.
As another valuable result of his journey Morsing brought back with him a simple
wooden triquetum offered as a present to Tycho from a canon at Frauenburg,
Johannes Hannov. This parallactic ruler instrument had been used by Copernicus
and was made by his own hands, and Tycho certainly found it surprisingly primitive.
He guessed that Copernicus had also used other instruments [19: II. 32], but he
could not help preparing immediately an heroic poem to the honour of his great
predecessor who "by means of these puny cudgels surmounted the lofty Olympus"
[19: VI. 265-267; cf. VI. 253]. Having referred to Copernicus' instrument Tycho
describes in his Astronomiae 1nstauratae Mechanica a similar but improved copy
made by himself [19: V. 44-47; cf.: V. 6, 144; VI. 103-104; VII. 133]; the Epistolae
Astronomicae contains other Tychonian poems to Copernicus [19: VI. 270-271,
275].
So far Tycho had sufficiently explained why Copernicus went wrong in determin-
ing the solar apogee and eccentricity, but, moreover, in his Progymnasmata he
was able to correct Copernicus' determination of the position of Spica, "since Co-
pernicus' annotation rests upon careful observation of the heavens except that he
does not use the right value of the polar height", while, on the other hand, a reason-
able reconstruction of Werner's coordinates of the same star proved impossible,
because "the Wernerian annotation is composed conjecturally, not to say in order
to fit his prescriptions" [19: II. 222-226; cf. II. 156,212,253].
Because he was able to explain why Copernicus' data of observation were unre-
liable, Tycho retained or even strengthened his earlier deference to Copernicus.
It was a pity that Copernicus had used so imperfect instruments. He had not consid-
ered the effect of refraction, and it was questionable whether he had taken into
account the effect of parallax or not [19: II. 18, 31, 89; cf. VI. 69; VII. 279-280].
Tycho's principal charge, however, against Copernicus regarded his far too uncritical
reliance upon tht; records of the ancient astronomers, e. g. Ptolemy's Hipparchian
star catalogue, in which case Copernicus ought to have known better since he could
not have been completely ignorant of observational errors and faulty transcriptions
[19: II. 229, 281; III. 337-338; IV. 20]. Tycho had himself created new standards
of observational precision and thus, for the first time, freed astronomers from their
dependence on earlier records. To Copernicus, on the other hand, it formed an
integral part of his scientific method and was the very sign of honesty in working
on astronomy "to follow in their (i. e. the ancients') footsteps and hold fast to their
observations, bequeathed to us like an inheritance" [93: 99].
However much Tycho might have been disappointed in Copernicus he could,
nevertheless, continue to compare with Prutenic values to show to what extent he
had himself surpassed even the most prominent results of earlier astronomy. And
in 1602 his heirs could at last, quite in Tycho's spirit, bring the following appreciation
in the dedicatory preface of the Progymnasmata addressed to the Emperor Rudolph

the 2nd:
Several distinguished men, equally ingenious, indeed, in studying this discipline, but of une-
qual means, ventured to supply the said deficiency (of the Alphonsine Tables) particularly, however,
that great and never sufficiently appreciated Nicolaus Copernicus from Thorn. But the same scarcity
of observations and instruments which we said had obstructed the Alphonsines did not yet permit
him to possess the universal mastery he aimed at, although his restoration of the motions does not
deviate from the heavenly precept to the same extent as does that of his predecessors [19: II. 6].
Copernican geometry of planetary models in Tycho
As to the mathematical formulation of the astronomical models Copernicus

replaced the Ptolemaic equant by two additional partial motions going on uniformly
in two small circles; these may conveniently be named epicyclets to distinguish
them from the more place-demanding - and hence offensive - epicycles and
deferents of the outer and inner planets respectively. Further, Copernicus identified
the partial motions, which the last-mentioned circles were designed to save, with
each other and with the annual motion of the Earth, thus making them superfluous.
In this way he had established a unified mathematical description of the planetary
system as distinct from a set of separate models of the planets which in turn enabled
astronomers to calculate the relative planetary distances without resorting to specu-
lations of the type: what must be situated where in the Universe on the assumption
that everything demands a place and every place is to be occupied by something?
Moreover, Copernicus showed that two partial motions of the uniform circular
type may produce a socalled libration, being in fact a linear harmonic oscillation.
He utilized this libration in his theory of the precession of the equinoxes, in his
model of Mercury, and in his theory of the planetary latitudes.
As early as in his lectures in 1574 [cf. p. 32] Tycho made it clear that he fully
adopted the Copernican geometry of astronomy. The present section is going to
review how this adoption in several situations of Tycho's career overshadowed his
reasons for rejecting the Copernican system. These reasons shall in turn be the
subject of the following two chapters.
Having been asked by his friend, the royal physician Peder Sorensen, to explain
Copernicus' hypothesis of the triple motion of the Earth Tycho, in a letter dated
1576 September 3rd, does so without any criticism of Copernican ideas, and he
goes on: "In the said third motion, however, he (Copernicus) makes the terrestrial
equator perform an unequal motion 'in antecedentia' by means of an admirable
arrangement of two small circles described around the axis of the terrestrial equator;
thus he saves the unequal motion of the fixed stars, too, as this motion has hitherto
appeared to us. By this very mechanism he also explains another motion of the
equator by which it approaches and recedes from the ecliptic". Tycho thereafter
admits that all these matters are hard to grasp unless they are visibly exposed in the
form of a mechanical model, and he promises some day to prepare such a machine
[19: VII. 39-40].
This letter shows that the young Tycho did really accept Copernicus' mathematical
reformulation of the astronomical models down to the last detail. As to librations,
however, later on he realized that the Copernican long term libration-corrections
did not agree with his own observational results, and so came to doubt the necessity
of using librations. MaestIin had introduced a librational motion into his theory
of the comet of 1577. Tycho takes this as an occasion to discuss librations in his
De Recentioribus Phaenomenis. Although Copernicus has ingeniously invented this
libration Tycho nevertheless doubts that it really occurs in the heavens. The Co-
pernican model for the precession of the equinoxes and the variation of the obliq-
uity of the ecliptic does not agree with the phenomena. He admits that in the theory
of Mercury the libration meets certain short-comings of the Ptolemaic model and
brings about a better agreement with phenomena. Still, the theory has grown so
complex that Tycho considers it less fit to explain heavenly motions, believing him-
self to be able to dispense with both the Ptolemaic equant and the Copernican li-
bration. Since librations are unfit for the heavens, and for the planets, they will
be far less suitable for explaining the motions of comets [19: IV. 224].
Further discussions on libration are found in Tycho's Progymnasmata [19: III.
78] and in his correspondence with Kepler [19: VIII. 45], Rothmann [19: VI, 160,
197-198,217,220-221], and Scaliger [19: VIII. 328-329]. It is to be noted
that Tycho never completely abandoned the invention, and in one place he used
a libration mechanism in order to explain an anomaly in the motion of the Moon
[19: 11,101]. Thus it might well be Tycho or one of his pupils who praised the libration
in the copy of the De Revolutionibus belonging to The Royal Library at Copenhagen
by the marginal note: "Novam inventum Copernici ... Demonstratio agregiae,
utilis et inauditae rei ... " [cf. 133: 451-452].
However, apart from the criticism of librations Tycho accepted Copernicus'
mathematical ideas and made them the indispensable basis of his own formulation
of new hypotheses. This implies that the Tychonian models must necessarily be
in one way or another "inverted Copernican models". Tycho is generally quite
conscious of this fact and in his MS De Marte (1585) some calculations occur rela-
ting to the Copernican model whereafter the very same calculations are performed
in relation to an "inverted Copernican model" which shows, then, how a Tychonian
model came to be [19: V. 276-288, see Figures 1 and 2]. On one occasiop, in a letter
to Rothmann, Tycho denies that his models should be inversions of the Copernican
ones [19: VI, 178]; but this alleged independence concerns the proof of the superior-
ity of Tycho's world system rather than the origin of his models.
In order to expose further to what extent Tycho attached importance to mathe-
matical reasoning as compared with physical arguments it may be profitable to
quote from another letter, dated 1587 January 20th, to the abovementioned Chri-
stopher Rothmann, astronomer, to the Landgrave Wilhelm the 4th of Hessia:
DE MARTE
Anno 1585 D. 13 Martij H. 9 P. M.
ABumendo motum Terrre iuxta Copernicum.
Figure 1. Tycho Brahe, Opera Omnia V, page 281.
If Nicolaus Copernicus, the distinguished and incomparable master, in this work (the restora·
tion of astronomy) had not been deprived of exquisite and faultless instruments, he would have
left us this science far more well-established. For he, if anybody, was outstanding and had the most
perfect understanding of the geometrical and arithmetical requisites for building up this discipline.
Nor was he in this respect inferior to Ptolemy; on the contrary, he surpassed him greatly in certain
fields, particularly as far as the device of fitness and compendious harmony in hypotheses is concern-
ed. And his apparently absurd opinion that the Earth revolves does not obstruct this estimate,
because a circular motion designed to go on uniformly about another point than the very center
of the circle, as actually found in the Ptolemaic hypotheses of all the planets except that of the Sun,
offends against the very basic principles of our discipline in a far more absurd and intolerable way
than does the attributing to the Earth one motion or another which, being a natural motion, turns
out to be imperceptible. There does not at all arise from this assumption so many unsuitable con·
sequences as most people think.
Tycho thereafter notices that Buchanan's criticism against the motion of the
Earth was unsuccessful since he failed to see that the sea and the lower layers of the
atmosphere would, of course, perform a natural motion together with the Earth.
'Inuerfio Hypothefis Copernian in 0-

tu a, vt centrum vniuerfi TERRA quie . .
cens iuxta veterum Cententiam occup It,
et nih °lominus matus requales eire 10-
rum. propria Cua reCpiciant centra, repu-
diata tolemaica iscohrerenti .
Hsec ratio inuertendi Coperni anam Hypothefin fufficit
tribus Iuperionbus planetis T! .,.. d.
c
Figure 2. Tycho Brahe, Opera Omnia V, page 284.
Tycho promises, as he does repeatedly elsewhere [see e. g. 19: II. 14; IV. 156]
to discuss the matter in greater detail in his Opus Astronomicum. Moreover he announ-
ces that he himself hopes to introduce new hypotheses acceptable from a mathe-
matical as well as from a physical point of view [19: VI. 102-103].
II. TYCHO'S ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION
Tycho between the Ptolemaic Scylla and the Copernican Charybdis
Tycho's plan of composing an all-embracing Theatrum Astronomicum [19: VII.

132; cf. VII. 292; VIII. 199] was only partially carried out through his works on
the new star, Astronomiae Instauratae Progymnasmata (1602), on the comet from
1577, De Mundi Aetherei Recentioribus Phaenomenis (1588), and on his instruments,
Astronomiae Instauratae Mechanica (1598). So he never kept his promise of giving
a systematic and detailed account on cosmology and on the question of the motion
of the Earth. But his own arrangement of the planetary system had been worked
out already in 1583 [119: 167], and it was published in 1588 as a prerequisite of his
discussion on the place of the comet in the Universe [see Figure 3].
On this occasion Tycho criticizes once more the Ptolemaic system because of
the equant and the numerous and great epicycles. Having noticed that the Copernican
system meets these mathematical difficulties he points out that it conflicts with phys-
ical principles by letting the dense and sluggish Earth move. It is also at variance
with the authority of the Holy Scripture which in several places maintains the sta-
bility of the Earth, not to speak of the immense space, totally void of stars, between
the orbit of Saturn and the eighth sphere, or of other inconveniences connected with
this hypothesis. Thereafter Tycho accounts for his own system which has proved
right, mathematically - since all partial motions were just as circular and uniform
as they had been in the Copernican description - as well as physically, the Earth
being at rest in the middle of the Universe. Nor was there any reason to fear theolo-
gical judgements, and at the same time the system was, of course, in full accordance
with all celestial phenomena [19: IV. 156-158].
This passage represents Tycho's typical account on the world systems, and it
is easy to find in his works a wealth of similar formulations doing away with Ptolemy,
for mathematical reasons, and with Copernicus, referring briefly to the physical
absurdity, to the conflict with Scripture, and to the unreasonably huge space between
the planets and the fixed stars arising from the assumption of a moving Earth. And
in one place he states that during his attempt to avoid the Scylla of Ptolemaic mathe-
matics Copernicus was shipwrecked on the Charybdis of physical absurdities asso-
ciated with the triple motion of the Earth [19: IV. 473].
I S8 DE MUNDI iETHEREI
NOVA MVNDANI SYSTEMATIS HYPOTYPOSIS AB

AUTHORE NUPER ADINUENTA, QUA TUM VETUS ILLA
PTOLE:v1AICA REDUNDANTIA & INCONCINNITAS.
TUM ETIAM RECENS COPERNIANA IN MOTU
TERRiE PHYSICA ABSURDITAS. EXCLU-
DUNTUR. OMNIAQUE APPAREN-
TIIS C(ELESTIBUS APTISSIME
CORRESPONDENT.
Figure 3. Tycho Brahe, Opera Omnia IV, page 158.

Tycho against Aristotle
Tycho's repeated, but vague references to physical absurdities connected with the
Copernican system suggest that he was simply an Aristotelian. But that conclusion
would be premature. Generally, he accepted traditional views on physical and cosmo-
logical matters. But he had himself destroyed the unalterability of the heavens by
his proof that the New Star of 1572 was actually situated among and was similar
to the fixed stars; and he had, through his work On the Comet of 1577 once and for
all destroyed the solid spheres of planetary models. He could therefore certainly
not be an orthodox Aristotelian, but had once more to direct his course between
the Scylla and the Charybdis. Hence his general caution of expression and scarcity
of detailed arguments. A special challenge was needed to make him show his hand
more clearly. It happened when Rothmann after having studied the Tychonian
world system became a convinced Copernican which, indeed, made Tycho use Aristo-
telian arguments.
But another challenge was John Craig's attack on Tycho's work on the Comet
of 1577. The De recentioribus Phaenomenis brings Tycho's account and criticism of
Maestlin's Copernican theory of this comet [19: IV. 221-237]. Maestlin's theory
as well as Tycho's own opinion on the comet had been attacked by Craig, to whose
criticism Tycho replied in his Ap%getica Responsio ad Craigum Scotum de Co-
metis (1589) [cf. 119: 208]. And this "apologetic answer" reveals Tycho's critical
attitude towards the Aristotelians.
According to Tycho Maestlin is not to be blamed because he employed the Co-
pernican assumption of the moving Earth, to devise his model for saving the phe-
nomena of the comet. His diligence in this respect is highly recommendable, although
the Copernican hypothesis does not sufficiently explain all the special motions of the
comet from first to last. The very fact, however, that Maestlin, following Coperni-
cus, assigns to the Earth an annual revolution and makes the Sun rest, reflects
a legitimate freedom of expression. For the phenomena of the planets may conve-
niently by saved on this assumption, too; the great Copernicus himself has shown
that sufficiently by his excellent work on the heavenly revolutions. No matter whether
you assume a moving Sun or a moving Earth, the phenomenological consequences
will be the same, so it is only to physicists, but not to mathematicians, that something
absurd arises from the latter opinion.
Tycho himself had supposed the Earth to be at rest in order to allow a physical
as well as a mathematical consideration. Maestlin, on the other hand, wrote as
a mathematician to mathematicians; he studied the heavens themselves, the open
Book of Nature, and not the cloudy nonsense offered for sale as the truth at the
universities. So his work is greatly preferable to the fantasies of those who merely
parrot Aristotle [19: IV. 446-447; cf. VII. 209].
Later in the same treatise Tycho discusses at some length his own opinion on
comets and on the world system [19: IV. 472-476]. In his apology he asserts that
no doubt Aristotle would himself have changed his mind not only about comets
but about the whole nature and essence of the haevens, too, if he had acquired some
knowledge of parallax from reliable observations [19: IV. 472]. Tycho has done
away with the reality of the spheres, so he affirms that the planets move freely by
themselves through the clean and clear ether, and that is not at variance with the
more reasonable physics. For the fact that Aristotle imagined real spheres in the
heavens does not make them actually be there since reason and experience prove
that in reality there are none [19: IV. 474]. Elsewhere Tycho records as a generally
accepted opinion that Copernicus had supposed real solid spheres to exist [19: II.
397-398; cf. III. 173]. In conclusion Tycho states that Craig's doubt concerning
the new Tychonian hypotheses is altogether unfounded, and without any mathemat-
ical basis; regarding Aristotle one had better correct his physics by means of obser-
vations and geometry than the other way round [19: IV. 476].
The vain search for proofs
If Tycho were to accept a proof of the superiority of one world system to another
it had to be, indeed, a mathematical proof including the use of observational results.
Thus the detection of an annual parallax of the fixed stars would settle the matter
in favour of the Copernican system. Thomas Digges had promised to determine
stellar parallax by means of some new instrument, and Rothmann had entered upon
speculations concerning an annual variation of the polar height and of the distances
between certain stars. Tycho, however, was unable to establish variations of the
kind, and he guessed that the alleged results were due to observational errors or to
some effect of refraction. Hence Digges and others might construct whatever instru-
ments they wanted; the better and more exactly they observed the less would they
find any parallax or any annual motion of the center of the Earth [19: III. 197 -198;
cf. VIII. 209].
To Tycho it was, then, impossible to prove the truth of the Copernican system
from any determination of stellar parallax; but he realized, too, that the mere
absence of any observable parallax did not disprove the Copernican system either,
since Copernicus had, so to speak, a priori pushed the stars so far away as to make
any such effect disappear.
Everything that can be said of the fixed stars in this respect is true concerning
the new star, too, in so far as it behaves like the fixed stars and is placed among
them. Tycho is painstaking to show that this is the case no matter whether the Pto-
lemaic, the Copernican, or the Tychonian system is applied [19: II. 378-379, 397-
398].
Consequently, the new star could not either provide arguments to decide the
question of world systems, and Tycho obviously felt annoyed at the attempts made
by others. Thus Maestlin had maintained the very great distance of the new star
by assuming the Earth to be moving; to this Tycho remarked that there was no
reason at all to demonstrate something true from dubious, not to say plainly false
and absurd premisses when, after all, far better and even correct arguments might
easily be found [19: III. 63]. Digges had proposed to settle the question of the mo-
tion of the Earth from the varying luminosity of the new star which caused Tycho
to prepare a critical discussion on this problem [19: III. 172-175,203].
Tycho's 1588 proof that his own world system is true
Tycho himself imagined the fixed stars to be placed rather near to the outermost
limit of the sphere of Saturn, so he did not believe them to be as distant as Copernicus
had supposed in order to make the annual orbit of the Earth insensibly small as
compared to the distance of the stars [19: II. 430]. In many places he offered argu-
ments of due symmetry and orderliness within the Universe to support his view [cf.
p. 53-54]; but in order to find compelling proofs he had to concentrate upon nearer
objects. In 1588 at latest Tycho believed to have found a real proof doing away
with the Ptolemaic as well as with the Copernican system and hence demonstrating
the truth of his own arrangement of the heavenly motions.
This demonstration he communicated in letters to some of his colleagues, to
witt one letter of 1588 September 13th to Caspar Peucer [19: VII. 127-130], another
of 1589 February 21th to Christopher Rothmann [19: VI. 178-179], still another
of 1589 November 1st to Thaddaeus Hagecius [19: VII. 199-200], and finally
a letter of 1590 December 1st to Johs. Ant. Magini. In the last-mentioned letter
Tycho promises explicitly to disprove the triple motion of the Earth by irrefutable
arguments, not only theologically and physically but also mathematically, although
Copernicus had hoped that his system had been adequate and irreprehensible to
mathematicians. [19: VII. 294-295].
The most complete account of Tycho's proof is found in the said letter to Peucer.
To some German astronomers Henric Rantzov had distributed delineations of the
new Tychonian world system, which had caused Peucer to put some questions.
Tycho then wrote to answer Peucer's questions and make his doubt disappear.
Already as a student at Leipzig Tycho had been aware of the discrepancies be-
tween the actual phenomena and the Copernican as well as the Alphonsine compu-
tations; he therefore began to consider whether this calamity was caused by improp-
er observations or by erroneous hypotheses. For several years he explored the mat-
ter thoroughly and found the Ptolemaic hypotheses to offend against the first prin-
ciples of astronomy because they admitted a circular motion to go on uniformly
with respect to some other point than the center of the circular motion. Furthermore
the numerous and great epicycles demanded much place and were superfluous.
And no explanation was offered to account for the mutual connection which evi-
dently had to exist between the Sun and the planets because they had an annual
partial motion in common.
But the absurd triple motion of the Earth, on the other hand, at once deterred
Tycho from adhering to the great Copernicus' new arrangement. For although his
solution met the above-mentioned difficulties of the Ptolemaic system, the mere
attribution of a regular, perfect and not very complex motion to the sluggish and
rather obscure Earth made this view rather suspicious, in particular because it
was also in open contradiction of several places of the Holy Scripture.
Hence Tycho came to doubt if any of the two views was right, but since no accep-
table possibility besides the two had ever been proposed he decided to find a crucial
test as to which of these came nearest to the truth. And this problem could most
conveniently be settled if the parallax of Mars was determined when this planet was
in opposition to the Sun. For according to the Copernican description Mars should
then be nearer to the Earth than the Sun while the Ptolemaic system assumed Mars
to be always more remote than the Sun.
Mars was therefore, especially in the year 1582, observed very carefully and at
great expense by means of different astronomical instruments which made it possible
to establish stellar positions accurate to 0;0,15°. Numerous observations of this
kind were performed when Mars was rising or setting or when it passed the meridian,
and they showed the parallax of Mars to be greater than that of the Sun. Hence
Mars really had to be situated nearer to the Earth than the Sun. Moreover Tycho
found the daily rate of the retrograde motion of Mars to be greater than it ought
to be according to Ptolemy and the Alphonsines, but in better agreement with the
Copernican parameters. Similar results had been brought about in the case of Venus
and were finally, on the 24th of February 1587, affirmed by some very rare obser-
vations of Venus performed in the evening and the following morning.
Since all these results did not at all agree with tne Ptolemaic hypotheses I was urged afterwards
to put more and more confidence in the Copernican invention. The exceedingly absurd opinion
that the Earth revolves uniformly and perpetually nevertheless made up a very great obstacle, and
in addition the irrefutable authority of the Holy Scripture maintained the opposite view.
During his further considerations on the problem Tycho therefore made persist-
ent attempts of establishing new hypotheses. At first his plan appeared to be im-
practicable, mainly because the only possible solution caused the orbits of the Sun
and Mars to intersect each other, and at that time Tycho was still imbued with the
belief that real orbits existed in the heavens and carried with them the heavenly
bodies. But having finally by diligent research on the motion and the parallax of
several comets been led to the conclusion that these were situated far beyond the
Moon Tycho completely abandoned the assumption of any hard and impervious
substance for the celestial orbits.
Add to this that two comets moving in opposition to the Sun quite evidently showed that the
Earth does not actually perform any annual revolution, in so far as the supposed 'commutation
motion' of the Earth did not detract from their predetermined and proportionate rate of motion any
single jot, as it happens in the case of the planets which, according to Copernicus, retrograde just
because of the annual motion of the Earth.
This amounts to saying that from the absence of a yearly partial motion within
his well-established models of the motions of some comets Tycho argued that any
supposed annual revolution of the Earth was fictitious. His argument is formally
sound since a motion of the Earth ought to be reflected in the motion of every ce-
lestial body above the Moon; but it depends upon a gross extrapolation from obser-
vational results obtained during the very brief visibility of the comet. Anyhow it
was the decisive excuse Tycho offered at last for being a Tychonian and not a Co-
pernican.
The problem of Tycho's 1584 version of the same proof
So far the fully developed Tychonian proof of his own world system has been
sketched, and further references are found above. It is, however, worth noticing
that one part of his proof, viz. the argument concerning the parallax of Mars, is
mentioned separately by Tycho on several occasions, thus in his Apologetica Res-
ponsio [19: IV. 474-475], in his Progymnasmata [19: II. 383], in a letter of 1587
January 18th to the Landgrave Wilhelm the IVth of Hessia [19: VI. 70], and in
a letter from 1584 to Henric Bruceus [19: VII. 78-82].
The letter to Bruceus is especially interesting because here Tycho, concerning
the parallax of Mars, arrives at a conclusion unique in his authorship:
Tycho asserts to have found towards the end of 1582 and in the beginning of
1583, from numerous, most exquisite and mutually concordant observations of
Mars in opposition to the Sun that the parallax of Mars was far smaller than that
of the Sun. Therefore, the whole sphere of Mars must necessarily be remoter from
the Earth than that of the Sun. Accordingly he altogether abandoned the Aristar-
chian doctrine of the annual motion brought to light anew by Copernicus. He moreo-
ver rejects the concept of a "motion in declination together with its librations",
while he admits that a daily rotation might perhaps be ascribed to the Earth, although
he considers it more likely that such a rotation went on in the heavens.
On the whole Tycho takes up in this letter an unusually severe attitude towards
Copernican ideas. Thus Bruceus had asked him to send "some sort of instrument
showing the Copernican hypotheses", which Tycho would have done with pleasure
if he had ever prepared such a device. He had, however, never dreamt of constructing
instruments of that kind to explain the inventions of others when these might easily
be understood by means of a plane delineation alone and when, moreover, it was
still uncertain whether they corresponded to reality or not. A little later Tycho points
out how difficult in would be to reproduce all the motions within the Copernican
theory by means of one single mechanical machine, especially because of the incom-
parably great distance between the Earth and the eighth sphere. And he concluded
this section of his letter saying: "In case you want, after all, to imbue the minds
of your students with his (Copernicus') inventions you may easily prepare a plane
delineation, even if that is quite a job, too".
Note that in 1576 Tycho did not scruple to prepare a mechanical

representation of the Copernican system; on the contrary he intended to
do so [cf. p. 37].
Concerning the problem of the parallax of Mars several questions arise. The
modern values of the parallaxes of Mars and the Sun being 0;0,23° and 0;0,9°
respectively, it seems mysterious how in 1584 Tycho was able to find a parallax
of Mars much smaller than that of the Sun. But Tycho believed the solar parallax
to be 0;3°, so it appears even more suspect that later on he could find a greater
parallax for Mars. Kepler has suggested that one of Tycho's pupils had by a mistake
calculated the parallax of Mars from Copernican parameters instead of from obser-
vational results [cf. 119; 179]. It seems to me incredible that Tycho should ever
have entrusted a pupil with the task of performing so crucial calculations without
himself controlling carefully the results. In fact, all values of parallax except that
of the Moon are far too small to be investigated to any reasonable degree of certainty
by Tycho. Probably he did never fully realize this fact, but it would be too hard to
blame him for that.
However, at different times Tycho did arrive at opposite conclusions from the
very same observations. A few glimpses from Tycho's development in the 1580'es
may perhaps throw some light on this offensive fact.
At first it is worth noticing that in 1584 Tycho had worked out a delineation of
his world system which showed the orbit of Mars surrounding the solar orbit instead
of intersecting it, and the fact that in 1588 he described the said sketch as a mistake
[19; VI. 179] does not prove that it was not meant seriously in 1584. On the whole
it begins to look as if in 1584 Tycho did not at all realize how the restoration of astron-
omy he had planned was to be completed. After having spent eight years at Hveen
with observations he had been brought to doubt the results of his predecessors,
including Copernicus, to an unexpected extent. Evidently this made him impatient
to arrive at results which could guide his further work. Hence Morsing was sent
to Frauenburg, and from this expedition Tycho learned why Copernicus' results
were uncertain. He also realized that Copernicus had been an honest scientist as
well as how to correct his results [cf. p. 35]. Accordingly in 1585 he ventured to
construct his own models as inverted Copernican models [cf. p. 37]. And in 1587
he is on the point of accepting the motion of the Earth as a natural motion [ef.
p. 38].
But his preconceived scruples carried too much weight and after having found
the argument from the absence of any annual partial motion within his theories
of the comets he dared to reject completely the motion of the Earth. Accordingly,
in 1588 he published his own world system. And thenceforth he adhered unscrupu-
lously to traditional views on the site and the state of rest of the Earth. That is
particularly clear from his correspondence with Rothmann on the world systems
from the autumn 1588 until in August 1590 Rothmann visited Hveen where the
discussions were continued orally.
III. TYCHO AGAINST COPERNICUS AFTER 1588
The discussion with Rothmann, 1588-1590
Among Tycho's comprehensive correspondence the letters exchanged between

Hveen and Cassel during the period 1585-92 deserve a special attention because
of their size as well as of their contents. Many of the letters are real astronomical
treatises, and in 1596 Tycho published them as his Epistolarum Astronomicarum,
Liber I [cf. 119: 133-136,228-230]. For the present treatise it is particularly im-
portant that in their letters between 1588 and 1590 Tycho and Rothmann entered
into details concerning the Copernican and the Tychonian world systems and thus
enabled us to imagine the eventual contents of the systematic and detailed account
regarding the motion of the Earth, which Tycho repeatedly promised to give but
never gave. To show how the discussion developed the letters in question will be
reviewed below in chronological order.
In a letter dated 1587 September 21st Rothmann writes that he has himself
established "inverted" Copernican hypotheses. But since by his observations he has
found the Prutenic Tables to deviate too much from the truth he would be glad to
substitute a Tychonian computation for the Prutenic one in order to make the for-
mer familiar to his students [19: VI. 118]. In 1588 August 17th Tycho answers that
a Prutenic calculation might well be published for educational purposes. He invites
Rothmann to do so since the attempts of others within this field had illegitimately
connected Ptolemaic hypotheses and Copernican numbers [cf. p. 32]. Besides Tycho
calls attention to his own new hypotheses as described in his De Recentioribus Phaeno-
men is. A copy of this book had recently been sent to Rothmann, and Tycho expres-
ses his belief that Rothmann would be the more pleased with this new arrangement
the more diligently he studied it [19: VI. 146-147].
Rothmann's 1588 letter
However, the very opposite was to happen. In his next letter dated 1588 Septem-
ber 19th Rothmann discusses at some length the problem whether Tycho's new
models were identical with Rothmann's own inverted Copernican models and with
the hypotheses underlying a certain small automaton which the Landgrave had
got constructed the foregoing year. Having admitted his unability to answer def-
initely this question Rothmann enters upon a criticism of the general disposition
of the spheres within the Tychonian system for which he has a dislike the more
marked the longer he considers it.
His first charge against Tycho regards the retrogradations and stationary points
within the planetary theories. The Tychonian arrangement correctly describes
how these phenomena go on, but not why they do so, which the Copernican system
had done in a very beautiful manner. Secondly he doubts that anybody will ever
believe the center of the major solar epicycle to be so powerful as to draw with
it all the planets, there being no material connection at all between the heavenly
bodies. Thus the Landgrave had jokingly said: "Good Heavens! That solar circle
has to be far stronger than copper to be able to carry with it so many planets".
Thirdly this inverted Copernican ordering of the spheres re-introduces among those
spheres a confusion which had just been abolished by Copernicus, and which more-
over conflicted with the divine orderliness of the heavens. Fourthly the Tychonian
description is not economic to the same extent as the Copernican one. And fifthly
a variation of the solar eccentricity will within this system affect the models of the
remaining planets, too.
"Therefore, over and over considering the said arguments and many others, too,
I cannot help infering that no hypothesis can be true except the Copernican one".
Thence Rothmann argues that the Copernican system does not conflict with
physical principles when it adduces the similarity between the Earth and the heav-
enly bodies following from the universal conception of gravitation as supposed
by Copernicus, and from the spherical shape common to the Earth and the planets.
And from the stability of the artificial rotation of a globe he argues that a natural
rotation of the Earth must be even more stable. The system is not in opposition
to the Holy Scripture either, since the Bible has not been written for Tycho and
Rothmann alone, but for all people, and accordingly must speak a language intel-
ligible to everybody. This point is further exposed by examples from the Scripture
and ends up with the assertion that sure knowledge concerning astronomical subjects
must necessarily be obtained from mathematical demonstrations.
Gellius Sascerides (1562-1612) had, indeed, told Rothmann that Tycho pos-
sessed geometrical proofs of his system, but Rothmann hardly dared believe that.
Finally he judges the Copernican hypothesis unsuitable for students since even
professionals, e. g. Maestlin, did not quite understand it. For this very reason
Rothmann had prepared an inverted Copernican system of his own for educational
purposes [19: VI. 156-160].
Tycho's two 1589 letters
In his next letter dated 1589 February 21st Tycho is evidently faltering at this
unexpected attitude of Rothmann. At that time he is unwilling to bring forward
many arguments to defend and approve his own hypotheses. That would be too weari-
some and demand a complicated demonstration from certain observational results.
He prefers to apply his efforts to a proper restoration of the heavenly motions to
the effect that his hypotheses may in due course show themselves to square exactly
with the heavently phenomena, hence being far superior to the Ptolemaic as well
as to the Copernican ones, and thus coming much nearer to truth. If, however,
Rothmann dislikes these hypotheses so much that he prefers, with Copernicus to
move the Earth, the oceans, and the Moon together - and that with a triple motion -

and if he wants to raise the Earth beyond the rank of the stars in spite of its obviously
inferior nature and lesser mobility, that is all the same to Tycho and must be Roth-
mann's private affair.
Nevertheless Tycho wonders if that does not mean a confusion of inferior and
superior matters, and a total inversion of the order of natural things? In Tycho's
own words: "You must not be mistaken; your conviction that the physical absurd-
ities of the Copernican hypothesis have been sufficiently rejected by Copernicus
himself is plainly false. And your own arguments regarding this case are also unable
to remove every doubt on the subject which I shall prove elsewhere discussing these
and others of the kind". Further, the arguIllents from the Holy Scripture are far
less capable of settling the matter. For the reverence to the Divine records and their
authority are and ought to be too great to be interpreted like a lofty tragedy. After
going into details concerning some scriptural passages Tycho concludes that the
authority of the Holy Scripture has until this very day remained unshaken. So
Rothmann will not at all be succesful in defending the Copernican point of view
from that quarter, either.
Tycho thereafter answers some of the objections to his own system by stress-
ing that the planetary motions are not due to any involuntary carrying off, but
are caused by a natural and divinely ingrafted observance. And if magnetite and
iron, terrestrial and lifeless as they are, may, naturally and without violence, attract
each other even through an interposed body, why should such things not be likely
to happen in the heavenly bodies which by the Platonists and the more judicious
philosophers were believed to be animate? Rothmann is urged to study diligently
Plinius' account on the subject. And after doing away with the real solid spheres
Tycho imagines a single uniform heavenly matter stretching from the Moon to the
eighth sphere, in which matter the planets are free to move up and down while per-
forming their most beautiful and harmonious revolutions around the revolving
central Sun. Hence no planetary confusion is found within the Tychonian system.
Tycho then denies that his system should have come into existence by an inver-
sion of the Copernican hypotheses, and he briefly accounts for the arguments on
the parallax of Mars and on the motions of comets [cf. p. 45] claiming explicitly
that these two arguments alone suffice to prove the truth of his system [19: VI.
176-179].
Tycho finally reveals how he had at first wondered about the origin of the auto-
maton mentioned by Rothmann, but that now he is quite sure that it is due to Nico-
laus Reymers who must have copied one of Tycho's drawings during his stay at
Hveen in 1584 [19: VI. 179-180; cf. 119: 183-185].
This letter did not reach Rothmann until August 17th, so his answer dated 1589
August 22nd mostly contains short remarks and no significant new material regarding
the wordl systems [19: VI. 183].
Tycho's next letter dated 1589 November 24th opens with a thorough discussion
on physics and theology [19: VI. 185-187] and later it ensures Rothmann his free-
dom to accept Ptolemaic or Copernican hypotheses as he likes. In return Tycho

must also be permitted to announce freely what he has learned on the subject from
the heavens themselves. He repeats his plan of composing a connected account
on the planetary motions and will until then be glad to receive objections of his
system.
However, since Rothmann has grown so fond of the Copernican idea of the triple
motion of the Earth Tycho will readily adduce a single argument against each of
its three partial motions.
Re the daily motion: If the Earth rotates, how is it to be explained that a leaden
globe falling from a high tower travels vertically and strikes the surface of the Earth
perpendicularly? For the falling body does not accompany the atmosphere but
moves violently through the air.
Re the annual motion: The eighth sphere should be placed vastly far away to
make the orbit of the Earth vanish in comparison with the distance of the fixed
stars. On the assumption that 0; I ° is a possible value of stellar parallax, the distance
between Saturn and the fixed stars must necessarily be 700 times the distance between
the Sun and Saturn. Moreover, a star of third magnitude having an apparent diam-
meter of 0;1° in that case had to be as great as the whole annual orbit of the Earth,
i. e. its diameter should equal 2284 terrestrial radii. And what to say about the stars
of first magnitude with an apparent diameter of 0;2-0;3°? And what to say if
the eighth sphere is to be imagined still farther away to make the annual orbit of
the Earth vanish? [19: VI. 196 -197].
Here Tycho has amplified his often repeated [19: II. 376, 430; III. 198; IV.
155-156] argument on the immense and superfluous void between Saturn and the
eighth sphere. He thus formulated what was later going to be the most well-known
Tychonian argument against the motion of the Earth. Another elaborate version
of this argument forms part of Tycho's criticism of Maestlin in the Progymnasmata
[19: III. 63-64]. I call attention to the fact that both versions are found with po-
lemic contexts.
The third motion collapses when the annual motion has been explained away.
But even if the annual motion of the center of the Earth be retained, by what means
should its axis turn round in the opposite direction exactly to the effect that it appears
nevertheless to be at rest? And how can the center and the axis of a single simple
body perform two mutually contrary motions, not to speak of the third, i. e. the
daily motion? In addition the perplexing librations do not agree with the motion
of the fixed stars and are highly inexpedient.
"Consider carefully these and similar arguments ... you will get others on another
occasion" [19: VI. 197-198].
Rothmann's visit to Hveen in August 1590

In his letter dated 1590 April 18th Rothmann answers re the daily motion: The
faIling globe partakes in the daily rotation of the Earth, too. And this circular partial
motion of falling bodies is as natural a motion as the rotation of the Earth as a whole,
just as small portions separated from a nugget retain the nature of gold of the whole
nugget. Otherwise the tower from which the globe was thrown must necessarily be
left behind, too, the ground moving away beneath it. In addition it is far more natural
and economic to let the small Earth rotate than to force all the planets and stars to
perform such a multitude of incomprehensibly fast revolutions.
Re the annual motion Rothmann puts the question why on earth the Universe
and the stars must not be great? Although it might appear unreasonable this is
nevertheless a far too flimsy excuse for restricting the Creator and His creation.
Re the third motion Rothmann answers the Tychonian how by asking why not?
After all the Earth moves freely and is not attached to any material sphere. Yet he
admits that Copernicus' own account is somewhat obscure on this point, and more-
over he maintains that it is quite possible to dispense with the third motion. Libra-
tions are accepted by Rothmann as principally natural motions, but Copernicus'
perplexing exposition regarding this subject may easily be criticized, too [19: VI.
215--217].
Tycho did not receive this letter until Rothmann in 1590 August 1st arrived at
Hveen where the two astronomers carried on their discussions orally. This contin-
uation is extant in Tycho's reproduction: Having discussed for some weeks Roth-
mann at first hesitated, then he put forward his arguments still more timidly, and
finally he appeared quite opposed to his own former opinions. He even declared
that he had not till then published anything in that direction and would never do
so in the future. He had taken the Copernican standpoint rather for the sake of
argument [19: VI. 218].
Perhaps Rothmann was so impressed by his being defeated that afterwards
he dared not face the Landgrave. Anyhow, on September 1st he left Hveen to go
to Cassel, but after changing his mind he went to his native Place Bernburg, and
he never returned to Cassel [119: 208-209].
The discussion on the daily motion firstly includes some further fencing with
the question of the falling globe by arguments having, of course, no demonstrative
force, but merely revealing that Tycho did accept the Aristotelian doctrine of mo-
tion, while Rothmann did not. Secondly Tycho offers a lengthy account on artillery
shots mamtaining that, other things equal, their ranges are the same in every direction
at all geographical latitudes, which he deems incompatible with a rotation of the
Earth. Tycho's third argument regards an arrow ejected vertically upwards and
depends on its returning exactly to the starting point. By the way he denies the
assertion of those who maintain that an arrow thrown in the same way from a mov-
ing ship should return to the starting point. Fourthly Tycho brings a brief and ob-
scure allusion to an argument concerning the natural motion of the oceans.
The daily rotation having thus been rejected the annual motion and the third
motion together with its librations sink to the ground by themselves and turn out
to be useless. However, to provide a sufficient reply to Rothmann's objections Tycho
Copernican Influence on Tycho Bra~e 53
at this point inserts general considerations beginning with arguments of economy

in the explanation of nature which apparently favoured the Copernican system as
compared to the Tychonian. But, according to Tycho, God the Creator manifested
His inscrutable wisdom and omnipotence just by His Will and Power of attributing
to the vaste heavenly bodies their swift and uniform motion, while He retained the
body of the Earth, sluggish and dense, and hence unfit for continuous motion,
in an everlasting and stable position. From this resting center he thus made it possible
to contemplate the stupendous and indefatigable courses of the heavenly bodies,
or in other words, to regard and admire in a mirror, as it were, the Grandeur of the
Divine Creator.
And since the Earth rests patiently at the center of the Universe it may most
conveniently receive the powers and influences tending towards the center from the
actively revolving heavens. Having further elaborated the last point Tycho ends
this section by consenting to the Platonic doctrine of living heavenly bodies within
an animate heaven.
Thus prepared Tycho returns to the problem of the annual motion, and now he
is enabled to maintain that, in a Copernican description the huge and superfluous
void between Saturn and the eighth sphere would bear witness of an otherwise quite
unknown and alien irregularity and lack of orderliness and of symmetry within
the work of the Creator. Even the Sun would vanish and be next to nothing as
compared to the fixed stars, although it is evidently the most prominent body of
the Universe. It is true that the finite world bears no proportion to the infinity of
its Creator, but all the same there must be some definite scale which is applicable
to all the different parts of the created world. This is obviously the case of terrestrial
creatures, e. g. within the microcosmos of the human body whose due harmony is
excellently painted by DUrer [19: VI. 218-222].
Tycho the Pythagorean
It has been made clear above [cf. p. 42] that Tycho was by no means an orthodox
adherent of the Aristotelian cosmology. But the foregoing debate with Rothmann
reveals that when facing the dogged resistance against his own fully developed world
system, he felt the need for resorting to Aristotelian bastions. However, it also ap-
pears that Pythagorean and Platonic arguments of symmetry and harmony, inti-
mately connected to religious considerations, and even thoughtst ouching astrolog-
ical matters had far more weight with Tycho than had the Aristotelian doctrine
of motion.
Further evidence on this point is found in several places within Tycho's author-
ship. Already in his lectures in 1574 he claimed the Earth to be situated at the center
of the Universe, in agreement with God's revealed truth, and so as to be fit for
receiving the influence of the stars [19: I. 152]. According to a letter to Thaddaeus
Hagecius, dated 1589, November 1st, a similar motive makes Tycho advance new
hypotheses enabling the Earth to produce, so to speak, terrestrial stars nicely analo-
gous with the heavenly ones [19: VII. 202-203]. Further arguments of symmetry
and harmony directed against the Copernican system are found in Progymnasmata
[19: II. 435], and they playa central role in a couple of letters dated 1598 April 1st
and 1599 November 29th/December 9th (old and new style) which are worth mention-
ing because of their addressee, Johannes Kepler.
In the former letter Tycho admits that the daily rotation of the Earth appears
quite reasonable [19: VIII. 45-46]. He had perhaps finally realized that against
this special motion he had no real arguments other than those drawing on Aristotle.
Thus he prepares the way for Longomontanus' Semitychonian system [cf. p. 131].
In the other letter Tycho stresses the necessity of retaining uniform circular partial
motions. For otherwise the courses of the heavenly bodies could not be perpetual
nor return to their starting points; and besides that they would destroy eternity
itself. In addition their motions would be less simple, more irregular and not very
fit for theoretical or practical use [19: VIII. 208-209].
Tycho therefore throughout his career adhered faithfully to the principle of
uniform circular motions as integral parts of the said complex of Pythagorean-
Platonic, religious and astrological convictions deeply rooted in the mind of this
great scientist. It seems a paradox that substantially the same complex of convictions,
including until a certain point of time the axiom of uniform circular motions, guided
Kepler's construction of his "elliptical" astronomy, and that the same belief, apart
perhaps [cf. 128: 136] from the astrological elements, had earlier governed Coper-
nicus' restoration of astronomy thus providing the basis of a moving Earth. Of
course every argument drawn from that kind of source is very general and proportion-
ately devoid of concrete scientific contents. Accordingly we need not give a thought
to the possibility of arriving from such arguments at opposite conclusions concern-
ing specific astronomical questions. But to understand why the said arguments
were considered so important we have better search for common basic conditions
for the working on theoretical astronomy in the period between Copernicus and
Kepler, otherwise so rich with innovations.
Thus it must be remembered that all astronomers of the said period not satisfied
by "saving phenomena" only, had to accept the Aristotelian cosmology and doctrine
of motion, or else to make the best they could of what may be called a "vacuum of
dynamics". Descartes and Newton still belonged to the unknown future. Galileo,
towards the end of the period, did establish new and sound kinematical concepts
which were, however, not immediately fit for explaining the causes of heavenly
motions. And Gilbert's De magnete which proposed the heavenly globes to be
loadstones was not published till the year 1600, i. e. one year before Tycho's death.
Gilbert's ideas were utilized by Kepler to explain the planetary motions, so Kepler,
according to Dreyer, made "the first attempt to interpret the mechanism of the solar
system" [126: 394 ff.]. A common feature of most other explanations was their
fundamentally mathematical nature, be it hypotheses regarding the five regular
solids [126: 374 if.], musical consonant intervals [126: 405 if.], or plain number
mysticism [cf. p. 127]. Until the invention of Kepler's elliptical, planetary orbits,
the cornerstone of most theories was the principle of uniform circular partial mo-
tions. This principle was raised above its context within natural philosophy, and
given a new status as a sort of mathematical axiom; i. e. the most divine of all scien-
ces, namely mathematics, was to replace the Aristotelian physics which had shown
itself unable to provide reliable explanations of astronomical phenomena. Thus
astronomers began to hope that their science, mathemata superiorum, might one day
attain a perfection of formulation and accuracy similar to that of Euclidian geom-
etry [cf. Tycho's discussion w:th Petrus Ramus; 19: VI. 88-89; 119: 33-34].
Even these brief considerations suggest profound reasons why Tycho regarded
Ptolemy's equant to be so fatal, why he felt himself congenial with Copernicus in
several respects, and why he - and Copernicus as well - believed to have proved
the truth of their models, although to 20th century minds they have only demon-
strated them to be mathematically and phenomenologically possible. Whatever
Tycho's attitude towards Copernicus at various stages of his career, it is true that
attention should be paid to every single occurrence of Copernicus' name in Tycho's
work. The science of astronomy made progress through Tycho's accepting, and
through his rejecting Copernican ideas.
HANS BLUMENBERG
Westfiilische Wilhelms-Universitiit,
MUnster
DIE KOPERNIKANISCHE KONSEQUENZ FOR DEN ZEITBEGRIFF
I.
Als fast schon unbestreitbarer Typos der Wissenschaftsgeschichte gilt die Be-
hauptung, dass Kopernikus fUr die Vedinderung des Raumbegriffes der Neuzeit
eine entscheidende Rolle gespielt hat. Der absolute unendliche Raum Newtons
erscheint aIs die deutliche Konsequenz der Ausweitung des kosmischen Raumes,
die infoIge der kopernikanischen Voraussetzungen vorgenommen werden musste.
Ebenso deutlich ist die kritische Riickbildung dieser Konsequenz auf dem Umweg
iiber die Idealisierung des Raumes seit Leibniz.
Meine These ist nun, dass auch die fUr die Neuzeit charakteristische Verschar-
fung der Problematik der Zeit ohne die Veranderung nicht begriffen werden kann,
die Kopernikus am Weltmodell vorgenommen hatte. Die Problematik der Zeit
ist freilich weniger spektakular, weniger affektiv wirksam aIs die des Raumes;
das mag erklaren, dass die kopernikanische Konsequenz fUr den Zeitbegriff bisher
nicht dargestellt worden ist.
Man muss bei dieser Thematik freilich methodisch vorsichtig genug sein hinsicht-
Iich dessen, was wir aIs historische "Wirkung" behaupten konnen. Denn schon die
blosse Moglichkeit der kopernikanischen Reform beruht auf bestimmten Veran-
derungen im scholastischen System hinsichtlich des Zeitbegriffs, die fUr den Raum-
begriff nicht gefordert zu werden brauchen, weil es sich hier zunachst nur urn not-
wendige quantitative Veranderungen handelte. Gerade weil ich im Folgenden zeigen
muss, dass die antiken Implikationen des Zeitbegriffs fUr die kopernikanische Re-
form keinen Spielraum enthalten hatten, wird es entscheidend, schon in der Be-
wegung des mittelaIterIichen Denkens bestimmte Erweiterungen, Variabilitaten
des Zeitbegriffes aufzuweisen, ohne die der kopernikanische Grundgedanke nicht
durchfiihrbar oder auch nicht zu verteidigen gewesen ware. Denn genau dies ist
die Frage, in deren Zusammenhang iiberhaupt das Zeitproblem aufgeworfen werden
kann: nicht wie Kopernikus auf den Gedanken der strukturellen Reform des PIa-
netensystems kommen konnte, sondern wie der astronomisch zwingende Gedanke
58 Hans Blumenberg
dieser Reform unter den Voraussetzungen der zeitgenossischen Vorstellungen yom

Ganzen der Welt zu behaupten und durchzusetzen war. Unter diesem Gesichts-
punkt erscheint das, was man als "Wirkung" der kopernikanischen Reform behaupten
mochte, nur als der letzte Schritt der Konsequenz ihrer Voraussetzungen. Flir
Kopernikus war es nicht notig, den Gedanken des absoluten Raumes und der abso-
luten Zeit seinem System zu integrieren; aber ohne ein gewisses Mass an Vedinde-
rungen der antiken und hochscholastischen Positionen hinsichtlich dieses Problems
in Richtung auf Newtons absolute Begriffe ware die kopernikanische Reform nicht
durchsetzbar gewesen. Der theoretische Erfolg des neuen Systems treibt den in
ihm schon vorausgesetzten Prozess voran, bestatigt ihn, bringt ihn zur vollen Expli-
zitat. Darin besteht das, was "Wirkung" genannt werden darf.
Hier nun is est wichtig zu beobachten, wie spat Kopernikus ausdrucklich der
Vorwurf gemacht worden ist, er habe bei seiner astronomischen Reform auf die Fra-
ge nach der kosmologisch-naturphilosophischen Moglichkeit keine Rlicksicht genom-
men. Zweifellos schwelt diese Frage in den meisten Reaktionen auf das Werk des
Kopernikus, ohne dass sie zureichend hatte artikuliert werden konnen. Das mag
daran liegen, dass die Leser des Kopernikus im 16. und teilweise noch im 17. Jahr-
hundert keinen ganz bestimmten Eindruck von dem Wahrheitsanspruch des Autors
und seines Werkes hatten, weil dieser durch das illegitime Vorwort des Osiander,
das die Leser dazu aufforderte, das neue Modell als rein technische HiIfskonstruk-
tion des astronomischen Kalkiils zu betrachten, eingeschrankt oder aufgehoben
erschien. Kopernikus hatte diese Vorrede des Osiander nicht gebiIligt, weil er den
Wahrheitsanspruch seines Werkes nicht nur flir astronomisch ausreichend begriin-
det, sondern auch fUr integrierbar in das naturphilosophische System hielt, das
ihm vertraut war. Aber gerade diese Integrierbarkeit war durch sehr sparsame
Mittel hergestellt und flir den nicht sehr griindlichen Leser nur schwer erkennbar
angelegt. So konnte noch zu Beginn des folgenden Jahrhunderts Francis Bacon
nicht ohne Berechtigung den Vorwurf gegen Kopernikus erheben, er habe sich urn
die naturphilosophische Moglichkeit seiner Reform nicht gekummert. Eine fluchtige
Lektiire der Revolutiones scheint Bacon Recht zu geben. Der Nachweis, dass Ko-
pernikus zwar sparsam, aber doch sehr sorgfaltig auf naturphilosophische System-
elemente Rucksicht genommen hat, solI hier flir das spezielle Problem des Zeitbe-
griffs geflihrt werden. Dazu ist allerdings vor allem darzustellen, dass das Zeit-
problem flir die kopernikanische Veranderung des Weltsystems uberhaupt Bedeu-
tung hatte, denn eben dies liegt nicht ohne wei teres auf der Hand.
Nun kann man einwenden, flir Kopernikus und die ihm vertraute Tradition
habe sich der Begriff der Astronomie gerade dadurch definiert, dass sie naturphiIo-
sophische Fragestellungen nicht nur aufwerfen oder beriicksichtigen konnte,
sondern dies nicht einmal durfte. Denn die Astronomie der Tradition seit der
Antike war eben keine physikalische Disziplin, die Fragen nach der Kausalitat,
der Realitat des Raumes und der Zeit, der tatsachlichen Beschaffenheit der Gestirne
und ihrer Spharen, den tatsachlichen Entfernungen und Grossen zu kIaren hatte,
Kopernikanische Konsequenz Jur den ZeitbegriJ! 59
sondern die ausschliesslich der phoronomischen Darstellung und Berechnung der

am Himmel erscheinenden Phanomene diente. Physik im Sinne dieser Tradition galt
also nur im Bereich unterhalb der Sphare des Mondes. Die Erde war kein Stern,
so Hisst sich dieser Sachverhalt auch formulieren.
Aber die derart beschriebene Sonderstellung der Astronomie und ihrer Metho-
dik - oder auch der Erde und der in ihrer Region geltenden Physik - war in dem
Augenblick nicht mehr durchzuhalten, in dem Kopernikus die Erde selbst zu einem
Himmelskorper und damit zum Thema der Astronomie - und umgekehrt die
anderen Himmelskorper potentieU zum Gegenstand der bisherigen Physik - machte.
Dies war ja einer der Griinde dafUr, dass die Zeitgenossen im Werk des Kopernikus
die ErfUllung des Ideals der Pythagoreer sahen, die bereits die Erde als Stern unter
Sternen bezeichnet hatten. Das war nicht nur eine Formel fUr eine neue Wiirde, die
schon Nikolaus von Cues als Nobilitierung verstanden hatte, sondern auch eine
Veriinderung der theoretischen Situation. Wenn die Erde ein Stern unter Sternen
war, mussten sich generelle und austauschbare Aussagen in diesem neuen homo-
genen Gegenstandsuniversum machen lassen. Die Astronomie konnte fortan nicht
so tun, als liesse sich von dem kosmischen Reich der Gestirne nichts mehr als das
wissen, was sich dem Auge des Beobachters in Gestalt von bewegten Lichtpunkten,
wie eine Kulisse vor einer undurchdringlichen Wirklichkeit, darbietet, und als
brauche sie fUr die Stringenz ihrer Erkenntnisse von den moglichen realen Verhiilt-
nissen hinter dieser Kulisse nicht Notiz zu nehmen. Die Erhebung der Erde zum
Stern in der kopernikanischen Reform stellte prinzipiell das methodische Werkzeug
der Extrapolation zur VerfUgung. Es war freilich in Vergessenheit geraten, dass die
Unuberschreitbarkeit der Grenzen der irdischen Physik urspriinglich als ein Mangel
empfunden worden war; wie so oft hatte sich der Mangel der methodischen Moglich-
keit im Laufe der Zeit in einen Kanon der sachlichen Unzuliissigkeit transformiert.
Nun hat sich Kopernikus erkennbar daran gehalten, den Kanon der traditionellen
astronomischen Disziplin moglichst nicht zu verletzen. Mit diesem Bestreben hangt
zusammen, dass er sein eigenes Hauptwerk mit dem klassischen Standardwerk des
Ptolemiius streng zu parallelisieren suchte. Gerade deshalb diskutiert Kopernikus
nicht ausdriicklich die naturphilosophischen Moglichkeiten seiner astronomischen
Konstruktion, soweit dies ausserhalb der Argumentation liegt, die Ptolemiius ihm
vorgegeben hatte. Aber selbstverstandlich musste er bei seinen Lesern - vielleicht
weniger bei den Fachgenossen als bei den allgemeiner Interessierten - mit einer
Priifung seiner Thesen unter Gesichtspunkten des geltenden scholastischen Systems
der Naturphilosophie rechnen. Diese beiden Voraussetzungen bestimmen die Eigen-
art seiner Interpretation. Innerhalb des kanonischen Rahmens argumentiert er
zugunsten der drei von ihm behaupteten Bewegungen der Erde so, dass diese we-
nigstens den moglichen Einwiinden entzogen werden, wenn nicht gar zusatzliche
Begiinstigung und Plausibilitiit erhalten.
Zu diesem Argumentationskonzept gehort vor allem, dass die der Erde zugeschrie-
benen Bewegungen eben die Funktionen iibernehmen konnen, die in dem tradi-
60 Hans Blumenberg
tionellen System der Naturphilosopbie durch die jetzt als scheinbar erkHirten Be-
wegungsphiinomene des Himmels realisiert worden waren. Nun steht aber gerade
die Tagesumdrehung des Fixstemhimmels, die jetzt zum phiinomenalen Aquivalent
einer realen Achsendrehung der Erde erkHirt worden war, fUr die naturpbilosopbische
Tradition seit der Antike im engsten Zusammenhang mit dem Problem der Fun-
dierung von RealiHit und Messbarkeit der Zeit.
II.
Wenn die Achsendrehung der Erde die scheinbare Tagesbewegung des Fixstem-
himmels zu verantworten hatte, dann bestand die am schwersten wiegende Konse-
quenz dieses Funktionstausches der extremen kosmischen Instanzen des aristo-
telisch-scholastischen Systems darin, dass die Erde zu fibemehmen hatte, wofUr
sie in der TradItion als am wenigsten disponiert erschienen war, namlich die schnellste
und gleichformigste kosmische Bewegung, die den Erfordemissen der Manifestation
der Zeit und ihrer Messung zu gentigen hatte.
Unter keinem anderen Aspekt wird die Radikalitlit der kopemikanischen Re-
form so handgreiflich wie unter dem des Problems der Zeit. Unter keinem anderen
Gesichtspunkt wird so deutlich, weshalb die Erde Stem unter Stemen nicht nur
werden durfte, sondem notwendig werden musste. Und diese Notwendigkeit ist
es, die uns bestimmte argumentative Anstrengungen und Formulierungen des Ko-
pemikus, die sonst eher ornamental wirken, sachlich erst verstehen lassen. Dazu
gehOren vor allem die Aussagen tiber die Aquivalenz der Gestalt der Welt im ganzen
(forma mundi) und des Erdkorpers (figura terrae), mit denen sich zwei eigene Kapitel
im ersten Buch der Revolutiones beschliftigen. Damit die Erde die Funktion der Re-
alisierung der Zeit fibemehmen kann, die sie doch notwendigerweise unter der Vor-
aussetzung der aristotelisch-scholastischen Definition tibemehmen muss, hat sie
den von Aristoteles fUr den ersten Himmel aufgestellten Bedingungen der unmog-
lichen Abweichung von der Gleichformigkeit in anderer Weise zu genfigen. Eben
darauf besteht Kopemikus durch die Behauptung der Aquivalenz der beiden Ge-
stalten als der Voraussetzung fUr die Austauschbarkeit ihrer Funktionen. Die Erde
musste ein Stem im traditioriellen Sinne werden, damit sie im neuen System das
leisten kann, was in dem altern nur den Himmelskorpem, oder sogar nur einem
von diesen, zugetraut werden konnte - in der "Metaphysik" des Aristoteles noch
nicht einmal dem Himmelskorper ohne die metaphysisch erweisbare Antriebslei-
stung des unbewegten Bewegers.
Es besagt also wenig, wenn wir von dem, was man den "Zeitbegriff" des Ko-
pernikus nennen konnte, fast nichts wissen. Entscheidend ist, dass Kopemikus
binsichtlich dieses Begriffs unter den neuen Voraussetzungen auf die alten Erfor-
dernisse erkennbar Rficksicht nimmt.
1m Prooemium zum zweiten Buch der Revolutiones gibt es wenigstens eine
Andeutung zum Zeitbegriff des Kopernikus. Er restimiert bier die im ersten Buch
Kopernikanische Konsequenz fur den Zeitbegrijf 61
vorgelegte Argumentation zugunsten einer dreifachen Bewegung der Erde und

kiindigt an, nun im einzelnen zu zeigen, wie diese Bewegungen die Erscheinungen am
Himmel erklaren. Dabei sei mit dem zu beginnen, was am deutlichsten in die Sinne
fiilIt und den hOchsten Grad von Offentlichkeit hat, mit der Tag-Nacht-Umdre-
hung (notissima omnium diurni nocturnique temporis revolutione). Dieses sei die
Bewengung, die dem Erdkorper hauptsachlich und unmittelbar zukomme (maxime
ac sine medio appropriatam). Diese Formulierung ist von besonderer Bedeutung,
denn sie besagt einmal, dass die Tagesrotation der Erde wesentlich und naturgemass
zukornme, und sie besagt als Folgerung daraus zum anderen, dass sie ihr unmittelbar
und ohne sekundare Faktoren zukomme. Das wird sich als Bestatigung der Uber-
legungen erweisen, die im ersten Buch im Zusamrnenhang mit der Kugelgestalt
der Erde angestellt worden waren. Die Formulierung kann nur bedeuten, dass -
im Gegensatz zur Jahresbewegung urn die Sonne und zur Stabilisierungsdrehung
der Achse in der Ekliptik - die Tagesrotation der Erde mit dem Ubertragungssys!em
der Bewegungskrafte im traditionellen Universum nichts zu tun hat. Fiir die Ta-
gesdrehung der Erde gilt nicht, dass sie, wie die Umlaufe der Planeten, der Sonne
und des Mondes urn das WeItzentrum im aristotelischen Modell letzlich durch die
Umdrehung der ersten Sphare in absteigender Kausalitat bewirkt wird. Die Tages-
bewegung der Erde wird also gesehen als ein in dem traditionellen Gesamtsystem
nicht vorkommendes und daher auch nicht begriindetes Spezifikum der Erde. Diese
Bewegung ist nicht gewaltsam, sondern natiirlich; das ist die wichtigste Vorausset-
zung dafUr, dass sie gleichformig und unveranderlich und damit ein Garant fUr
die Produktion des zeitbegriindenden Phiinomens der Fixsternbewegung sein kann.
Entsprechend wird der Begriff der Zeit ausschliesslich von dieser Tagesbewegung
abgeleitet, und zwar nach Analogie des Verhiiltnisses von Einheit und Zahl. Die
Zusarnmenfassung grosserer Einheiten zu Monaten, Jahren und anderen Komplexen
wird ausdriicklich als eine nominelle Operation angesehen, wahrend die reelle
Einheit der Zeitbestimmung weder im Sonnen tag noch im Mondmonat oder im
Sonnenjahr steckt, sondern ausschliesslich im Sternentag: quoniam ab ipsa menses,
anni et alia tempora multis nominibus exurgunt, tanquam ab unitate numerus. Es ist
fUr Kopernikus an dieser Stelle entscheidend, dass er unter den von ihm vedi.nderten
konstruktiven Voraussetzungen des Weltmodells die Versicherung geben kann, fUr
das Problem der Zeit bedeute dies keine radikale Neuerung. Bei volliger Aquiva-
lenz der Bedingungen habe es nichts auf sich, ob jemand mit der ruhenden Erde
und der kreisenden Sphare arbeite oder, wie er selbst, mit der umgekehrten Konzep-
tion: Nihilque refert, si quod illi per quietam terram, et mundi vertiginem demon-
strant, hoc nos ex opposito suscipientes ad eandem concurramus metam: quoniam in
his, quae ad invicem sunt, ita contingit, ut vicissim sibi ipsis consentiant. Man sieht
wie Kopernikus eine der wesentlichen naturphilosophischen Fragen behandelt,
die er selbst nicht ausdriicklich stellt, die aber von ibm bei der Verteidigung seines
Systems gewartigt werden musste. Und genau bei der hier eingefUhrten Aquiva-
lenzthese muss man ansetzen,· urn die Schwierigkeiten zu versteben, die im Vorwurf
62 Hans Blumenberg
der mangelnden naturphilosophischen Riicksicht stecken und die unausbleiblich

gerade beim Begriff der Zeit zu schwerwiegenden Konsequenzen innerhalb der
Neuzeit gefUhrt haben.
Vom Prooemium des zweiten Buches her wird der argumentative Zusammenhang
durchsichtig, in welchem sich Kopernikus veranlasst gesehen hatte, das erste Buch
seiner Revolutiones mit der Erorterung der Frage zu beginnen, welche Form der
Kosmos im ganzen einerseits und die Erde im besonderen andererseits haben, und
fUr beide die Vollkommenheit der KugelgestaIt zu behaupten.
Man darf nicht verges sen, dass bei Aristoteles der Erdkorper sich gerade deshalb
in der absoluten Ruhelage befindet, weil die Kugelgestalt der Erde das Resultat
ihrer Lage in der Weltmitte ist l . Die Kugelgestalt ergab sieh bei Aristoteles "bei-
laufig" aus der Tendenz des Elementes Erde zur Weltmitte hin. Da die punktuelIe
Weltmitte nicht von allen Teilen des Elements Erde auch erreicht werden kann, er-
gibt sieh eine stabile Indifferenz aller von der Mitte gleichermassen entfernten Parti-
kel zu ihrem naturlichen Ort. Die Gleichmassigkeit der Umlagerung des einen Mit-
telpunktes verburgt die Ruhelage des Ganzen. Fur Aristoteles war die Kugelgestal
der Erde das Resultat eines Prozesses, in welchem dieser zwar faktisch, aber nicht
ideal abgeschlossen war, denn ideal ware nur die Lokalisierung alIer Erdmaterie im
Weltmittelpunkt, also die Absurditat des Aufgehens der Kugel in einem Punkt.
Die Kugelform war das Stillhalten des Prozesses dort, wo er physisch deshalb nich
weitergehen kann, weil es mehr Erdmaterie als "natiirlichen Ort" fUr sie gibt. In der
Pariser Occamisten-Schule des 14. Jahrhunderts fUhrt dieselbe Pramisse zu der
These einer Unruhe des Erdkorpers, als einem standig vibrierenden Ausgleich kleiner
Ungleichgewichte. Diese Art von "Bewegung" der Erde hat mit einer Vorbereitung
des Kopernikanismus nicht das Geringste zu tun.
1m Vergleich zu der aristotelischen Vorstellung von der Kugelgestalt der Erde
muss der Ausgangspunkt der Erorterung des Kopernikus eher platonisch genannt
werden, obwohl die Tradition von der essentielIen Selbstbewegung der Kugel aus
der Atomistik und deren Lehre von der KugelfOrmigkeit der Feueratome - und damit
der Bestandteile der Seele - bei Demokrit stammt. In der Atomistik mussten zuerst
aIle physischen Eigenschaften der Elementarkorper aus ihren geometrischen Gestalten
abgeleitet werden: die Disposition der Kugel zur leichtesten Beweglichkeit geht in
ihrem Grenzwert iiber in die Selbstbewegung. Daran erinnert noch in der Sprache
des Kopernikus die standige Wen dung von der mobilitas terrae, in der schon sprach-
lich die Bedeutungen von Beweglichkeit und Bewegtheit erkennbar ineinander
iibergehen sollen.
Kopernikus demonstriert mit der Behandlung der Erdgestalt in einem astrono-
mischen Traktat, dass er nicht mehr Astronomie im traditionelIen Sinne betreiben
kann, denn fUr die astronomische Tradition war die Erde gerade nicht Gegenstand
ihrer Theorie; sie war niehts als der fUr sich genommen irrelevante Nullpunkt eines
1 De cae/o II 14; 297a 30-297b 14.

Kopernikanische Konsequenz Jiir den Zeitbegriff 63
Bezugssystems. Die These von ihrem Stillstand im Mittelpunkt der Welt bedeutete
nur ihre Neutralisierung fUr die phoronomische Theorie. Indem Kopernikus die
Erde mit der blossen Thematisierung ihrer Gestalt zum Himmelskorper qualifiziert,
hat er das engere Argumentationsziel am Anfang seines Werkes noch nicht erreicht.
Dieses besteht darin, den Vorrang der Himmelssphare im Hinblick auf das Pradikat
der Bewegung aufzuheben und die Entscheidung, ob die Tagesbewegung jener
letzten Sphare oder der Erde real zugeschrieben werden muss, fUr eine konstruktive
BeweisfUhrung im weiteren Verlauf des Werkes offen zu halten, oder besser:
allererst zu offnen.
Dass Kopernikus mit seiner Argumentation aus der Aquivalenz von Kugelform
der Welt und der Erde tiber die Indifferenz der ausstehenden Entscheidbarkeit
hinsichtlich des Pradikats der Bewegung nicht hinaus kommt, liegt gerade daran,
dass er den nachsten Schritt nicht getan hat oder tun konnte, der sich aus der Pha-
nomenalisierung der Himmelsbewegung ergeben hatte. Dieser Schritt konnte nur
darin bestehen, nach dem Schein der Bewegung auch den Schein der Kugelgestalt
der aussersten Sphare zu entdecken. Aber mit der Aufiosung der festen Sphare
des Fixsternhimmels sollte in der kopernikanischen Konsequenz erst Thomas
Digges beginnen. Dieser weitere perspektivische Schritt hatte in der Argumentation
tiber die Aquivalenz schon hinausgeflihrt, aber zugleich zu weit yom Kanon des
Ptolemaus entfernt. Solange freilich auch der Fixsternhimmel seine reale Kugel-
gestalt behielt, wurde das Argument aus der Kugelgestallt der Erde neutralisiert.
So bleibt die mobilitas terrae eine blosse naturphilosophische Schutzbehauptung
in einem theoretischen Selbstverstandnis, das immer nur mit dem kleinsten Schritt
der Entfernung von der Tradition auszukommen sucht. Noch der fruhe Galilei
arbeitet mit diesem Prinzip der kleinsten moglichen Distanzierung von der Tradi-
tion, indem er die kosmologische Problematik auf die Tagesrotation der Erde be-
schrankt sieht. Dann aber ware die weiterhin im Mittelpunkt der Welt befindliche,
nun aber als rotierend gedachte Erdkugel der ideale Ausgangspunkt fUr den ersten
Schritt in Richtung auf den Kopernikanismus. Diese Kugel brauchte wegen ihrer
vollkommenen Indifferenz gegen jede mogliche Bewegung nur als einmal in Be-
wegung versetzt gedacht zu werden, urn die Dauer dieser Bewegung annehmen zu
konnen. Schaltet man die gesamte aristotelische Elementenlehre aus, so ware die
ideale Kugel im Weltmittelpunkt resistent gegen aIle Anderungen ihrer Zustande,
auch wenn ihr faktischer Zustand der der Bewegung ware. Die Voraussetzung, dass
die Erdkugel auch in einem Bewegungszustand verharren kann, dann aber doch
einmal in Bewegung versetzt worden sein muss, lasst sich im Gegensatz zum Aristo-
telismus im christlichen Sprachraum unwidersprochen einftihren; flir den Aristo-
teliker ware hier geradezu eine Sperre eingebaut gewesen. Galileis Abhand-
lung tiber die Kreisbewegung aus der Pisaner Zeit enthalt yom Kopernikanismus
also nur das Minimum unter Auslassung seiner heliozentrischen Hauptthese, mit
der zur Achsenrotation die Bahnbewegung um die Sonne hinzukommen muss.
Man sieht, dass diese beiden Schritte so lange einander ausschliessen als das Behar-
64 Hans Blumenberg
rungsprinzip nich iiber die Ableitung aus der Indifferenz der Mittelpunktlage hin-
aus entwickelt ist 2 •
Nun sagt sich dies leicht, im christlichen Sprachraum lasse sich die Bewegung
der Erdkugel im Mittelpunkt des Weltalls unwidersprochen einfiihren, wei! eia
Anfang hier ohnehin angenommen werden muss. 1m Zusammenhang mit dieser
friihen Form des Tragheitsprinzips, angewendet auf die Beharrung eines an seinem
"natiirlichen Ort" kreisenden Kugelkorpers, lassen sich die Schwierigkeiten freilich
umgehen, die sich aus der Fortgeltung der aristoteIischen Physik und Metaphysik
ergeben mussten. Denn diese Kreisbewegung bedarf nach ihrer einmaIigen Auslo-
sung am Anfang der Welt keiner weiteren Kausalitat, also nicht des Systems der
Ubertragung von Bewegung innerhalb des Kosmos durch Beriihrung der Sphiiren
oder durch Beseelung der Spharenkorper, das der Aristotelismus geschaffen hatte
und innerhalb dessen Fernwirkungen ausgeschlossen waren.
Das kopernikanische System hat seine Schwierigkeit eben darin, dass es weit
von der aussersten Sphiire entfernt in der Nahe des Weltzentrums das Hochstmass
an Bewegung erfordert, also in der weitesten Entfernung von der im scholastischen
System angenommenen hochsten Kausalitat der Bewegung. Wir konnen nicht
davon ausgehen, dass Kopernikus denselben Weg zu seiner Theorie gefunden hatte,
den Galilei zum Kopernikanismus einschlagen sollte, namlich den von einer Achsen-
drehung der Erde im Mittelpunkt des Weltalls. Alles deutet vielmehr darauf hin,
dass Kopernikus zuerst die Jahresbewegung urn die Sonne gefunden hat, indem er
das zunachst angenommene System einer Kreisbewegung des Merkur and der Venus
urn die Sonne derart erweiterte, dass er auch die Erde und die anderen Planeten urn
die Sonne kreisen liess 3 • Die Tagesbewegung konnte in cliesem theoretischen Prozess
die sekundare Annahme sein, die sich freilich nach cler einmal durchbrochenen
Blockade gegen eine Bewegung der Erde iiberhaupt nahelegte. Die Darstellungsfolge
in den Revolutiones muss also keineswegs die Genesis der Theorie widerspiegeln.
Lichtenberg hat sogar versucht, noch einen anderen Weg fUr Kopernikus nachzu-
weisen, auf dem cler erste Schritt die Entdeckung der unermesslichen Grosse des
Universums gewesen ware und die Annahme cler Tagesrotation erst die Folgerung
aus der angenommenen Unermesslichkeit, weil fUr den immensen Spharenkorper
des Fixsternhimmels die Rotation unwahrscheinlich orde gar widerspruchsvoll
2 E. Wohlwill, Die Entdeckung des Beharrungsgesetzes, [in:] "Zeitschrift fUr VOlkerpsycho-
logie und Sprachwissenschaft" XV, 1884, 81-83. Diesen Stand der kosmologischen Reformation,
die Tagesrotation der Erde im Zentralpunkt, hatte Celio Calcagnini in Ferrara schon urn 1520
erreicht. Aber der Ubergang von der geozentrischen zur heliozentrischen Konstruktion wird durch
diesen "Fortschritt" geradezu behindert, solange die Annahme der Beharrung in der Rotation an
die der Mittelpunktlage gekoppelt bleibt, also Rotation Revolution auschliesst. Es ist daher ausserst
wichtig zu sehen, dass Kopernikus seinen Weg gerade nicht primar tiber die Losung der Frage
der Tagesbewegung genommen hat.
3 Diese These habe ich zuerst ausgesprochen und begrtindet in Kopernikus im Selbstverstlindnis
der Neuzeit (Abh. d. Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Mainz, Geistes- und sozial-
wiss. Kl., Jg. 1964, Nr. 5, 355 Anm.).
Kopernikanische Konsequenz fiir den ZeitbegriJf 65
erschien 4 • Tatsachlich aber muss urngekehrt gesagt werden, dass die Annahme der
Unermesslichkeit des Universurns fUr Kopernikus erst eine Folgerung aus der
Erprobung des primaren Schrittes zur Jahresbewegung urn die Sonne gewesen
ist, weil dieser Schritt ihn in die Verlegenheit brachte, keine paraIIaktischen Erschei-
nungen am Fixsternhirnmel vorweisen zu konnen, die sich doch aus der Grosse
der Jahresbahn urn die Sonne hatten ergeben mussen - es sei denn, man musste
der Fixsternsphare eine bis dahin unvermutete, ungeahnte und erschreckende
Grosse zusprechen.
Man kann sagen, dass der Weg, der GaIiIei zum Kopernikanismus fUhrte, in
seinem ersten Schritt am ehesten die aristotelischen Pramissen festzuhalten sucht.
Fur Kopernikus kann das nicht in gleicher Weise gelten. Die Kugelgestalt der
Erde ist fUr ihn nicht Ausdruck der Indifferenz ihrer Teile irn Verhaltnis zum Welt-
mittelpunkt und Weltschwerpunkt. Der Nachdruck, den Kopernikus auf die Vo/l-
kommenheit der Kugelgestalt der Erde in Aquivalenz zu der des aussersten Himmels
legt, scheint auf einen platonischen und teleologischen Hintergrund hinzudeuten.
Die Kugelgestalt ist ein Sachverhalt, der sieh so teleologisch interpretieren lasst,
dass dieser Korper die Bewegung ausfUhrt, fUr die ihn seine Form disponiert. Be-
wegung und Ruhe sind hier nieht, wie sie es bei Galilei sein werden, aquivalent.
Schon Plato hatte im Timaios der Erde eine Bewegung urn die Weltachse zugeschrie-
ben, obwohl er mit dieser Bewegung kosmologisch gar nichts anzufangen weiss,
4 Nach der Aufzeichnung von Gottlieb Gamauf (Erinnerungen aus Lichtenbergs Vorlesungen
iiber Astronomie, Wien und Triest 1814,94-97) hat Lichtenberg die Folge der Oberlegungen des Ko-
pemikus folgendermassen dargestellt: "Copernicus ging in Ansehung der Bewegung der Erde, so-
wohl urn ihre Axe als urn die Sonne, von einem der grossten und ktihnsten Gedanken aus, den der
Mensch je gewagt hat, von dem Gedanken: nicht bloss der Halbmesser unserer Erdkugel, sondem
auch die Distanz derselben von dem Mittelpunkt der Welt - in welchen er nachher die Sonne leg-
te - sey in Vergleichung mit der Distanz der Fixsterne ein unmerklicher Punkt, ein blosses Nichts".
Kopemikus sei zu dieser Annahme durch die elementare Tatsache gekornmen, dass der Horizont
flir jeden Beobachter die Sphare genau halbiert, was nur daraus resultieren konne, dass die Grosse
der Erde die eines blossen Punktes sei. "Nun dachte er weiter: Sollten wohl aile die grossen Him-
melskorper sich urn den einzigen unbedeutenden Punkt unserer Erde herumdrehen; sollte dies
vollends mit der ungeheuren Himmelskugel jede 24 Stunden einmahl geschehen? Dass die tiigliche
Bewegung bIos scheinbar sey und durch die Umdrehung der Erde urn ihre Axe bewirkt werde, drang
sich ihm so gleich unwiderstehlich auf; und bald geschah es auch so mit der jiihrlichen Bewegung".
Hier erst liisst Lichtenberg die Erwiigung Platz greifen, dass die Bahnen von Merkur und Venus
monstrose Schwierigkeiten bereiten, wenn man sie tiber oder unter der Sonnenbahn ansetzt, statt
sie urn die Sonne kreisen zu lassen. "Das that er denn. Eben so liess er femer Mars, Jupiter und
Satum gleichfalls urn die Sonne als den Mittelpunkt ihrer Bahnen laufen". Bis hierher hat Lichten-
berg das regressive System des Tycho Brahe als Vorstufe des kopernikanischen Endausbaus rekon-
struiert, wohl indem er Kopernikus die Hauptsorge des diinischen Astronomen unterstellt, niimlich
an der geozentrischen Struktur urn jeden Preis festzuhalten. Nur das Argernis des leeren Raumes,
der bei dieser Konstruktion zwischen den Bahnen von Venus und Mars bleibt, soli zum letzten Schritt
geflihrt haben, in diesen Raurn die Bahn der Erde urn die Sonne zu legen. "Und so stand dem nun
sein herrliches Gebiiude syrnmetrisch und ordnungsvoll da und wird da stehen bis an das Ende
der Zeiten".
5- The reception ...

66 Hans Blumenberg
wie sich daraus ergibt, dass er sie durch eine Ausgleichsbewegung des Fixsternhim-
mels phlinomenal wieder aufzuheben gezwungen ist. Die Erde muss sich drehen,
weil sie Kugelgestalt besitzt. So weit ist Kopernikus nicht gegangen, aber eine Dispo-
sition zur Drehung urn sich selbst ist fUr ihn mit der Kugelgestalt gegeben. Weiter
konnte er eben deshalb nicht gehen, weil er sonst den Stillstand der ebenso kugel-
fOrmigen Fixsternsphare nicht hlitte verteidigen konnen.
III.
FUr die Wissenschaftsgeschichte mag die Herkunft eines bestimmten gedankli-

chen Elements - noch dazu, wenn es nicht zur Begriindung einer Theorie, sondern
zu deren Abschirmung dient - von keinem oder geringem Interesse sein. Hier sollte
man aber bedenken, dass das, was die Leistung der Abschirmung zu erbringen
hatte, im Horizont seiner Herkunft zugleich auch die Antwort auf die Frage nach
seiner Wirksamkeit enthlilt. Denn nur wenn der abschirmende Gedanke den Zeitge-
nossen nicht zu abwegig und zu abgelegen erscheint, kann er leisten, was er leisten
solI und was allemal ein gewisses Mass an Plausibilitat fUr ein Publikum voraussetzt.
Hier ist es nicht wichtig, was und woher der Autor gefunden und aufgenommen hat,
sondern was er hinsichtlich seiner Adressaten an reellen und vermeintlichen Voraus-
setzungen und Evidenzen erwarten darf. Dies ist zwar noch keine Wirkungsgeschichte,
aber deren unmhtelbare Vorfrage: die Besetzung des Wirkungsfeldes mit potentiellen
Plausibilitaten. Betrachtet man die Absichten eines Autors und die Funktion der
von ihm aufgenommenen und eingesetzten Materialien so, dann wird man auch
nicht leicht geneigt sein, die Provenienz dieser Materialien als Indiz fUr Einfluss-
verhaltnisse zu nehmen und auf breiter gelagerte Substrate zu schliessen. Wie pla-
tonisch zum Beispiel das Element der vollkommenen Kugel bei Kopernikus auch
immer erscheinen mag, auf einen Platonismus in den Voraussetzungen seiner Theorie
lasst es keinen Schluss zu. Was Kopernikus zur Abschirmung seiner Theorie ver-
wendet hat, lasst sich nicht gleichsetzen mit dem, was ihn zu dieser Theorie moti-
viert, in ihrer Behauptung bestarkt und zu ihrer Integration in einen tibergeord-
neten Zusammenhang von Einstellungen und Wertungen disponiert hat.
Es sagt also noch nichts iiber Einfliisse und dogmatische Dominanz, wenn im
Zusammenhang mit der vollkommenen Kugel darauf hinzuweisen ist, dass Koper-
nikus die Lehre von der hochsten Mobilitat der genauen Kugelgestalt bei Nikolaus
von Cues gefunden haben kann. D. Mahnke, L. A. Birkenmajer und R. Klibansky
haben faktische, wahrscheinliche und mogliche Kontakte des Kopernikus mit dem
Werk des Cusaners aufgedeckt. Als Vermittlung kommt auch das Werk des Carolus
Bovillus in Frage, das in einem mit authentischen Marginalien versehenen Exemplar
aus der Bibliothek des Kopernikus in Uppsala erhalten ist.
EinschHigig fUr die These von der Beweglichkeit der vollkommenen Kugel ist
vor allem der erste der beiden Dialoge De ludo globi. Hier ist die Rede von einer
Art K ugelspiel, dessen Kugel infolge einer konkaven Asymmetrie auf einer gekriimm-
Kopernikanische Konsequenz fiir den Zeitbegrijf 67
ten Bahn geworfen werden kann. Dieses Spielinstrument fUhrt die Diskussion
auf das Problem der absolut genauen Kugelgestalt. 1m platonischen Sinne wird
dabei behauptet, dass die geometrisch genaue Kugel uberhaupt nicht materielle
Erscheinung annehmen kann. Die Begrundung fUr diese Behauptung liegt nicht
auf der Linie der platonischen Tradition. Wenn auch die Rundung jedes realen·
Korpers genauer als gegeben vorgestellt und gemacht werden kann, so ware der
unerreichbare Extremwert dieser Steigerung doch gerade nicht der volIkommene,
aber nicht mehr reale Korper, sondern der Widerspruch eines zwar realen, aber
nicht mehr erfahrbaren Korpers. Die Aufhebung der Sichtbarkeit ergibt sich da-
raus, dass die vollkommene Kugel von Geraden oder Ebenen nur noch in einem
Punkte beruhrt werden kann, dass ihre extremitas rotundi mit dem Punkt auf der
Kugeloberflache identisch wird, eine Flache aber nicht aus Punkten konstituiert
gedacht werden kann: Nam rotunditas, quae rotundior esse non posset, nequaquam
est visibilis ... non enim rotunditas ex punctis potest esse composita. Das Rezept des
Cusaners ist hier wie sonst deutlich erkennbar: die Steigerung einer Eigenschaft
zu absoluter Reinheit transzendiert die physische Gegenstandlichkeit nicht in der
Weise des platonischen Chorismos, sondern durch Sprengung des Gegenstandes,
an dem sie imaginativ durchgefiihrt wird. Was ganz und gar nicht dem platonischen
Konzept entspricht und das Eigentiimliche der Methode des Cusaners ausmacht,
ist die Anwendung dieser Grundfigur auf die wirkliche Welt. Er greift dabei die
Vorstellung der traditionellen Kosmologie auf, die ausserste Himmelssphare musse
von volIkommenster korperlicher Rundung sein. Dann aber muss sie nach dem
vorausgesetzten Gedankengang ihre Wahrnehmbarkeit von aussen verlieren: .. ,
si possibile foret quem extra mundum constitui mundus foret illi invisibilis ad instar
indivisibilis puncti. Die platonische Dualitat von Idee und Erscheinung gilt nur
fUr die einzelnen, die Welt aufbauenden GegensHinde; die Totalitat dieser Erschei-
nungen ist ihrerseits etwas, was nicht mehr als Erscheinung erfasst werden kann.
Diese Sonderstellung der vollkommenen Kugel wird ausdrticklich als Ausnahme
yom platonischen Dualismus charakterisiert. Der im Dialog auftretende Kardinal
sagt zu seinem Gespriichspartner, dem Herzog von Bayern: Obwohl du im plato-
nischen Sinne das Richtige sagst, besteht dennoch ein Unterschied zwischen der Rund-
heit und einer anderen Form. Wenn es auch moglich wiire, die Rundheit im Stoff zu
realisieren, wiire sie dennoch unsichtbar. Dnd genau dies gilt fUr das WeItall im gan-
zen. Die stoffliche Reali tat der voIIkommenen Kugel hat hier eine Eigenschaft zur
Folge, die innerhalb der physischen Welt nicht vorkommen kann und dennoch
dieser Welt zukommt. Fur die Funktion, die die genaue Kugelgestalt in den Ge-
dankenexperimenten der fruhen Mechanik haben sollte, muss die Eigenschaft der
Welt als mogliche Eigenschaft in der Welt gedacht werden konnen.
Die Bedeutung dieses Gedankenganges liegt nun darin, dass die Eigenschaften
der vollkommen runden Kugel spekulativ aus der Rucksicht auf die Bedingungen
der tradierten Physik und Kosmologie herausgenommen werden konnen. Die Trans-
zendenz ist etwas, was der Welt selbst zugute kommen kann. So ist der Zusammen-
68 Hans Blumenberg
hang von Kugelgestalt und Bewegung im Kontext des Dialogs zu verstehen. Der
Cusaner liisst seinen Kardinal die Behauptung aufsteIlen, dass die vollkommen runde
Kugel eine ihr eiomal verliehene Bewegung niemals verlieren wtirde. Was sich in
Bewegung befindet, kommt niemals zur Ruhe, wenn es sieh nicht zu einem Zeit-
punkt anders verhalten kann als zu einem anderen. Die voIlkommene Kugel auf
der voIlkommenen Ebene miisste sich wegen der Gleichheit der Bedingungen ihres
Verhaltens zu jedem Zeitpunkt immerfort bewegen, wenn sie einmal in Bewegung
versetzt worden wiire: Perfecte igitur rotundus ... postquam incepit moveri, quantum
in se est numquam cessabit, cum varie se habere nequeat. Non enim id, quod movetur
aliquando, cessaret nisi varie se haberet uno tempore et alio. Der Gedanke von der
Beharrung der rotierenden Bewegung einer voIlkommenen Kugel ist schon hier
iiber den Stand hinaus vorangetrieben, den der fruhe Galilei ihm geben wird mit
Bezug auf die urn die Weltmitte gelagerte Kugel. Flir den Cusaner ist die Form
der Rundheit die zur Beharrung in der Bewegung schlechthin geeignete, wobei er
freilich die aristotelische Bedingung hinzufUgt, dass die Bewegung dem Korper
"natiirlieh" sein miisse: Forma igitur rotunditatis ad perpetuitatem motus est aptissima.
Cui si motus advenit naturaliter numquam cessabit. Auch im Zusammenhang aristo-
telischer Vorstellungen ist es keineswegs selbstverstiindlich, dass eine natiirliche
Bewegung beharrt, denn im Erfahrungsbereich der Elemente sind aIle natiirlichen
Bewegungen zum eigentiimliehen Ort zielgebunden und endlich.
Aber welche Bewegung sollte dem voIlkommen runden Globus sonst natiirlich
sein konnen als die urn seine eigene Achse? Die Nattirlichkeit der Bewegung der
Himmelskorper hatte sich schon fUr die astronomische Tradition nieht daraus erge-
ben, dass sie sich auf Kreisbahnen bewegen, sondern dass diese Bahnen nur die
Erscheinungsform der Rotation von Kugelsphiiren urn ihre Achsen waren. Fiir
den Cusaner entstehen aIle Bewegungen, sofern sie "natiirlich" sind, durch Teilhabe
an der Bewegung der aussersten Sphiire: ... quem motum omnia naturalem motum
habentia participant. Gerade deshalb konnten hier die Priidikate der iiussersten
Sphiire nicht auf die Erde iibertragen werden. Aber eben diese Dbertragung ist der
Gebrauch, den Kopernikus von den spekulativen Priidikaten der voIlkommenen
Kugel machen sollte.
Die entscheidende Folge der Theorie von der moglichen immerwiihrenden Be-
wegung einer voIlkommenen Kugel ist die Indifferenz gegeniiber der aristotelisch-
scholastischen Metaphysik des unbewegten Bewegers, die auf der Voraussetzung
beruhte, dass fUr die Prozesse der Welt eine stiindig von aussen einwirkende bewe-
gende Kraft notwendig seL Der Cusaner kann sich damit begniigen, dass die Kugel-
sphiire und ihre Bewegung in einem Schopfungsakt ihren Anfang genommen haben.
In ihrem Fortbestand wird die Welt von Gott so wenig bewegt wie die Kugel des
Spielers, nachdem sie die werfende Hand verlassen hat. Der impetus, den der Wurf
ihr verleiht, erlahmt nur dann, wenn die Kugel nieht vollkommen rund ist. In die-
sem Zusammenhang nennt der Cusaner die Platoniker, weil der Gedanke von der
immerwabrend sieh bewegenden Kugel die platonische Vorstellung von der Seele
Kopernikanische Konsequenz fur den Zeitbegriff 69
als einer geschaffenen Selbstbewegung veranschauliche: Sed creatus est in te motus

se ipsum movens secundum Platonicos, qui est anima rationalis movens se et cuncta sua.
Dieser Vergleich ist auch fUr die Kosmologie der fruhen Neuzeit nicht ohne Ertrag,
denn die organische Auffassung des Welt aIls als eines beseelten Ganzen nach stoi-
scher wie platonischer Tradition wird entbehrlich durch die Annahme der beharren-
den Rotation der aussersten Sphare - oder des Erdkorpers.
Die Bedeutung, die Kopernikus so offenkundig dem Nachweis beimisst, dass
die Erde nicht nur Kugelgestalt, sondern diese in Vollkommenheit habe, wird jetzt
verstandlicher. Er gewinnt dies en Nachweis insbesondere aus der Gestalt des Erd-
schattens bei Mondfinsternissen: abso/uti enim circuli amfractibus Lunam defi-
cientem efficit. Daraus ergibt sich fUr ihn die Ablehnung aller anderen Theorien
uber die Erdgestalt, die aufgezahlt werden, und als Schlussfolgerung: ... sed rotun-
ditate abso/uta, ut philosophi sentiunt. Sogleich zu Anfang des vierten Kapitels leitet
Kopernikus ganz allgemein die mobilitas sphaerae aus der Kugelgestalt abo Fur
die Himmelsspharen und die ihnen zugeschriebene heterogene Substanz war das
eine vertraute Behauptung. Aber deren Bewegung wird fUr die Erfahrung des irdi-
schen Betrachters gar nicht als Drehung einer Kugel phanomenal, sondern durch
die linearen Bahnen der an die Spharen gebundenen Gestirne. Die Kugel ist nur die
hypothetische Hilfskonstruktion fUr die Darstellung der Himmelsbewegungen in
Kreisen und fUr die Vbertragung der Bewegungskausalitat von aussen nach innen.
Solange von Stern en und Planeten gesprochen wird, bleibt die Frage nach der Reali-
Hit jener als Trager der stellaren Erscheinungen angenommenen Hohlkorper irrele-
vant. Kopernikus aber haIt in dies em vierten Kapitel des ersten Buches der Revo-
lutiones seine Formulierungen ganz so, dass der Ausdruck motus circularis jederzeit
auch auf die Achsenrotation eines soliden Kugelkorpers angewendet werden kann,
wie es die Erde ist. Dabei versteht er im Sinne der von Demokrit begrundeten und
von Plato sanktionierten Tradition die rotierende Bewegung als die Verwirklichung
der spharischen Form. Sie wird ihm so etwas wie der "angemessene Ausdruck"
der eidetischen Einfachheit der Kugel: M obilitas enim sphaerae est in circu/um vo/vi,
ipso actu formam suam exprimentis in simplicissimo corpore, ubi non est reperire
principium et finem nec unum ab altero secernere, dum per eadem in se ipsam movetur.
Bevor Newton die Kreisbahn als das dynamische Produkt von Kraften zu betrachten
lehrte, gaIten Kugel und Kreis als die einfachsten und schlechthin rationalen Formen
der Korper und ihrer Bewegung. Der in sich selbst kreisende Korper vereinigt die
Antithesen von Bewegung und Ruhe, von Verschiedenheit und Identitat, so wie
die Kreisbahn in jedem ihrer Punkte Anfang und Ende zur Identitat bringt. Indem
Kopernikus dieser Erorterung mehr Raum gibt als Ptolemaus, der sie nur in einem
einzigen Satz im dritten Kapitel des dritten Buches seines Almagest erwahnt hatte,
nahert er sich seinem Argumentationsziel, der Erde diejenigen Eigenschaften kraft
ihrer KugelgestaIt zuzueignen, die bis dahin unbestritten nur den Himmelsspharen
zugeschrieben worden waren.
Das Argumentationsziel ist die "Natiirlichkeit" der Bewegung der Erde im
70 Hans Blumenberg
WeItraum. Natiirlichkeit der Bewegung ist ein Begriff, der nur im System des Aristo-
telismus verstandlich ist. Kopernikus aber versucht, die nur in einem aristotelischen
Kontext definierbare Qualitat der Natiirlichkeit mit platonisierenden Mitteln fUr die
Erde zu vindizieren. Das ist nur in bezug auf die Argumente verstandlich, die Ptole-
maus gegen die Behauptung der Erdbewegung geltend gemacht hatte und die Ko-
pernikus genau parallelisierend im siebenten Kapitel des ersten Buches seines Werkes
behandelt. Wenn er die Natiirlichkeit der Erdbewegung beansprucht, baIt er sich
streng an die Argumentationsweise des Ptolemaus, der die Erdbewegung gerade
wegen der Konsequenzen ihrer Gewaltsamkeit ausschliesst. Gegen Aristarch von
Samos und dessen heliozentrisches Modell hatte Ptolemaus namlich einzuwenden
gehabt: Wenn der Erde eine tatsiichliche Bewegung zukiime, so miisste sie wegen
ihrer alles iibertrefJenden Ausmasse allen anderen Korpern in der Bewegung weit
voraus sein, so dass die Lebewesen auf ihr und die nicht an ihr befestigten Gegenstiinde
wei! hinter ihr her in der Lufl schweben wiirden; schliesslich miisste die Erde selbst
durch ihre grosse Geschwindigkeit aus dem Weltall herausfallen. Die Gegenwehr
des Kopernikus gegen dieses Argument ist sparsam und von scholastischem Typus.
Man diirfe selbstverstandlich nicht von der Voraussetzung ausgehen, dass die vor-
geschlagene Bewegung der Erde den Charakter einer "gewaltsamen" Bewegung
habe. Wenn man einmal zugestehen wolle, die Bewegungen der Erde seien "natiir-
Hche" Bewegungen, so wUrden auch jene misslichen Konsequenzen entfallen,
denn was von Natur geschieht, verbalt sich angemessen und bewahrt seinen volIkom-
menen Zusammenhang: Quae vero a natura fiunt recte se habent et conservantur
in optima sua compositione 5 •
Man ist enttauscht und doch zugleich entziickt von der Zweckmassigkeit dieser
Argumentation. Man bewundert die Okonomie, mit der Kopernikus nach der
einfachsten Schutzbehauptung fUr seine These sucht. Nicht die Beweise also fUr
das neue System sind philosophisch, sondern nur die Abschirmungen gegen die
Pramissen des alten und die ErfUlIung einiger seiner Zusatzforderungen. Dazu
geMrt, dass die Moglichkeit der Bewegung der Erde dieselbe Sicherung des Zeit-
begriffs ergibt, die Aristoteles und die Scholastik in ihrem Weltmodell gegeben
hatten.
Resultat der Erorterungen im vierten Kapitel des ersten Buches ist folgerichtig
nur die mobilitas der Erde, nicht die Behauptung ihrer tatsachlichen Bewegung.
Am Schluss des KapiteIs ist die weitere Aufgabe ernsthaft durchfUhrbar geworden,
sorgfaltig zu untersuchen, welche Stellung die Erde zum Himmel einnimmt. Die
Gefahrdung durch das konstitutive Vorurteil der Astronomie seit dem Sturz des
Thales von Milet ist behoben, dass wir bei der Erforschung der entfernten erhabenen
Gegenstande des Himmels das Nachstliegende unbeachtet lassen und dem Himmel
zuschreiben, was doch der Erde zukommt: quae tel/uris sint attribuamus caelestibus.
Das nachste Kapitel beginnt Kopernikus nun konsequent mit der Erinnerung daran,
dass auch die Erde die Gestalt einer Kugel habe: terram quoque globi formam habere.
S Revolutiones I 8.
Kopernikanische Konsequenz fiir den ZeitbegrijJ 71
Weil sie diese Gestalt habe, musse untersucht werden, ob ihre Beweglichkeit nicht
in faktischer Bewegung realisiert sei. Aus der Aquivalenz der Kugelgestalt von
Himmel und Erde folgt eine bestimmte Beweislast, die demjenigen zufiillt, der von
vornherein fUr die Erde die RealiHit der Bewegung negiert. Diese beweistaktische
Wendung ist fUr den Gang des Werkes uberaus wichtig. Sie charakterisiert mit einem
weiteren Zug den noch ganz mittelalterlichen Typus der kopernikanischen Reform.
Der gut scholastische Fundierungszusammenhang von forma und actus manifestiert
sich als noch tragfiihiges Denkschema. Die spekulative kosmologische Erorterung
dieser ersten Kapitel des ersten Buches fUhrt zu dem Punkt, an dem die Erde als
Weltkorper ihre primare Thematisierung fUr die Astronomie erfahren hat, nicht
obwohl, sondern gerade wei! sie der Standort des Beobachters und damit die wich-
tigste Bedingung fUr das ist, was sich ihm zeigt: Terra autem est, unde caelestis
ille circuitu~ aspicitur et visui reproducitur nostro.
Auch die Wissenschaftsgeschichte hat ihre Ironien. Eben die vollkommene
Kugelgestalt der Erde, die Kopernikus die naturphilosophische Abschirmung seiner
Reform ermoglichte, wurde kaum zwei lahrhunderte spater der Preis, um den der
endgultige physikalische Beweis fUr die erste kopernikanische Erdbewegung erbracht
werden konnte. Es ist bezeichnend fUr den kopernikanischen Ansatz bei der Erde
selbst und ihrer Stellarisierung, dass dieser astronomisch fUr die zweite koperni-
kanische Bewegung so lange gesuchte und erst im 19. lahrhundert durch Bessels
Entdeckung der Fixsternparallaxe entdeckte Beweis bereits in der Mitte des 18.
lahrhunderts auf und an der Erde selbst durch die empirische Erforschung ihrer
Form - genauer ihrer Deformation - gefUhrt wurde. Ais Maupertius in einem
der ersten weltweit organisierten Forschungsunternehmen die Abplattung der
Erde an den Polen bestatigte, verhalf er nicht nur Newtons Himmelsdynamik zum
Durchbruch auf dem Kontinent, sondern demonstrierte fast anschaulich die Bewe-
gung der Erde im Verhliltnis zum absoluten Raum. Die unangefochtene Geltung
des Kopernikanismus grundete sich gerade darauf, dass eine seiner wesentlichen
Voraussetzungen zers(ort wurde.
IV.
Das theoretische Programm Newtons, reduziert auf seine einfachste Formel,
ist immer noch das des Kopernikus, namlich durch die scheinbaren Bewegungen
hindurch zu den wahren Bewegungen zu gelangen. Wie bei Kopernikus, so ist auch
bei Newton dieses Programm ohne Tangierung des Zeitproblems nicht durchfuhrbar.
Die Unterscheidung von Erscheinung und Wirklichkeit hinsichtlich der Bewegung
bei Kopernikus ebenso wie bei Galilei und Newton ordnet die naturwissenschaftliche
Leistung der fruhen Neuzeit dem ubergreifenden und schliesslich homogenen Pro-
gramm der europiiischen Philo sophie seit Parmenides und Heraklit - man mochte
sagen: aufs Wort - ein.
In Newtons Vorrede zu den Principia von 1686 wird deutlich, dass die Frage
nach den scheinbaren und den wahren Bewegungen in letzter Tendenz auf die
72 Hans Blumenberg
Kriifte der Natur zielt, dass aber diese Frage nur als beantwortbar erscheint, wenn
man den kdiftefreien Zustand materieller Systeme definieren kann. Man sieht leicht,
dass Newton hier in die Nahe derselben Frage kommt, die in der Vorstellung des
Kopernikus von der Bewegung der voIlkommenen Kugel impliziert war. Wenn
das so ist, ergibt sich fUr die Frage nach der Zeit, dass die Moglichkeit ihres Begriffs
auf der Moglichkeit einer von Kraften unbeeinflussten Bewegung, als der garan-
tierten Gleichformigkeit, beruht. Die Rationalitat dieser Bewegung kann fUr Newton
nicht mehr in der Rotation der Kugel oder in der Revolution der Himmelskorper
urn ein Massezentrum liegen, sondern nur in der geradlinigen Tragheitsbewegung.
Die kopernikanische vollkommene Kugel war das Resultat der Anwendung des
Prinzips des zureichenden Grundes: die absolute Homogenitat der Kugel bedeutet,
dass es in ihrer Gestalt keinen Grund fUr die Veranderung der von ihr einmal einge-
nommenen Zustiinde gibt, dass sie also Ruhe wie Bewegung absolut konserviert,
von Natur jedoch zur Bewegung disponiert ist. Newtons Kraftbegriff erfordert
dieselbe Anwendung des Prinzips des zureichenden Grundes, indem ein von Kriiften
nicht beeinflusster Korper seine einmal eingeschlagene Bewegungsrichtung geradli-
nig und gleiehformig absolut einhiilt. Die Sehwierigkeiten, die wir sehen konnen,
liegen sowohl in der Definition der Geradlinigkeit als aueh in der der GIeiehformig-
keit. Die Sehwierigkeit, die in der Bedingung der Geradlinigkeit liegt, konnte von
Newton nieht wahrgenommen werden; die Schwierigkeit der Gleichformigkeit liegt
darin, dass sie nur mit Hilfe des Zeitbegriffs bestimmt werden kann, indem "Gleich-
fOrmigkeit" bedeutet, dass gleiche Strecken in gleichen Zeiteinheiten zuriiekgelegt
werden. Newton Mtte sagen konnen, dieses Erfordernis sei rational gerade dadureh
erf"tillt, dass die Voraussetzung gemacht wird, keine Krafte wirkten auf den be-
wegten Korper ein. Ein .solcher Korper konnte Zeitmesser sein.
Nun war aber diese Definition die fUr Newton uninteressante, weil fUr die ihm
bekannte physische Wirkliehkeit ziemlich sieher feststand, dass es eine solche Triig-
heitsbewegung im absoluten Sinne nicht gab. Newton kam es daher nicht auf
die Definition der Tragheitsbewegung dureh Kriiftefreiheit an, sondern umgekehrt
auf die Definition der Kraft als Veranderung von Tragheitszustanden. Damit verlor
er jedoch die Definition der Zeit, die im Begriff der GIeichformigkeit fUr die Bestim-
mung des Kraftbegriffs schon enthalten sein musste. Die Ausflucht aus diesem Di-
lemma ist die Absolutsetzung der Zeit nach Analogie der Absolutsetzung des Raumes.
Die Einsicht, die Newton zu diesem Sehritt hinsiehtIich der Zeit veranlasste, ist in
dem Satz seiner "Principia" ausgedriickt: Es ist moglich, dass es keine gleichformige
Bewegung gibt, mit der die Zeit genau gemessen werden konnte. Es kann sein, dass
al/e Bewegungen beschleunigt oder verzogert verlaufen (das heisst, dass immer und
iiberall Kriifte auf Korper einwirken), aber de,. Strom der absoluten Zeit kann nicht
veriindert werden 6 •
6 Opera omnia, ed. S. Horsley, II 8: Possibile est, ut nul/us sit motus aequabilis, quo tempus
accurate mensuretur ...

Kopernikanische Konsequenz fiir den Zeitbegrijf 73
Der "Anblick" der Himmelsphiinomene hat sich von dieser Einsicht her vollig
veriindert. Rotationen und Revolutionen als die Grundphiinomene des gestirnten
Himmels sind nicht mehr die idealen Grundzustiinde und Normvorgiinge der gleich-
sam verkorperten Rationalitiit. Sie sind immer schon Resultate des Ineinandergrei-
fens von Kriiften, der Verwischung der elementaren Normalitiit, komplexe Ver-
stellungen einer nur noch schwer zugiinglichen Ausgangssituation. Ais Newton
1666 an das Problem der Mondbahn heranging, nahm er die traditionelle Vorstellung
einer Sphiire auf und betrachtete den Druck, den der Mondkorper auf die Innen-
fliiche dieser Sphiire ausiibt, wiihrend er in ihr um die Erde herumgeschleudert
wird. Diesem zentrifugalen Druck musste eine kompensatorische Kraft entsprechen,
die den Mond genauso wie einen zur Erde niederfallenden Stein erreichen und
beeinflussen konnte. Diese erste und elementare Uberlegung ergab das gegen Ko-
pernikus und Kepler entscheidende Neue: die Bahnen der Himmelskorper um ihre
Zentralkorper, seien es Kreise oder Ellipsen, waren aus mindestens zwei verschie-
denen Krafteinwirkungen zusammengesetzte Figuren, die nichts mit der Realisa-
tion einer geometrischen Idealitiit zu tun hatten. Die Geometrie war hier nur ein
Tei! der allgemeinen Mechanik, und nicht umgekehrt diese die Theorie der Erschei-
nungen einer geometrischen Rationalitat.
An die Stelle der Idealitiit des Kreises, den es nun auch in der stellaren WirkIich-
keit nicht mehr gibt, ist die Idealitiit des absoluten Raumes und der absoluten Zeit
selbst getreten, jener beiden Bastarde der philosophischen Tradition, denen einer-
seits der absolute Charakter der Reinheit der traditionellen Idealitiit zugesprochen
wird, andererseits eine nur erschliessbare, aber nicht empirisch in Messungen voll-
ziehbare physiche Realitiit. Man kann die Hypothek, die Newton fUr die Geschichte
der neuzeitlichen Physik aufnahm, nur dann als eine nicht bloss dogmatische Vor-
entscheidung und willkiirliche Belastung begreifen, wenn man kIar im Blick behiilt,
dass es Newton von dem Augenblick seiner Uberlegungen zur Bewegung des Mondes
an und entgegen vielen seiner Schutzbehauptungen zur Abwehr der Unterstellung
scholastischer Entitiiten ausschliesslich darauf ankam, Kriifte nachzuweisen und
in ihrer Grosse bestimmbar zu machen, wie die Kraft, die dem zentrifugalen Druck
des Mondes auf seine Sphiire entgegen wirken konnte und in einem Kontinuum
der Bestimmbarkeit zu derjenigen stehen musste, mit der ein Korper in der Niihe
der Erdoberfliiche beschleunigt wird. Der Vorwurf der empirischen Unbestimmbar-
keit des absoluten Raumes und der absoluten Zeit trUIt Newton deshalb nicht,
wei! diese Unbestimmbarkeit fUr ihn die uniiberschreitbare Voraussetzung dafUr
war, die Bestimmbarkeit von Kriiften im Hinblick auf den kraftefreien Triigheits-
zustand zu erreichen und zu definieren.
Zugleich ist aber klar, dass fUr das Problem des Raumes und der Zeit die Rich-
tung auf die Idealisierung, wie sie schon Leibniz aIsbald in der Auseinandersetzung
mit Newtons Sprecher Samuel Clarke einschlung, vorgegeben war. Die philosophische
Tradition wurde gerade in dem Augenblick iibermiichtig, in dem bestritten werden
musste, dass in der Realitiit diejenige Bedingung anzutrefl'en war, die nach den
74 Hans Blumenberg
Forderungen der Tradition fiir die Realisierung der im Zeitbegriff gegebenen Be-
dingungen anzutreffen sein musste und die Aristoteles in der Tagesbewegung des
Fixstemhimmels, Kopemikus in der Rotation der volIkommenen Erdkugel als
physiche Realitat angeben zu konnen geglaubt hatten. Aber man sieht von hier aus,
dass Kopemikus den entscheidenden Schritt zur ZerstOrung dieser Tradition getan
hatte, als er den Garanten fiir die Realitat der Zeit, fiir das fundamentum in re des
Zeitbegriffs, in der Erde selbst aufgewiesen und damit der empirischen Observation
in todlicher Weise zuganglich gemacht hatte. Der Funktionstausch von Himmel
und Erde erwies sich schliesslich nicht als theoretische Aquivalenz, sondem als
radikale Veranderung der Bedingungen theoretischer Objektivierung. Das ist es,
was vor allem bei Newton der historischen Explikation unterworfen wird.
Diese Veranderung der Voraussetzungen zugunsten der theoretischen Dignitat
der Erde und ihrer nachsten Umgebung gestattete Newton ein gegeniiber der tradi-
tionellen Kosmologie so neuratiges Verfahren, in der terrestrischen Provinz mit der
Losung der grossen Probleme des Universums zu beginnen und schliesslich das
Sonnensystem als blosse Erweiterung dieser Provinz anzusehen. Aber das Sonnen-
system war nicht mehr, wie fiir Kopemikus, der wesentliche und zentrale Teil dieses
Universums. Gerade in der Konsequenz der kopemikanischen Reform war die
Erweiterung des kosmischen Raumes, bestatigt durch den Umgang mit dem Femrohr
Galileis und durch Olaf Romers Entdeckung der endlichen Lichtgeschwindigkeit
erstmals in den Griff der Messbarkeit geriickt, zur Insularisierung des Sonnensy-
stems innerhalb der kosmischen Totalitat geworden. Newtons absoluter Raum ist
auch dadurch motiviert und charakterisiert, dass in ihm das Auftreten von mate-
riellen Systemen ein sporadisches und rares Ereignis geworden ist. Welten sind in der
nachkopemikanischen Welt trotz der ungeheuren Steigerung ihrer Zahl relativ
zur Erweiterung des Raumes immer seltener geworden, der Raum immer leerer,
auch wenn man in die Betrachtung einbezieht, dass Welten jetzt nicht mehr nur
aus Korpem, sondem auch aus der Realitat ihrer Massenkrafte bestehen. Die Welt
von Welten entsteht erst durch die im 18. lahrhundert immer praziser formulierte
Annahme, dass Sonnensysteme nicht die letzten Systemgrossen dieses Universums
sind, sondem dass sie Teile iibergeordneter Systeme und Ubersysteme immer hoherer
Ordnung sein miissten. Der Raum wird nicht nur durch die Korper und ihre Massen-
krafte, sondem durch Systeme und Ubersysteme und deren Bewegungen strukturiert.
Dass der Weltraum leer ist, bedeutete jetzt nicht nur die Seltenheit von Korper-
systemen im Verh1iltnis zur Weite des Raumes, sondem auch die Geringfiigigkeit
der Massen und dam it die regionale Begrenztheit der von diesen Massen ausgeiibten
systembildenden Wirkungen. Der Gedanke, dass die diffuse Gravitation sehr femer
Massen das Fiihrungsfeld der Tr1igheitsbewegung erzeugen konnte, also der Gedanke
einer Einheit des Weltraums als Wirkung der in ihm bestehenden Massenkdifte,
lag vollig fern. Wie man den absoluten Raum als Konsequenz der relativen Seltenheit
der in ihm auftretenden Korper und Massenkrafte ansehen kann, so muss man
umgekehrt die von Ernst Mach eingeleitete Destruktion des absoluten Raumes als
Kopernikanische Konsequenz fur den ZeitbegrifJ 75
Konsequenz der Erkenntnis von der Bedeutung der Massenkriifte im Universum

betrachten.
So wie das Sonnensystem als ein Komplex von Korpern und Kriiften in grenzen-
losen absoluten Raum ein insulares Vorkommnis ist, so ist die Gesamtheit der
Welt in der absoluten Zeit ein episodisches. SchOpfung und Untergang der Welt sind
fUr Newton systemgemiisse - fast mochte man sagen: vertraute und nahe - Daten.
Durch die SchOpfung ist die Welt in den Raum und in die Zeit gesetzt, und durch
die apokalyptischen Ereignisse wird sie aus Raum und Zeit wieder getilgt. Raum
und Zeit gehoren nicht zur Kontingenz der Welt, und sie werden damit zwangs-
liiufig auf die Seite der Gottheit, wenn nicht ihrer Attribute, so doch ihrer Organe,
gebracht. Fiir den Raum hat Newton das mit der umstrittenen Formel vom sensorium
divinum ausdriicklich vollzogen.
Fiir Leibniz wurde durch die Vorgegebenheit des absoluten Raumes und der
absoluten Zeit mit der notwendigen Indifferenz aller Raum- und Zeitstellen die
SchOpfung zu einer schlechthin unbergriindbaren Handlung eines Willkiirherrschers,
zu einem decret absolument absolu. Die Seinsgrundfrage ist dazu die entschiedenste
Gegenposition. Leibniz hat durch seinen Widerspruch, vor allem im Briefwechsel
mit Samuel Clarke, den stringneten Zusammenhang von theologischem Absolu-
tismus und Raum-Zeit-Absolutismus als das bohrende Argenis der neuzeitlichen
Rationalitiit herauspriipariert und verschiirft. Die Heterogenitiit der systematischen
Elemente springt heraus, wenn man den Sachverhalt so formuliert: der heidnische
unendliche Raum und die ebenso heidnische absolute Zeit enthalten das christlich
interpretierte Ereignis Welt nur als ein in jeder Hinsicht provinzielles Faktum.
Hier erst endet Augustins entscheidende Koppeiung, durch die die Zeit in die SchOp-
fung der Welt hineingezogen und an ihre Vergiinglichkeit gebunden worden war,
genauso wie die Materie im Gegensatz zur griechischen Tradition mit der Welt
geschaffen war und damit nicht mehr ihr blosses bestimmungsloses, indifferentes
Material darstellen konnte. Da aber die von Augustin gesetzte Ziisur doch nur
eine christliche Konsequenz aus der antiken Priimisse der Abhiingigkeit der Zeit
von der Bewegung des Kosmos (unter der freilich widerspruchsvollen Zusatzannahme
von Anfang und Ende) war, kann Newton keineswegs zur antiken Ausgangsposition
zuriickkehren. 1m Grunde demonstriert Newton mit seinen Widerspriichen und der
langwierigen Geschichte ihrer Aufiosung nur, wie konsequent Spinoza die Ratio-
nalitiit der neuen Epoche zu Ende gedacht hatte.
Wenn Augustin gesagt hatte, die Zeit wiirde auch bei Stillstand des Himmels
fortdauern, sofern nur noch eine Topferscheibe sich drehte, muss Newton folge-
richtig den weiteren Schritt tun zuzulassen, dass die Zeit ohne Riicksicht auf irgend-
eine reale Bewegung fortdauert: Dieselbe Dauer und dasselbe Verharren findet fur
die Existenz aller Dinge statt, mogen die Bewegungen schnell oder langsam oder Null
sein. Daher sollte diese Dauer von ihren durch die Sinne wahrnehmbaren Massen
unterschieden werden.
Bemerkenswert am Zusammenhang von absoluter Zeit und absolutem Raum
76 Hans Blumenberg
bei Newton ist, dass er fUr die Bestimmung des absoluten Charakters des Raumes
den Zeitbegriff benotigt, dass es aber keinen Ansatz fUr das umgekehrte Fundierungs-
verhliltnis gibt. Newton bestimmt den Begriff der absoluten Bewegung durch ihre
Relativitat zu "unbewegten Orten", die den unbeweglichen Raum konstituieren.
Diese unbewegten Orte werden in bezug auf die absolute Zeit definiert: Unbewegte
Orte sind aber nur solche, die samtlich von Unendlichkeit zu Unendlichkeit dieselben
gegenseitigen Lagen bewahren, also immer unbewegt bleiben und den Raum konsti-
tuieren, den ich unbeweglich nenne 7 • Identitat der Bestimmbarkeit im absoluten
Raum besteht nur in bezug auf die Unendlichkeit der absoluten Zeit.
Hier tiberall tauchen fUr Raum und Zeit die kIassischen Attribute des Gottlichen
auf, durch die ihre Realitat jedem Verdacht entzogen wird, sie seien nur relative,
psychologische oder gar konventionelle Grossen. In der Sprache der Scholastik
hatte man diesen Sachverhalt einer erkenntnistheoretisch notwendigen, selbst aber
nicht objektivierbaren Voraussetzung der Erkenntnis so bestimmen konnen,
dass sie auf die Seite der veritas ontologica gehort.
Dass die absolute Zeit im Hinblick auf ihre metaphysische Dignitiit noch eine
Stufe hinter der Funktion des absoluten Raumes steht, wird weiter dadurch greifbar,
dass es indirekte Erfahrung vom absoluten Raum gibt, weil es eine ausgezeichnete
Art der Bewegung im Verhliltnis zum absoluten Raum, namlich die Achsendrehung
der Weltkorper, gibt und die bei dieser auftretenden FIiehkrafte eben jenes Verhlilt-
nis der Bewegung zum absoluten Raum objektivieren. Absolute und relative Be-
wegung sind nur unterschieden durch die Wirkungen, die als FIiehkrafte von der
Achse der Rotationsbewegung auftreten. In diesen Fliehkraften wird das Moment
der verhinderten Gradlinigkeit der Triigheitsbewegung im Verhiiltnis zum absoluten
Raum erfassbar, und in eben dieser Verhinderung eine zweite Kraftkomponente,
die in die Tragheitsbewegung eingreift und die kreisfOrmige Bewegung zu einer
beschleunigten Bewegung macht.
Die Reali Hit der absoluten Zeit ist der Ausdruck dafUr, dass die kopernikanische
erste Bewegung der Erde urn die eigene Achse kein absolut homogener Naturvor-
gang mehr sein kann, genauso wenig wie die Jahresbewegung der Erde urn die Sonne,
deren Abweichung von der Kreisform und deren unterschiedliche Bahngeschwindig-
keiten bereits durch Kepler entdeckt worden waren. Es gibt in der Natur die Gleich-
fOrmigkeit offenbar nicht mehr, die notwendig ware, urn den Zeitbegriff als einen
empirischen Begriff zu retten. Die Kreisbewegung, Rotation wie Revolution, die
in der ganzen aristotelischen Tradition die Auszeichnung der im strengen Sinne
"nattirlichen" Bewegung erfahren hatte und mit dieser Qualitat bei Kopernikus dem
Erdkorper seine astronomische Integration und fundierende Funktion fUr den
Zeitbegriff verIeiht, ist auch bei Newton noch von einzigartiger Bedeutung, wei! sie
die einzige empirisch nachweisbare Bewegung im Verhliitnis zum absoluten Raum
7 A. a. O. 9: Loca autem il11 mota non sunt, nisi quae omnia ab infinito in infinitum datas servant
positiones ad invicem; atque adeo semper manent immota, spatiumque constituunt quod immobilem
appel/o.
Kopernikanische Konsequenz fur den Zeitbegrijf 77
bleibt. Aber sie bleibt es urn den Preis eben jener homogenen "Natiirlichkeit",
die die kopernikanische Reform abzusiehern vermochte. Der Verlust der QualiHit
der "Natiirliehkeit" fUr die Kreisbahnbewegung der Planeten war bereits mit den
Gesetzen Keplers, vor aHem mit dem zweiten Gesetz iiber die ungleiehmassigen
Bahngeschwindigkeiten, entschieden gewesen.
Damit ist aber auch implicite entschieden, dass kein astronomisch fassbares
Phiinomen fortan die Zeit in dem strengen Sinne manifestieren und messbar machen
kann, wie es unter den aristotelischen Voraussetzungen gefordert gewesen war.
Man konnte dies so ausdriicken, dass in der vermeintlich natiirlichen Kreisbewegung
durch Kepler und Newton der Wurm der Gewaltsamkeit - also der Beeinflussung
durch Krafte - entdeckt werden ist. Selbst wenn wir im Gedankenexperiment
einmal annehmen, eine Veranderlichkeit und Unregelmassigkeit etwa der Tagesrota-
tion des Erdkorpers hiitte bis zum heutigen Tage empirisch nieht verifiziert werden
konnen, so konnte dies an der grundsatzlichen theoretischen Lage nichts andern,
dass eine solche Unregelmassigkeit erwartet, vermutet und weiter gesucht werden
miisste und dass damit die Erfordernisse, die Aristoteles im Zeitbegriff an die Regel-
massigkeit des manifestierenden Phiinomens der Himmelsbewegung gesteHt ge-
sehen hatte, nicht mehr erfUl1t sein konnen.
Der absolute Raum und die absolute Zeit haben ihre Funktion bei Newton in
der HersteHung der Definierbarkeit des Tragheitszustandes. Das Tragheitsprinzip
ist eine kopernikanische Konsequenz, denn es behebt fast aIle Einwande physika-
lischer Art, die gegen die Bewegung der Erde erhoben werden konnten. Dabei geht
es immer nur urn die Moglichkeit des kopernikanischen Systems, nicht urn seine
Wahrheit im Sinne der empirischen Beweisbarkeit. Aber gerade urn die durch die
Vorrede Osianders verschleierte Strenge des kopernikanischen Wahrheitsanspruches
ging es auch Newton. Die geradlinige Tragheitsbewegung im Verhiiltnis zum absolu-
ten Raum, deren Definition den Begriff der absoluten Zeit erfordert, gibt es in der
physischen Realitat nicht, und dem entspricht der Sachverhalt, dass sie auch schlecht-
hin nicht erweisbar ware. Aber im System der Mechanik! Newtons ist die einzig
erweisbare Bewegung im Verhaltnis zum absoluten Raum die Kreisbewegung,
und zwar sowohl die Rotation urn die eigene Achse als auch die Bahnbewegung in
der Ellipse urn einen massenbesetzten Brennpunkt. Die Gesetze Keplers geben
Newton die Kriterien fUr die empirische Bestatigung der absoluten Bewegung der
Erde und damit fUr den Beweis der Wahrheit des Kopernikanismus. Und Newton
sagt ausdriicklich, urn dieses Beweises willen habe er sein Hauptwerk geschrieben.
BARBARA BIENKOWSKA
University of Warsaw
FROM NEGATION TO ACCEPTANCE
The Reception of the Heliocentric Theory in Polish Schools in the 17th and 18 th
Centuries
I in company with most Polish historians do understand the term "reception"

as the acceptance of certain ideological and scientific values and the manner in which
they function, irrespective of what their author originally intended. In the case of
the Copernican system, this will mean the process of a gradual penetration, with all
its consequences to sciences, methodology and world outlook, of the heliocentric
concepts into the scientific perception of the community.
This process lasted in Polish schools continuously for nearly two centuries.
Elements of knowledge about the new cosmological system entered the school
curricula in different ways and at different times depending on the type of school.
Those elements differed and, being differently lectured, aroused reflections and
objections. It is, however, possible to select several characteristic stages which
(with varying intensity) marked the reception of the Copernican system. At first
it was presented as a new system, from the logical point of view absurd and erro-
neous as inconsistent with the "letter" of the Bib/e, later as a probable hypothesis,
then as a perfect hypothesis, and finally as the only true system of the universe.
The heliocentric system was, of course, not included to school curricula in the
16 century. In Polish schools that time, Copernicus was presented as an eminent
th
scientist, his observations were known, and calculations quoted. There is not so
far known, however, any lectures from the 16th century in dealing with the concep-
tion of the motion of the Earth. From the beginning of the 17th century, this prob-
lem was continuously discussed, though in various ways, from negation, through
a gradual acceptance, finally to a complete approval at protestant schools from
1722, and at Catholic schools from 1782. Irrespective of the attitude towards the
heliocentric theory, it is important that it was discussed in schools all through the
17th and 18th centuries; pupils were acquainted with its principles, arguments for and
against were quoted, and they were informed on the Europe-wide dispute over the
80 Barbara Bierikowska
heliocentric theory. Whatever the attitude towards the actual theory, concerning
the motion of the Earth, the memory of Nicolas Copernicus was kept alive through
the entire period, he was honoured as a great mathematician, the most eminent
graduate of the Cracow Academy, and the pride of Warmia.
The reception of the heliocentric theory in Polish schools depended largely on
the Europe-wide scientific and ideological dispute over the heliocentric theory;
however, it reflected the basic trends of the dispute under different conditions and in
a different scope.
The new theory aroused the interest of only a few scientists in Western Europe
in the 16th century; Copernicus was known and highly estimated only as a mathe-
matician, astronomer, observer and elaborator of Tables. The opposition against
the heliocentric theory initiated by the leaders of the Reformation was of an ideolog-
ical character and narrow in scope. The Catholic church, convinced of the hypoth-
etical character of the new theory, did not see in it any immediate danger. The main
topic of discussions, in the first half of the 17th century, when more and more scien-
tific arguments supported the new system, were its objective truth and its being
contradictory or consistent with the Scriptures. In the second half of the 17th century,
the scientific dispute was actually concluded. Till the end of the 18th century, theolo-
gians and popularizers of science continued their dispute over the problem as to
whether the theory is consistent with the "letter" of the Bible and whether the "hy-
pothesis" does not infringe the principle of the literal interpretation of the Scrip-
tures. The point at issue was whether the heliocentric theory was to be introduced
into popular cosmology, and finally into the school curricula, or whether the exist-
ing traditional views were to be manintained.The heliocentric theory finally captured
the minds of Europeans not only due to its indisputable scientific arguments but also
to the fact that theologians of all Christian denominations accepted the possibility
of an allegoric interpretation of the Bible. From the second half of the 18th century,
the gradually accepted heliocentric system started to fulfill the ideological function
then required of astronomy; in its simplicity and perfection it served as an example
of the wisdom of the Creator. What was taught in schools was as a matter of fact
contributory. It did not show any new scientific or ideological trends, it only con-
veyed, with some time lag, the achievements of astronomers and mathematicians -
supplying more and more new indestructible arguments in support of the heliocentric
theory - and philosophers and theologians working on the ideological interpreta-
tion of the new system.
It is obvious however, that the level and intensity of conveying this knowledge
determined to a great extent the state of education. It cannot be defined by the views
of eminent persons, or even by those of a rather small group of scholars. Indirect
influence had a much wider range, under Polish conditions mainly through schools.
The majority of the educated gentry and townsmen in Poland formed their re-
ligious, political and social outlook at schools, there they also acquired their knowl-
edge about the world "the earth and the heavens" and their model of thinking.
Heliocentric Theory in Polish Schools 81
They completed their education at the secondary school and the knowledge they
gained there lasted till the end of their life, sometimes updated by newly published
books, but rarely completely changed. Even those young people who studied at
Polish or foreign higher schools, as a rule chose academies which continued scien-
tific and educational trends with which they had become acquainted at secondary
schools. Former pupils kept up their school contacts for many years, since schools
hold in the structure of cultural life in Poland a dominating role, especially those
remote from bigger urban centres. There was as a rule a theatre run by the school
giving several, sometimes as many as a dozen performances or more a year. The
schools organized festive inaugurations and windings up of the school year, lectures
by professors and "show" days of the pupils. During the entire 17th century and
up to the last quarter of the 18th century, schools were the centre of cultural, scien-
tific and even social life of the region.
Thus, materials concerning schools in this period constitute documents on the
state of education and knowledge of the community, of significance transcending
the interests of a historian dealing with education alone. They are trustworthy histor-
ical sources of great interest. Unofficial documents are most important. They
include minutes of lectures prepared by teachers, notes, exercises and examination
questions for pupils. Manuscript notes, materials not prepared for publication,
show the actual contents of lectures more truthfully than materials either published
or prepared for publication, much more carefully prepared and always consored
by school superiors. Such materials include text books, scientific theses, pupils'
parts in displays, inauguration speeches, etc. Printed materials had, however, a wider
range of influence. School materials are a very valuable and interesting source very
often underestimated and not utilized by historicans of culture and science. In Po-
land, research in this field is carried on intensively. It is difficult, however, due to
the destruction, transferring and dispersing of most of the school libraries during
historic calamites, especially the Second World War. A systematic study of extant
schools materials should, however, constitute a basis for the study of the general
problem of the knowledge and reception of modern scientific ideas in Poland in
the 17th and 18th centuries. Research on the reception of the heliocentric theory in
Polish schools is a part of wider research work planned in this field.
Links are still closer when separate problems of the complicated process of the
reception of the heliocentric system are considered against the background of the
dispute between modern natural science (of which the heliocentric theory was one
of the main elements), and the traditional system of the doctrines of Aristotle and
Thomas Aquinas. In Poland, the philosophy of Descartes became the principal
argument in the dispute. That philosophy aroused in the last quarter of the 17th
and the beginning of the 18 th century the interest of the professors of colleges at
Gdansk and Torun. Apart from a group of enthusiasts of the French philosopher
(Schaeve, Meier, Bormann), there was a group of moderate critics (Sartorius, Sahn,
Glosemeyer) and stern opponents (Bohm, Jaenichen, Groddeck). The opposition,

82 Barbara Bieilkowska
however, was not the result of faithfulness to Aristotle's doctrines, but of the accept-
ance of the empirical method of research in natural sciences, which already then
necessitated recognition of the basic achievements of the 18th century natural science.
In Central Poland, the doctrines of Descartes were introduced into the school
curricula much later. In the mid-18 th century the reformers of Piarist schools, Sta-
nislaw Konarski and Antoni Wisniewski, introduced into the school curricula of
philosophy, physics and natural sciences certain elements of the Cartesian philos-
ophy in connection with Newton's physics known as the "recentiorum" philosophy,
without, however, including Descartes's philosophy in its pure form. The prevalence
of the "recentiorum" philosophy helped to introduce the heliocentric theory into
the college curricula, although in Catholic schools it was treated as "hypothetical"
till the end of the 18 th century. These objections, however, had from the middle of
the century a more and more entirely verbal character and finally disappeared com-
pletely. The Apologia of Nicolas Coperniclls delivered by Professor Jan Sniadecki
at the Cracow Academy in 1782, containing a full and unconditional approval
of the heliocentric theory, may be considered a symbolic end to the dispute over
the theory of Nicolas Copernicus in Polish science and education. By that time
schools of all types accepted the heliocentric theory.
However, in view of the great number of types of schools the time and manner
of abandoning the geocentric image of the world varied considerably in different
circles. In this situation, research on the history of the reception of the heliocentric
theory in Poland necessitated a study of the process in various types of schools.
* *
*
From the mid-16th century to the end of the 18th century, there were two principal
types of schools in Poland - Catholic and Protestant. They included schools of
Polish Brothers, Lutheran and Calvinist schools. The small number of mainly
elementary schools, Orthodox and Catholic of the Eastern rite, did not play any
major role either scientific or cultural. This division is not only justified by the actual
division of the community into a Catholic majority and a Protestant minority, but
also by considerable differences between their school curricula, the level of education
and sources of knowledge. The religious criteria of the division of Polish schools
in the period under review are justified by the fact that Polish schools were then
entirely religious educational establishments, run mostly by religious orders. Reli-
gion defined the character and trends of teaching and education, the educational
process and curricula. In this context a religious rather then, say, a social division
seems more justified. As a rule, however, colleges run by the Cracow Academy and
Protestant schools were attended by townsmen, while the gentry and aristocracy
attended schools run by religious orders.
Protestant schools, especially the colleges of university standing at Gdansk,
Torun and Elblllg, achieving a specially high standard, differed considerably from
Catholic schools, not only as regards, religious aspects. The education and grading
system was different, lecturers had completely different qualifications, as a rule
using graduates of foreign universities, interested in scientific achievements of great
European Protestant cultural centres, such as Konigsberg, Rostock, Leyda, Wit-
temberg, and Altdorf. The curricula of Protestant schools were more flexible both
in their range and contents, and changed frequently to include new achievements
of natural sciences.
Catholic schools in Poland, however, including the most numerous group -
Jesuit colleges based their education on rigid curricula and methods (ratio studio-
rum), established at the end of the 16th century and only slightly changed by the
mid-18 th century.
Poland's territory varied in the 17th_18th centuries from about 1 million to about
700,000 square kilometers. The population ranged according to estimates from 10
to 14 million people with 10-20 in habitants per square kilometre. The Northern
and Western territories were the most densely populated, and the extensive Eastern
territories the most sparsely populated. The same concerned the net-work of schools,
of considerable density throughout the country. Roman Catholicism was the official
religion of Poland during the whole period under review.
Catholic schools were then attended by the majority of youth in Poland. Those
schools, uniform from the ideological and religious viewpoint, were organized in
several networks.
The most representative college, enjoying general esteem and appreciation,
was the Cracow Academy established in 1364. Till 1780, when the completely re-
formed academy received the structure of a modern secular higher school, nearly
all the professors - excluding those of the Medical Department - were Catholic
priests. The Cracow Academy had Departments of Theology, Law, Medicine, and
a Humanist and Philosophical Department constituting a preparatory course for
studies at the other Departments. The end of the 15th and the first half of the 16th
century were the most brilliant period in the development of the Academy. In the
following years, the financial situation of the Academy and the social position of
the professors deteriorated; the standard of education and the role of the Academy
in the development of Polish culture and science also declined. The number of stu-
dents ranged from one to two thousand. From about the mid-16th century, the Aca-
demy became mainly a college for commoners. Both professors and students came
mainly from the middle-class. The graduates mostly took posts as secretaries (clerks
in municipal offices, doctors (physicians), lawyers, clergymen, and schoolmasters.
From the end of the 16th century, the Cracow Academy started to organize in
provincial towns a network of secondary schools administered by the Academy.
In the 17th century, there were over 40 such schools. In the 18 th century, however,
before the establishment of schools by the Commission for National Education, the
number fall to about a dozen.
The gentry and aristocracy, the ruling class in Poland during the period under
84 Barbara BienkowsKa
review, sent their sons to colleges run by religious orders, mainly the Jesuits, com-
peting with schools of the Cracow Academy. Universities abroad were generally
chosen for further studies.
Jesuit schools developed in Poland from 1565, when the first Jesuit college in
Poland was established at Braniewo. Already in 1599 there were 11 such
schools in Poland. During the 17th century, the number increased nearly four times,
reaching 47 in 1700. In 1740, the number reached 63, and in 1773, when the Jesuit
order was dissolved it amounted to 66 schools. Thus the Society of Jesus had the
longest number of educational establishments in Poland. Taking into consideration
the number of pupils attending each college from a few score to a few hundred,
sometimes even over a thousand -_. and the fact that the Jesuits carried on their
educational activities uninterruptedly from 1565 to 1773, it is easily realized what a gre-
at influence the Jesuit schools had on the outlook and culture of the Polish people.
The Piarist order ran a much smaller number of schools in Poland. It played,
however, an important role in the history of Polish education. The Piarists, in the
40's of the 18 th century, introduced into Polish Catholic schools an up-to-date
reform of curricula and method, of teaching.
The order arrived in Poland in 1642, and already in the following year opened
schools at Podoliniec and Warsaw. Competing with the Jesuits, they managed to
win the esteem and trust of the gentry. By the mid-18 th century, they already had
23 schools and continued their educational activities till Poland lost her independ-
ence in 1795. The Theatinians and Basilian monks also ran schools for secular
youth, their range of influence was, however, very small as compared with the two
previously mentioned orders - the Jesuits and the Piarists.
Among Catholic schools should also be mentioned schools established by the
Commission for National Education - the first central secular educational authority
in Poland, operating from 1773-1794. Schools established by the Commission for
National Education were intended primarily to replace Jesuit schools after the
dissolution of the order in 1773. They differed, however, very considerably organ-
izationally, didactically and scientifically from the already existing Catholic schools.
Mathematics and natural sciences prevailed in the curricula of the new schools
instead of the older types oriented towards the humanities - law and what was
called moral science. Polish replaced Latin as the language of instruction.
Protestant schools were started in Poland about mid-16 th century as a result
of extensive religious toleration of that time. Lutheran schools in Lutheran bourgeois
centres of Northern Poland were the first established, and represented from the
very beginning a high standard.
In 1558 a high-school was established in Gdansk - actually, a lower-degree
awarding university. Similar high-school were established at Torun in 1568, and
at Elbl~g in 1590. Apart from these schools, preparing the young for university
studies, there was a dense network of Lutheran elementary schools.
Other groups of Polish Protestants established their own schools at their centres.
There were many Calvinist schools in Lithuania, including the well-known secondary
school at Kiejdany. The most eminent educational establishment of the Polish
Brothers was the Rakow Academy (1635 -1638), attended in its years of prosperity
by more than a thousand pupils, many from abroad. The Bohemian Brothers opened
in 1635 at Leszno Wielkopolskie a college famous for the cooperation spread over
many years, of John Amos Komensky. The school flourished until mid-17th century,
but declined after the Swedish wars and was finally changed into a Lutheran school.
Humanist and philosophical subjects prevailed in the curricula of all these schools.
The teaching of the elements of natural sciences, including astronomy, varied in
scope, form, and interpretation.
In general, therefore, natural sciences were in Catholic schools till the mid-18 th
century part of the course of philosophy, then including logic, metaphysics, and
"physics" - comprising knowledge about nature and the universe. The whole
course of philosophy was based on the system of Aristotle as interpreted by schol-
astic writers of the Middle Ages (Albertus the Great, Thomas Aquinas). It contained,
although to a rather limited extent, frequently in the form of a polemic, the achieve-
ments of modern natural sciences. Even such a course of philosophy was not
taught in all Catholic schools. It was covered by the curricula of only the highest
grades, achieved by the most keen, and talented pupils. It was thus taught only
at the Cracow Academy, the Zamosc Academy and a few Jesuit Colleges. Elemen-
tary knowledge of astronomy, geography, meteorology, etc. was, however, taught
in all Catholic secondary schools for merely practical reasons.
At Protestant schools, especially high schools, "physics" was soon separated
from general philosophy. From the beginning of the 17th century, it constituted
a separate subject, especially valued in those circles. It is worth noting that most
of the graduates of the Gdansk and Torun high schools, prepared their examination
thesis from physics and writing textbooks on this subject, showing a special interest
for astronomy.
Catholic schools in Poland up to the middle of the 18 th century, rather carefully
observed the Aristotle-scholastic line in lectures on natural science. Protestant
schools were much more liberal in this respect. The Aristotelian system was attacked
there already at the beginning of the 17th century, and approval was expressed for
the views of the anti-Aristotelians from Wittenberg university, especially Johan
Sperling. The theses of both students and professors in the 17th century were packed
with discussions on all current topics. The fact what in spite of this, the heliocentric
system was finally accepted there compiuativelly late, was connected with the spe-
cial role, in the world outlook, of astronomy as yielding knowledge about the heav-
ens, and also in the special ideological aspect of the dispute over the heliocentric
system.
Both Catholic and Protestant schools taught astronomy for two reasons - the
first merely practical, the second more profound connected with religion and outlook
on the world. The first reason concerned ability to use a calendar and cloks, and
86 Barbara Bienkowska
a basic ability to orientate by means of stars, and weather forecasting. The religious
aspect was connected with religious education at schools in those days. Knowledge
about the greatness and the spatial distribution of the heavens was intended to prove
the wisdom and the goodness of the Creator. "The heavens praise the glory of
God" - this expression from the Bible was the guiding thought of many school
textbooks on astronomy, and even of scientific treatises on astronomy. Both Catholic
and Protestants alike recognized the role of astrononomy in forming the religious
and world outlook. Moreover the authors of textbooks attributed this role to all
natural sciences, declaring that nature as a whole and all its components reflect the
Creator. One can then have cognition of God by studying both the written Book
of Revelation - the Bible, or the unwritten - the "book" of nature. The two "books"
cannot, having been created by God, be contradictory. The principle that the Bible
and the results of research in natural sciences must be fully consistent, accepted
both by Catholics and Protestants, recognized as the starting point equally by
Jesuit, Lutheran professors and - for instance - Komensky constituted a major
obstacle to the development of scientific research and its popularization. Thus in
practice the results of the observations and calculations of astronomers, physicists
or biologists should supply an image consistent with the description of the creation
of the universe and its structure given in the Bible. In the course of the progress of
knowledge, modern astronomy supplied more and more views controversial with
the Bible. This especially concerned the heliocentric theory. Many verses of the Bible
clearly imply that the Earth is immovable and by God fixed once and for ever in
its foundations, while the Sun is in motion. In such a controversial situation the only
way of preserving the authority of the Bible, and at the same time of accepting
the results of the discoveries of modern natural sciences was to recognize an alle-
goric, metaphoric interpretation of the verses of the Bible concerning natural phenom-
ena. The traditions of such a metaphoric interpretation of the Bible go back in
Christian philosophy to St. Augustin. To this tradition Galileo referred in his well
known letter of 1615 to Christine, Duchess of Tuscany. He argued that the Bible
uses a popular language in describing the phenomena of nature, suitable to the
concepts and images of common people, in order to make its ideas of faith and mor-
ality understandable. Teaching the laws of physics was not the aim of the Bible
and a literal interpretation of the verses of the Bible dealing with the phenomena of
nature in a manner undermining scientific statements would be contrary to common
sense and tradition. The conception of the allegoric interpretation of the Bible
represented by Galileo was condemned by the Roman Catholic church in decrees
of 1616 and 1633, which were qualified only in the mid-18 th century. "The problem
of Galileo" thus made it impossible for many years to reconcile within orthodox
Catholic doctrine the description in the Bible and the discoveries of modern science,
and impossible, too, the acceptance of the heliocentric system in Catholic Schools.
Protestant clergymen and scientists, however, not restricted by the Roman decree,
and furthermore using the decree as an argument in their polemics, took into consid-
eration and worked out in detail, already in the 17th century, the possibility of rec-
onciling the principles of the heliocentric system with the Bible interpreted allego-
rically. In this connection, Protestant schools, in spite of many substantial (Aristo-
telian physics) and ideological restraints were able much earlier than Catholic
schools to overcome the basic difficulty - which was the verbal inconsistency with
the Bible of the scientific theory considered fully authoritative and credible in the
latter part of the 17th century.
The finest traditions of the controversy with and for heliocentrism are represen-
ted, of course, by the most famous school of old Poland - the Cracow Academy.
Traces of interest taken there in the text of De revolutionibus are found as far back
as the 16th century, not many years after the death of Copernicus. It must be re-
membered that Copernicus had been one of its students, and his cult developed
there until the end of the period under review.
On the other hand, the Cracow Academy hung on longest in its official lectures
to the geocentric theory of the universe, and was the last of all Polish schools to
recognize the heliocentric theory. This is one of the eloquent proofs that a sincere
and real cult of Copernicus as a great scholar and illustrious student of the Cracow
Academy could be accompanied by a slashing criticism of his theory in the minds
of Polish scholars of that time.
The cult of Copernicus and the interest taken in his works were inspired by the
Cracow professors of astronomy. In 1542 - that is still in the lifetime of the From-
bork scholar - Albert Caprinus of Bukowo wrote a foreword to his astrological
book of prognoses, in which he highly praised Copernicus as a mathematici of genius.
In 1549, another Professor, Hilary of Wislica, drew up an astronomical calendar,
called Ephemerides, on the basis of the astronomical tables contained in De revo-
lutionibus. A. Birkenmajer has shown that this use of Copernicus's calculations did
not need and was not tantamount to acceptance of the theory of a moving earth 1 •
In the years 1578-1580, Professor Walenty Fontana explained the tables of Co-
pernicus during his lectures, but even this is not admissible as a proof of the accept-
ance of heliocentrism 2 • On the basis of the Copernican calculations, Cracow pro-
fessors carried out in 1563 a group observations of the conjunction of Saturn and
Jupiter. Until the end of the 16th century and all through the 17th (which was already
a scientific anachronism) Cracow professors used Copernican calculations in their
works, demonstrating an accurate acquaintance with the text of De revolutioni-
bus... For the significance of the latter work consisted, as A. Birkenmajer has shown,
not only in the theory expounded in it but also in the large number of Copernicus's
independent observations and calculations which served for a strict determination
of the elements of the movement of heavenly bodies, and for the compilation of
1 A. Birkenmajer, Czy Hilary z Wislicy byl szermierzem systemu heliocentrycznego w Kra-
kowie? [Was Hilary of Wislica the Champion of the Heliocentric System in Cracow?], in the quar-
terly "Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki", 1959, pp. 419-464.
2 E. Rybka, Four Hundred Years of the Copernican Heritage, Krakow, 1964, pp. 175.
88 Barbara Bielzkowska
Tables better agreeing with the sky than the old ones. Numerous astronomers of
the 16th century and the first half of the 17th attached more weight to the merits
of Copernicus as an observer and author of Tables than as the author of the helio-
centric theory. This was because those Tables stood up well to practical examina-
tion, while the theory of the movement of the earth defied at once the ages-old
scientific authorities recognized by schools and the direct testimony of human senses.
During the period under review, the Cracow Academy was pursuing first and fore-
most practical astronomy. For his Tables alone, therefore, Copernicus won at once
great recognition, and as a result of the scientific conservatism of the Cracow pro-
fessors that recognition continued even when a large part of the detailed calculations
was already out of date. On the other hand, the lectures on philosophy and natural
science held at the Academy itself and its branches - secondary schools situated
in smaller towns - contained the geocentric theory taught from a textbook by
J. Carpentarius, Mediaeval but still popular in the 17th century. In the historical
aspect, therefore, Copernicus could not be identified with the heliocentric theory.
The activity of Professor Jan Brozek (d. 1652) was of great importance for deepen-
ing the interest taken in the life and work of Copernicus by the Cracow milieu.
It appears from Brozek's private (inedita) notes made in the margins of De revo-
lutionibus and of works by Kepler and Galileo, that he was inclined to recognize
the heliocentric theory and the theory of the multitude of worlds. All he, like other
icholars of those times, wanted, was to back this by further physical and mathemat-
scal arguments. But in his official academic lectures, Brozek remained faithful to
geocentrism and Aristotle. The personal interest taken by Brozek in the person
of Copernicus was expressed in a scientific expedition to Warmia in 1618, the aim
of which was to look for memorabilia and biographic materials connected with the
great scholar. The only result of this search was a biography of Copernicus contained
in a collection of the lives of Polish writers and scholars published by Szymon Staro-
wolski (1627), and publication of a pseudo-Copernican religious poem called The
Seven Stars (Septem sidera).
Under the strong influence of Brozek, who enjoyed a marked scientific authority,
Cracow chroniclers and professors of the latter part of the 17th century frequently
extolled Copernicus. At the same time they propagated geocentrism in the version
of Tycho or even Ptolemy.
Stanislaw Slowakowic, professor of astronomy and physician was also inclined
to accept the heliocentric theory in his book attacking the natural science of Aristotle
and supporting the modern theory of the origin of comets (Postliminium come-
tarum, Cracow 1681). But Slowakowic was entirely alone among the conservative
professors of the Cracow Academy. Many decades passed before those professors
began to treat the heliocentric theory as a hypothesis equivalent to the system of
Tycho. A veritable turning point as regards the heliocentric theory occurred only
in 1761, when Professor Jakub Niegowiecki published a treatise containing obser-
vations of the passage of the planet Venus in front of the sun.
In his observations and calculations, Niegowiecki used the heliocentric theory,

but he treated it, nevertheless, only as the most probable of all hypotheses, more
useful for research than the theory of Tycho. He denied to it, however, the name of
an objective physical axiom, and in a special treatise he criticized astronomers
accepting the movement of the earth as real.
Thus after many years of complete rejection of the heliocentric theory a new
situation arose at the Cracow Academy. Following in the steps of Niegowiecki,
many professors admitted that the Copernican theory had remarkable cognitive
values, but denied that it reflected reality, arguing that. it lacked convincing scien-
tific arguments and was inconsistent with the Bible. The recognition of the helio-
centric theory as the best existing working hypothesis for the use of astronomers
was, of course, a marked step forward, but it was at the same time a glaring anach-
ronism in relation to the then level of science and teaching in Western Europe,
or even in other Polish countries. No wonder that this gave rise to sharp protests.
In his book Prodromus Polonus eruditae veritatis, Berlin - Wroclaw 1765, Marcin
Swi~tkowski fought for the removal from teaching curricula of the obsolate Aristo-
telian and scholastic theories. The book contained a separate chapter devoted to
praise of the heliocentric system and its author - Nicolas Copernicus. Swi~tkowski
was a mathematician, professor of the Cracow Academy, a student of Christian
Wolf of Halle, a zealous propagator of modern philosophy and science. He was
particularly scornful of objections to the heliocentric theory arising from a literal
understanding of the Bible. Like all other propagators of the ideas of the Enlighten-
ment in Poland, Swi~tkowski argued that the heliocentric system not only does
not stand in contradiction to the Bible and theology, but that by its harmony it dem-
onstrates even better the wisdom of the Creator.
Efforts of the propagators of the Enlightenment, particularly those of Hugo
KoUl!taj, who in cooperation with progressive professors introduced a thorough
reform of the Cracow Academy in the years 1777-1780, created conditions for
the introduction of the heliocentric system as the sole recognized cosmological
system giving a true picture of the universe. The complete triumph of the theory
of heliocentrism in the Cracow Academy was an Apologia of Nicolas Copernicus,
in a speech made at the Academy in 1782 by the then young scholar, Jan Sniadecki,
later a famous mathematician and astronomer.
In his speech, Sniadecki not only extolled the merits and talent of Nicolas Coper-
nicus, but above all presented his theory as the picture of the true system of the sky.
The speaker devoted considerable attention to the controversy about the heliocentric
system, justly seeing in it a plot of scholastic forces. Sniadecki argued that the clergy
had committed a serious error when they attacked the heliocentric theory with
arguments from the Bible. After all, the Copernicus theory does not undermine
religion, it only explains more lucidly and perfectly than other theories the work
of the Lord. By placing the whole blame for the fight against the heliocentric theory
on the Roman Inquisition, Sniadecki avoided a conflict with the clergy.
90 Barbara Biefzkowska
Sniadecki's view that it had been only the Copernican theory that fully showed
the whole might and wisdom of God had been advanced on numerous occasions
by European heliocentrists of the 17th century. It was used by Galileo, it was beauti-
fully expressed by the founder of the Oratoriars, Pierre Berulle (d. 1629). But in
Poland this argument came to be appreciated only in the epoch of the Enlightenment.
The men of the Polish Enlightenment repeated after the earlier centuries that the
book of nature and the book of the Scriptures are the work of the same God and
cannot be mutually contradictory, but they drew different conclusions from this.
They no longer thought of subordinating scientific studies to theology, but of inter-
preting the results of natural studies as proof of the wisdom and might of the Creator.
This then necessary model of reasoning opened up possibilities of independent na-
tural investigations without giving rise to conflicts, and even with the approval
of theologians.
The triumph of the heliocentric system at the Cracow Academy opened up for
this theory a way to lectures at schools connected with the Academy. There too, of
course, the acceptance of the heliocentric theory progressed with difficulty, for reasons
identical with these applying at the Academy.
Particularly at the Zamosc Academy, a school of fine scientific traditions, pos-
sessing from 1594 the rights of a higher school but declining in the 18 th century,
the divergencies of opinion among the professors on the subject of the Copernican
theory were still great.
Klemens Poniatowski, a Zamosc professor, published in 1768, for example,
an outline of modern natural science, in which he conceded high scientific merits
to heliocentrism 3 • The author, a propagator of the physics of Newton, asserted
that heliocentrism was consistent with the laws of physics and astronomers' obser-
vations. Although heliocentrism appeared to stand in contradiction the Bible,
the latter also, after all speaks of moving the earth from its place (The Book of
Job' 9,6). There is no doubt that Poniatowski himself did not need arguments of
this type, but as a teacher he had to consider the popular habits of thought. And
hence propagating' a new theory he baked it with the customary biblical arguments.
But to the last they did not convince the milieu of the Zamosc professors. As late
as 1774, printed philosophical theses appeared rejecting the Copernican theory.
Even though the author of those theses conceded the consistency of the theory with
astronomy, he quoted the letter of the Bible and accepted the Tycho system.
* *
*
It was the Jesuit schools in Poland that were the first to turn their attention to
the heliocentric theory. A sort of first stage of acquainting students with the Coper-
3 K. Poniatowski, Summula philosophiae naturalibus in physica phaenomenis exornata, Za-

mosc 1768.
nican theory was provided by polemical digressions during lectures on the theories
of Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe. While refuting the principles of the heliocentric theory,
the Jesuit teachers unwrittentionally popularized both the theory itself and the
name of its author. It must also be remembered that from the close of the 16th cen-
tury Copernicus was recognized and trusted in Jesuit schools as the author of accurate
calculations.
The Jesuit colleges rejected the theory of the movement of the earth even before
it was officially condemned by the Church in 1616. For example, an extent rough
manuscript contains the draft of lectures on astronomy according to The Sphere
by John Holywood held in 1610 in the Jesuit College in Braniewo. The lecturer,
Henryk of Gdansk of whom little is known, expounded in it the geocentric system,
but mentioned also the existence of other, different, view with regard to the system
of the universe 4 • He wrote, namely, that there were astronomers, including their
leader Nicolas Copernicus, who assert that the earth moves in a circular motion.
The view, however, could not be accepted for it was denied by scientific reasoning
(the Aristotelian physics), religious reasoning (the Bible) and the everyday testimony
of our senses. Aristotle taught that the elements can have only a single movement
along a straight line. The Bible clearly stated that the earth is stationary, while the
sun and the whole sky are moving. Moreover, we might see with our own eyes
that an arrow or a stone cast upwards drops back in the same spot, while all objects
on the surface of the earth remain in their place at rest. The Jesuit astronomer left
the detailed polemic concerning the theory of the movement of the earth to men
more competent in this domain.
The Braniewo lecture is typical of the Jesuit astronomical lectures of the early
17th century. On the basis of Aristotelian physics and the Bible, Jesuits propagated
the geocentric system, but at the same time treated polemically the views of helio-
centrists. The Braniewo MS contains also another element which played a decisive
role in the process of the reception of the heliocentric theory - namely, the trend
of an allegorical interpretation of those fragments of the Bible, which pertained to
heavenly phenomena. The teacher from Braniewo dwelled on the meaning of the
well-known fragment of the Book of Genesis (1,16) which speaks of the creation
of two "great lights" (lumina magna) - the Sun and the Moon. Astronomers,
meanwhile found beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Sun and the Moon are
not the greatest lights, since the stars are bigger. The words of the Bible must, there-
fore, be taken to mean that the Sun and the Moon are the greatest not in size but
in their effect (non mole sed efficientia), because both in the daytime and at night
they illuminate the Earth more than the stars 5 •
An even more eloquent example of the tendency towards the allegorical inter-
4 Manuscript, property of Biblioteka Narodowa (National Library). Rps. BN 3468. Henrikus
Gedanensis. Quaestiones astronomicae in sphaeram Joannis de Sacro Bosco in collegio Brunsbergensi

Soc. Iesu, Anno 1610 ... card 94. v.
5 MS, BN 3468, p. 115 v.
pretation of the "natural" fragments of the Bible is contained in a lecture delivered

in 1625 at an obscure Jesuit college in Poland 6 • The Jesuit professor in question
held to the geocentric system and criticized the speculations of certain (unspecified)
philosophers concerning the possibility of the existence of many worlds (pluralitas
mundorum). He dwelt at length, though on the results of the studies of Galileo on
the movement of the planets and on the sun spots, and distinctly asserted that one
must not take literally the fragments of the Bible relating to heavenly bodies, for
the Bible frequently uses terms of little accuracy, unacceptable to science. It uses,
for example, the term "heavens" for the air and for the sky itself, and the term
"light" for the sun itself and the light of day in general. There is no doubt that it
was no great jump from such assertions to finding that the biblical texts concerning
the movement of heavenly bodies were of small authority for scientists. Galileo's
trial and the Roman decree of 1633 connected with it, strictly banning a non-literal
interpretation of all the words of the Holy Scriptures, for long put a stop to attempts
at a allegorical interpretation of the Bible in the Polish Jesuit schools. They arrested
considerably, therefore, the process of the reception of heliocentrism in those schools.
Opposition against heliocentrism was maintained in Jesuit philosophy and astron-
omy lectures from the thirties of the 17th century, until the middle of the 18th .
With this difference, that as the years went by, the system was discussed in ever
greater detail, and ever more arguments had to be found against it. The arsenal
of the anti-heliocentric proofs also kept changing. In the mid-17th century, Polish
Jesuit schools imparted to the polemic with the heliocentric theory characteristic
traits of scientific criticism. With this aim in view, Jesuit professors usually exploited
the arguments of J. B. Riccioli, a renowned Jesuit astronomer and geocentrist of
the mid~17th century. The inconsistency of the heliocentric theory with the Bible
was then barely mentioned, but no emphasis was laid on the problem. No attacks
on Copernicus himself are recorded in Polish schools (neither could they be found
in Riccioli's work). Invective, if any, was addressed not against Copernicus himself
(whose name was protected by his scientific prestige, backed also by the Jesuits
themselves and by the foreword of Osiander suggesting the hypothetical character
of the Copernican theory), but against contemporary propagators of the heliocentric
theory - recruited mostly from Protestant circles.
In order to keep their lectures up-to-date, Jesuit professors had to be ever more
painstaking in their polemics with the heliocentric theory. Beginning with the latter
part of the 17th century, they already defended not only the principle of the immobil-
ity and central position of the earth in the universe, but also, in accordance with
instructions from Rome, the principle of a literal understanding of the relevant
fragments of the Bible. For as physical and astronomical observations and investi-
gations progressed, critics began to lack scientific arguments and the Bible remained
their sole mainstay. From its scientific track, the discussion began to pass over
6 Universa Aristotelis philosophia naturalis, 1625, MS, BN, p. 479.

more visibly to the ideological plane. One may cite here as examples the printed
philosophical theses of a 1666 graduate of the Braniewo College. The author launched
his main attack against supporters of a metaphorical interpretation of the "anti-
-heliocentric" fragments of the Bible. Since the Roman Curia clung to their literal
interpretation, the student in his polemic zeal went so far as to call heliocentrists
the enemies of the Pope, even of religion and God. He appealed also, though not
primarily, to reason: that one cannot be the solugh of the forests caused by the onward
rush of the earth, that all objects on the surface remain at rest, that a bullet fired
in an easterly direction hits a flying bird, though it travels, together with the air
and the earth, 4 miles in a short moment, while the bullet travels half a mile only.
As time passed, arguments of this kind were becoming more and more anachronic,
but were invariably repeated in most Jesuit lectures almost until the middle of the
18 th century 7 •
Similar objections were weighed in the eighties of the 17th century by Adam
Kochanski, an eminent Jesuit mathematician, well-known in the scientific centres
of Europe. He published in 1685 his own reflections on the subject of the heliocentric
theory, ever more widely recognized in EuropeB. Kochanski did not accept the helio-
centric theory. His counter-arguments were its inconsistency with the Bible and lack
of convincing scientific proof. But Kochanski did not discredit or completely reject
the theory on the movement of the earth. He considered that it should be verified
experimentally by mathematical and physical methods. If the experiment confirmed
the indisputable correctness of the thesis, only then would it be possible to think
how to make the text fit the physical truth. The scientist even worked out the project
of such an experiment. Kochanski's reasoning, though curbed by the Rome decrees
of 1616 and 1633 and cautious to a fault in face of the astronomic and physical
proofs accumulated by 1685, admitted, however, the possibility of a revision of
the theological standpoint in face of obvious scientific truth.
That truth, revealing itself in a manner which defied all denial, compelled a part
of the Jesuit professors to relent in the early years of the 18 th century.
Some handwritten philosophy lectures from the beginning of the 18 th century,
delivered at an unidentified Jesuit college in Poland, contained the basic principles
of the heliocentric theory and even called it a hypothesis valuable for astronomers 9 •
But the Jesuit professors in question came out definitely in favour of the Tycho
hypothesis, since it was consistent with the Bible. The fact that heliocentrism came
to be called the clearest hypothesis explaining the phenomena taking place in the sky
was the first step taken by the Jesuit schools towards the acceptance of the helio-
centric theory, due to the reception of the elements of a new philosophy and natural
history. The development of exact sciences, and above all the publication of Newton's
7 M. T. Sosnowski, Conclusiones ex universa Aristotelis philosophia, Braniewo 1666.
8 Considerationes et observationes physico-mathematicae circa diurnam Tel/uris vertiginem.
Acta eruditorum, Lipsiae, 1685, pp. 317-327.
9 Ms, property of Ossolineum Library, shelf No. Pawl 168, card 152-159.
basic work (1687), removed scientific doubts. The sole obstacle remained the Bible,
which distinctly spoke of a moving sun and stationary earth.
In this situation, the Jesuit professors of the first half of the 18 th century gradually
rid themselves of the scientific arguments based on Aristotelian physics. Their place
began to be taken by works full of appreciation of heliocentric theory as the best
hypothesis, its acceptance banned solely by the Roman interdiction. Thus the Jesuits
accepted the scientifically inferior but religiously uncontroversial hypothesis of
Tycho.
Kasper Niesiecki, for example, a lecturer in mathematics and related sciences
in Kalisz college in 1717, objected to the heliocentric theory solely because it was
inconsistent with the Bible. He did not offer, on the other hand, any counter argu-
ments based on science or reasoninglo. A graduate of the Jesuit College in Lw6w
in 1746, also charged the heliocentric theory only with a formal inconsistency with the
Bible l l • Nevertheless, this formal inconsistency was sufficient to prevent the author
from recognizing the movement of the earth as truth. The scholar explained even
in this connection that Copernicus himself (called "the iIlustrious astronomer")
had presented his theory only hypothetically for a better mathematical explanation
of the heavenly phenomena. It was only later that astronomers and writers tried to
ascribe to Copernicus a conviction of the truthfulness of his idea, in order to make
it easier for themselves to convince their students and readers. One sees in this justi-
fication of Copernicus an echo of the all-Polish cult of the great scholar, continuing
and developing in defiance of the critics of the heliocentric theory.
Around the middle of the 18 th century, Jesuit professors began to depart more
and more distinctly from the principles of Aristotelian and scholastic science, and
to accept elements of modern philosophy and natural history. The process neither
proceeded easily nor in all centres uniformly. The Jesuits were attached to the old
conceptions and ideas forming a cohesive philosophical and theological system,
a system closely bound up with the traditions of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile,
the new science was a product of laymen, mostly of the Protestant persuasion.
The Jesuit teachers, most of whom were badly trained scientifically, feared the threat
to the foundations of their religion contained in a totally new picture of the universe
created by astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology. But under the pressure
of Enlightenment tendencies spreading ever more widely in Poland in the mid-18 th
century, and in view of the necessity to adapt the curricula of their schools to the
changed requirements, the Jesuits had to yield and accept the elements of the new
philosophy and science. They adopted, nevertheless, a very far-going eclecticism.
They eliminated Cartesianism, contenting themselves with the physics of Newton
10 MS, property of Biblioteka K6rnicka (K6rnik Library), No 1425. About the lectures of
Niesiecki: T. Przypkowski, Astronomia II' Kaliszu [Astronomy in Kalisz], [in:] OsiemnaScie wiek6w
Kalisza, Kalisz, 1960, pp. 193-194.
11 Rozmowa 0 jilozojii przez Michala Druibackiego napisana [A Discusion on Philosophy
by Michal Druzbacki], Lw6w, 1746.

in the philosophical interpretation of the well-known philosopher of the era of the

Enlightenment, Christian Wolf. They began at the same time to propagate the new
vision of the world as the perfect expression of the benevolence and wisdom of
the Creator. This left, of course, no room for clinging to the "letter" of the Bible.
The Polish Jesuits therefore accepted gradually the principle of the lack of the author-
ity of the Bible on scientific questions, a view long since accepted in the Catholic
centres of Western Europe.
A portent and a marked example of this new attitude of Polish Jesuits was the
1760 textbook by Benedykt Dobszewicz, containing an exposition of modern
philosophy12. Speaking of the cosmological systems, the author asserted that the
conception of Tycho, although consistent with the Bible and explaining heavenly
phenomena, does not explain the causes of the movement of the planets. It would
have to be surmised that it was a perpetual miracle performed by God, or that the
Angels move the planets, which cannot be considered as natural or credible. Thus
Dobszewicz mutely espoused the heliocentric theory.
At approximately the same time, another Jesuit professor, S. Szadurski, who
taught philosophy in Nowogr6dek and Warsaw, published in 1761 and 1762 exam-
ination theses for his students. They accepted the heliocentric theory as the best
of all hypotheses supported by new scientific arguments, especially the discoveries
of Newton. The latter's physics thus supported the heliocentric system as well.
The examination theses from subsequent years moved, gradually but consist-
ently, toward a complete approval of the heliocentric hypothesis. It is worthwhile
to follow this complicated process on at least a few examples:
In 1763, Stefan Luskina, professor of mathematics and physics at the Jesuit
College in Warsaw, published theses of his students who extolled Copernicus and
accepted the heliocentric theory as fully consistent with heavenly phenomena and
modern physics. Copernicus was called in them a great Polish astronomer, a native
of Royal Prussia, whose theory had been accepted and applied by the greatest
scholars, from Kepler and Galileo to Newton. Objections arising from inconsistency
with the Bible were of no moment if the movement of the earth was accepted as
a hypothesis. The students referred also to a work by L. A. Muratorj13 and argued
12 B. Dobszewicz, Placita recentiorum philosophiorum explanata, Wilno, 1760.

13 D. A. Muratori, De ingeniorum moderatione in religionis negatio. Lutetiae Parisiorum,
1714. This work played a considerable role in the history of the European dispute over the helio-
centric system. Muratori, a Catholic clergyman, and then a well-known historian and religious
writer came out against the literal interpretation of verses of the Bible concerning the phenomena
of nature. The Bible, in his opinion, described the phenomena of nature as they appeared, and
not as they actually were. The Bible used simple language understandable for common uneducated
people, and frequently employed metaphors. Referring to the verses of the Bible declaring that the
Earth is static Muratori said that they were general observations perceived by the senses, which
should not be taken into consideration in scientific research, and beyond that must not be used to
challenge the discoveries of astronomers. Muratori then expressed the same opinion as GaIiIeo
a hundred years earlier: he was not, however, condemned by Rome.
that many Catholics were of the opinion that the Bible did not really contradict
the heliocentric theory, since it lacked authority on physical and natural questions.
Theses on general physics defended at an examination of students at the Jesuit
Academy in Wilno in 1764 went even further. They explained why an observer
moving together with the rotating earth does not feel this movement and ascribes
it to other heavenly bodies. This was already not only a recognition of the helio-
centric theory, but also a confutation of counter-arguments.
The contents and level of the theses of philosophy graduates in Jesuit schools
were never normalized by strict curricula. There existed certain common general
tendencies, but smaller or greater deviations were caused by the different scientific
preparation and individual views of the various professors. This was why professors
of eminent schools in Warsaw and Wilno saw no obstacles to the teaching of helio-
centrism, while other schools more distant from cultural centres still felt the old
objections. It may be said generally, however, that in the years from 1765 to 1773
(when the Society of Jesus was dissolved) the Jesuit schools in Poland came close
to a full recognition of heliocentrism as the most probable, and most convenient
hypothesis.
Simultaneously voices began to be heard among Polish Jesuits demanding the
removal of the hypothetical barrier to the recognition of the Copernican theory.
There is no doubt that the most momentous and well-considered contribution
was made in 1768 by Grzegorz Arakielowicz, a professor of the Jesuit College in
Przemysl. His publication was a scientific treatise containing his own notes on the
subject of the heliocentric theory. It was, therefore, of a higher standard than school
lectures which are by the very nature of things more general and superficiaJ14.
Arakielowicz considered heliocentrism to be no more than a hypothesis, but
one that met all scientific requirements, that is, explained satisfactorily heavenly
phenomena and was consistent with the principles of physics. It was, therefore, the
most perfect hypothesis, superior to the obsolete theories of Ptolemy and Tycho,
and had been accepted, therefore, by all scientists.
Arakielowicz did not answer unequivocally the question of whether heliocen-
trism was inconsistent with the Bible or not, feeling no doubt dependent on the
authorities of the Society and the Church. He asserted generally, however, questing
the earlier opinions of Gassendi and Muratori, that the Bible was incompetent when
it came to scientific disputes, and its fragments referring to heaven and nature could
not be taken literally, nor used as arguments either in favour or against in scientific
discussions.
Arakielowicz's publication, though restricted no doubt in the formulation of
the final conclusions concerning heliocentrism, taken together with the views of
14 G. Arakielowicz, De mundi systemate dissertatio cosmologica qua de Copernicani syste-
matis cum philosophia Sacrisque praesertim litteris quaestio discutitur, Przemysl, 1768.
other Jesuit professors, constituted an important stage in the controversy around

the heliocentric theory in Poland. Textbooks and school lectures of that time con-
tained information on Copernicus's theory as the best hypothesis. The Ptolemaic
system was shelved, and the theory of Tycho Brahe began to be disqualified. Thus
it was an intermediate stage in the reception of heliocentrism, which was indispen-
sable for the subsequent leap from the prejudice of the forties to the complete recog-
nition of the objective truth of heliocentrism in the seventies and eighties of the
18th century.
The subsequent period was marked by an increasingly comprehensive and affir-
mative introduction of the heliocentric theory into the Jesuit school curricula.
A textbook by L. Hoszowski, for example, published in Lwow in 1766, enumerated
heavenly bodies in the Copernican order. Without specially discussing this system,
the author only pointed out that it results from the theory of gravitation.
The Copernican planetary system was taught by a geography manual written
by a Jesuit father, Karol Wyrwicz, and published in Warsaw in 1768. A collection
of examination questions and answers for students of the Warsaw College appeared
in printed form in 1771. The section called Physica particularis contained also infor-
mation on the theory of Nicolas Copernicus. It was said, inter alia, that the devel-
opment of astronomy first pushed out the Ptolemaic system, and then discredited
the theory of Tycho, "while almost all men recognize today the system of the Pole,
Copernicus, as nearer to the truth than the others, and fully consistent with astro-
nomical observations".
This shows that in the period immediately before the dissolution of the Society,
the leading Jesuit schools were already teaching rudiments of the heliocentric theory.
Scholars, on the other hand, were still weighing deeply the scientific values of helio-
centrism and its contradiction of the "letter" of the Bible.
A graduate of the Jesuit College in Wilno, Jan Konarski, for example, published
in 1769 philosophical theses in which he used scientific arguments in favour of a (uni-
versal, as he put it) recognition of the heliocentric theory. The Jesuit scholar accepted
the principles of the new physics, but criticized the materialistic interpretation of
natural phenomena, represented over the ages by Epicur, Toland and Covard.
He himself, however, rejected constant intervention by supernatural forces, guiding
himself by Newton's principle that the causes of natural phenomena, are what they
really are, and that these causes are sufficient for explaining those phenomena;
identical causes produce identical results which it is possible to determine. The discov-
eries of Kepler, Newton and Bradley confirming the movement of the earth proved
that the Copernican hypothesis was the best of them all. The movement of the earth
explained all heavenly phenomena so well and satisfactorily that it was unnecessary
to search for other causes of these phenomena. Konarski consistently called helio-
centrism a hypothesis, but nowhere did he even hint that it was inconsistent with
the Bible.
On the other hand, the inconsistency was dealt with especially by a Jesuit author

98 Barbara Bieflkowska
of a physics lecture at the beginning of the seventies of the 18th century 15. He wrote
inter alia as follows:
The Holy Scripture speaks of the phenomena of nature as the ordinary man understands them.
This is why the causes and the origin of a given phenomenon can be explained solely by men con-
versant with physics and mathematics. The Holy Scripture speaks of a phenomenon as of a histori-
cal fact, the explanation of the manner in which that physical phenomenon occurred belongs to
mathematics. The problem was very skilfully dealt with by Gassendi: God reveals himself to us in
two ways, in the world of material nature by the experiments of mathematicians, in things revealed
through revelation. And just as we were right in saying that a mathematician who might try to solve
questions of faith on the basis of geometry transcends his competence, so, on the other hand, theol-
ogians and preachers ignorant of geometry and optics and pronouncing verdicts on natural phenom-
ena exceed their powers. And were a man so dull as not to understand our arguments and so chil-
dish as to regard as impossible the fact that official interpreters of the Holy Scriptures do not under-
stand some of its details, he should be advised after Kepler to leave astronomers in peace and go
home, or even having condemned the astronomers' views should he wish to do so, go back to his
own work, and having lifted heavenwards the eyes with which he looks at the Sun praise the Lord,
our Creator with all his heart. He may be sure that he will do no less for God's glory than the astron-
omer who by the grace of God sees better, and can and wants to worship God for what he discovers.
With this one might end the remarks on the history of heliocentrism in the Jesuit
schools in Poland. For this quotation distinctly shows that toward the end of their
pedagogical activity the Jesuit schools overcame the religious objection with regard
to the movement of the earth. Victory went to the tendency of Galileo and Muratori
to treat the Bible as a text unauthoritative on questions of natural history.
As we have tried to demonstrate, Jesuit professors began to take an interest in
the heliocentric theory in the early 17th century - that is, as soon as this theory be-
came one of the most important and most controversial problems of science. At
first, this interest was critical, and negative, but it popularized the main principles
of the Copernican theory among several generations of students of Jesuit schools.
As a result of a general drop in the standard of Jesuit schools in Poland in the latter
part of the 17th and the early 18th century, the attitude toward the heliocentric
theory began to change too late, together with the rejection of the obsolete scholastic
learning and the acceptance of the fundamental elements of modern natural history,
particularly the physics of Newton. The real achievement of the Jesuit schools in
the reception of the heliocentric theory consisted in the recognition of the Copernican
theory as the best of all hypotheses and the rejection of the prejudice against it
arising from its formal inconsistency with the Bible. This achievement became the
basis for the recognition of the heliocentric theory as an undeniable scientific truth
in the schools of the Commission of National Education.
* *
*
The heliocentric theory was accepted at Polish Piarist schools in a different
way and time. There are as yet no materials on the reception of the theory of Coper-
15 MS in possession of the Ossolineum Library, No 2929/1. This piece was quoted in a Polish
nicus in those schools before 1746. This date has been accepted conventionally by
W. Smolenski 16 and other scholars as the turning point in the history of Piarist
schools in Poland. In the preceeding period, most probably Aristotelian doctrine,
including the geocentric system of the universe, were taught in natural sciences.
This opinion, however, still needs to be chacked, after a detailed study of historical
sources.
Thus far, the publication of these discussing the main principles of the so-called
recentiorum philosophy by a pupil of the Warsaw professor Antoni Wisniewski,
in 1746, was considered the turning point. The theses discussed principles concerning
philosophy proper, as well as chemistry, physics, and natural sciences (biology).
It was a complete revelation in the circles of Polish Catholic schools, none of which
would allow a public discussion on and acceptance of the principles of a philosophy
openly opposing the officially accepted, Aristotelian system. A Piarist, Antoni
Wisniewski, the actual author and propagator of the above views, was one of the
pioneers of the Enlightenment trends in Poland. Together with Stanislaw Konarski,
he played an eminent role in the reform of Piarist schools and in introducing ele-
ments of modern natural science into the school curricula. The tenth item of the
theses referred to dealt with the motion of the Earth. It was formulated as a reflection
following an exercise for pupils during which they displayed what was called an
armillary sphere showing the mutual position of the planets and the Sun, according
to the Copernican system. The explanation stated that the adherents of the Coper-
nican system had not managed to prove that the Earth at different seasons of the
year, either approached or receded visibly to the senses, from a point in the universe.
According to the senses, it seemed always to be at the same distance from the heav-
ens. The Piarist thesis, however promptly retorted to this objection, most commonly
used as an argument against the heliocentric theory. It held that the orbit of the
Earth during its seasonal cycle is only a tiny speck compared with the space sprinkled
with stars.
Continuing this trend, other pupils of Wisniewski published in 1752 other theses,
this time on modern philosophy and physics. They already polemized with the sup-
porters of scholasticism from the Augustinian and Dominican orders. Items 106
and 107 were devoted to the heliocentric theory. They stated that the Ptolemaic
and Tychonic systems had caused chaos in astronomy. At present, continued the
theses, the only acceptable system was the hypothesis of Copernicus, so satisfactorily
and easily explaining all the phenomena of the universe. The authors stressed that
their choice had not been influenced by desire to honour the Polish nation, from
which Copernicus originated, but rested solely on the scientific value of the hypoth-
esis and its great credibility.
translation by S. Bednarski [in:] Upadek i odrodzenie szkol jezuickich w Polsce [The Decline and
Revival of Jesuit Schools in Poland], Krak6w, 1933, pp. 334-335.
16 W. Smolenski, Przewr6t umyslowy w Polsce wieku XVIII [The Intelectual Revolution in
Poland in the 18 th Century], Warszawa, 1923.

It is worth emphasizing that the Piarist theses of 1740 and 1752 made no ref-
erence to the inconsistencies of the heliocentric theory with the Bible, while, as we
have seen, Jesuit works analyzed this problem extensively. The Piarists at that time
already lectured the heliocentric theory, in a sense hedging the Rome decree, how-
ever, by defining the heliocentric system as a hypotheses, credible and the best.
By comparison with other schools, the Piarists from the leading, reformed Warsaw
college very early undertook the decisive step in the reception of the Copernican
theory - from a complete negation to lecturing it as the best hypothesis. The Jesuits
arrived at that point much later and following much more prolonged disputes.
Such an early and firm acceptance of the heliocentric theory was the result of rejec-
tion of the Aristotelian system and scholasticism in favour of the system of recen-
tiorum philosophy.
This concerns, of course, mainly the Warsaw Collegium NobiIium, which under
Konarski and Wisniewski became a real school of Polish Enlightenment. In provin-
cial Piarist colleges, progress was neither so quick nor so unambiguous. In 1759
was published a textbook envisaged for those schools, containing instruction on
the geocentric system.
There is a unique print of 1760 containing philosophical theses by a pupil of the
Piarist Warsaw Collegium NobiIium, Kazimierz Biernacki. In content these did
not differ from the theses of 1752, alreay referred to. It was then most probably
an accepted principle repeated every year. Of major importance, therefore,· is the
conclusion that year by year opinions were repeated that Copernicus' theory was
the most satisfactory and most probable hypothesis, which should, as being true,
be accepted in the motherland of its creator, many foreign scientists having already
considered it true.
In examination theses in Wilno (Vilnius) in 1762, there are also questions con-
cerning the heliocentric system. Since the papers contained questions on the theory
of the movement of the Earth, the problem must have been in the school curricula.
The questions were as follows:
1. What is the principle of the system of Filolaos or the Copernican system,
and does it explain all the phenomena of the universe? 2. What arguments based
on the Bible, physics and mathematics are brought forward by the opponents of
this system, and what are the answers to them? 3. What are the arguments in favour
of stating, that the Earth is a planet? 4. Are there any other systems of the universe
which would have the same astronomic and physical qualities as the Copernican
system? The manner in which the questions were put makes' it obvious that the author
favoured the heliocentric system. It may certainly, therefore, be stated that the pupils
of Piarist schools in Wilno, like those in Warsaw, were in 1762 systematically taught
the principles of the heliocentric theory - more, they were prepared for polemics
in its defence.
The process of accepting the heliocentric theory at Piarist schools was thus actually
concluded at the beginning of the 16's of the 18th century. The fact that differences
existed in some Piarist colleges cannot change the general opinion that Piarist schools
were the first of all Polish Catholic schools definitely to introduce the heliocentric
system into the school curricula. They also contributed greatly to the popularization
of the heliocentric theory, publicly coming out in its favour from the mid-18 th cen-
tury, in popular calendars and journals, and organizing public demonstrations and
discussions.
* *
*
The second half of the 18th century was marked by a considerable enlivening
of scientific activities at Catholic schools in Poland.
A manuscript of school lectures on modern physics, dated 1757-1758, though
without any note on the school it came from 17 , may serve as an interesting example
of this general trend. It certainly came from Catholic circles, and frequent quota-
tions from a textbook on physics by a member of the Theatin order, G. M. della
Torre, indicate that the lectures may have been held at the College of the Theatin
order in Warsaw.
Those lectures on physics were based on the Great French Encyclopaedia and
the textbook by della Torre. They accepted the Copernican theory as the most
credible of the known theories, and refuted objections as to its inconsistency with
the Bible. After the already mentioned Piarist theses of 1746 and 1752, which, how-
ever avoided discussion of the problem of inconsistency with the Bible, it in the sec-
ond early document proving the acceptance of the heliocentric theory in school
circles. It is at the same time an attempt to abandon the traditional, literal under-
standing of the Bible. The item concerning the heliocentric theory is so characteristic
that it is worth quoting in full (in translation from Latin):
... Nicolas Copernicus, a Pole, the Canon of Warmia, born at TOTlm on the 19th of February
1473 discovered (reperit) the structure of the universe, in the centre of which is a static Sun rotating
only around its axis, around the Sun at various distances from it, orbit planets, the first being Mer-
cury and the last Saturn. The system of Copernicus has been accepted by all the most famous uni-
versities and we consider it as the most credible and justified due to the following arguments: 1. The
Copernicus' system explains all the phenomena of the universe and the movements of the heavenly
bodies; 2. In the Copernicus system, constant stars are motionless, while in other systems such
a rapid motion is attributed to them in such a great space that it is more probable that the Earth,
more speck in the mass of stars, rotates at a much slower speed and in a smaller space; 3. In systems
assuming motion of the Sun, two opposite motions are designated for the Sun and the planets -
the motion specific to each of them from the West to the East, and the motion common to all, cau-
sed by primum mobile, from the East to the West. Two such opposite motions have never been
observed in nature; 4. Other systems assume the motion of all planets except the Earth, which in
weight is similar to them and is apparently as stable as they are.
Arguments against the motion of the Earth are easily met: 1. If the Earth orbited, water would
flow out of the wells. This argument can be unnihilated by stating the existence of the pressure of
17 MS in possession of the Biblioteka PAN (Library of the Polish Academy of Sciences) in
Krak6w, shelf No 3869.

air surrounding the Earth and the water in weJls; 2. If the Earth rotated, a stone thrown perpendicu-
larly upwards would never fall on the place it was thrown from. One may reply to this that the ro-
tation of the Earth makes the air over its surface rotate too, and the stone thrown up rotates together
with the air and falls down perpendicularly. 3. Known verses for the Bible deny the rotation of the
Earth, especiaJly the words of Joshua, and on the basis of these verses the Rome Congregation of
Cardinals banned in 1616 and 1633 teaching about the rotation of the Earth; this argument, again,
may be refuted by explaining that in the Bible, as regards purely physical matters, not involving any
dogma of faith, descriptions of physical problems are based only on perception and common ideas.
This excerpt undoubtedly proves that the author was convinced of the truth
of the heliocentric theory, and with a great art and facility solved the problem,
difficult for a Pole in those days, of reconciling this theory with the Bible.
The heliocentric theory was lectured consequently and according to programme
in the first Polish lay school, the Warsaw School for the Nobility (Szkoia Rycerska)
established in 1765. The up-to-date system of teaching introduced in that school
envisaged a curricula covering all known achievements or mathematics and natural
sciences, including of course the Copernican theory. The director of the School,
Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski, laid special stress on the popularization of the helio-
centric theory among the pupils. To this end he purchased in Britain at his own ex-
pense a "planetary machine" well known later in Warsaw, showing the orbiting
of planets around the Sun 18 •
By the 70's of the 17th century, all types of Catholic schools in Poland had finally
overcome than reluctance towards the heliocentric theory. Therefore, schools estab-
lished by the Commission for National Education established in 1773 was able
from the outset to take the last step and lecture on the Copernican system as the
true system of the universe.
When introducing natural history propositions into school curricula, the new
educational authority was aware of their impact on world outlook and the possibil-
ityof opposition. This was why an instruction issued for teachers in 1774 recomended
lectures on physics and biology without polemical and controversial accents, without
defending or attacking individual views. The lectures were to consist in a concise
presentation of propositions scientifically most probable. This is why the manuals
and examination answers of the Commission schools do not contain any polemics
or arguments either for or against - used so often in the monastic schools.
A concise physics manual published by J. M. Hube in 1783 does not evaluate
any cosmological theories 19 • Writing of the theory of the motion of the Earth, the
author did not even mention the name of Copernicus (perhaps precisely to avoid
18 K. Mrozowska, Szkola Rycerska Stanislawa Augusta Poniatowskiego (1765-1794) [The
Stanislaw August Poniatowski College for the Nobility (1765-1794)], Warszawa, 1961, pp. 86,222.
19 J. M. Hube, WstfP do jizyki dla szk61 narodowych [Introduction to Physics for Public
Schools], Warszawa, 1783, pp. 66-67. See J. Lubieniecka, Przedmioty matematyczno-przyrodnicze

w programie Towarzystwa do Ksiqg Elementarnych [Subjects Dealing with Mathematics and Natu-
ral Sciences in the Progranmle of the Society for Elementary Text Books], [in:] Rozprawy z dzie-
i6w oswiaty, vol. n, 1959, pp. 76-77, 83-84.
polemics). As regards the motion of the Earth J. M. Hube wrote as follows: "It is
not to be supposed, however, that the heavens are'in fact revolving... It is quite
possible that the Earth revolves round its axis from West to East unceasingly and
without stopping, and we do not p~rceive its revolutions, and it seems to us, therefore,
as if the Sun and all stars revolved round the Earth from West to East continuously".
The meaning of this fragment is quite obvious.
The examination questions printed in 1784 for elementary schools in Warsaw
contain the following formulation: "The Sun seems so to run its daily round as
if the entire heaven were revolving round its axis, which might be done, however,
by the revolving of the Earth". For the elementary school standard, this is a good
explanation of the seeming movement of the Sun. The formulation, couched in the
conditional mood, leaves no doubt as to the intention of its author. Another exami-
nation question concerned the law of general gravitation causing the movement
of all planets around the Sun.
A second manual on physics written by Hube appeared in 179220 • By comparison
with the earlier one, many more problems were dealt with and better documented.
Six consecutive pages, for example, were devoted to the problem of the Earth.
The author accepted the heliocentric theory without any reservation whatever.
Writing about scientists who had contributed most to the discovery and proof of
the motion of the Earth, Hube mentioned Copernicus first and Bradley second.
This shows, then, that the last physics manual published before the partition of
Poland spoke of the heliocentric theory without reservation or limitation, without
mention of the notorious "hypotheses" or inconsistency with the Bible. This was
eloquent proof of the triumph of enlightened thinking in the educational system.
In the same spirit of the Polish Enlightenment did Hube interpret the achievements
of mathematical and natural sciences. He emphasized very strongly that the new
picture of the world worked out by scholars may be considered the best proof
of the wisdom and goodness of God.
* *
*
The road of Polish protestant schools from rejection to acceptance of heliocen-
trism was shorter but equally difficult and important for the history of the national
culture. These schools turned their attention to the heliocentric theory as early as
did the Jesuit schools. But, more important it had in these schools its supporters
and propagators, throughout 17th century, and it was fully and finally accepted
in them several decades earlier (1722), than in the most progressive of Catholic
schools in this respect the Piarist schools.
In examining the attitude of the Protestant schools to Copernicus and the helio-
20 J. M. Hube, Fizyka dla szk6/ narodowych [physica for Public Schools], part 1- Mechanika
pierwszy raz wydana [Mechanics Published for the First Time], Krak6w, 1792, pp. 478-483, 536.
centric theory, we are compelled in the absence of source material to confine ourselves
above all to the three most important high schools in Gdansk, Torun, and Elbl~g.
These schools were staffed by the best professors, frequently renowned scholars,
and by the very nature of things they showed the greatest interest in the heliocentric
theory, because only in those schools did the curriculum include a full course of
philosophy, covering also natural history and astronomy.
In the latter part of the 16th century, the dissenter schools in Poland, like are other
European schools, taught geocentric theory. This was inevitable, since only a small
handful of scholars - astronomers and physicists - took an interest in the helio-
centric theory at that time.
Pedagogues among the Polish Brothers took a keen interest in the heliocentric
theory in the early 17th century. Joachim Stegmann, for example, the mathematics
professor at the Arian school founded in Rakow in 1602 is said to have been the
first man in Europe to introduce in his lectures, in the years 1634-1638, the discov-
eries of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo 21 • Martin Ruar, Rector of the Rakow
school in 1620-1621 corresponded later with M. Mersenne on Gassendi's work
De apparente magnitudine Solis (1642). He conceded in one of his letters that he
recognized the daily motion of the Earth, convinced by the arguments of Copernicus,
Kepler, Galileo and Gassendi. Ruar criticized, of course, the tendency to submit the
problem of the motion of the Earth to the judgement of the Roman Catholic Church
which was completely incompetent in scientific matters22. The thoughts expressed
in Ruar's correspondence were his private opinions, and we do not know whether
they had been expressed earlier in his didactic activity.
The geocentric system was taught and propagated in manuals at the end of the
16th and the beginning of the 17th century by Bartholomew Keckermann (d. 1609),
an eminent professor at the high school in Gdansk. In his astronomy manuaJ23
Keckermann, writing of the geocentric system, mentioned Copernicus as an illus-
trious fellow countryman and world-famous scholar. Keckermann praised the de-
tailed calculations of Copernicus and was indignant at J. C. Scaliger who had crit-
icized the distances from the Earth to the Sun established by Copernicus. This
statement by the Gdansk professor is the first known document of the local cult
of Copernicus in the Gdansk school milieu.
All this produced a situation similar to that prevailing among scientists in Cracow:
Copernicus was praised for his astronomical calculations and represented a source
of pride even before attention was turned to the heliocentric theory. But the develop-
ment of this starting situation followed different directions in the two places.
21 Z. Ogonowski, Arianie po[scy [polish Brothers], Warszawa 1952, p. 102.

22 L. Chmaj, Wst~ do: J. L. Wolzogen, Uwagi do Medytacji metajizycznych Rene Descar-
tesa [Introduction to L. J. Wolzogen, Remarks on the Methaphysica1 Reflections of Rene Descar-
tes], translated by L. J oachimowicz, Warszawa, 1959, pp. XXI.
23 B. Keckermann, Systema astronomiae compendiosum, Hanoviae, 1611, pp. 77, 85, 99,
156, 188, 227.
In a treatise not intended for direct school use, Keckermann showed deep interest
not only in the person of Copernicus but also in the theory of the motion of the
Earth 24 •
Keckermann accepted on basis of the authority of the Bible and Aristotle the
immobility of the Earth as a scientific truth, as also its central position in the uni-
verse. This was already a firm statement within the controversy on the heliocentric
theory, a controversy whose existence was fully appreciated by the Gdansk scholar.
Guided by sympathy for Copernicus (which he distinctly emphasized), a compatriot
and a great scholar, Keckermann attempted a specific defence of him. He tried to
convince his readers that Copernicus, a man of great genius and tremendous store
of knowledge, could not have considered the motion of the Earth as the truth but
only as a working hypothesis of assistance in his calculations. Those who charged
against Copernicus that his theory was absurd should remember that Ptolemy's
hypotheses had been also considered absurd. Copernicus said that the Earth had
three movements, which was contrary to the view of Aristotle to the offer that every-
body can have but a single movement. But Ptolemy also sinned against this; he gran-
ted two movements - for example, to the Moon and Mercury.
Keckermann concluded his reflections on the subject of the Copernican theory
as follows: "Everything indicates that the movement of the Earth as assumed by
the greatly famed Copernicus must not be regarded as a realistic term but as an
astronomical working term. As a result of it, Copernicus won the recognition of
the most illustrious scholars, because starting from wrong premises he proved
better that something was true than Ptolemy and Alfonsian astronomers who had
started from correct premises". Keckermann remained silent on the system of
Tycho Brahe, pleading lack of competence and leaving the evaluation of his hypoth-
esis to astronomers.
The entire statement of Keckermann should without any doubt be treated as
an attempt at defending Copernicus against the opponents of the heliocentric theory.
From the modern point of view, this appears harmful because it deprived Copernicus
of his most valuable discovery. But in those times such a defence was able to protect
the astronomer from the condemnation of theologians of different denominations
and Aristotelian schoolars, who in fact included Keckermann himself. The decla-
ration that the heliocentric theory was only one of the astronomical hypotheses
enabled it to be referred to and commented upon (which, even without its being
accepted contributed to its propagation) without discriminating against Copernicus
as a scientist. Keckermann's activity should be considered, therefore, in the light of
the actual situation as objectively conducive to the acceptance of the heliocentric
in its early stage, and initiating at the same time an ideologically and educationally
important local cult of Copernicus.
24 B. Keckermann, Contemplatio gemina, prior ex generali physica de loco altera ex speciali

de Terrae motu, Hanoviae 1958, 1607.
The next major step in the process of acceptance of the Copernican theory in
the protestant schools was made by Peter Kruger. He opened in fact a new phase
in the history of the reception of the heliocentric theory by publishing in the printed
form the fundamental principles ofthe heliocentric system with their partial approval.
Peter Kruger (1580-1639), Keckermann's successor in the chair of mathematics
and astronomy at the high school in Gdansk, a student of Kepler and a professor
of Hevelius, was one of the most outstanding Polish astronomers of the 17th century,
enjoying great scientific and pedagogical prestige. Through the evolution of his
astronomical views, he reached in time the full Copernican heliocentric theory,
which he expressed in his Prognostics for 1631.
Kruger was educated on Aristotelian physics, and slowly and with great difficulty
changed his views. As far back as 1615, he had a dispute with his pupil, J. Gerhard,
in which he regarded the Earth as immobile around its axis also circling the Sun 2S •
The pUblication of the 1615 dispute was as far as we know the first statement
printed in Poland broadly explaining and partly also propagating the heliocentric
theory as expounded by Copernicus. The text of the dispute was contained in 65
successive theses for the description of the "nature" of the heaven and the Earth,
understood according to the principles of Aristotelian physics. Subsequently, the
author discussed in turn the systems of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Tycho. The pre-
sentation of the Copernican system was accompanied by a drawing of the heliocentric
system and by the two most frequent charges against the heliocentric theory: incom-
patibility with Aristotelian physics and inconsistency with the Bible. Particularly
interesting was thesis 64 which was a summing up of the argumentation. Translated
from Latin its conclusion runs as follows: "One cannot do other than regard this
residence of ours - that is, the Earth - as immobile around its axis. But contrary
to the third thesis of Tycho (preserving his system of the universe and astronomical
calculations), together with the Pythagoreans, Heraclides and Ekfantos, one must
recognize the Earth as moving in a circle in a way which makes the stars seen from
it appear to rise and to set".
This is a somewhat fantastic combination: the Pythagorean idea of the Earth
circling around a central fire (explaining solely the day-and-night phenomena)
and the up-to-date system of Tycho. But this seemed to save the principle of Aristo-
telian physics to the effect that everybody can have but a single movement. Although
Kruger did not yet accept the full Copernican heliocentrism with its three movements
of the Earth, he made a big step towards such acceptance. The concessions in favour
of Aristotelianism and the system of Tycho are fully understandable when one takes
into account the fact that it was after all a dispute about school programme, treated
at the same time as a demonstration for the outside world, and that it occurred
in 1615 when professors could hardly depart completely from the almighty author-
ity of Aristotle. Even so, the very fact that a professor could suggest such a dispute
25 Disputatio de hypothetico systemate caeli, Gdansk, 1615.

at all and obtain the permission of the school board and the borough council to
print, it shows the very great interest taken in Gdansk in modern natural history,
especially astronomy. No public announcement of a thesis admitting any movement
of the Earth whatever was possible in any Catholic Polish school in 1615.
Kruger took a serious interest in the theory of the movement of the Earth and
began about 1623 a thorough study of De revolutionibus. A copy of it which was
once in his possession and kept now at the Copernicus Museum in Frombork bears
many marginal notes in the owner's handwriting, showing his approval of the he-
liocentric theory26.
In 1931, Kruger published a collection of prognostics for the individual heavenly
bodies for the years 1617-1631 27 . In the 1631 prognostic, he wrote of the heliocentric
theory, devoting the whole of Chapter IV to deliberation, as to whether the Earth
revolves or the Sun. According to KrUger, the observations of GaliIeo, confirmed
the theoretical theses of Copernicus. The scholar perceived that the acceptance of
the heliocentric theory opened up tremendous new prospects for astronomy. On the
basis of the heliocentric theory one may assume the existence of many other worlds
and possibly confirm these assumptions by observations. Kruger fully realized the
consequences of such a view for world outlook, since he closed his remarks with:
"I dare not say here what might be the result of the assumption of a multitude of
worlds". This significant formulation says much for the scientific thoroughness of·
Kruger and his spiritual distraction; his own deeply rooted convictions, sense of
responsibility and partly perhaps also his post as professor in a Lutheran religious
school forbade the publication of conclusions challenging the authority of the Bible
and religious views on the divinity of a single heaven and the uniqueness of a chosen
Earth. Small wonder then that in his lectures and manuals Kruger, though saying
a great deal about Copernicus, accepted as binding the system of the heaven accord-
ing to Tycho.
Sti1l in Kruger's lifetime, another professor of mathematics in Gdansk, Peter
Lossius, held with one of his pupils a dispute about the "heaven", in which he criti-
cized the heliocentric theory2 8. The criticism was based on the typical arguments
about inconsistency with the Bible and the testimony of the senses, without even
any attempt at a scientific discussion. Kruger's views did not take root for the time
being at the high school in Gdansk. But they did not remain without an echo in the
long run, because one of Kruger's pupils, for example, Benjamin Engelcke, who
26 T. Przypkowski, Notatki astronomiczne Piotra Kriigera, nauczyciela Jana Heweliusza,
na egzemplarzu "De revolutionibus" Mikolaja Kopernika [The Astronomical Notes of P. KrUger,

the Teacher of J. Hevelius, on His Copy of the De revolutionibus by Nicolaus Copernicus], [in:]
Sprawozdanie z czynnosci i Posiedzen PAN, 1949, No 10, pp. 607-609.
27 The works were published under the title Cupediae astronomicae Crugerianae, Wroclaw,
1631.
28 Disputatio physica de caelo, Gdansk, 1636. Items XVII and XIX concerned the heliocentric
system.
travelled to Italy in 1632 met Galileo, discussed with him the question of the move-
ment of the Earth and received from him a copy of the Italian original of the work
A Dialogue on the Two Systems of the World. Engelcke subsequently took the book
to Vienna and persuaded an Austrian scholar, Matthew Bernegger, to translate
it into Latin. Together with some minor works of Galileo and Foscarini, the Latin
translation appeared in Strassbourg in 1636. Kruger's ideas were consistently de-
veloped by his pupil, the Gdansk astronomer John Heweliusz (1611-1687).
Kruger was succeeded in the chair of mathematics and astronomy in the Gdansk
high school by a physician, Wawrence Eichstadt (d. 1660). He held lectures on astron-
omy on the basis of manuals written by Keckermann and Kruger, which means
that he did not as yet teach heliocentrism. But there are grounds for supposing that
Eichstadt himself recognized the motion of the Earth, and based on the heliocentric
theory his calculations of the position of planets in various years - that is, what
are called prognostics the calculation of which was among the duties of the professor
of astronomy at the high school in Gdansk. His pupils regarded Eichstadt as a helio-
centrist. The same was held by his friends writing after the death of this very popular
Gdansk pedagogue. Moreover, the private note book of one of his pupils contains
a sketch of the heliocentric system29 • Also in existence is a printed notice announcing
the astronomy lectures which Eichstadt intended to held in 1648. The notice bore
all the marks of an advertisement, and it is not known, therefore, whether the plans
were real and actually carried out. Eichstadt pointed in his notice to the usefulness
of the astronomical science - the possibility of determining the geographical
coordinates, familiarity with the calendar, orientation according to the stars. He
announced lectures on the ancient science on epicycles, excentrics, etc., and " ... in-
stead of the movement of the stars with a tremendous velocity from the East to
the West. I shall describe the daily revolutions of the Earth from the West to the
East. .. I shall also explain the planets surrounding Jupiter and discovered by Gali-
leo ... The pupils will hear how changes in new stars and comets abolish the Aristo-
telian immutability of the world ... In its proper place in the theory of the planets,
I shall explain in what manner one should use the subtle hypotheses of Copernicus,
a great pride of astronomy, and what to think of the application of the magnetic
theory of William Gilbert... " If Eichstadt really delivered all these lectures, that
would mean that as early as 1648 there were courses on the principles of modern
astronomy, together with heliocentrism, though the latter was treated as a "subtle
hypothesis". Even if professor did not succeed in the implementation of such an
ambitious programme, it is significant that the plans were so formulated.
In Eichstadt's time, there were in Gdansk no school textbooks accepting helio-
centrism. There is no doubt, nevertheless, that the school milieu felt sympathy for
Copernicus, as well as understanding and acceptance of the heliocentric theory
29 MS in the possession of the Polish Academy of Sciences Library in Gdansk. Shelf No 673
card 32v.
though such were not demonstrated too openly at school. These tendencies are
expressed in the activity of John Heweliusz, a famous Gdansk astronomer and a friend
of Eichstadt. Heweliusz was of the opinion that the theory about the movement of
the Earth excellently explained all heavenly phenomena, and was in no way contrary
to common sense, and that it was accepted for this reason by nearly all outstanding
mathematicians 30 . But even if the heliocentric theory used to be explained at the
Gdansk high school in mid-17th century, these lectures were of a sporadic nature
depending on the individual views of the different professors.
Conservative professors deeply attached to the Aristotelian system, and fanatic
Lutheran clergy perceiving in this theory a complete incompatibility with the Bible,
constituted the obstacle to a full introduction of the heliocentric theory in the curri-
cula and school textbooks in Gdansk, and Torun. For example, Daniel Lagus,
a professor of philosophy in Gdansk, published in 1650 a collection of disputes 31,
in which he discussed at length the physics of Aristotle. A school textbook of astron-
omy32 also appeared in print in Gdansk in 1651. The textbook contained just
a lecture on the geocentric theory, without any mention, even a polemical one,
of the heliocentric system. But this conservative trend in the school life of Northern
Poland was disturbed more and more frequently by enlightened professors. Two
treatises, for example, very important in the history of the acceptance of the helio-
centric theory in Poland, were published in Elbl~g in 1652/53. The publications
are connected with the name of Henry Nicolai (d. 1660), a professor of philosophy
at the high school in Elbl~g. Nicolai took an interest in the progress of modern
science and declared himself as an opponent of the authority of Aristotle. He suppor-
ted the Polish Brothers and was constantly attacked by Lutheran theologians. The
first of the treatises is a typical school dispute signed by the professor and a pupil33.
The second treatise, on the other hand, is signed only with the name of Nicolai and
is clearly intended to be a scientific treatise 34 • The first publication is called in the title
"constructive" (adstructoria - that is, gathering proofs of the motion of the Earth).
The second is called by the author "destructive" (destructoria ac reJutatoria), since
it contains arguments against the motion of the Earth and the replies to these charges
30 J. Heweliusz, Selenographia sive Lunae descriptio, Gdansk, 1647, pp. 163-164.

31 D. Lagus, Theoria astronophica mathematico-physica e praelectionibus publicis dedecade
disputationum repetita, Gdansk, 1650.
32 N. Kauffman, Cosmographia sive descriptio caeli et Terrae in circulos, Gdansk, 1651.
33 De Quotidiana Telluris revolutione ... disputatio in gymnasio Elbingensi proposita praeside
Henrico Nicolai ... respondentis vices garente Fausto a Raciborsko Morstinio Equite Polono, Elbll!g,
1652. There is a copy in the possession of the Polish Academy of Sciences Library in Gdansk, No
Ab 23.8. See T. Przypkowski, Zainteresowania matematyczno-astronomiczne Braci Polskich [The
Interest of the Polish Brothers in Mathematics and Astronomy], [in:] Studia nad arianami pod red.
L. Chmaja [Studies on the Polish Brothers edited by L. Chmaj], Warszawa, 1959, pp. 407-410.
34 De quotidiana Telluris revolutione. Exercitatio peculiaris philosophica, mathematica et theolo-
gica, Elblllg, 1653. There is a copy in the Polish Academy of Sciences Library, Gdansk, shelf No
Fa 123 ad\. 8.
collected by Nicolai. Both treatises taken together constituted a kind of anthology

of arguments for and against the motion of the Earth, a concise encyclopaedia of
knowledge on this subject. Nicolai was no astronomer, but neither did he treat
heliocentrism as a purely astronomical problem. Both treatises show that their author
was a widely read and erudite man, both are written with a polemic passion and
ideological dedication stemming from an understanding of the consequences
in methodology and world outlook of the controversy about the heliocentric theory.
Prepared under the guidance of Nicolai, the Morsztyn dispute began with the
enumeration of over 50 authors, beginning with Melanchton, who rejected the theory
on the motion of the Earth for religious reasons. This was followed by a long list
of scientists and philosophers, beginning with Plato and the Pythagoreans, who
conceded the Earth some sort of movement. The place of honour among the latter
was accorded to Copernicus, although Osjander wrongly denied him, according
to the authors, full conviction of the truth of his system. Supporters of the theory
on the motion of the Earth included the Gdansk professors - KrUger and Eich-
stadt 35 • Further on, Morsztyn analyzed the differences of views among the supporters
of the theory on the motion of the Earth. Following in Copernicus's steps, some
conceded movement only to the Earth, and immobility to a centrally positioned
Sun and the stars. Others, called "semi-Copernicans", considered that the Earth,
the Sun and the stars all move.
The authors of the dispute stood by this last opinion. Thus Morsztyn gives
the following conception of the cosmological system: the Earth performs a natural
revolution around its axis and is in the centre of a stellar sphere. The Moon and the
Sun revolve around the Earth in an orbit. The five planets revolve not around the
Earth but around the Sun. This peculiar combination of the Copernican system with
the system of Tycho, rightly called by contemporaries the semi-Copernican system
("systema semi copernicanum"), was the work of a Danish astronomer, J. Ch. Lon-
gomontanus (d. 1647), a pupil and creative continuator of the work of Tycho Brahe.
The Longomontanus system, accepting from the Copernican theory only one day-
-and-night movement of the Earth, made great concession sto Aristotelian philos-
ophy and the Bible.
Nicolai's treatise is a continuation and supplementation of the dispute of
Morsztyn. It is confined to refuting earlier arguments against any motion of the
Earth, irrespective of its being a day-and-night or yearly motion. That is why from
the point of view of the acceptance of the heliocentric theory in Poland, Nicolai's
treatise is more important than the Morsztyn dispute. Perhaps most interesting
was the foreword to the treatise. Nicolai wrote in it that the main opponents of the
theory on the motion of the Earth are uneducated people believing only in the testi-
3S Morsztyn quoted the sentence by KrUger concerning the motion of celestial bodies: "The
day is made up of the motion of the Earth with an addition of the movement of the Sun, the month
is made up of the movement of the Moon, and the year and its four seasons of the motion of the
Sun".
mony of the senses and the authority of the Bible. According to Nicolai, the author-
ity of the Bible on problems of nature may be countered with essential arguments,
while the voices of ignoramuses based on sensory perceptions alone may be disre-
garded in this respect. Both assertions were expanded by Nicolai in the text of the
treatise. Refuting "biblical" arguments against the motion of the Earth, the author
said that the Bible used pictures understandable for simple people, unacquainted
with astronomy, and that was why the Bible could not be an authority in the field
of astronomy and physics. Continuing in this trend, Nicolai added that the opinion
of theologians could not be decisive on mathematical questions.
The same page of the treatise 36 contains another sentence very essential metho-
dologically, namely that the authority of Aristotle on mathematical questions was
non existent, and little attention need be paid to it in questions of physics.
Nicolai was, therefore, probably the first Polish scholar to combine elements
of criticism of the authority of the Bible with elements of criticism of Aristotelianism
in questions of natural sciences. It is not difficult to understand, therefore, that it
was the milieu of protestant schools in Poland that was the first to create conditions
for an early acceptance of the new science on nature, including also the Copernican
theory, or at least its fundamental assumption of the motion of the Earth.
Protestant circles in Western Europe had already popularized the idea of the
alegoric interpretation of the Bible. It found, therefore, numerous supporters among
Polish Protestants, if only as a form of opposition to Catholics. It was much more
difficult to overcome obstacles resulting from the deeply rooted views of the physics
of Aristotle. This was why that semi-Copernican system with its considerable con-
cessions, alone all to Aristotelianism, became in this milieu an intermidiate stage
in the reception of the heliocentric theory. In Polish Catholic schools, the objections
to the heliocentric theory assumed different proportions: Aristotelianism was re-
jected earlier than the literal interpretation of the Bible, and the semi-Copernican
stage became unnecessary.
The conviction of the existence of a motion of the Earth, though not always in
conjunction with the entire Copernican system, was even stronger among professors
of Protestant high schools in the latter part of the 17th century. For example, the
theses of a pupil of a Gdansk professor, Frederic Biithner, published in 1660, con-
tained the assertion that right lay with those astronomers who saw the causes of
the phenomena of night and day in the motion of the Earth around its axis. Biithner
was most probably still a semi-heliocentrist, but two professors of the high school
in Torun - Henry Schaeve and John Meier - proved themselves to be consistent
heliocentrists.
Taking over the post of Rector of the Torun high school in 1660, Schaeve
made a speech in which he warmly extolled the pride of Torun - Nicolas Co-
pernicus. Ever since that time, praise of Torun in the Rectors' inauguration
36 J)equotidiana Tel/uris revolutione ... , p. 63.

speeches was always combined with praise of Copernicus. The custom had also,
of course, its obvious propagating and popularizing, and even scientific, reper-
cussions.
In 1661, Schaeve published six pupils' disputes held under his guidance at the
Torun high school. The disputes pertained to various fields of science, with special
reference to the latest achievements of modern mathematical and natural sciences 37 •
The fourth dispute was devoted to astronomical problems. In it Schaeve expressed
full support for the views of Copernicus and Galileo, while severely criticizing the
Aristotelian and scholastic science about the heavens.
The dispute was divided into 12 questions, dealing with all the most important
astronomical discoveries of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Copernican system,
enriched by subsequent discoveries, was recognized in it as the only scientifically
authoritative system.
When compared with the pUblications of Kruger and Nicolai, the above dispute
marks further essential progress in the reception and popularization of the heliocen-
tric theory. For the pupils of Schaeve were already assimilating the principles of the
entire Copernican system enriched by the observations of Galileo and the arguments
of Descartes. The novelty of the dispute lay also in its opposition to astrology, since
it ridiculed, for example, such views as that the natural heavenly phenomena (such
as the eclipse of the Moon) may have an effect on human destinies. But despite the
value of statements of this kind, one must not forget that they were only sporadic,
made possible to the most progressive professors by the differentiation of curricula
in Protestant. schools, and a comparatively greater elasticity of programmes and
scientific tolerance. For dissenter schools still continued to use textbooks teaching
the geocentric system, while conservative professors still gave their pupils for prep-
aration theses based on geocentric principles 38 •
As far as is known, the first documented lectures on the principles of the helio-
centric system in Poland were introduced in 1676 by a professor of the high school
in Torun - John Meier. The perfectly preserved complete MS of the lecture enables
us to follow the sources and the reasoning of the author. The lecture shows that
Meier accepted the most important principles of the Copernican theory: the central
position of the Sun, the course of the planets (including the Earth) around the Sun,
the order of the planets from Mercury to Saturn. He accepted also the astronomical
calculations of Copernicus, later brought up to date by the calculations of other
astronomers, including also Kircher and Riccioli.
Meier based the entire conception of the lecture on Galileo's Dialogue on the Two
Most Important Systems of the World. As a concession to Aristotelian philosophy,
Meier has in fact only a single movement - a progressing annual movement around
37 H. Schaeve, Dissertations pansophicae ad modum Ianuae aureae Comenii sex, Torun, 1661.
38 In 1684, for instance, Christopher Hartknoch, later a historian of Pomerania, published
at Torun a physics thesis arguing the immobility of the Earth. He used arguments both of reason
and the authority of the Bible.
Heliocentric Theory in PolishSchools 113
the Sun. Meier drew correct cosmological conclusions from the heliocentric theory:
he accepted the possibility of the existence of a multitude of worlds (pluralitas
mundorum) with systems similar to the Solar system. In support of his suppositions,
he included a relevant, lengthy quotation from the Principia philosophiae of Descartes.
For a professor holding very firm religious views (as may be seen from the MSS
of his lectures on theology), the heliocentric theory was just another proof of the
greatness of the Creator. Meier wrote in his astronomical lecture, ended with a com-
prahensive justification of the acceptance of the heliocentric theory (mainly on the
basis of Galileo's arguments): "This globe of amazing size, though greater have
been created by the might of God, freely suspended in the air, has been revolving
unceasingly for ages"39.
The last two and a half decades of the 17th century passed in Protestant schools
in an atmosphere of increasing interest taken in modern science (including also
heliocentrism) and an ever greater and more strongly built up cult of Copernicus.
In 1688, for example, a professor of the high school in Torun, Paul Peter, gave
a public lecture about the stars. The lecture is known solely from a printed invita-
tion card which emphasized that the lecturer would speak of "the incomparable
Torunian, Nicolas Copernicus". The name of Copernicus served thus as a publicity
argument, no doubt an effective one. Three years later (1691) the same Professor
Peter staged at the school theatre a play ridiculing astrology and alchemy, and
extolling useful sciences, such as astronomy, geography, natural history, etc. In the
play, astronomy was represented by Copernicus (his part was played by a Torun
pupil, Daniel Schiller). The figure of Copernicus symbolized all the qualities of
astronomy. This was not, therefore, any dispute between heliocentrism and geo-
centrism. Copernicus was presented as the greatest scholar in the finest field of science.
Another proof of the interest taken by the Protestant milieu in the heliocentric
theory and of excellent orientation in the most modern studies were three disputes
held in 1702 by pupils of the high school in Gdansk. They presented with great
precision arguments both for and against the heliocentric theory, but did not take
sides themselves.
It may be said, however, with complete certainty, that geocentrism was still
taught in Torun at the beginning of the 18th century and this knowledge was exacted
during examinations. Known, for example, is a 1704 publication containing exami-
nation theses and questions for several years back40. Physics theses from Torun
contained in 1701 one proclaiming that: "The Earth constitutes the immobile centre
of the universe". As arguments used were the identical distance at all points from the
39 The lecture is entitled: De ordine, magnitudine et motu maiorum mundi partium, MS, prop-
erty of National Library, shelf No BN 3190jIV.
40 Cursus disputatorius theses ex logica, physica et metaphysica CCCCVIII complectens prae-
side M. Mariino Bertle/io a supremae classis auditoribus in gymnasio Thoruniensi hactenus conlectus,
TOM, 1704, pp. 68-69, the thesis: Terra est centrum universi immobile, and arguments in lavour
of it.

Earth to heaven, the Bible, the testimony of the senses which feel the immobility
of the Earth, and the lack of a convincing proof of any motion of the Earth. This
arsenal of geocentric arguments rolled out at the beginning of the 18th century marks
no doubt a great regression by comparison with the previously quoted pro-helio-
centric arguments. It constitutes, however, just one more proof that the Protestant
schools of that time did not have any stable, binding modern physics curriculum.
Every professor expounded simply his own views and knowledge. What was important
was not so much the sporadic statements for or against as the general trend. And
this was no doubt more progressive than in the Catholic schools of the same period.
In 1715, for example, a Torun professor, F. Bormann, held with one of this pupils
a comprehensive dispute on the subject of the theory of a multitude of worlds. Bor-
mann accepted as the basis the Copernican heliocentric theory and the Cartesian
theory of the multitude of worlds. This hypothesis, too, was contrary to the Bible:
to certain parts of the Old Testament and the whole idea of the New Testament.
In the 1715 dispute, Bormann was considering solely the possibility of reconciling
the two theories with the Bible. Two years later, however, the Torun professor pub-
lished his own theses concerning the multitude of worlds, in which he made a dis-
tinct division between the competence and authority of the Bible and scientific
questions. It may be supposed that this stand took a stronger hold in the Polish
Protestant school system and opened the way to the introduction of heliocentrism
and other achievements of modern natural sciences in the curricula and textbooks.
This new and at the same time final stage of the reception of the heliocentric
theory is connected with the name of John Arndt, a graduate and later professor
of the high school in Gdansk, who published a textbook on elements of astronomy,
teaching without any reservations (and without any reference to opposition systems)
the heliocentric theory 41. This was as far as we know the first textbook on principles
of the heliocentric theory intended for the Polish Protestant schools, and at the same
time the first textbook of this type in the Polish lands. Arndt reached his heliocentric
principles slowly. As a graduate of the high school in Gdansk, he published in 1707
theses on mathematics and physics. One of them concerned the theory of the motion
of the Earth. Arndt admitted in it that heliocentrism had great scientific qualities
and was not at all contrary to common sense. It was contrary, on the other hand,
to the Bible and this made its acceptance difficult, for in his opinion the text of the
Holy Scriptures could not be interpreted alegorically or its incompetence on scientific
questions be admitted. As a mature man, Arndt retained his scientific convictions,
but changed his views as regards the interpretation of the Bible. His textbook pub-
lished in 1722 not only taught the heliocentric theory and other axioms of modern
astronomy, but also criticized all the earlier objections to the heliocentric theory.
41 J. Arndt, Collegium astrognosticum in quo doctrina de caelo huiusque corporibus et systemate

mundi secundum oculum, artem et ratiocinationem perspicuis aphorismis scholiisque exponitur, Kr6-
lewiec, 1722.
He taught, among other things, that the Bible described the heavens in the way
a man sees it with his eyes. Later astronomers, Nicholas Copernicus among them,
used scientific methods (ars) and reason (ratiocinatio) and gave a true picture of the
heavens. The Bible could not, therefore, be considered, when it came to scientific
questions.
Arndt's textbook really closes the period of controversies about heliocentrism
in the Polish Protestant schools. As a printed book, published in a large edition
and, moreover, produced in the form of a manual, it was by the very nature of things
to have a stronger and deeper impact than the ephemerial theses of various professors
and their pupils, or even a systematic but sporadic lecture of J. Meier. In later years,
the Polish Protestant schools used an astronomy and physics textbook of Chrystian
Wolff, teaching the heliocentric theory without any reservations whatever. In 1730,
lectures on the heliocentric theory had already a long tradition and were delivered
by a specialized physicist42 • Nobody was surprised, therefore, in Elbhl,g in 1744 by
a brochure of the professor of mathematics in the local high school, Jakub Woit,
which contained explanations for a model of the heliocentric system placed on
public view there. This was but anothter and at the same time extremely eloquent
proof of the full acceptance of the heliocentric theory by the Polish Protestant
schools.
* *
*
The controversy about heliocentrism in the Protestant schools ended in full
recognition of the new theory at approximately the same time when Catholic schools
in Poland had not even reached the decisive phase of the fight. The earlier triumph
of the Copernican system in the. Protestant milieus was due in large measure to the
greater liberalism of the more enlightened part of Protestant theologians on ques-
tions of allegorical interpretation of the Bible, a higher level of the teaching of mathe-
matical and natural subjects, the cult of Copernicus, remarkably expanded and
nurtured in the northern lands of Poland.
In the process of the acceptance of the heliocentric theory, Protestant schools
had to overcome the same opposition as the Catholic schools: to overcome the con-
viction of the truth of the Aristotelian physical laws and the necessity of compability
of scientific theories with the Bible. The Protestant professors, scientifically tradi-
tional, like the Catholics, but unhampered by the Roman Decree, had a longer
fight with the objections of Aristotelian physics than with the literal interpretation
of the Bible. This was why the semi-Copernican system with its concessions in Aristo-
telian philosophy became in this milieu an indispensable stage and a starting point
for the acceptance of the heliocentric theory. In Catholic circles, on the other hand,
objections connected with physics were removed comparatively earlier than ideolog-
42 See, for instance, Catalogus lectionum et operarum publicorum in Athenaeo Gedanensi cursu
annuo expediendarum, Gdansk, 1730.
ical objections, though later, too, than in Protestant circles. This was why the semi-
Copernican system did not play any role here, and the entire fight went on for the
"hypothesis". None the less, complete triumph for the heliocentric theory became
possible in both milieus only after Aristotelian philosophy had been broken through
and the recognition of the Bible as competent on scientific questions set aside. The
essence of the controversy was identical, the only difference lay in the centres of
gravity and the historical rhytm of the transformations taking place.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BednarskiS., Upadek i odrodzenie szk6/ jezuickich w Polsce [The Decline and Revival of Jesuit
Schools in Poland], Krak6w, 1933.
Bienkowska B., Kopernik i heliocentryzm w polskiej kulturze umys/owej do konca XVIII wieku
[Copernicus and Heliocentrism in Polish Culture tiII the End of the 18th Century], Wroclaw,
1971, [in:] Studia Copernicana, vol. III.
Birkenmajer A., Osiqgnil$cia duchowienstwa poiskiego w zakresie nauk matematycznych i przyrod-
niczych [Achievements of the Polish Clergy in Mathematics and Natural Sciences], [in:] Rocz-
niki FiIozoficzne Towarzystwa Naukowego KUL, vol. XII, 1964, No 3, pp. 31-43.
Brozek J., WybOr pism [Selected works], vol. I, edited by H. Barycz, Warszawa, 1956.
Chmaj L., Kartezjanizm w Polsce w XVII i XVIII wieku [Cartesian Ideas in Poland in the 17th
and 18th Centuries], [in:] Mysl FiIozoficzna, 1956, No 5, pp. 67-102.
Gdanskie Gimnazjum Akademickie. Ksil$ga pamiqtkowa [The Gdansk High School. Memorial Book],
Gdynia, 1959.
Li p ko S., Kopernikanizm w szkolach polskich XVIII wieku [The Copernican Theory in Polish Schools
in the 18th Century], [in:] Komentarze Fromborskie, Olsztyn, 1965.
Lubieniecka J., Przedmioty matematyczno-przyrodnicze w programie Towarzystwa Ksiqg Elemen-
tarnych [Mathematics and Natural Sciences in the Curricula of the Society for Elementary
Text Books], [in:] Rozprawy z Dziej6w Oswiaty, vol. II, 1959.
Nadolski B., Walka 0 myil Kopernika ijej losy w Polsce [The Struggle for the Idea of Copernicus
and its history in Poland], [in:] Wklad Polak6w do nauki. Nauki icisle, Warszawa, 1967.
Polkowski I., Kopernikijana czyli materialy do pism i iycia Mikolaja Kopernika [Materials on the
Works and Life of Nicolas Copernicus], vol. I-III, Gniezno, 1873-1875.
Przypkowski T., Dzieje mySii kopernikanskiej [The History of the Copernican Theory], War-
szawa, 1954.
Przypkowski T., Z dziejOw heliocentryzmu w Polsce [On the History of the Heliocentric System
in Poland], [in:] Mysl FiIozoficzna, 1953, No I, pp. 176-190.
Rybka E., Four Hundred Years of the Copernican Heritage, Krak6w, 1964.
Smolenski W., Przewr6t umyslowy w Polsce wieku XVIII [The Intellectual Revolution in Poland
in the 18th Century], second edition, Warszawa, 1923.
Suchodolski B., Naukapolska w okresie Oiwiecenia [Polish Science in the Enlightenment], War-
szawa, 1953.
KRISTJAN PEDER MOESGAARD
University of Aarhus
HOW COPERNICANISM TOOK ROOT IN DENMARK AND NORWAY
I. EARLY CONFRONTATIONS
Dybvad's Commentary on Copernican spherical astronomy (1569)
During the period 1578-1590 when at Hveen Tycho Brahe laid the foundations
of modem observational astronomy, the chair of mathematics, including astronomy,
at the University of Copenhagen was held by JfJrgen Christoffersen Dybvad (Dibva-
dius; died 1612), who for several years had studied at Wittenberg and Leipzig.
As early as 1575 he obtained an extraordinary chair of theology, natural philosophy,
and astronomy, crowning his career in 1590 by taking over the chair of theology.
Being a quarrelsome and unsociable character, he was dismissed in 1607.
Dybvad is the earliest Danish author known to have dealt explicitly with Coper-
nican astronomy. His teachers had been Caspar Peucer and Sebastian Theodoricus
in Wittenberg [27: fo!' A 6v, E Iv]!, and in 1569, as an outcome of his studies, he
prepared a book with the interesting title: Short Comments on Copernicus' 2nd
Book which by unmistakable arguments prove the truth of the doctrine of the first
motion and show the composition of the tables [27].
Its dedicatory preface presents Copernicus' 2nd Book as perfectly illustrating
the necessity of founding scientific studies on geometry. "For you can scarcely
understand one single chapter unless by using considerations and methods from
the doctrine of triangles which alone unveils and exhibits all the secrets of astron-
omy". And astronomical science as such presupposes three stages, viz. obser-
vation, hypotheses, and the explanation of the latter by the aid of geometry. It is
stated that the 2nd Book of the De revolutionibus falls in two parts, namely the chap-
ters 1-13 in which Copernicus, in due succession and by using the most manifest
method, explains and proves the whole doctrine of the first motion, and the 14th
1 See the combined Bibliography to the essays Copernican influence on Tycho Brahe and How
Copernicanism took root in Denmark and Norway. p. 145-151.
chapter on the procedure of determining stellar positions from observations. Dybvad,

however, has decided to pass over the latter subject, following Ptolemy who placed
it after his lunar theory.
"Since, then, this book is concise and extremely well-ordered, too, it deserves
to be read and studied most thoroughly by everybody who aims at a sound founda-
tion of his knowledge of astronomy" [27: fo1. A 3r - A 4r]. And a little later Dybvad
declares that he has commented upon this useful and valuable book for the benefit
of those who did themselves never study the monuments of the old astronomers
[27: fo1. A 4v].
Dybvad's commentary follows the said 13 chapters of the De revolutionibus,
explaining and proving each proposition with reference to the figures from the
De revolutionibus, and illustrating each theorem by means of numerical examples.
So far Dybvad has proved to be a clever student, having learned spherical astron-
omy by a careful study of the De revolutionibus, but nothing has been said as to
whether he does or does not actually accept the motion of the Earth; he may well
have avoided to decide upon this question since he had chosen for his subject the
very least controversial topic which had, for the very same reason, been dealt with
rather briefly by Copernicus himself [60: II, 64].
However, it is clear from the first chapter, On the Circles and their Names, that
originally Dybvad intended to accept not only Copernicus' description, but also his
explanation of the heavenly motions. "It is, moreover, at this point useful to have
in mind the author's treatment - De revolutionibus I. 11 - of the triple motion
of the Earth in order to comprehend more properly his definitions; for some circles,
e. g. the equator and the two tropics, are brought about by the daily motion of the
center of the Earth, whereas others, e. g. the ecliptic, are described by its annual
motion. [... ] The equator is described by the motion of the center of the Earth when
this center has, by its own motion, been carried to the intersections between the
equator and the ecliptic. [... ] But when the center of the Earth has reached the first
point of Cancer it describes by its daily revolution the Tropic of Cancer" [27: fol.
A 7; my italics].
Evidently Dybvad visualized a sphere around the Sun upon which he attempted
to make the Earth trace the equator and the tropics by its daily rotation, just as
it traces the ecliptic by its annual motion. Having thus failed to grasp the idea of
those circles as projections upon the very distant heavenly sphere, he met with
surprising troubles of comprehension which caused him to give up the Copernican
point of view in a rather indifferent way, namely by noticing that the equator, the
tropics, and the ecliptic may, too, be described with reference to the motion of the
Sun, and without the Earth to be movable. "And we shall adopt this doctrine below
because it is the most ancient as well as the most agreeable one" [27: fo1. B lr].
One decade later Dybvad published textbooks within the fields of geometry,
astronomy [28; 29], and meteorology. On one occasion he emphasizes Copernicus'
improvement of Ptolemy's lunar model which involved a far too great variation of
Copernicanism in Denmark and Norway 119
the apparent diameter of the Moon [28: fo1. A 6v], but otherwise he adheres to
the traditional picture of the Universe. This is especially clear from his dissertation
On the Aethereal Region of the Universe [30].
Fincke, a cautious mathematician about 1600
In 1590 Anders Krag (1553-1600) succeeded Dybvad at the mathematical chair.

However, the next year already he was in turn followed by Thomas Fincke (1561-
1656), whereas he himself took the chair of physics. Both of them had studied for
several years abroad, had obtained their doctor's degree of medicine, and were
greatly influenced by Petrus Ramus.
Already in 1581 at Strassburg Fincke had published an ephemeride computed
on the basis of the Prutenic Tables [34]. On the whole it appears that these tables
came into common use during the 1580's. As it could be expected Morsing's Astrolog-
ical Diary published at Uraniburg in 1586 contains comparisons with Copernican
and Prutenic parameters [23]. But an almanac for the year 1585 by Erik Christof-
fersen Dybvad [Dibvadius] also brings, under the 11th of March, a definite reference
to the Prutenic Tables [261.
As a result of his mathematical studies Fincke in 1583 published his main work,
Geometria Rotundi, which brought some new trigonometrical formulas. It is remark-
able for its ordering of subjects according to the precepts of Ramus in contrast
to the more cumbersome arrangement of Euclid's geometry. Its dedicatory letter
to King Frederick the 2nd explicitly mentions Copernicus among the mathemati-
cians of astronomy whom Fincke had studied intensively, and whose works form
the basis of his own book [35: fo1. 4r; cf. 36: fo1. A Iv]. In his preface to the reader
Fincke, addressing himself to Thomas Digges, expressed his doubt as to whether
tho calculations of Geber, Regiomontanus and Copernicus lead more compen-
diously and briefly to the positions of the stars than Ptolemy's and Reinhold's,
which Fincke himself has used [35: fo1. 3r]. He concludes his tenth book, on the
calculation of plane triangles, by mentioning his original intention of comparing
the calculations of Regiomontanus, Ptolemy and Copernicus to his own in order
to decide which were the most compendious. However, he has renounced this plan
in order not to confuse young students or to prevent them from reading the monu-
ments of the immortal masters themselves [35: 295]. The Geometria Rotundi brings
specific references to Copernicus regarding his plane geometry [35: 61; 63, 275,
291], his table of signs [35: 126, 134] and his spherical geometry [35: 338, 367, 392].
Fincke's own trigonometrical Tables are based on Rheticus [35: 137-269].
From another reference it is clear that Fincke had also studied Copernicus'
theory for the variation of the solar eccentricity [35: 326]. In his next major work,
Horoscopographia (1591) he, following Reinhold, records and uses Copernicus'
theory for the variation of the obliquity of the ecliptic, although he wants to leave it
to the astronomers to decide to what extent this theory squares with the facts [36:
fol. C2r; cf. 35: 361; 38: fol. A2l. And his Theses on Months and Years (1602) mentions
the Copernican variation of the length of the tropical year [39: fo1. A2-A3].
So far Fincke has shown himself well-versed in astronomical subjects and calcu-
lations although he was not a professional astronomer. However, he cannot refrain
from reminding the astronomers to be cautious as to hypotheses. Thus his Theses
on astronomical hypotheses (1592) establishes that the heavenly bodies revolve,
fastened to their spheres and traditionally arranged around the stationary, central
Earth, and thence the author continues: "But according to quite sane philosophers
the heavens appear to be continuous; the heavenly bodies are lively and active,
and the above-mentioned harmonious world order has already long ago commenced
to be mistrusted, not merely by Copernicus, but also by other prominent men.
In so far as we, by means of such principles labelled as hypotheses, smooth the path
for astronomical measuring we must be extremely cautious not to violate the truth
of physics" [37: fo1. Alv-A2r]. Fincke may well by his "other prominent men"
have aimed at Tycho and his breaking down of the heavenly spheres [cf. 119: 240-
-241], but it is manifest that he did not accept Copernican cosmology either. Perhaps
he wants to take up the attitude of an expectant towards all innovations within
this field.
From 1603 onwards Fincke was a professor of medicine and a highly influential
person at the university. In 1626 he is said to have published a Methodical Treatise on
the Doctrine of the Sphere, but I have not succeeded in finding this work [40].
Riber, Tycho's Copernican pupil?
From 1603 to 1607 the chair of mathematics was held for the first time by one
of Tycho's assistants, Christian Hansen Riber (Ripensis; 1567-1642), who later
on became a bishop at Aalborg.
During his mathematical professorship Riber wrote four small academic disserta-
tions with several allusions to the variation of the obliquity of the ecliptic, which
he evidently accepts as real, and attributing to this obliquity a minimum value
of 23;28° at the time of Copernicus [90: fol. Bl, cf. fol. A3v, B2r; 91: fol. Blr, cf.
fo1. A3v; 92: fo1. A2r, B2r].
His Theses on the Definition and the Division of the Sphere treats of the motion
of the ethereal world by exposing the discordance between Ptolemy and Copernicus
on this question. Riber faithfully adduces a few familiar arguments of scientific
nature to both sides, as well as quotations from the Holy Scripture against the mo-
tion of the Earth together with their counterpart depending on a non-literal inter-
pretation [89: fo1. A3v-Blr]. Thereupon he passes to the order of the heavenly
spheres and orbits. He reproduces the Ptolemaic ordering, then Copernicus' arrange-
ment, adding: "And thus he demonstrates that the phenomena are saved by the
harmony of the triple motion of the Earth". And finally Riber records that more
recent astronomers have devised another hypothesis of the Universe which, of
of course, appear identical to the Tychonian system. He mentions the alleged supe-
riority of this arrangement compared to Copernicus' audacious placing and moving
of the Earth as well as to the Ptolemaic lavishness of concentric and eccentric orbits.
He states that Copernicus had himself been aware of the last-mentioned incon-
venience "and that was exactly the reason why he devised one single circle (which
he calls the great because of its numerous advantages) to revolve the Earth once
a year, thus liberating nature from the penetration and the redundance of the orbits,
and from other preternatural motions with which the Ancient world picture is
encumbered. So by means of this circle he strove to aid that very nature which is
simple and loves unity" [89: fo1. Blr-B2r].
Riber's following section, On the Earth, quotes the arguments put forward
by Ptolemy to prove the Earth to be situated at the center of the Universe, and he
continues: "But although the truth of these arguments may consistently be proved
according to the Ptolemaic hypothesis they do not, however, destroy Copernicus'
system. Within his arrangement of the orbits they do consequently not prevent
the Earth from revolving around the central Sun, either". Thence Riber refuses to
say antyhing definite on the motion of the Earth, referring to the arguments brought
forward above, and concerning the daily motion he concludes that it must necessarily
be attributed either to the heavens or to the Earth [89: fo1. B2v-B3r; cf. 90: fo1.
A2r].
All this is not very definite, and being theses for disputation perhaps not even
so intended. However, it is remarkable that Riber does not mention Tycho by name
at all, so I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that he was for some reason or other
in opposition to Tycho, and after all more of a Copernican than he dared openly
admit. He was succeeded by Longomontanus whose compromise, agreeing in most
essentials with Tycho's ideas, will be the subject of a later section [cf. p. 126].
II. CASPAR BARTHOLIN'S TYCHO-AR!STOTELIAN PlULOSOPHY
Aslaksen formulates a Tychonian philosophy and theology (1597)
As made clear in the foregoing chapter the Professors of mathematics at Co-

penhagen took up a sceptical or even opposing attitude towards Tycho's innova-
tions within astronomy. The natural philosophers, on the other hand, fully accepted
Tycho's ideas. So they were enabled for another half century to do with moderate
alterations of the Aristotelian physics and cosmology instead of facing an open
confrontation with the possible result of radical change or even total rejection.
Krag was the first and most conspicuous Ramean logician and natural philos-
opher in Denmark. He took up the attitude of an open-minded intermediary,
e. g. between Paracelsus and Galen in the field of medicine. His authorship contains
nothing directly relevant to the development of Copernicanism. However, one of
his students [63: fo1. AIr], Kort Aslaksen of Bergen (Aslacus; 1564-1624), had for
three years been Tycho's assistant at Hveen and had afterwards studied for six years
at numerous universities all over Europe. On his return in 1600 he became a pro-
fessor at Copenhagen, and from 1607 professor of theology. Influenced by Johannes
Piscator of Herborn and imbued with Calvinistic ideas he was met with considerable
resistance from the Danish clergy, but owing to his diplomatic character he managed
to avoid the fate of his predecessor Dybvad [cf. p. 117].
In 1597 Aslaksen published a treatise, On the Nature of the Triple Heavens,
dedicated to Tycho Brahe. In this work he aims at reconciling the Holy Scripture
with the results of natural philosophy and astronomy with a special reference to
refraction and to the non-existence of impenetrable heavenly spheres. Thus his
book formulates what may be called "Tychonian" philosophy and theology which,
however, does not include any elaborate debate with Copernicus. Tycho had already
seen to that. So apart from a couple of trivial references [7: 42, 45, 11 0] Copernicus
is mentioned only in the 23rd chapter On the Immobility of the Sidereal
Heavens.
Note that this heading does not make Aslaksen a Copernican as suggested by
v. Brun [134: 72]. According to Aslaksen the heavenly bodies do perform a daily
revolution, but here he deals with the heavenly stuff containing these bodies, and
he argues its immobility from its extreme rareness and thinness. Thereafter he con-
siders the alternative solution that the heavens should perform a daily revolution
carrying with them the heavenly bodies. But he deems this opinion absurd because
the thin heavenly material is no more able to move the dense and solid stars than
the aereal atmosphere can turn the globe of the Earth around its axis. And just
because the great Copernicus had realized the latter impossibility he left behind
the heavens and let the Earth move [7: 166-168]. It should be noticed that this
argument presumes that Copernicus had already tacitly done away with the material
heavenly spheres, a probable assumption, indeed, but at variance with the general
opinion of the time [cf. p. 43].
The influence of Aslaksen depends mainly on the fact that the Tycho-Aristotelian
cosmology which he originated was accepted and reformulated by Caspar Bartholin
who more than anybody else came to stamp the natural philosophy in seventeenth
century Denmark. But quotations from Aslaksen are found in several places, e. g.
in a corollary to a dissertation by Hans Arnoldsen de Fine (1579-1637). "Against
Aristotle and following the opinion of the most excellent and illustrious Aslaksen"
he affirms that coming-to-be and passing-away take place in the celestial world
[41: fo1. B3v - B4r]. Otherwise de Fine's series of dissertations is principally Aristo-
telian and irrelevant to the development of Copernicanism.
This is the case, too, with a good deal of the academic as well as the popular
scientific literature of the time. It would be idle to mention separate works belonging
to this even flowing undercurrent of Aristotelianism which, in relation to our subject,
only indicates that their authols were not Copernicans. Indeed they may best be
characterized by quoting the motto of Carl Jorgensen Bang: "Nothing new under
the Sun" [8: fo1. AIr; cf. fo1. FI]. Niels Nielsen mentions a work by Hans Lang
[65], with an interesting anti-Aristotelian title, which I have, however, not succeeded
to find.
Caspar Bartholin's Systema Physicum (1628)
With Thomas Fincke's son in law, Caspar Bartholin (1585-1629) a family

entered the University of Copenhagen which was to produce several distinguished
members and thus came to dominate medicine and natural philosophy at the uni-
versity for more than a century. Being an exceptionally gifted person Caspar Bartho-
lin acquired the knowledge of his time within several disciplines all in the first decade
of the seventeenth century. In 1611 he became a professor of eloquence at Copen-
hagen, in 1613 of medicine, and 1624 of theology. Besides an extensive authorship
within these fields he produced, during the first quarter of the century, a series of
writings on natural philosophy, published several times in various combinations,
and finally in 1628 in a joint edition entitled Systema Physicum [11].
This Physical System in due order covers all the subjects of Aristotelian natural
philosophy from the first principles of natural bodies to the rational soul of man.
No real originality is found in Bartholin, but owing to his clearness of expression
and his ability of exposing and jUdging between different views his works became
highly influential for many decades to come. Excerpts were published for use in
Danish schools as late as in 1676 [12].
As the general ordering of subjects within Bartholin's natural philosophy is
Aristotelian in reaction to the Ramism of the foregoing decades, a great part of its
contents is Aristotelian, too, which will be fully confirmed from the author's discus-
sion on Copernican ideas . .dowever, it would be unfair not to mention his willingness
to accept new scientific results and let them influence his philosophy.
Concerning the MilkY Way he thus prefers the explanation of Galilei - with
whom Bartholin had studied - that it is made up of innumerable individual stars.
He defends at length this position against Tycho's view that the MilkY Way should
be a diffused celestial substance formed by residual primordial light, as well as
against Longomontanus' attempt of reconciling the opinions of Tycho and GaIilei.
By the way Bartholin expresses the wish that Tycho had been in possession of the
Galilean telescope [J 1: fo1. P4r - P8r]. Bartholin's treatment of comets is partic-
ularly illustrative of his being a man of compromise between Aristotle and the
new science of his own time. In the astronomical section he fully accepts the non-
existence of solid heavenly spheres, thus continuing Aslaksen's work of building
a Tychonian natural philosophy [11: fo1. Plv-P4r, T3v-T4v, Aa2v-Bb3r]. Accord-
ingly he sets forth and defends, especially against Keckermann, Tycho's opinion
of comets and new stars [11: fo1. Y4v-Z5r], touching incidentally Tycho's won-
dering at Copernicus' poor and crude instruments which had caused many a failure
in the description of various motions [11: fol. Z2v-Z3r]. That, however, does not
prevent Bartholin from distinguishing - in his meteorological chapter on comets -

between, one on hand, celestial comets, including new stars and dealt with previously,
and on the other hand, elementary comets. The latter originate in the superior part
of the atmosphere and are treated along purely Aristotelian lines [11: fol. Zz6r-
Aaa7v].
Caspar Bartholin's Tycho-Aristotelian refutation

of Copernicus (16 I 9)
However, concerning the world systems Bartholin was not at all inclined to en-
visage any compromise. That he did not accept the motion of the Barth is clear
already from a dissertation of 1605 [9: fol. BIr]. Dealing in his Systema Physicum
with the order of the planets he rattles off various old and new arrangements. He
declares that he will himself maintain the opinion of the most ancient philosophers
and of Ptolemy, although he admits that Copernicus, by following Aristarchos
of Samos, has demonstrated very neatly the celestial phenomena [11: fol. R2v-
R3r].
And finally Bartholin shows his hand clearly by his book On Earth, Air and
Fire [10] in two sections on the site and on the state of rest of the Barth. By tradi-
tional arguments he supports Plato's and Aristotle's opinion of the central Barth
in contrast to Pythagoras' less probable doctrine that fire, being the most worthy
element, occupies the centre, around which the dark earthern star is revolving.
Aristarchos made a real astronomical theory by assuming the Sun to be the central
body, and Copernicus did save phenomena properly enough along the same lines.
"But being physicists we shall not forthwith admit the astronomers' hypothetical
assumptions which are sometimes plainly false" [11: fol. Ff3v-Ff4r].
The section on the stationary Barth opens by asserting that the Earth is resting
perpetually immovable in the middle of the world. Thereafter the most excellent
mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus is introduced as a link of the chain of opponents
to this view, from Heracleides of Pontus to William Gilbert. Then Bartholin sup-
ports his thesis by a series of arguments.
Firstly he adduces some scriptural passages. The objection that the language
of the Scripture should have been adapted to the apprehension of common man
is met by Bartholin who among other things asserts that the human intellect could
easier grasp the motion of some trifling body than that of the numerous and immense
stars - an astounding context, indeed, for the "Copernican" argument of economy.
Secondly Bartholin asks why the Barth should move since it has been shown
in his astronomy that the stars do so?
Thirdly he attacks the problem indirectly by assuming the Barth not to be at
rest, making thereafter, by Aristotelian argumentation, nonsense of all conceivable
forms of its supposed motion, be it rectilinear or circular and, in the case of circular
motion, be it natural, violent or preternatural. As for the Aristotelian axiom of an
unequivocal relation between the simple motions and the simple bodies it had been
restricted by Copernicus to regard circular motion primarily and simple bodies

only as long as they remain in their natural places [cf. 60: II. 20]. Bartholin points
to the obvious difficidulty of attributing to a body any motion when it is already
in its place.
Fourthly Bartholin assumes a circularly revolving Earth, and he maintains
that things thrown vertically upwards could in that case not return vertically to
their starting point. Copernicus had made an attempt of explaining how the lower
part of the atmosphere partakes in the revolution of the Earth either (a) because
of its being mixed with earth and water and accordingly of the same nature, or (b)
because the air has acquired such a motion from its being contiguous to the perpet-
ually revolving earth [60: II. 19]. .
Bartholin in turn charges Copernicus with (I) wavering between two conjectures,
(2) arguing, in his former guess, the matter in question, viz. that rotation should
be a natural motion of the Earth. (3) neglecting that the faIling body while perform-
ing two partial motions must necessarily lose (!) some velocity of both components
and thus cannot follow a vertical trajectory, and (4) attributing a mixed motion to
a simple faIling body. - I can make sense of the "lose" above only be relating
it to the upwards path of a thrown body, but that is contrary to Bartholin's formu-
lation - Bartholin goes on assuming that Copernicus had himslef realized the fourth
absurdity and accordingly (a) attached circular motion to universals and rectilinear
motion to their parts which, however, only makes up another absurdity, viz. that
parts have a nature different from that of their whole, and (b) made circular motion
natural for a simple body as long as it remains a unity and stays in its natural place,
while rectilinear motion is an additional motion of parts which have been removed
from their natural place and thus do not entirely possess their real nature.
"Rise from the dead, Stagyrite; and learn a marvellous equivalence. You divide
motion into natural and violent, the former again into rectilinear and circular.
To Copernicus natural motion equals the circular, and rectilinear the violent".
Thus a stone should fall contrary to its nature and in consequence it might tend
upwards with Daedalus. Moreover he maintains that one subject simultaneously
performs circular and rectilinear motions, i. e. natural and violent, and hence
contrary motions, which cannot but intellectually be separated. "Behold loads
of absurdities! by reciting them I have refuted them".
Fifthly Bartholin charges Copernicus with a petitio principii when he, answering
Ptolemy's fear that a revolving Earth should disintegrate, maintains the rotation
as springing from nature. In addition Bartholin adduces a dubious analogy between
the Earth and the sea. In spite of its supposed natural motion the latter drifts ships
to and fro, while we never perceive any similar effect on land.
So Copernicus, according to Bartholin, failed to refute the arguments brought
forward by the ancients to support the immobility of the Earth, but he was even
far less successful in establishing positively his own case. For (1) his argument drawn
from the spherical shape of the Earth applies equally well to the heavenly bodies
or even to the heavens themselves, (2), his considerations on the relativity of motion
prove nothing, since the possibility of a motion does not imply its existence, and
(3) his assertion that motion belongs to the contents rather than to the container
agrees better with Bartholin's own idea of movable stars contained within the im-
movable heavens.
In conclusion Bartholin concedes that the doctrine of the movable Earth is
a convenient hypothesis to astronomers although it is really false and not to be
trusted in physics. In logic similarly true conclusions may sometimes be drawn from
false premisses. To support his conclusion Bartholin finally quotes the preface of
the De revolutionibus. It is impossible to infer from his wording whether he were
aware that Osiander, and not Copernicus, did write this preface [11: fo1. Ff6r -
Gg2r].
The influence of Bartholin on natural philosophy may be traced in numerous
contemporary and later academic writings, Danish as well as Swedish [132: 169-175].
However, in so far as they do not add further arguments, they do not deserve to
be mentioned separately, either.
Of course Bartholin's discussion proved nothing but the incompatibility of the
Copernican cosmology with the basic ideas of Aristotelian physics; it does not
prove which point of view is the true. But apart from easily discernible sophisms
it must be admitted that he has with merciless acuteness unveiled the weakness of
Copernicus' embodying his new cosmology in an Aristotelian vocabulary.
III. LONGOMONTANUS' AITEMPT AT SYNTHESIS
The Astronomia Danica (1622)

According to Dreyer "the Tychonic system did not retard the adoption of the
Copernican one, but acted as a stepping-stone to the latter from the Ptolemean"
[119: 181]. Tkis is certainly true as a statement of the development of astronomy
proper, especially as materialized in the work of Kepler. But one must not forget that
Kepler adopted the Copernican system in opposition to Tycho's wishes, and the
natural philosophy outlined above and perceived as another result of Tycho's work
calls upon the directly opposite judgement. Moreover the formulation of a compre-
hensive theoretical astronomy most strictly adhering to Tycho's spirit and intentions,
to wit Longomontanus' Astronomia Danica, reduces Dreyer's statement to be true
only in the restricted sense that the Copernican system was taught and made known
as an attractive hypothesis, but not adopted as the true world picture behind the
heavenly phenomena.
A peasant's son, Christian Sorensen Longomontanus (1562-1647), spent nearly
ten years of learning from and assisting the astronomer of noble birth Tycho Brahe,
from 1589 to 1597 at Hveen and again at Prague about 1600. Thus he became a pro-
fessional astronomer himself and by his Astronomia Danica [75] came to realize
Tycho's plans of restoring theoretical astronomy on a Tychonian foundation.
Secondly he founded an educational tradition of astronomy at the University
Copernican ism in Denmark and Norway 127
of Copenhagen where he was a professor from 1605 to his death - from 1607 pro-
fessor of mathematics and after 1621 of astronomy, mathemata superiora, which
was that year made a separate discipline to be distinguished from ordinary mathe-
matics, mathemata inferiora. Longomontanus planned the observatory at the Round
Tower of Copenhagen, and his Introduction to the Astronomical Theatre contains
precepts for the education of astronomers [77: fo1. Clr - C4r]. In a dissertation
from 1636 he proposed a veritable programme for studying the mathematical disci-
plines [76, cf. 70], but the way of transmission down through the different levels
of education was long. For example, in 1656 Jorgen Eilersen (Hilarius; 1616-1686,
since 1672 professor of mathematics) published, for use in the schools, a spherical
doctrine which maintains that the opinions of Ptolemy and the Alphonsines had
hitherto been the most current. He does not at all mention Copernicus or Tycho
[50: fo1. A2v].
According to Neugebauer the spell of tradition within astronomy was broken
with Tycho and Kepler. "The very style in which these men write is totally different
from the classical prototype. Never has a more significant title been given to an astro-
nomical work than to Kepler's book on Mars: »Astronomia Nova«". [129: 206].
By way of comparison it must be admitted that Longomontanus' Astronomia Danica
is not "new". It is modelled essentially after Ptolemy's Almagest and Copernicus'
De revolutionibus [75: 2, 146, 459]. Longomontanus refused to accept Kepler's
elliptical planetary models [75: 343; cf. 71: fo1. B2v and 73], since he faithfully adhe-
red to Tycho's basic principles including that of uniform circular partial motion.
He preferred the "prostaphairesis method", invented by Tycho and Paul Wittich,
to Neper's logarithmic calculation [75: 7-15], and he considered the telescope of
very limited use within observational astronomy [77: fol G4v].
That, however, did not prevent Longomontanus from considering his own work
an innovation, formulated "in Tycho's spirit" and intended to form the "perennial"
theoretical outcome of Tycho's worke [see. g. 75: 181]. We may briefly characterize
his achievement as contrasted to KeIper's in the following way. Kepler built up a com-
plete model for the motions of Mars from Tycho's observations only and so to speak
"infinitesimally". Longomontanus, on the other hand, did not posses Tycho's diaries
of observation, and so was unable to use a similar procedure. But he imagined that
he would have arrived at the same models in case he had been possessed of these
observations [75: 146]. For Longomontanus, therefore, Tycho's results merely
constituted one truly reliable set of positions of the heavely bodies, and Tycho's
work on refraction, parallax, and the use of instruments enabled him to attach reaso-
nable corrections to the results of earlier astronomers.
But even thus improved these results had only a corrective value. And no trust-
worthy dynamics of celestial motions being at hand [cf. p. 54] Longomontanus
has to search for independent criteria elsewhere. Hence he is happy to find "per-
fect" numbers in the solar model [75: 186] as well as in the theory of the precession
of the equinoxes [75: 221], and to extrapolate some basic heavenly motions to "neat"
initial positions at the time when the world was, according to the mosaic tradition,
created [75: 187, 196-197].
Strange as this sort of science must necessarily appear to modem minds I shall
only add that Rheticus' predictions from Copernicus' long term motions proceed
quite similarly [93: 121-122; cf. 128: 136], and I am not at all convinced that
5S4 T H B 0 R. leo R V ).( C~r.
~befts Pto/ema~ in satuiwo refrnula IIC efII~'" fuptt qll" fir•

. , IIOIUS reUqUllNltn ftpcr-- ,~~, poufl·
Sit A terra: ne .
orbis. fupcr quo I::
plex Satumi R\'Qkl
per totum ~i~ 'L
explicatur. rurrul (\
tro C defcrihatur n
jor epicydusED, l
jus femidiamcter C
juxta prremilJ'am rc;
rutionem nollram ( 0
gitur 8711 part, qu:
um femidi:1ll1cter or
A Bfeu AC eft joo~'
dcnique centro D r
aor .,ydus feu
quaDS CitciKtur f,l
cujus quoque fl!ml
meter 0 H, qua: [
tia pars c.t C H,
eadem noftra emeo
none fit 190'/ p2rt.
volurionu maut
•
Figure 1. From: Astronomia Danica ... , page 324.
Longomontanus deviated from "Tycho's spirit" in his proof that the heavenly
motions really are harmoniously arranged and governed by divine laws or, put the
other way round, that the records of the Holy Scripture might be affirmed by suffi-
ciently thorough scientific investigations.
As in Tycho one finds in the Astronomia Danica a wealth of references to Coper-
nican parameters, but here merely for the sake of comparison. Ptolemaic and Co-
pernican astronomy had finally, after Tycho, become numerically equivalent in that
the parameters set forth by both authors were equally uncertain. Accordingly the
old Ptolemaic, the admirable Copernican, and the modern Tychonian world system
as well as the three authors' formally different models for the individual heavenly
bodies had at last become equivalent, too, in the sense that the true Tychonian
.,-
HJpDlhefi$ ejlfjdemflew Saturn; ~ reUflMJTIIIII.foperionMl
illftm1l4 OJ!dllie14..
~ centro uni-
ta Copemi-
riQatuf orbis
revolotionis
~ triwn fupe-
plaset.arwn
lfitoque cen..
! 'delineetur
:yclus ED&
IOfterior e D
~H ubi PIa..
I circumferri
If motu con-
D '~ ut fope-
)fitum eft. de-
eodemAfeq'
ioetur annuus
Tzt ,lKML
autem terra
M exaae in-
l inter a 10-
parameters could equally well be pressed into any of the three frames. And to make
his point clear is exactly one main end of the second part of the Astronomia Danica
[75: 146-147, 149-150].
This programme includes a detailed confrontation with the equant-circle of
Ptolemy's planetary models which are in consequence transformed, firstly into an
eccentro-epicyclic model in the manner of Copernicus and al Zarkali, and secondly
into a model with two epicyclets as proposed by Tycho and - not mentioned by

l30 Kristian P. Moesgaard
Longomontanus by Copernicus in his Commentariolus [93]. Longomontanus

considers this bi-epicyclic planetary model to be in agreement with internal causes
of the continuous and harmonious, well-ordered motions in the heavens, and hence
~ H B 0 RIC 0 R V M
•
A cco
roli~ def(
Satumi &
B C. deu
cyc1i ex
ciaturq; aI
profthaph;
grzprima
Saturni 8t
ut fuperiu:
Poftea
AH fupel
radio M
orbisfolis
quidem e
planetre A
ligitur DID!
rumconfc
proptereu
retie ~el
it came nearer to truth than Copernicus' eccentro-epicyclic model [75: 163-169].

So all planetary models of the Astronomia danica are furnished with two epicyclets
irrespective of their being labelled as Ptolemaic, Copernican or Tychonian. And
Longomontanus' three versions of e. g. the model for the motions of Saturn differ
only as to the placing of the partial motion with the period one year [75: 324-326.
see Figures 1-3].
Longomon tan us' Tycho-Copernican world system
The chapter of Astronomia Danica "On the triple arrangement of the world
system" [75: 151-163] brings a thorough representation and discussion of the Pto-
lemaic, the Copernican, and the Tychonian systems. The transition from the Pto-
lemaic to the Copernican system takes the form of a brief, but enthusiastic exposi-
tion of what multitude of phenomena Copernicus could explain by letting the Earth
perform a triple motion. After sketching this wonderful invention Longomontanus
goes into details concerning its advantages, especially stressing its usefulness, eco-
nomy and harmony. And he concludes this section with a poem of applause about
this highly economic explanation of nature.
Thence he goes on: "So far the great Copernicus' model of the Universe, includ-
ing his assertion that the Earth performs a triple motion. And it must be admitted
that everything is very ingeniously devised to save the celestial phenomena and
entrenched moreover by means of physical arguments, inserted into the 1st book
of the De Revolutionibus, to the effect that it may but with difficulty be destroyed.
Nevertheless, there are among others two arguments, concerning mainly the annual
motion of the Earth, which apparently deprive the system of its credibility".
Longomontanus' first counterargument regards the discrepancy between the
Copernican system and Genesis. Heavens and Earth were first created and, in con-
sequence, ought to occupy the primary places within the Universe, i. e. circum-
ference and centre respectively.
His second argument is directed against the incredibly great distance and the
vast size of the fixed stars resulting from an annual motion of the Earth which "by
one stroke ruins any well-established symmetry between the parts of the Universe".
This argument of Tycho's is amplified by numerical calculations of hypothetica
stellar distances and sizes.
Thirdly Longomontanus, as an argument against the librations of the pole of
the Earth, adds that the latitudes of the stars appear to vary rather than their decli-
nations. This point is further elaborated in his chapter on the precession of the equi-
noxes [75: 217-221]. Longomontanus' own solution does away with the offensive
1ibrations by making the slowly moving axis of the Earth responsible only for the
uniform mean precession. And it accounts for the variable rate of precession and
for the variations of the obliquity of the ecliptic by a secondary precessional mo-
tion of the solar orbit itself.
It is remarkable that Longomontanus does not at all mention Tycho's mathemat-
ical proof of the truth of his own system [cf. p. 45].
For these reasons Longomontanus prefers the Tychonian system which, if
any, perhaps represents the true arrangement of the world. Yet, following David
Origanus (1558-1628), he accepts the daily rotation of the Earth because so many
swift apparent motions may thus be explained by the assumption of a single rather
slow motion. In case somebody wants to attribute to the stars a real daily motion
he has to cling fanatically to the wording of a few scriptural places [cf. 72: fol.
A3r].
Longomontanus' choice of a rotating Earth appears to spring from considera-
tions concerning the equation of time which in turn originate in his investigation
of the lunar motions. Thus he ends a discussion on these topics in his Introduction
to the Astronomical Theatre by the following statement: "Nor do we shrink from
maintaining that the Earth rotates about its own centre. And much earlier than
Origanus in his Ephemerides we have once at Hveen discussed with Tycho the reason
why this is necessary" [77: fol. E3r-E4v; cf. 75: 181-182, and 72: fol. B4r]. He
regards the problem irrelevant to spherical astronomy [72, fol. A3r; cf. fol. A4r]
as well as to astrology [74: fol. A4]. His wish, however, to make all celestial motions
take place in planes of great-circles forms another motive for his choice, since a ro-
tating Earth does away with the motions of fixed stars along small-circles [72: fol.
A3v, B3v-4r].
Already in 1609 Longomontanus denied the possibility of restoring astronomy
without using hypotheses as proposed by Petrus Ramus [70: fol. B4v]. In his Astro-
nomia Danica he concludes the chapter on the world systems by characterizing the
Ptolemaic, the Copernican, and the Tychonian system as explaining the annual
partial motion by a mechanism placed "outside", "at", and "around" the centre
of the Universe respectively [Figures 1-3]. And from this apparent exhaustive
classification he infers that a fourth world system is unthinkable [75: 163]. Accord-
ingly he had, in his preface, argued that other systems might easily be reduced
to one of these three [75: 147]. However, the three possible systems have in principle
equal right, and the reader is as free as the author to choose the solution he finds
most probable [75: 149-150].
Copernicus at the focus of a theoretical astronomical discussion
After the two preliminary chapters quoted above, the second part of the Astro-
nomia danica attacks the main question of contemporary and - as convincingly
argued by Ravetz [131] - much earlier theoretical astronomy, to wit that of estab-
lishing reference frames. Longomontanus states that the order of treating the Sun,
the Moon and the fixed stars represents an important problem. Copernicus started
with the doctrine of the fixed stars and the precession of the equinoxes while Ptolemy's
starting point was the theories of the Sun and the Moon. "However, after exposing
the matter to a through logical analysis and estimate we did choose to agree with
Ptolemy upon the investigation, but with Copernicus upon the order of representa-
tion". [75: 169].
An inserted commentary of some 27 pages [75: 169-196], including a detailed
restoration of Copernicus' solar observations [75: 179-181], produces, indeed,
the main parameters of the theories of the Sun, the Moon, and the fiexd stars, treated
in the said order. The following chapters deal with the motions of these same bodies
in the order of the De revolutionibus, i.e. the fixed stars, the Sun and the Moon.
Finally, the 2nd book treats of the remaining planets "as part of the furniture"
[cf. 131: 48].
This curious plan reflects Longomontanus' wavering between his primary pattern,
viz. the De revolutionibus, and "Tycho's spirit". The said inserted commentary finds
its parallel in the Introduction to the Astronomical Theatre which brings, in brief
outline, instructions to the observer concerning the right ordering, the means,
and the methods to lay a firm foundation for investigating the heavely motions.
Here the proposed order is once more: Sun, Moon, fixed stars [77: fo1. Dlr-Elv].
A whole group of contemporary writings mainly concentrate upon questions
of formulating a fundamental theory of observational astronomy. And several
Danish authors besides Longomontanus entered the discussion, viz. Peder Bartholin
Kierul (1586-1642) with his Apology for Tycho [59] against Martin Hortensius
and Philip Lansberg [68], Jergen From (1605-1651; professor of astronomy since
1647) with his Astronomical Dissertation [43] and Response [44] defending Longo-
montanus' Introduction to the Astronomical Theatre against Johs. Baptiste Morin
[81, 82], and Erik Olufsen Torm (1607-1667; professor of mathematics 1636-1645)
with his Mechanical Disquisition [103, 104] against "the most illustrious mathema-
ticians of this century: Schickard, Galileo, Keckermann, Morin, Hurnius, Landsberg,
Hortensius and others" [103: 2]. These writings include numerous references to
details from Copernicus' astronomy of which the adequate treatment would, how-
ever, take us into technicalities quite outside the scope of the present essay. But
their bare occurrence shows, quite apart from cosmological questions, that Coper-
nicus' methods and numerical improvements in describing calestial phenomena were
still by several professional astronomers considered up to date in the sense that they
might be used for restoring astronomy no less than Tycho's results. By the Tycho-
nians these astronomers are in turn accused of being mere theorists whose speCUla-
tions may well be true, but cannot possibly be transformed into useful observational
practice. The problem concerning the right order of treating the Sun, Moon, and the
stars is dealt with at some length by From [43: fo1. E4v-Flv; 44: 35-39]. To the
said group of polemic writings may be added a dissertation by Christian Stenbuch
(1625-1665) directed against some of Scipio Claramontius' assertions [99]. But
this work does not treat of subjects directly relevant to the discussion on reference-
frames and world systems.
Longomontanus' Tycho-Copern ican cosmology
To round off the above picture of Longomontanus one must emphasize his full
acceptance of Copernicus' physical arguments [cf. p. 131] and his avoiding of coun-
terarguments drawn from Aristotle. This point may be clarified by taking into account
his dissertation On the Prerequisites from 1611 [71]. This brief cosmological treatise
on the nature of the material and on the major bodies of the Universe was republished
verbatim in the Astronomia danica [75: 35-41], and in his Introduction to the Astro-
nomical Theatre Longomontanus repeats some of its main theorems [77 fo!' G lr-
G2v].
It claims to rest on the most recent experiences of astronomical science and
maintains the existence of a universal luminiferous medium spread everywhere from
the interior of the Earth to the outermost limit of the Universe. This medium forms
the place for a number of spherical universal bodies am0ng which the heavenly
bodies probably have their own aereal atmosphere as well as the Earth. Everybody
is held together by its own gravity and is moving according to divine precepts without
any aid from material spheres or axes.
The Copernican features of this cosmology are easily discernible. Being anything
but an Aristotelian Longomontanus definitely denies the existence of any boundary
or essential difference between an elementary sublunar world and the celestial region.
In brief he grasped the spirit of Copernican physics and was indifferent to Coper-
nicus' wording, while Bartholin spent his efforts in vain verbal altercations. As an
astronomer Longomontanus did not feel the need for compromising with Aristotle
and the Bible to the same extent as did his physical and theological colleagues.
Thus it appears quite legitimate to attach the label Tycho-Copernican to his astron-
omy.
Longomontanus gave everybody a free hand in the choice of world system,
but his own choice was really in several respects opposed to the Tycho-Aristotelian
cosmology formulated by Aslaksen and Bartholin. Yet to my knowledge no open
conflict did ever arise between Tycho's astronomical and philosophical heirs. But
after all Longomontanus' cosmology sketched above may well have facilitated the
adoption of Cartesian ideas during the last half of the 17th century.
IV. THE RISE OF CARTESIANISM
Astronomers between Longomontanus and Remer
Kierul who had studied with Longomontanus [72: fo!' AIr], in the last section
of his Apology for Tycho entitled "On the motion of the Earth along the ecliptic,
and also on the triple Lansbergian heavens" [59: fo!' N2v-03v], defends Longo-
montanus' version of the Tychonian system by using mainly the same arguments
as Longomontanus, but adducing further evidence from the Holy Scripture.
A Norwegian student, Trygve Dieterichsen, in a dissertation from 1638, at Rostock
defends Origanus' system against well-known Ptolemaic arguments [31: fo!' A3,
B1] and against a comprehensive series of Scriptural evidence [31: fo!' B2r-B3v].
The disseration quotes Tycho but bears no sign of being particularly influenced
by Longomontanus.
In Torm I find but a cosmological curiosity added to his Mechanical Disquisition
by the respondent: "In case the firmament were solid and ellipsoidal and the Sun
and the Earth were placed at its foci the latter would be consumed on the spot by
a conflagration". This hypothesis is not discussed further [104: 41].
Longomontanus' immediate successor as a professor of astronomy, From,
does not in his writings express himself very definitely on the question of the world
systems. On the whole he appears open-minded and critical, but an ironical character,
too, and cautious in making his choice. Thus he, in his dissertation On certain prin-
ciples of the spherical doctrine, concludes the 40th thesis on the daily motion by hand-
ing over to those "granted with the power of discerning coppers from mock-mon-
ey" the judgement whether the adherents of a rotating Erath should be considered
tricked by giddiness, and hence defenders of the most vain things [45: fo1. B4]. It is
beyond doubt, however, that From was anxiously searching for a true and natural
system of the bodies within the Universe. In this respect he probably felt disap-
pointed in Kepler's elliptical planetary orbits, while he seems to have put more than
ordinary confidence in Schickard, and especially in certain inventions by de Baulne
(Florimund de Beaune?) [43: fo1. D2v; cf. 44: 4].
From was in turn succeeded by Wilhelm Lange (1624-1682) who held the chair
of astronomy until his death, but being since 1661 a judge, too, he had to leave his
academic duties to substitutes. His publications deal mainly with time-reckoning.
After repeating Longomontanus' arguments for the daily rotation of the Earth
as well as against its annual motion he makes without hesitating Longomontanus'
theoretical astronomy the foundation of his highly learned work on the subject
[66: 14-17; cf. 49]. Lange moreover brings, in a series of dissertations some critical
comments on Copernicus' solar model [67: 13, 26-37; cf. 41, 50].
During the period 1660-1676 Rasmus Bartholin (1625-1698; after 1657, a pro-
fessor of geometry, and in 1658 of medicine also) acted as a substitute for Lange.
In 1663 he published an Astronomical consideration on the great conjunction (cf.
p. 33]. This consideration uses Tychonian planetary, models, and its calculations
are founded upon the tables of the Astronomia Danica [cf. 17: 17, 34]. R. Bartholin
even follows Longomontanus in passing over "the somewhat easier logarithmic
calculation in order to give a good example to the young students and not accustom
them to compendious methods until they had tried the longer road and had often
safely reached the prescribed goal by following the royal way" [16: 4, cf. 17: 19,24].
And had it not been for a critical discussion on astrology [16: 32-39] inserted after
the calculations, Bartholin would, in his consideration, have found no opportunity
at all of quoting Kepler.
However, R. Bartholin's next astronomical work, his excellent little book On the
Comets of 1664 and 1665 reveals that cosmology in Denmark is now on its way
from Aristotle [17: 4] towards Descartes [17: 57-69, 87], and accordingly towards
Copernicanism, too. This if affirmed in his collection of essays on natural philosophy,
Academical Questions on the Wonders of Nature, particularly in the essays On Car-
tesian Physics (1664) and On Physical Hypotheses (1669) [18: 69-81; 101-118],
which deal, in fact, with philosophy of science rather than with natural philosophy.
"Since changing times demand fresh studies and habits, too, and many things
occur, appreciated by former centuries, which a subsequent era has condemned ... " -
This very opening sentence of the former essay calls attention to the establishment
of the absolute monarchy in Denmark in 1660, and it heralds a new scientific era
with campaings of human reason against pseudo-learning based upon authority
and deeply rooted customs. After having by a series of hypothetical questions expo-
sed to doubt the entire foundation of theoretical astronomy R. Bartholin concludes:
"From the fact that Aristarchos, or Copernicus or Rene Descartes has successfully
established one hypothesis it does not follow, indeed, that another one of equal
virtue may not be imagined. But that much follows that you have to rely on that
invention, or else to conceive another equally exquisite one. And whoever carefully
considers the details will acknowledge the latter to be difficult, nay, far too arduous
for mortal men" [18: 73-76; cf. 114-116].
By 1655 at latest the King of Denmark had bought Tycho's original observations
from Kepler's son, and in 1664 R. Bartholin was entrusted with the task of their
publishing [19: X, v-vii]. At the time Ole Remer studied en Copenhagen and lived
as an assistant in Bartholin's house. This brilliant young student spent four years
in preparing the Tychonian observations for the press. He has himself, in a letter to
Leibniz from 1703, testified to the decisive influence of this work on his own later
achievements within astronomy [54: II. 159]. Thus Tycho had posthumously got still
another Danish pupil.
Nicolaus Mercator (Kauffman; circa 1620-1687) was active mostly at London
and Paris, where he might well have worked together with Remer at the fountains
of Versailles. Although he only spent a few years about the middle of the century
at the University of Copenhagen, his Institutiones Astronomicae [80] deserves to
be mentioned here, because this work was probably for some time used as the standard
fundamental textbook of theoretical astronomy and thus IDled the gap between the
Astronomia Danica and Horrebow's Opera mathematico-physica. At least it forms
an essential prerequisite of the last-mentioned author's exposition of the planetary
models [54: IV, § 10].
This work shows Mercator as a convinced Copernican. Thus he brings, in an
exemplary chapter On the true world system, a unified account of the Copernican
and the Tychonian systems, of which the latter is delineated by dotted circles in
the figure. After adducing a number of arguments in favour of Copernicus' solu-
tion, the last one depending on Kepler's third law, he concludes: "And that is why
now-a-days most astronomers appreciate the Copernican world system as by far
the most probable of all" [80: 114-120].
Wavering natural philosophers

In this dissertation of 1639, On the elements, Jakob Fincke (1592-1663; profes-
sor, since 1623 of mathematics, since 1635 of physics) follows C. Bartholin and
maintains that the Earth is stationary [33: fol. D4r] at the center of the Universe
[33: fol. C4v; D3v; cf. 32: fol. B2v]. But it is perhaps possible to trace a nagging
doubt when he concludes his "far too superficial" account on this very copious
subject by adding to the doctrine of the stationary Earth a prayer that God will,
after this rambling life, permit him "to rest safely at the bosom of the mother of
everything until the time of eternal and true rest" [33: fol. D4r].
Both of two dissertations on the sidereal heavens and the heavenly bodies from
January 1651 by Johannes Clausen (Orthunganus; died 1673) and Gisle Thorlakson
(1631-1684) in most essentials follow Bartholin without revealing any conflict
with Longomontanus' rotating Earth [102: fol. A2v-3r] or non-existence of a bound-
ary between the terrestrial and the heavenly regions of the Universe [85: fol. A3v].
But the mode of expression against the Copernicans has been considerably softened
since Bartholin's time, and neither acception nor total rejection of their opinion
is implied. Thus Thorlakson confines himself to put the question why the Coper-
nicans demand from their opponent a proof that the Sun is situated at the center
of the Universe, while they themselves cannot furnish any proof of the central
position of the Earth. And their charging the Tychonians with the assumption of
two centers of motion within the Universe misses the mark, too, because they them-
selves make the Earth a secondary center, viz. of the lunar motions [102: fol. A4r].
But after all a corollary to the dissertation says that the Earth cannot be considered
a planet [102: fol. B2r].
Thorlakson mentions - to my knowledge for the first time in Danish scientific
literature - Descartes' vortices of the heavenly bodies [102: fol. A2v]. But the
1660's should see a Copernican "heretic" before the Cartesian Cosmology gained
a footing in Denmark.
The fate of a 1660 Copernican heretic
In 1661 Claus Nielsen Lesle published, among other small treatises, a discussion
On the mobility of the Earth [69: fol. A2v-B2r]. Lesle affirms that the Earth does
move, and he at once expresses his fear that by defending that point of view he will
lift too heavy a burden. Thereafter he reproduces briefly, but in due order, the five
argumentations from C. Bartholin's chapter on the stationary Earth [cf. p. 124].
Against Bartholin's quotations from the Scriptures Lesle maintains that they
only prove that the Earth will not age and be destroyed; it is, however, quite free
to perform a local motion within certain boundaries. Secondly nobody has, neither
from experiences nor from the Scripture, shown that the stars really do move. Against
Bartholin's third and fourth arguments Lesle asserts that the rectilinear motions
of the elements are due to their seeking their own like, and are brought about by
some external cause which does not hinder their performing simultaneously a circular
motion together with the entire globe of the Earth. And fifthly: "Ptolemy's fear
(that a rotating Earth should dissipate) is vain, and since he attacks us by laughing
we shall pay him back in the same coin and get the laugh of him".
After having defeated Bartholin, Lesle argues, from the Genesis, that the stars
do not move since they are fastened to the immovable firmament. And finally he
plays his trump card, proving that the Earth does really move since it forms the
vessel which, being moved itself causes the motion of its contents, i. e. the tides
of the oceans. - This erroneous theory of the tides evidently originates from Gali-
leo's Dialogo dei massimi sistemi [46: VII. 442 ff.] Neither Bartholin, nor Galileo
are mentioned by name in Lesle's discussion.
During the first half of the seventeenth century the Danish clergy had grown
more and more orthodox under the leading bishops Hans Poulsen Resen (1561-
1638) and Jesper Brochmand (1585-1652) to the effect e. g. that the works of the
highly esteemed theologian Holger Rosenkrantz (1574-1642) were banned and
remained unpublished. So Bartholin's Systema physicum may well have been con-
sidered by theologians an invariable authority like the Bible and Luther's catechism.
For the centenary of Luther's formulation of his theses, Resen in 1617 published his
"Lutherus triumphans" [88], a title reflecting better than many words the prevailing
theological spirit of the time.
In consequence Lesle's open attack on Bartholin had to be taken as heresy, and
accordingly it was at once met by an extensive and highly learned theological rejoin-
der [106: fo1. A2r-D3r) written by the Zealandian vicar Hans Hansen Windekilde
(Windefontanus; 1625-1711). Apart from subtle philological and theological
interpretations Windekilde brings but a couple of references to Sperling [98] and to
Tycho. Lesle's theory of the tides is brushed aside as an attempt of proving something
unknown from another equally unknown thing, whereupon Windekilde explains
the tides as a combined effect of lunar influence and resistance of the different shores
[106: fo1. Dlr-D3r).
From 1651 to 1659 Lesle had been a vicar in Scania [125: V. 39]. I have found
no direct relation between Lesle's leaving the said clergical post, his heresy, and
his later miserable life as a physician at Aarhus where in 1685 he was finally impris-
oned. However, he was anything but popular among the local vicars [127: II. 249].
And Jakob Fincke's caution in expressing his doubt [cf. p. 137] as well as From's
ironical style [cf. p. 135] may well indicate, too, that one had better follow the leading
theological authorities concerning cosmological matters.
A cen tury of Cartesian physics from the 1660's
The Cartesian influence on R. Bartholin in the 1660's has been touched upon
above [cf. p. 135]. And by 1688 it became possible reading about Copernican concepts
in the Danish language. For in that year Johan Brunsmand (1637-1707) published
a calendar, approved by R0mer, discussing at some length whether the daily motion
belongs to the Sun or to the Earth [21: 210-213]. Brunsmand also mentions the
enormously great distances of the fixed stars proposed by the Copernicans [21:
331]. However, he rejects the Copernican views, mainly from Scriptural evidence,
and it was not until 1748 that the time came for a Danish translation of Ie Bovier
de Fontenelle's Cartesian and Copernican Conversations with a Lady on the Plurality
of Worlds [42].
As for the academic literature numerous writings could reveal how during
a whole century Cartesianism dominated the natural philosophy taught at the Uni-
versity and in the schools. The similar development in Sweden has been traced and
excellently described by H. Sandblad [132: 79 ff.]. Let it suffice for our purpose to
indicate a few selected textbooks illustrating the development.
C. Bartholin's grandson, Caspar Thomesen Bartholin (1655-1738; professor
of physics 1674-1733, and since 1680 of medicine, too), late in the 1680's prepared
his Summa [14] destined to replace the elementary writings drawn from the author-
ship of his grandfather [cf. p. 123]. This Summa rejects the Ptolemaic system, briefly
sets forth the Copernican and the Tychonian systems, and mentions the Longo-
montanian compromise between the two without preferring definitely any of the
three last-mentioned systems [14: 10-12]. A few years earlier C. T. Bartholin had
given a quite similar account on the world systems in a series of private physical
dissertations, where for disputation he adds the thesis: "There is no reason why
we should maintain the Earth, or the Sun to be the center ofthe Universe" [13: VII].
Thus natural philosophy had now, even on the elementary level, given up its
orthodoxy and had in a way adopted the freedom of chosing among different cosmo-
logical explanations proposed at the beginning of the century by Longomontanus.
C. T. Bartholin's Summa was used until late in the 1770's [112: 267].
Its parallel on the university level was the Specimen philosophiae naturalis offering
a more elaborate version of the above-mentioned dissertations and revealing
C. T. Bartholin's cautious inclination towards the Copernican supposition as the
simpler one and hence easier to understand. It is remarkable that he mentions
"Thales (!) and others" as advocates of the daily rotation of the Earth [15: 69-76].
C. T. Bartholin's immediate successor, Georg Detharding (1671-1747; professor
at Rostock 1697, and since 1733 of medicine and physics at Copenhagen), prepared
his own textbooks of natural philosophy, but he continued, regarding the world
systems, Bartholin's neutral exposition with a clear inclination towards the Coper-
nican solution [24: 66 - 72; cf. 25: 25-27].
When during the period 1747-53 the ageing professor of astronomy, Peder
Horrebow, held the chair of physics, too, he felt the need for revising the praise-
worthy Specimen, then 56 years old, from which he had himself in his youth acquired
his knowledge of natural philosophy. And after having in vain tried to comment
upon the Specimen and to change its text as well as its ordering of subjects he finally
produced a completely new text-book, the Elementa philosophite naturalis [56: 5].
Of course, Horrebow emphasizes the astronomical aspects of natural philosophy,
but he adhered to the Cartesian cosmology as well as C. T. Bartholin. "Those who
hastily rejected Descartes' vortices did unawares throw out the baby with the bath
water". [56: 16]. According to Horrebow the real enemies of the establishment of
a true natural philosophy were the Newtonians whose exaggerated employment

of attraction means an explanation of the phenomena of nature by words instead
of by reasons, even if Newton himself had, in his Optics, made his reservations
[56: 55-56]. Already in 1718 Horrebow expressed his attitude towards Newtonian
physics by a remark on the variation of the lunar parallax: "The benevolent reader
may ask Newton himself for the causes, but my physics of the heavens will, God
willing, teach the causes of the causes" [57: 42].
So when about 1750 Newtonian physics nevertheless gained a footing in Denmark,
it was due only to Jens Kraft (1720-1765; professor of mathematics since 1746)
and his teaching of Newtonian mechanics at the Academy of Soro. In 1747 Jens
Kraft gave a lecture on Newton's and Descartes' systems to the Learned and Scien-
tific Society of Copenhagen [61]. He prepared a series of philosophical textbooks
following in most respect his own former teacher Christian Wolf, but for the physical
aspect of this world he has "directly opposed to the great multitude of contrary
opinions dared to establish the Newtonian hypothesis while rejecting the Cartesian
one, and that the more confidently because I take it to be fully demonstrated that
the latter is impossible" [62: preface].
Descartes had, on one hand, freed the learned society from orthodox Aristo-
telian authority, but on the other hand the Cartesian cosmology had deprived the
astronomers of their freedom to chose at will their hypotheses, or rather it favoured
the Copernican hypotheses more than presupposed by the Longomontanian com-
promise earlier uncritically accepted. After all most academics, except some of the
theologians, were probably in their hearts Copernicans. But no stellar parallax had
so far been found, and consequently no world system had been proved true. My next
chapter will make it clear that Romer believed and that his pupil Peder Horrebow
openly declared to have found an annual parallax of the fixed stars. But before Hor-
rebow Copernican sympathies were often expressed rather ambiguously [58, 97, 87].
V. THE TRIUMPHANT COPERNICUS
Romer's Tychonian planetary machine (1697)
With Ole Remer (1644-1710) Denmark had another astronomer comparable

in genius with Tycho. Like his great predecessor he advanced observational astron-
omy in an epoch-making way, so that Bessel could praise his ideas within that
area as being far in advance of their time [Astr. Nach. No 49, 1823, col. 14]. That
Romer had been influenced by Tycho's works was mentioned above [cf. p. 136],
and it is well-known that he spent the years 1672-1681 at Paris, where he associa-
ted with the leading scientists of the recently founded Academie Royale des Sciences
de Paris of which he became a prominent member.
On his return to Copenhagen he took the chair of astronomy at the University,
furnished the observatory at the Astronomical Tower with new instruments, and
moreover established two private observatories, viz. about 1690 the Dome.stic Observ-
atory in his home at St. Kannikestraede, and in 1704 the TU$culan Observatory
near the Bartholins' countryhouse some 15 kms west of the Round Tower. Becom-
ing entrusted with a variety of administrative and engineering duties, Remer had
but little time left for the astronomy, and his printed astronomical works consist
of a few small papers. In addition his instruments and the major part of his obser-
vational records were consumed by the fatal conflagration of Copenhagen in 1728.
We therefore have to found a study of his astronomical achievements mainly upon
the Mathematico-physical works of his pupil and successor, P. N. Horrebow, who
devoted his life to spread the knowledge of the astronomical inventions of his teacher
and to restore theoretical astronomy on a Remerian basis.
Peder Nielsen Horrebow (1679-1764), a poor fisherman's son, at the age of 17
entered the grammar school at Aalborg; privately he studied Longomontanus'
Astronomia Danica, and he made observations with simple wooden instruments.
During the period 1704-06 he studied with Remer, working as an assistant in
the Remer observatories. Mter that the earned his living as a private tutor and since
1711 as an accountant. In 1714, finally, he took the astronomical chair at Copenhagen.
Remer accepted the third law of Kepler's on planetary motions [96: 161], and
he used, in his observatories, the Rudolphine Tables [54: IV § 3]. This is no wonder,
but the fact that, to my knowledge, nobody in Denmark had done so before is re-
markable and shows the strength of the foregoing Tycho-Longomontanus tradition.
It is worth noticing, too, that Kepler's planetary models were not until 1713 made
directly the subject of an academic dissertation [94: cf. 95].
Remer was a Cartesian and particularly influenced by Huygens, so he was a Co-
pernican, too. It is tempting to add: of course he was; but to Remer these things
were not a matter of course. He concludes, in his Adversaria, some critical consid-
erations concerning the vortex theory of planetary motion by adding: "And I acquiesce
in these reflections, or rather I withdraw from the immense sea into the harbour"
[96: 55].
His wonderful mechanical devices reproducing the motions of the planets accord-
ing to the Copernican system became widely renowned, and copies were prepared
for the monarchs of France, Siam and China. But when, in 1697, a copy had to be
mounted at the Round Tower of Copenhagen it was adapted to the Tychonian system
[54: III, 143 ff.]. Of course this may be a gesture in honour of Tycho, but it may
also reflect a theological resistance as the model should serve educational purposes.
But for all that it cannot be excluded that Remer was himself "acquiescing" until
he dared rely on his determination of stellar parallax, which, perhaps, never happened.
Remer's search for an annual stellar parallax (1692-1710)

For Remer's scientific mind demanded proofs before he would express himself
definitely; regarding the annual motion of the Earth only the discovery of a stellar
parallax could provide the necessary proof. The above-mentioned letter from 1703
to Leibniz [cf. p. 136] contains Ramer's review of his own achievements within
theoretical astronomy; among other things he maintains to have been convinced
for ten years that the fixed stars were subjected to parallactic displacements so that
he might well soon publish his results regarding this subject. A little later he asks
Leibniz for whatever information, from books or from letters, concerning the pa-
rallax of the fixed stars [54: II. 160-162].
In 1728 P. N. Horrebow found among Ramer's posthumous papers a sheet
entitled: The Movable Earth, or the Parallax of the Annual Orbit from Observations
of Sirius and Lyra, Carried out at Copenhagen in the Years 1692 and 1693. Horrebow
published and commented upon this masterly written essay in his Basis Astronomoe
[54: III. 61-68; a Danish version is found in 123: 83 ff.]. It fully reveals Ramer's
continuous and persevering preoccupation with the problem of the stellar parallax
which evidently formed his principle motive for establishing this Domestic meridian
circle, and perhaps, his Tusculan observatory too. He maintains to have found, for
the said two stars separated by about 180 degrees, a semestrial variation of the differ-
ence between their right ascensions which shows the double sum of their parallaxes
to be about 0;1°. - He dared not put confidence in variations of stellar declinations
mainly because of the influence of refraction.
It is hard, not to say impossible, to avoid the conclusion that Ramer did himself
believe to have shown that the Earth performs an annual motion around the Sun.
His last hesitation concerns the supposed different working of his clocks during day
and night hours respectively, but he asserts that he has made even that doubt disap-
pear. Yet his scruples, whatever they were, prevented Ramer from publishing his
paper. - In 1853 C. A. F. Peters from an analysis of the R0merian observations
concludes that the indisputably produced effect is probably due to the influence of
variations of temperature upon the clocks as well as upon the positions of the hlstru-
ments of observation [130: 15-18].
Peder Horrebow's determination of the stellar parallax (1714-27)
However, P. N. Horrebow was less cautious than his master. Regarding stellar
parallax he had in 1714 arrived at a conclusion similar to Ramer's [54: III. 249].
In 1717 he had an improved and larger copy of Ramer's planetary machine at the
astronomical Tower so changed that it could be switched over between the Tychonian
and the Copernican system of which "only the latter is true" [54: III. 148]. And a few
months before finding the Ramer MS quoted above, he had published his Copernicus
Triumphans, or Epistolary Treatise on the Parallax of the Annual Orbit to the heir
to the Danish throne, later King Christian the VIth, on the occasion of his birthday
on the 30th of November 1727 [54: III. 241-290].
Having duly referred the origin of this work to talks with Ramer and to a note
from Ramer's diary of observations Horrebow discusses Flamstead's unsuccessful
attempt of proving the Earth to be moving because of variations of the altitude

of the pole star. From Romer's Domestic observations during the period 1701
Febr. - 1704 Oct., and his Tusculan observations during the period 1705 March -
1709 Sept. he thereafter demonstrates the existence of semestrial variations of the
difference between the right ascensions of some selected pairs of fixed stars. Thence
he challenges the anti-Copernicans to explain this phenomenon in a reasonable
way without moving the Earth, and the excellent French, English, and Russian
astronomers to investigate the matter in order to confirm his result.
From a supposed stellar parallax of 0;0,15° and on the condition that all the
fixed stars in question are as great as the Sun and equally distant from it, the fol-
lowing chapters deduce the distance and the apparent magnitude of the fixed stars
and the orbital velocities of the Earth and Saturn in the true Copernican system as
compared to the unreasonably high velocities of the Sun, Saturn, and the fixed stars
demanded by the spurious Ptolemaic system. The tenth chapter brings Horrebow's
biting attack on the catholic clergy which evidently wants to defend perpetually the
Ptolemaic nonsense. The eleventh chapter contains a detailed philological and
theological discussion of the Scriptural texts which Riccioli had, in his Almagestum
Novum, adduced against the Copernicans.
As for the protestants Horrebow ventures to say that the more sane theologians
had never been concerned at the progress of Copernican astronomy; some did even
write to support it; and he remembers that a highly learned and distinguished Co-
penhagen theologian many years ago had declared that he did not find the Coper-
nican system harmful in any respect, but should gladly accept it, provided only
that some proofs were obtained. And Horrebow himself had for 21 years, i. e.
since in 1706 he published his dissertation on the precession of the equinoxes [53:
7 ff.], advocllted and taught the Copernican system without having for that reason
been blamed by any Danish clergyman.
Horrebow concludes his tract by asserting that his demonstration has finally
raised the Copernican world system from the sphere of hypotheses to that of truth
which you may teach publicly and privately without any obligation to silence the
squabble of cantankerous persons. Finally he explains how to apply the found cor-
rection of parallax to stellar observations in order to establish a star catalogue with
heliocentric coordinates. Having, however, realized that the fixed stars are unlikely
to be found at equal distances of the Sun Horrebow later on dropped this correction
as in most cases insensible compared to observational errors [54: IV § 12].
In brief Horrebow, by his astronomical authorship, succeeded in building an
astronomical temple of which his main works form the Key, the Foundation, the
Court, and the Sanctuary [54]. And Copernicus was - like Resen's Luther - a cen-
tury earlier [cf. p. 138] - the triumphant reformator to receive the homage of the
astronomical flock. Horrebow's proof was based upon a pseudo-effect, but nobody
was aware of that, so it did not matter. Denmark became at last Copernicanized,
and Peder Nielsen Horrebow did it.
Christian Horrebow's re-determination of the stellar parallax

(1742-46)
The Copernicus Triumphans was kindly reviewed by the Acta Eruditorum [1729:
65-69]; the Basis Astronomite quotes some letters of approval from foreign astro-
nomical colleagues [54: III. 73-79], and from letters exchanged between Horrebow
and Johann Lulofs we learn that the latter did even translate and comment upon
the book [54: III. 291-304]. However, the reliability of Horrebow's work was
questioned by Eustachio Manfredi [79: 612-618], so Christian Wolf, in his Elementa
astronomite, concludes that no annual motion of the Earth had so far been demon-
strated from any determination of stellar parallax [107: III. 602-603; cf. V. 123-
125]. So even Horrebow's own sons began to doubt the trustworthniness of their
father [55: 109; 51: 4].
Hence Horrebow's son, Christian Horrebow (1718-1776; professor of astron-
omy, designated in 1743 and ordinary from 1764), together with his brother,
Andreas Horrebow (c. 1720-1745), and Niels Jensen Gundestrup (1713-1779) in
1742-1743 and 1746 made new observations, and they arrived at much the same
conclusion as P. N. Horrebow in 1714, although their resulting value of parallax
appeared to be a little smaller [51].
In 1728 Bradley had, however, already advanced his theory of aberration which,
together with Ramer's demonstration of the progressive motion of light, provided
further strong evidence to the advantage of the Copernicans. Bradley denied that
any sensible parallax in the fixed stars had yet appeared [Phil. Trans. 1728,35, 660],
but even apart from that his theory was likely to outshine entirely P. N. Horrebow's
"proof" that the Earth did move. So Horrebow maintains that the finds Bradley's
theory difficult to understand [55, Danish version: 111]. Consequently, Horrebow
established his own theory of aberration, or - in Horrebow's telminology - of
anaclasis, explaining the phenomenon as being due to some sort of refraction at
the outer limit of the vortex in which he placed the Earth excentrically. His treatise
on the subject opens with a poem of congratulation to the triumphant Copernicus
by another of Horrebow's sons, Niels Horrebow (1712-1760) [55: 112].
Eventually, around 1750 Christian Horrebow had to acknowledge that most
astronomers simply did not accept any demonstration of the stellar parallaxes
[52: 133-134], so we find him busy working out a new micrometer method for deter-
mining these parallaxes [52: 140-142]. However, all the said activities did not
include any serious querying of the annual motion of the Earth; the discussion was
about technicalities of observational astronomy, and in 1747 Chr. Horrebow could
note that no important astronomer had found it worth the trouble to pay attention
to Nicolai Muller's voluminous dissertation from 1734 entitled On the unquestion-
able motion of the Sun and the firm rest of the Earth [51: 12; 83].
So it would be off the point to go into further details of the subject; the Coper-
nican system had now become a commonplace precondition within astronomy.
But outside astronomical circles anti-Coperoicans were of course still found.

E. Spang-Hanssen has sketched appropriately the general spirit at the University
of Copenhagen during the first half of the 18th century within the scientific disci-
plines, and especially traced the influence of P. N. Horrebow's astronomy upon
the authorship of the outstanding Danish writer of comedies, Ludvig Holberg (1684-
1754). Thence he convincingly argues that not only the common man, but also
a great many people of culture did not at all accept the new scientific ideas of the
time and in particular not the Copernican world system [124]. And my bibliography
exemplifies later anti-Coperoicanism [5, 86, Ill].
BmLlOGRAPHY
List of Sources
1 Aasheim, Arnoldus Nicolaus, De systemate Copernicano sive vero disputatio (Hafnire, 1767).
- A rather thorough dissertation containing several useful references.
2 Agerholm, Christianus, De semidiametro lu1Ul! dissertatiuncula mathematica (Hafnire,
1715), - Agerholm was a pupil of P. N. Horrebow's. He does away with the dilemma con-
cerning the alleged stand-still of the Sun by proposing that the event referred to in Josua's
book should regard the rotation of the Sun around its own axis.
3 -, De parallaxi orbis annui (Hafnire, 1716). - I have not succeeded in finding this disserta-
tion; but it is mentioned by Nielsen [112: 6].
4 Alburgo-Danus, Nicolaus Nicolai, Disputatio physiologica de elemento teme (Witebergre,
1622). - This dissertation echoes Caspar Bartholin's chapter on the Earth [cf. p. 124].
5 Alethophilus, Timotheus, Pseudonym for Peder Gutfeld (1727-1797). Orthophilus,
Philolaus, Pseudonym for OUo Christensen Riese (1697-1779). - Both partakers in
the controversy which covers more than 500 pages were vicars.
5a Alethophili Brev til Philolaum Orthophilum angaaende Jordens Stilstand eller UbeVfegelighed
(Aalborg, 1768). - The letter is dated 1765, Nov. 19th; it claims to answer an earlier letter
from Riese which probably did not appear in print.
5b Ortophili Copernikanske Skrivelse til Alethophilum. - I have found no date for this letter; it
claims to answer a. Hence I identify it with Orthophili Giensvar although the latter is mentio-
ned by Nielsen as a separate writing [112: 177].
5c Alethophili Tychonianske Svar og imodsatte Beviiser. Forste Part. - Dated 1766, Oct. 14th.
5d Alethophili Giensvar og imodsatte Beviiser. Anden Part. - Dated 1767, March 26th.
5e Philolai Orthophili Undersogning, hvor vidt Alethophili Tanker om Jordens UbeVfegelighed
i den forste Part of hans Responsum findes at were grundet (Aalborg, 1768). - Dated
1767, June 1st.
5f Philolai Orthophili Undersogning ... i den anden Part ... (Aalborg, 1768). - Dated 1768, May
28th. The letter opens with a preface by Prof. Peder Rasch. I have used a joint edition of the
letters a - f. Some of these were published earlier in various combinations and sometimes
with slightly different titles, too.
5g Alethophilifornodne Anmterkninger imod Orthophilifortsatte Undersogning (Haderslev, 1768). -
Dated 1768, July 19th.
6 Anonymous, Orbis Terrarum in Centrum Mundi restitutus atque a Vertigine Copernicana
liberatus (MS at the Royal Library of Copenhagen: Kallsk Sml. No 354.4°). - From a cryp-
togram [fol. 19v] I find the date 1715 for the composition of this MS. The tract makes up
a neat, but - from an astronomical point of view - naive piece of geometry directed against
the motion of the Earth.

7 Aslachus, Cunradus Bergensis, De natura Creli triplicis libelli tres. Quorum 1. de Crelo Aereo,
II. de Crelo Sidereo, III. de Crelo Perpetuo E sacrarum litterarum et prrestantium Philosopho-
rum thesauris concinnati (Sigenae Nassoviorum, 1597).
8 Bangius, Carolus Gaeorgius, Compendium naturalis scientire; ex octo libris physicre ausculta-
tionis Aristotelis, et aliis Philosoph is decerptum ... (Witebergre, 1599).
9 Bartholinus, Casparus, Exercitatio physica de natura (Witebergae, 1605).
10 -, De terra aere et igni Institutio Physica succincta: Cum prremissa elementorum theoria generali
(Hafnire, Rostockii, 1619; GryphiswaIdi, 1624), - Inserted into 11: fol. Ee-Ji.
11 -, Systema Physicum Ex Autoris genuinis ... libris ... coagmentatum (Hafnire, 1628).
12 -, Physica prrecepta ex Caspari Bartholini scriptis potissimum excerpta et digesta pro tyroni-
bus (Hafnire, 1656, 1676).
13 Bartholinus, Casparus Thorn. F., Col/egii Physici Privati Disputationes 1- VIII (Hafnire,
1684-85).
14 -, Summa philosophire naturalis. Ad recentiorum mentem accomodata, seu Explicatio Prrecep-
torum Physicorum, qure ex scriptis b. m. Avi Casp. Bartholini hactenus in SchoUs tradita sunt
(Hafnire, 1689). - Other editions 1688, 1706; annotated English edition, London, 1754.
15 -, Speciminis philosophire naturalis Novissimis Rationibus et experimentis illustratte disputa-
tiones 1- V (Hafnire, 1690-92).
16 Bartholinus, Erasmius, Consideratio Astronomica Conjunctionis magnre Saturni et Jovis
prcesentis Anni 1663 (Hafnire, 1663).
17 -, De Cometis Anni 1664 et 1665 opusculum. Ex observationibus Haunite habitis adornatum
(Hafnire, 1665). - Reviewed in Phil. Trans. 1669, 4, p. 1071.
18 -, De naturre mirabilibus qucestiones academicre (Hafnire, 1674).
19 Brahe, Tycho, Opera Omnia, vols. I-XV (Haunire, 1913-1929). - Editor I. L. E. Dreyer.
20 -, Description of his Instruments and Scientific Work (K0benhavn, 1946). - A translation of
Astronomire Instauratre Mechanica by Hans Rreder, Elis Stromgren, and Bengt Stromgren.
A similar translation into Danish is found in Nordisk Astronomisk Tidsskrift, 1933, 1946-
1955.
21 Brunsmand, J., Et Almindeligt og Stedsevarende Kalender, Hvor udi visis Hvad dertil horer ...
ved Gammel og Ny StUI, Samt Solens og Maanens Gang og Lysning, Saavelsom andet mere
(Ki0benhavn, 1688).
22 Brondlund, Laurentius, Anonymi autoris Novam inquisitionem in sententiam Copernicanam
prcesenti Schediasmate paucis excussam Publicre censurre subjiciet (Hafnire, 1728). - The
said anonymous tract is Inquisitio Nova in Sententiam Copernicanam ... (Analecta ex omni
meliorum literarum genere ... que ... evulgat Societas Caritatis et Scientiarum, vol. I, Lipsire,
1725), pp. 129-158. Its author is indicated by the letters V. E. L. D., and - in the preface
to Analecta... , vol. II, 1730 - called "collega noster". He proposes a modified Tychonian
world system with several centres of the planetary motions. His paper contains useful further
references relevant to the history of Copemicanism.
23 Cimber, Elias Olai, Diarivm astrologicvm et metheorologicum anni a nato Christo 1586; Et de
Cometa qvodam rotvndo ... consideratio Astrologica (Vranibvrgi, 1586). - Part of this work
is edited by Dreyer in 19: IV. 398 if.
24 Dethardingius, Georgius, Fundamenta scientire naturalis quibus in rebus naturalibus ... hac-
tenus detecta ... exponuntur •.. (Havnire, 1735; 2nd edition 1740).
25 -, Epitome erotematica Physices, in vsvm jvventvtis scholasticre (Havnire, 1746).
26 Dibvadius, Ericus Christophorus, Almanach oc Practica paa del Aar ... MDLXXXV. Tilhobe-
beregnid ved (E. C. D.). Oc der hoss lreris ... at gjore et slags solskiffuer ... (Hafnire, 1584 (?)).
27 Dibvadius, Georgius Christophorus, Commentarii breves in secundum librum Copernicii,
in quibus argumentis infallibilibus demonstratur veritas doctrince de primo motu, et ostenditur
Tabularum compositio (Witebergre, 1569).
18 -, Propositiones aliqvot mathematicee, in eorvm vtilitatem, qui ... Matheseos sunt studiosi, col-
lect ee et publicatee (Hafnire, 1577).
19 -, Ratio Componendi preecipvos, primi motvs, canones ... explicata (Hafnire, 1577).
30 -, Theses de regione mvndi eetherea ... (Hafnire, 1581).
31 Dieterichsen, Trugillus Asloja-Norweg: Disputatio Theorematica adstruens Motum Nvx{Jrr
pee{vova tel/uris circumgyratione dependere (Rostochii, 1638). - Sub prresidio Petri Lau-
rembergi.
31 Finckius, Jacobus: Disputatio physica de Elementis tum in Genere tum Specie consideratiJ
(Argentorati, 1612).
33 -, Theses philosophicee de Elementis (Hafnire, 1639).
34 Finckius, Thomas, Ephemeris coelestium motuum Ann; 1581, supputata ex Tabulis Prutenicis
(Argentorati, 1582).
35 -, Geometriee Rotvndi Libri XlIII. Ad Fridericvm Secundum ... (Basilere, 1583; 2nd edition
1591).
36 -, Horoscopographia sive De inveniendo stellarum sitv astrologia. In qua tabulee declinationum,
ascensionum rectarum ... Ad Henricvm Ronzovivm, Vicarium Regium (Slesvici, 1591).
37 -, Thees de hypothesibvs astronomicis, dimensionis mvndi ac primi motus circulis (Hafnire,
1592).
38 -, Theses de diebvs ac noctibus (Hafnire, 1601).
39 -, Theses de mensibus et annis (Hafnire, 1602).
40 -, Methodica tractatio doctrinae spheericae (Coburgi, 1626) - see 115: vol. I, part 1, no 2816.
41 de Fine, Johannes Arnoldi, Enneas dissertationum physiologicarum ... Disputatio prima physio-
logica, de definito et genere physicee (Giessre, 1609).
41 (FonteneJle, B.), Samtaler Om Meer end een Verden, Imel/em et Fruentimmer og en leerd
Mand. Af det nyeste Franske Oplag ... Med Professor Gottschedens og egne nye Anmeerkninger
forsynede af Friderich Christian Eilschow (Ki0benhavn, 1748; new issue 1764).
43 Frommius, Georgius, Dissertatio Astronomica De Mediis qvibusdam ad Astronomiam resti-
tuendam necessariis pro Introductione in Theatrum Astronomicum Hafniense... Christiani
Longomontani ... cum ... Johanne Bapt. Morino ... instituta (Hafnire, 1642).
44 -, Responsio ad ... Johannis Bapt. Morini ... dejensionem astronomiee restitutee (Hafnire, 1645).
45 -, Exercitationum spheericarum prima, de principiis quibusdam doctrinee spheericee (Hafnire,
1648). - The proverb quoted on p. 135 of our text is found in Horats, Ep. 1, 7, 23.
46 Galilei, Galileo, Opere, vols. I-XX (Firenze, 1929-1939).
47 Galschiot, Johannes, Dissertationis de differentia systematum Ptolemaici, Copernicani et
Tychonis Brahe particulee I-II (Hafnire, 1774-75). - A rather trivial reproduction of the
main features of the said three world systems.
48 Haltorius, Thorlefus, Schediasma mathematicum de Aplane (Hafnire, 1707). - A rather ela-
borate dissertation in which Thorlelf Haldorsen (died 1714) follows C. T. Bartholin. He ar-
gues that the Universe is indefinite in extension and considers the immense magnitude of
the Copernican Universe far more reasonable than the incredible swiftness of the stars assu-
med by Ptolemy.
49 -, Schediasma de Sole Retrogrado Es. XXXVlIIv. 8 (Havnire, 1710). - HaIdorsen defends the
Copernican system against the Scriptural argument concerning the alleged retrogradation
of the Sun. And he refers to:
49a Henr. Nicolai: Dissert. pec. de Revol. Terree.
49b anonymus quidam: Epist. de Terra! motu; edita ultrajecti A. 1651. I have not identified any
of the two writings.
50 Hilarius, Georgius: Preecepta doctrinee spheericee Brevissima ... ad captum incipientium acco-
modata (Hafnire, 1656).
51 Horrebow, Christian, De paral/axi fixarum annua ex rectascensionibus, quam post Roemerum
et parentem ex propriis observationibus demonstrat (Hafnire, 1747). - Published earlier as

three separate dissertations.
52 -, A/handling om Fixstjernernes Distance fra Jorden ("Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter", 1751-
54, Siette Deel) pp. 129-152. - A Latin version was published separately as a disserta-
tion in 1755.
53 Horrebowius, Petrus, Tentamen academicum III pertractans teqvinoctiorum prll!cessionem
(Hafnire, 1706).
54 -, Opera Mathematico-physica, vols. I-III (Havnire, 1740-41). The main separate writings
within this joint edition are the following:
54a Cia vis Astronomill!, sive astronomite pars physica (1st unfinished edition 1725). - Reviewed
in Acta Eruditorum, 1726, p. 506 ff.
54b Basis Astronomill! sive astronomite pars mechanica... cum Triduo Roemeri... (1st ed. 1735).
54c Copernicus Triumphans, sive de parallaxi orbis annui tractatus epistolaris (1st ed. 1727).
54d Atrium astronomite, sive de elementis astronomite ex observationibus (1st ed. 1732).
54e Adytum Astronomite sive Astronomite pars theoretica. - MS at the Royal Library of Copen-
hagen (ADD 104.4°), never published, but intended to form the IVth volume of the Opera.
55 -, Anaclastice, in parte priori constituto vorticulo Telluris ... pro adserendo Copernico Trium-
phante ("Scripta a Societate Hafniensi", pars tertia, 1747), pp. 107-180. - A shorter Da-
nish version is found in "Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter", 1747, Tredie Deel, pp. 107-120.
56 -, Elementa philosophite naturalis (Havnire, 1748).
57 -, Nova Theoria Lunae, cvm tentamine restitutionis Motvvm Lvnarivm (Bibliotheca Novissima
Observationvrn ac Recensionvm, Sectio I, 1718), pp. 34-46.
58 Judichaerus, Olaus, 'l'8'6IJo"(JHltr; sensuum et dva,'"ato"l!'1l1tr; hypothesium sive disputatio
mathematico physica prior Ostendens fallaciam sensuum in judicando et Hypothesium neces-
sitatem atque utilitatem (Hafnire, 1684). - Ole Judichll!r (1661-1729) was a pupil of R0-
mer's. In this most lively written dissertation statements occur which may equally well ad-
vocate the Copernican and the Tychonian view.
59 Kierulius, Petrus Bartholinus, Apologia pro observationibus, et hypothesibus ... Tychonis
Brahe... Contra ... Martini Hortensii Delfensis criminationes et calumnias, quas in Prrefatio-
nem commentationum Prteceptoris sui Philippi Lansbergii Middelburgensis, de motu terrte
diurno et Annuo etc. consarcinnavit (Hafnire, 1632).
60 Kopernikus, Nikolaus, Gesamtausgabe, vols. I-II (Miinchen, Berlin, 1944-49).
61 Kraft, Jens, Bettenkninger over Neutons og Cartesii systemata, tilligemed nye Anmterkninger
over Lyset ("Videnskabemes Selskabs Skrifter", Tredie Deel, 1747), pp. 213-296. - A La-
tin version is found in "Scripta a Societate Hafniensi", pars tertia, 1747, pp. 273-348.
62 -, Cosmologie eller anden Deel af Metaphysik (Kj0benhavn, 1752).
63 Kragius, Andreas Ripensis, Theses de de/initione et svbjecto physices (Hafnire, 1593).
64 Krogius, Nicolaus, Disputatio physica de origine motus diurni terrte (Hafnire, 1719).- Krog
reproduces the Cartesian hypothesis.
65 Lang, Hans, Cosmosistatia sive commentarius contra Aristotelem de fabrica mundi (1606) -
see 112: 124.
66 Langus, Wilhelmus, De Annis Christi libri duo. Primus varios variarum Gentium annos et tem-
pora exponit: Secundus, in duas partes divisus, priori Epochas nobiliores, qUte Christi Domini
passionem antecedunt; posteriori ipsum Dominicte Nativitatis et Passionis tempus demonstrat
(Lugduni Batavorum, 1649).
67 -, Exercitationes Mathematicte VII. De annua emendotione et motu Apogei Solis . •• (Hafnire, 1653).
68 Lansbergen, Philippus, van: P. Lansbergii Commentationes in Motum Terrte diurnum, et
annuum, et in verum adspectabilis cteli typum ... Ex Belgico sermone in Latinum verse, a M.
Hortensio ... una cum ipsius prtefatione, in qua astronomite Braheante fundomenta examinantur;
et cum Lansbergiana astronomite restitutione conferuntur (Middelburgi, 1630).
69 Lcsleus, Claudius Nicolai, Geometria sive ars metiendi simul tractatus de Quadratura Circuli
et Qutestiones nonnullte discussu dignissimte de Motu terrte, et Cometis. Item Unicus sacer
sermo super Textum Luc: c. 2, v. 34 (Lubecre, 1661).
70 Longomontanus, Christianus Severini, Systema mathematicum, thesibus expositum
(Hafnire, 1609).
71 -, Disputatio prima astronomica, de prtecognitis: In qua Dejinitio materite Coeli adeoque loci
cuncta corpora mumlana majora, suo gremio complectentis discutietur: Vna cum Natura, et
forma ipsorum corporum, imprimis, qua motibus suis apta sunt (Hafnire, 1611).
72 -, Disputatio philosophica, qUte secvnda astronomite est, de sphterte coelestis legitima consti-
tutione, officio, et multiplici utilitate (Hafnire, 1612).
73 -, Disputatio tertia astronomica, de systematis mundani triplici hypothesi (Hafnire, 1614). -
I have not succeeded in finding this no doubt interesting dissertation.
74 -, Disputatio prima de astrologia seu prtedictionibus ex astris, in qua Primum contra adversa-
rios, certitudo ... convincitur. Deinde generalis causarum indicatio ... subnectitur ... (Hafnire, 1621).
75 -, Astronomia Danica ... in duas partes tributa; Quarum prior Doctrinam de diurna apparente
siderum revolutione ... duobus libris explicat: posterior Theorias de motibus Planetarum
ad observationes D. Tychonis Brahte, et proprias, in triplici forma redintegratas, itidem duobus
Iibris complectitur, Cum Appendice de ... Stellis Novis et Cometis (Amsterdami, 1640; other
editions 1622 and 1663).
76 -, Disputatio de matheseos, indole, methodo, et utilitatibus, velut incitamentis, quibus ingenioste
juventuti in Scholis Gymnasiis, et Academiis discenda commendatur (Hafnire, 1636).
77 -, Introductio in Theatrum Astronomicum. Quod in honorem Coelestium Opificis D. O. M.
Nee non totius Orbis utilitatem, auspicio ... Christiani IV. Havnite ... modo instauratur, ...
Cui aceedit brevis Discursus de I.£quatione Diei naturalis, 11. Parallaxibus Siderum, III. Refrac-
tionibus siderum (Havnire, 1639).
78 Lous, Christianus Carolus, Dissertatio historica sententias veterum varias de systemate mundi
Exhibens (Hafnire, 1744). - The author argues that the idea of the movable Earth may
be traced back to Pythagoras who had, perhaps, taken it over from a still elder Italian tra-
dition (pp. 15-18).
79 Manfredii, Eustachius, De novissimis circa jixorum siderum errores observationibus. Ad...
Antonium Leprottum ... epistola (De Bononiensi scientiarum et artium instituto atque aca-
demia Commentarii, 1731), pp. 599-639.
80 Mercator, Nicolaus, Institutionum astronomicarum Iibri duo, de motu astrorum ... Secundum
Hypotheses Veterum et Recentiorum prtecipuas; deque Hypotheseon ex observatis construc-
tione: cum Tabulis Tychonianis Solaribus, Lunaribus, Lunte-Solaribus, et Rudoiphinis Solis,
Fixarum, Et Quinque Errantium; ... Quibus accedit appendix De iis, qUte Novissimis tempo-
ribus Coelitus innotuerunt (Londini, 1676).
81 Morin, Jean Baptiste, Coronis Astronomite jam a fundamentis ... restitutte; qua respondetur
ad introductionem in Theatrum Astronomicum C. Longomontani (Parisiis, 1641).
82 -, Defensio Astronomite a fundamentis ... restitutte, contra ... G. Frommii ... Dissertationem
Astronomicam (parisiis, 1644).
83 Mullerus, Nicolaus, De indubio solis motu immotaque telluris quiete dissertatio (Kiel, 1734).
84 Orthophilus, Philolaus, see 5.
85 Orthunganus, Johannes Claudii, Collegii physici Disputatio Septima De eoelo sidereo et stel-
lis in genere (Hafnire, 1651). - Sub prresidio Jani Jani Bircherodii.
86a Peper, Johan, Tanker om Jordens Dreining eller ... Bevis, at Jordkloden, ikke kan dreie sig ...
(Kj0benhavn, 1792). - This pamphlet gave rise to two anonymous rejoinders (b, d) both
of which were in turn answered (c, e) by Johan Peper, a self-taught Copenhagener tailor
striking pseudonymously a desperate blow for stopping the whirling Earth.
86b Kort Kritik over og Medhoid for Johan Pepers nyebagte astronomie (Kj0benhavn, 1792).
86c -, Svar paa det imod min udgivne skrift sammenvtevede Piat (Kjebenhavn, 1792).
86d En liden betragtning over Johan Pepers piece: ... samt ... Beviis, at Buclerne paa forfatterens
Paryk ... kan beholde deres Facon uagtet Jorden dreier sig... (Kjebenhavn, 1792).
86e -, Bettenkning over den saa kaldede liden Betragtning ... samt nye Anmterkninger over Jordens
Dreining, og til/ige en kort Anviisning... at Solen kan gaae (Kjebenhavn, 1793).
87 Ramus, Joachimus Friedericus, Jupiter planeta cum quattuor satellitibus in forum mathemati-
cum productus (Hafnire, 1713). - Joachim Friderik Ramus (1685 (?}-1769) was a pupil
of Remer's. His dissertation shows by a simple diagram the Copernican explanation of
Jupiter's retrogradations.
88 Resenius, Johannes Pauli, Lutherus triumphans Jubilteis sancte continuandis, per septentrio-
nem, ipso die Omnium Sanctorum quotannis inde ab anna 1617 (Hafnire, 1617).
89 Ripensis, Christianus Johannis, Theses de sphterte dejinitione et divisione (Hafnire, 1604).
90 -, Theses de circulis sphterte (Hafnire, 1605).
91 -, Theses de Zonis (Hafnire, 1606).
92 -, Theses de climatibus et parallelis (Hafnire, 1608).
93 Rosen, Edward, Three Copernican Treatises (New York, 1959).
94 Rossingius, Adamus Levinus, Hypothesin Keplerianam paucis complectens Dissertatio astro-
nomica (Hafnire, 1713).
95 -, De ortu et progressu astronomite ellipticte dissertatio (Hafni re, 1717).
96 Remer, Ole, Adversaria (Kebenhavn, 1910). - Edited by Thyra Eibe and Kirstine Meyer.
97 Skive, Laurentius Th., Theses Mathematicte (Hafnire, 1703). - Lourits Thomsen Skive (1677-
1711) was a pupil of Remer's. Without further comment he asserts: "The Copernican phi-
losophy does not, strictly speaking, maintain that the Sun rests, nor that the Earth moves.
Vain are the arguments ordinarily brought forward abundantly against the perspicuity of
the Copernican system".
98 Sperling, Johannes, Institutiones physicte (Lubecre, 1647).
99 Stenbuchius, Christianus, Exercitatio physico-mathematica (Haunire, 1648). - Sub prre-
sidio Georgii Frommii.
100 von Steuben, Christian Ludewig, Kurze Beschreibung des Welt-Gebiiudes wie es Copernicus
beschrieben ... 1mgleichen Kurze Beschreibung, einer neu erfundenen Astronomischen Machine
Darinnen sich alle himlische Carper bejinden ... (Copenhagen, 1752).
101 Seeborg, Georgius, Dissertatio de Phrenomenis, ex matu terrre diurno pendentibus (Hafnire,
1779). - A rather trivial dissertation.
102 Thorlacius, Gislaus Islandus, Collegii Physici Disputatio Octava De stellis jixis et errantibus
(Hafnire, 1651). - Sub prresidio Jani Jani Bircherodii.
103 Tormius, Ericus Olai, ... Disquisitio Mechanica, in qua De Instrumentorum Necessitate ...
sic ... disputatur ut 1. Vera sententia ... adstruatur. II. Controversire, qure ... inter Tychonicos
et nostri seculi Clarissimos Mathematicos agitantur, examinentur ... (Hafnire, 1643).
104 -, Disquisitionis Mechanicre Continuatio, In qua de Instrumentorum, ... prrecipue de Globo
Tychonico sic ... disputatur ut ... (Hafnire, 1645).
105 Wilczeck, G. F. J., Lehrsatz von der Loge der Erden (Budissin, 1762). - A discussion concern-
ing this book formed the starting point of the polemic between Gutfeld and Riese [5].
106 Windefontanus, Johannes Johannis, Anatome Qurestionum Paradoxarum Claud;; Nicolai
Leslei, de Motu terrre, Anima hominis ... et Servatore Jesu die Jovis passo ... (Hafnire, 1662).
107 W 0 lfi us, Christianus, Elementa Matheseos Universre, vols. I - V (Haire Magdeburgicre, 1741-
1756).
108 Worm, Olaus, Cosmologica disceptatio secunda, De mundo et coelo ejusque partibus et Astris
(Hafnire, 1620).
109 -, Exercitationum physicarum Prima De naturalis philosophire constitutione (Hafnire, 1623).
110 -, Liber Aureus philosophorum aquila Aristotelis de Mundi Fabrica ... nova analysi notis, com-
mentariis doctiss. quibus controversite varite ... enodantur, ilIustratus ab (0. W.) (Rostochii,
1625). - Ole Worm (1588-1654) was primarily an archaeologist, and within natural philoso-
phy he follows his brother-in-law Caspar Bartholin.
111 Zytphen, W., Solens Bevtegelse i Verdensrummet (Kj0benhavn, 1863). - The author is a rnad-
-man advocating the Tychonian world system.
Other works of reference
112 Nielsen, Niels, Matematiken i Danmark 1528-1800 (K0benhavn, Kristiania, 1912).
This bibliography of scientific literature in Denmark has formed the basis for the present trea-
tise. I have consulted the following more general bibliographic works, too:
113 Nielsen, Lauritz, Dansk Bibliograji 1551-1600 (K0benhavn, 1931).
114 Bruun, Chr. V., Bibliotheca Danica. Systematisk fortegnelse over den danske litteratur fra
1482 til 1830, vols. I-V (K0benhavn, 1961-63).
115 Houzeau, J. C. et Lancaster, A., Bibliographie Generale de I'Astronomie jusqu'en 1880,
vols. I (in two parts) and n (London, 1964).
N. Nielsen (112) brings short biographical notices on the authors, and more detailed informa-
tion as well as further references may in most cases be found in:
116 Bricka, C. F., Dansk Biograjisk Leksikon, vols. I-XXVII (K0benhavn, 1933-1944).
117 Meisen, V. (editor), Prominent Danish Scientists through the Ages. With facsimiles from their
works (Copenhagen, 1932).
118 Petersen, Carl S., Den danske Litteratur fra Folkevandringstiden indtil Holberg (K0benbavn,
1929).
In addition to which I shall call attention to a few writings on individual scientists:
119 Dreyer, J. L. E., Tycho Brahe. A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century
(New York, 1963).
120 Hofmann, Jos. E., Nicolaus Mercator (Kauffman), sein Leben und Wirken, vorzugsweise als
Mathematiker (Akad. der Wissensch. und der Literatur, Abh. der Math.-Naturwissensch.
Klasse, 1950, no 3), pp. 45-103.
121 Nielsen, Axel V., Ole Romer. En Skildring af hans Liv og Gerning (Aarhus, 1944).
122 Pihl, Mogens, Ole Romers videnskabelige liv (K0benhavn, 1944).
123 Stromgren, Elis, Ole Romer som Astronom (K0benhavn, 1944).
One author has recently dealt with Copemicanism in Denmark during the first half of the
18th century, viz:
124 Spang-Hanssen, Ebbe, Erasmus Montanus og naturvidenskaben (K0benhavn, 1965).
Finally I list a few writings to which I have made specific references in my text:
125 Car0e, K., Den danske Ltegestand, vols. I-V (K0benhavn, Kristiania, 1904-1922).
126 Dreyer, J. L. E., A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler (New York, 1953).
127 Htibertz J. R., Aktstykker vedkommende Staden og Stiftet Aarhus, vol. n (Kj0benhavn,
1845).
128 Moesgaard, Kr' Peder, The 1717 Egyptian years and the Copernican theory of precession
(Centaurus, 1968, 13, pp. 120-138).
129 Neugebauer, 0., The Exact Sciences in Antiquity (New York, 1962).
130 Peters, C. A. F., Recherches sur la Parallaxe des Etoiles Fixes (Mem. de I'Acad. de Sc. de
Saint-Petersbourg (VI), 5, 1853, pp. 1-180).
131 Ravetz, J. R., Astronomy and Cosmology in the Achievement ofNicolaus Copernicus (Wroclaw-
Warszawa-Krak6w, 1965).
132 Sandblad, Henrik, Det Copernikanska Viirldssystemet i Sverige ("Lychnos", 1943, pp. 149-
188, and 1944-45, pp. 79-131).
133 Zinner, Ernst, Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Coppernicanischen Lehre (Erlangen, 1943).
134 Brun, V., Regnekunsten j det gamle Norge (Oslo, Bergen, 1962).
SHIGERU NAKAYAMA
University of Tokyo
DIFFUSION OF COPERNICANISM IN JAPAN
Before we examine closely the diffusion of Copernicanism in Japan, it may be

helpful (1) to define briefly what Copernicanism means by analyzing it into three
conventional elements-astronomical, cosmological and physical - and (2) also
to sketch the Far Eastern tradition with respect to each element. This juxtaposition
will provide preparation for our main theme, the encounter of Copernicanism
with a culture which did not share its historical roots. In so essentially foreign
a milieu, it was perhaps inevitable that Copernicus's innovations played a radically
different role from that which they played in the Western tradition.
WHAT IS COPERNICANISM?
Astronomical or observational. Copernicus is, without doubt, primarily a first-rate

professional astronomer. His thorough mathematical treatment in De revolutionibus
from Book II on must have challenged his astronomical successors, such as Erasmus
Reinhold and Tycho Brahe. This aspect of Copernicanism may be called "astro-
nomical Copernicanism" or "mathematical and quantitative Copernicanism" if
not to say "observational Copernicanism". As regards practical astronomy, Coper-
nicus was engaged in calendar reform, investigation of long-term variation of plan-
etary positions, and eclipse predictions, which were the serious astronomical
topics of his time!.
Cosmological or geometrico-morphological. On the popular level, Copernicus is,
of course best known as a cosmologist. The basic tenet of "cosmological Coperni-
canism" is obviously the heliostatic conception. His work on the order and relative
distance of planetary orbits was only the outcome of this concept. Man's position
in the universe, the taste for harmony, and even the idea of an infinite universe in
the later Copernicanism are all closely associated with the cosmological element.
1 Cf. JerOme R. Ravetz; The cosmology of Nicolaus Copernicus, "Organon" No.2, 1965,
p. 54, and his Origin of the Copernican revolution, "Nature", March 11, 1961, pp. 859-860.
154 Shigeru Nakayama
We must note that this aspect became weighty in popular thought only from the
time of Galileo's recantation, although it must have been what drove Copernicus
to the completion of the extensive De revolutionibus.
Physical or mechanical. Finally, "the moving earth" theory had important con-
sequences for physics, as testified by those critics who denied it, and engaged in
a controversy on how that motion, whether rotation or revolution, could possibly
take place without causing strong winds on the surface of the earth. This physical
argument constituted at the time a vulnerable point of Copernicanism.
THE FAR EASTERN BACKGROUND
Astronomy. Traditional Far Eastern astronomy, which remained centered in

China, was oriented toward the special goal of providing the most accurate possible
luni-solar calendar, and of predicting lunar and solar eclipses, since these predic-
tions were an excellent means of checking the accuracy of any such calendar2 •
While calendrical astronomy was at the core of Far Eastern exact science, plan-
etary astronomy, which was not highly developed, held a peripheral position,
and played its main role in portent astrology.
It is hard to find in the development of Chinese astronomy any notable tendency
towards conceptual schemes or mechanistic or geometrical models. The approach
of the Chinese official astronomers was to represent numerically the course of the
celestial bodies without depending upon a geometrical model. Their final aim was
to reduce observations as accurately as possible to algebraic relations. Unlike Ptole-
maic astronomy, Chinese astronomy showed no concern for the calculation of di-
mensions of the universe: for all mensurational purposes the sky was treated two-
-dimensionally.
Cosmology. During the Han and Six Dynasties period, there had been rivalry
between cosmological systems, especially between one school which championed
a spherical sky (hun t'ien)a and another which held that the sky was parallel to a flat
or convex earth (kai t'ien)b. Later on, however, the controversy died out and astron-
omers lost their interest in it, occupying themselves solely with routine obser-
vations and calendrical calculations. In the T'ang period the Chinese official astron-
omers claimed that "Our business is exclusively calendrical calculations and obser-
vations in order to provide the people with the correct time. Whether flat or spherical
cosmology is no concern of the astronomers!"3
1 S h i g e r u Nakayama, Characteristics of Chinese calendrical science, "Japanese studies in
the history of science", No.4, 1965, pp. 124-131.

3 Li chih (A) [Treatise on calendar-making] of the Hsin T'ang shu (B) [New standard history
of the T'ang period], eds. Ou-yang Hsiu (C) and Sung Chi (D) (1060), quoted in Yabuuchi Kiyoshi
(E), Zuito rekiho shi no kenkyii [Researches in the history of calendrical science during the Sui and
T'ang period; Tokyo, 1944], p. 6.
Copernicanism in Japan 155
Although without effect on professional astronomical circles, there was a revival

of cosmological interest among the Sung philosophers such as Chang Tsaic and
Chu Hsi d • The Neo-Confucians favoured the hun t'ien theory. Chu Hsi, the chief
figure of the school, argued that the kai t'ien theory could not explain how the sky
remained in consonance with the earth. The sphericity of sky in the hun t'ien cosmo-
logy was, however, not paralleled by recognition of the sphericity of the earth.
A flat earth, according to Chu Hsi's theory, was located in the middle of the universe,
floating on water. Despite considerable developments of eclipse-predicting tech-
niques, it is surprising that the sphericity of the earth was explicitly recognized neither
by philosophers nor by astronomers, though the idea was hinted at in the writings
of Shen Kuae and others.
In the absence of the idea of the sphericity of earth, sun-centeredness was simply
inconceivable. The sun was accorded a most important role in cosmology, but was
not allotted the central position in the geometrical cosmology.
Chu Hsi proposed a nine-layered stratification of the earth, sun, moon, planets
and fixed stars, but did not work out in its astronomical details. A rigid and tightly de-
signed universe like the medieval Western cosmos was not to the taste of the Chinese.
Their cosmological outlook was not confined inside the shell of hun t'ien theory;
implicitly or explicitly they admitted the plausibility of an infinite universe, as
evidenced in outspoken arguments of the Buddhists.
Physics or mechanics. The main cosmological concern of the Chinese philoso-
phers was not the shape of the world but its dynamic processes. Their discussions
were almost always phrased in terms of the cosmic energetic fluid, ch'i r, which per-
meated the universe; meteorological metaphors are more appropriate to it than
that of mechanical clockwork. The most important Chinese principle of natural
philosophy is the yin-yangg principle, which explained all phenomena in the universe
in terms of alternating but complementary dynamic phases described by the rhythms
of earth and heaven, rest and motion, female and male and so on.
Chinese geocentricism was not based on a sharply defined celestial-terrestrial
dichotomy as in Aristotelian cosmology, nor was the cosmology complicated by
theological requirements as in medieval Europe. For academic philosophers the
earth was simply located at one end of a continuous spectrum running from most
rapid (stellar background) to infinitesimally slow (earth) motion. Thus the earth
was conceived as not absolutely and self-evidently at rest, but conditioned to be
so by external circumstances. There remained a logical option to accept the motion
of the earth once those circumstances were no longer accepted.
Contrary to philosophers' view, professional astronomers claimed that the star-
bearing sky moves from east to west, and the sun, moon, and planets move from
west to east against the stellar background. If to the central earth we extend this
notion of eastward turning, the earth must rotate most rapidly against the west-
ward-turning stellar background.
INTRODUCTION OF COPERNICANISM INTO JAPAN
Up to the early part of the eighteenth century, Japanese astronomy was still
dominated by Chinese tradition. We can reasonably say that Copernicanism appeared
in Japanese works only in the last quarter of the eighteenth century.
Compared with the date of the acceptance of Copernicanism in the West, its
introduction into Japan was late. To explain this, the foIIowing three factors may
be considered.
(1) Political action to limit free international communication,
(2) The language barrier to the translation of Western works,
(3) Ideological and technical difficulties in comprehending Copernicanism.
JESUIT INFLUENCE
The impact of the West finaIIy began to make itself felt on the isolated islands
of Japan in about 15434, the year in which De revolutionibus was published. In that
year, shipwrecked Portugese introduced firearms into Japan and Jesuit evangel-
ism foIIowed.
Scholars who have studied the reports of such missionaries to China as Matteo
Rici and Johann Adam SchaII von BeII tend to project their picture of seventeenth-
-century Chinese science onto that of Japan in the corresponding period and often
conjecture that Japanese science also was substantiaIIy affected by the early contri-
butions of the Jesuits. However, circumstances in the two countries differed greatly.
While the Jesuits in China generaIIy took a flexible, sometimes conciliatory,
attitude toward the elite in Chinese bureaucracy and employed an indirect method
to convert them to Christianity through the demonstration of the superiority of
Western astronomy, the missionaries to Japan never attempted a systematic introduc-
tion of Western astronomy, but focussed their efforts on intensive direct exangelism.
From the late sixteenth century onward, the Japanese government was suspicious
of the Christians. EventuaIIy it forbade any belief in Christianity and took steps to
expel the Portuguese and Spanish missionaries from the country. Hence, the Jesuits'
impact was relatively short-lived and the teachings of the missionaries in Japan
were almost eradicated. We cannot say, therefore, that the Jesuits contributed
to Japanese astronomy as much as Ricci and his successors did to Chinese astronomy.
AVAILABILITY OF WESTERN KNOWLEDGE UNDER SECLUSION POLICY
After 1638, the Chinese and Dutch were the only foreigners allowed to reside
in Japan, and they were restricted to the city of Nagasaki for the pursuit of trade.
This political action was paralleled by restrictions on the import of certain Chinese
books, which included all works on Christiaaity and all works by Christian authors.
4 A Portuguese source places the date at 1542. However, according to a Japanese source,
the "Teppoki" (F), written between 1648 and 1651, the year is 1543. See C. R. Boxer, The Christian
century in Japan, 1549-1650 (Berkeley, 1951), p. 27.
It seems that Matteo Ricci was, in the eyes of the government censors,
a most dangerous character. Any work by him, or associated with his name, was
barred whether it concerned Christian tenets or not. The government had catego·
rically forbidden the importation of all Sino·Jesuit (Chinese language) treatises.
The government, however, never took legal action against the importation of
Western books. In early seventeenth-century Japan the fraction of the population
that could read Western books was insignificant compared to the fraction that could
read Chinese books. The prohibition of Christianity, the departure of foreign mission-
aries from the country, and the limitations on foreign trade left no opportunity
for the ordinary intellectual to receive instruction in European languages.
The only exception was the group of official interpreters at Nagasaki. In view
of their professional function, they were officially permitted to study European
languages.
On the whole, the decree banning Christian writings was partly responsible
for the predominance in Japan during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries
of purely traditional astronomy in the Chinese pattern.
RELAXATION OF THE BAN - YOSIDMUNE
While the seventeenth century was mainly spent in catching up with traditional
Chinese scholarship, the Japanese from the early eighteenth century on began to
realize that the Chinese achievements did not suffice. The relations of Japanese
astronomy with that of the West entered a new phase under the Shogun Yoshimune h ,
ruler of Japan from 1716 to 1745, who relaxed in 1720 the ban on Sino-Jesuit
treatises.
Intending to revise the contemporary Jokyol calendar immediately after his
appointment, Yoshimune consulted astronomers and mathematicians. These men
must have read some of the officially forbidden books which were preserved only
in the shogunate library and found them superior to the traditional Chinese works,
for they apparently persuaded Yoshimune to collect all Chinese translations and
treatises on Western astronomy.
After the relaxation, Western knowledge on an advanced and professionally
useful level was transmitted to Japan for the first time. Meanwhile, at the time of
Yoshimune in Japan, scholars and officials had no source of information on Western
astronomy other than Chinese works. While the Sino-Jesuit works were for decades
relied upon by Japanese practical astronomers, modem Western astronomical ideas
could not have been available until the difficulty of translating original Western
treatises was overcome; the works in Chinese were practically useless in this respect.
Thus, the late acceptance of Copernicanism in Japan was mainly due to the exclu-
sive dependence until the early half of the eighteenth century on Chinese sources
rather than to particular ideological obstacles.
BEGINNING OF THE "DUTCH LEARNING"
One consequence of this new receptivity was that in 1745 the interpreters were
officially encouraged to learn to read Dutch books. Prior to this, their proficiency
had been almost entirely restricted to translation of spoken Dutch. At this early
stage, the task of introducing new ideas was left in the hands of only a few linguistic
experts.
Circumstances of foreign relations confined Western-oriented Japanese to ex-
clusive reliance on Dutch sources. After its golden age in the seventeenth century,
Holland could no longer maintain its aureole; in the late eighteenth century its
scientific efforts were at an ebb s. It was just than that the Japanese depended on
Dutch translations of Western European works. In the 1770's, a generation after
the reign of Yoshimune, a notable expansion of study of the Dutch langauge and
science led to a move for translation of Dutch scientific works - or retranslation
of Dutch translations of Western European works.
TWO SOURCES OF COPERNICANISM
Under the circumstances described above, Copernicanism entered Japan via

two distinct routes:
(1) Chinese sources, i. e. the writings of Jesuit missionaries in China and their
native sympathizers,
(2) Direct contact with Europeans in Japan, or direct translation from European
sources.
Chinese sources. Since the introduction of heliocentricism into China has been
exhaustively treated in another paper 6, it is necessary here only to note by way
of summary that the Jesuit monopoly on scientific teaching in China greatly delayed
it, and that by the time Copernicus's cosmological convictions were adequately
described in Chinese by Michel Benoist in 1760, so many confusing statements had
been made about the Polish astronomer's beliefs that the best Chinese astronomers
of the time were justifiably little disposed to accept Benoist's"description. Benoist's
ideas did not enter Japan until they were referred to in 1846 by the Shogunal astron-
omer Shibukawa Kagesuke l (1787-1856) in his "Shinp6 rekisho zokuhen"7.k
(Sequel to calendrical treatise by the new method). Of course by this time adequate
information on heliostatic cosmology had already entered Japan direct from the
West.
Prior to that, no substantial Chinese influence in the matter of Copernicanism
can be found. Shizuki Tadao1 (1760-1806) in his RekishO shinsho m (new treatise
5 A. J. Barnouw and B. Lanaheer. ed., The contribution of Holland to the sciences (New
York, 1943). p. 271.

6 Nathan Sivin's paper, in print.
7 Preserved in the Naikaku Bunko library.

on calendrical phenomena), Part 1 (drafted in 1798) states that "I have looked at
a work entitled probably Li-ch'i t'u-shuon (ritual implements, illustrated) and found
many instruments made in England. Among them there were some which place
the sun at the center and the planets and the earth outside. Hence, it may be that
this (Copernican) theory is now adopted (in China)"B.
Li-ch'i t'u-shuo is not found in any Chinese bibliography and "instruments
made in England" does not sound genuinely Chinese, but I have located a Li-ch'i
t'u-shiho (prefaced kin 1759 and 1766) which contains two illustrations of helio-
centric planetaria kept in the Imperial palace. This must have been the work Tadao
saw. Again, however, Tadao had been familiar with Copernican theory since his
own translation of John Keill's work in the 1780's and hence this vague Chinese
source merely strengthened his own conviction of Copernicanism and also his im-
pression of its diffusion in other parts of the world.
Thus we may conclude that despite a tradition of heavy borrowing from Chinese
calendrical astronomy until the Jesuits' time, the Japanese were not perceptibly
influenced via China in the matter of Copernicanism. They found their own way
towards Copernicanism through direct access to Western sources. This is one of the
earliest instances of Japanese independence from her historically overwhelming
intellectual dependence upon China9 •
Western sources. During the Jesuit century in Japan, some works of missionary
origin conveyed an Aristotelian kind of cosmology. We have two such sources
extant now. One is Nigi ryakusetsuP (Outline theory of celestial and terrestrial globes;
basically a translation of De sphaera by the Spanish missionary Pedro Gomez) pri-
marily for use in instructing Japanese students at a Jesuit collegio. The other is
Kenkon Bensetsuq (Western cosmography with critical commentaries) consisting
of an original text by the apostate Jesuit missionary Christovao Ferreira, and in-
dented annotations by a Japanese Confucian commentator10 • Both of them are mere-
ly popular accounts of Aristotelian cosmology. The latter has a passage refuting the
concept of the rotation of the earth, saying that if it were so, everything on earth
would be whirled out into space. This looks like a physical argument on Coperni-
canism but there was no mention of the heliocentric system or even of the name
of Copernicus. Presumably, the author was not concerned with Copernicanism,
since Ferreira left Europe before the Copernican issue came to be noteworthy;
8 Tentairon (G) in part one of Rekisha shinsho, reprinted in Nihon tetsugaku shisa zensho
(H) [Source book of Japanese philosophy], ed. Saigusa Hiroto (I) and Shimizu Ikutaro (1), (Tokyo,
1956), vol. 6, p. 142.
9 Hirose Hideo (K), Kyu Nagasaki tengakuha no gakuta seiritsu ni tsuite (L), Rangaku shirya
kenkyiikai kenkyu hOkoku (M), No. 184 (1966). The manuscript is reprinted with commentaries in
Kinsei kagaku shiso (N), No.2, ed. by Hirose Hideo, Nakayama Shigeru (0) and Otsuka Yoshinori
(P), (Tokyo, 1971) in Nihon shisa taikei (Q) [Source-books of Japanese thought], No. 63.
10 In Bunmei genryu sasho (R) [Series on the origins of civilization; Tokyo, 1914], vol. 2,
pp. 1-100.
he simply repeated such traditional Aristotelian and Ptolemaic arguments as pre-

vailed in the school curricula at the time l l •
The numerical value adopted in Kenkon bensetsu for the period of precession
is 25,798 years, closero the Copernican value than to the Alphonsine-Clavius-
Ricci 49,000 years. This is not a traditional Chinese value, either. It may be that
some astronomical aspect of Copernicanism had by chance infiltrated.
From that time the ban on Christianity and Western knowledge set in. Even
after Yoshimune's relaxation, he and his followers did not seem to have conversant
with cosmological issues. Nishikawa Masayoshi r (1694-1756) of Nagasaki,
who had access to the residences of Dutch merchants was, on account of a high
reputation for knowledge of Western astronomy, appointed Shogunate astronomer,
but his writings are still based on a sketchy knowledge of such quasi-Tychonic
cosmology as appeared in the T'ien-ching huo-wen8 (Queries on the classics of
the heavens, ca. 1675) by Yu I.t For the advocacy of Copernicanism, we have
to await the emergence of pioneers from a non-astronomical group.
MOTOKI RYOEI'S TRANSLATION WORKS ON HELIOCENTRICISM-COSMOLOG-

ICAL ASPECT
Translations of Dutch works by Motoki Ry6ei u (1735 -1794) are significant

not only as the first Japanese sources on the Copernican heliocentric system, but
also as a landmark in the advancement of the study of Western languages in Japan.
Ry6ei belonged to the third generation of a hereditary family of Nagasaki inter-
preters. Besides discharging routine duties, he was perhaps the first to receive offi-
cial requests to translate Dutch works. During his lifetime Ry6ei produced many
translations, mainly in the fields of astronomy and geography.
He once stated that since there had never been a professional translation of
a Dutch work in Japan, his predecessors were sceptical about the possibility of
even literal translation and were reluctant to attempt it 12 • He recognized that if
he were to fail in his initial translation, his own ability would be brought into ques-
tion and his inherited position jeopardized 13. His attitude indicates that the main
11 Imai Itaru (S), Kenkon bensetsu zakki (T) [Miscellaneous notes on the Kenkon bensetsu],
Tenkansho (U) [Private journal of Imai Itaru] 22, 14-16 (mimeographed, 1957).
12 Motoki Ryoei, Seijutsu hongen taiyo kyiiri ryokai shinsei tenchi nikyii yohii ki (V) [The
basis of astronomy, newly edited and illustrated, on the use of celestial and terrestial globes accord-
ing to the heliocentric system; 1792-1793], vol. 2, reprinted in Tenmon butsuri gakka no shizenkan
(W) [Japanese astronomers' and physicists' views of nature], in Nihon tetsugaku shiso zensho (X)
[Source book in Japanese philosophy], ed. Saigusa Hiroto (Tokyo, 1936), vol. 8, p. 342.
13 It is recorded that in 1791 seven interpreters at Nagasaki were dismissed for having made
inaccurate translations of Dutch documents. See Otsuki Nyoden (y), Shinsen yogakis nenpyo (A)
[A newly edited chronology of Western learning in Japan; Tokyo, 1926], p. 76. For an English trans-
lation, see C. C. Krieger, The infiltration of European civilization in Japan during the eighteenth
century (Leiden, 1940), pp. 94 If.
difficulty in the introduction of heliocentricism lay in the linguistic barrier and the
conservative intellectual atmosphere, in which an innovator hesitated to present
anything extravagant. Official requests did, of course, encourage Ryoei, although
not all his translations originated in this way. The choice of subject matter for trans-
lation must have reflected official concern for the material aspects and products of
Western culture but the choice of original texts was his own. Ryoei was primarily
a faithful translator, but his own favourite subject was heliocentricism.
The Oranda chikyu zusetsu. Ryoei's first translation referring to the heliocentric
theory was drafted in 1772 under the title Oranda chikyu setsu l4 •v (A Dutchmen's
view of the earth.) There is another copy under the title "Oranda chikyu zuset-
SU,,15.w (A Dutchmen's view of the earth, ilIustrated.) These are referred to herei-
nafter as "first manuscript" and "second manuscript" respectively.
Their original was the Dutch translation Atlas van Zeevaert en Koophandel
door de geheele Weereldt (Amsterdam, 1745, abb. "Dutch edition") of the Atlas
de la navigation et du commerce qui se fait dans toutes les parties du monde (Amster-
dam, 1715, abb. "French edition"), by Louis Renard. A comparison reveals
some interesting aspects of abhorrence of "God" in the introduction of Copernica-
nism into Japan.
Both the French and Dutch editions are big-scale marine charts with a guide for
seamen in the margin. While the original French edition provides only explanations
for charts, the Dutch edition incorporates a number of revisions. It also has
to begin with some additional elementary accounts of such matters as the earth,
the heliocentric system, constellations, longitude and latitude and other astrono-
mical themes, wind and geography, the history of astronomy and geography, the
use of the compass, and so on. These additions are considered to have been contri-
buted by a Dutch editor, Jan van den Bosch Melchiorsz.
It was Melchiorsz's additions in which the Japanese translator was chiefly inter-
ested. The first manuscript has a summary of the "Preface" (from which could be
identified its Dutch original) and a translation of the first five pages of the Dutch
edition. The second manuscript, while translating the first sixteen pages, neglected
the "Preface". The latter translation, revision of the former, is in somewhat
better Japanese.
A comparison with the Dutch edition shows that the translator has omitted
certain of the original paragraphs. The details of omissions are as follows. Both
translations omit the opening paragraph of the first page of the Dutch edition.
This common omission is indicated by (A) in the diagram given below. The second
manuscript omits material amounting to almost a whole page on pp. 8-9 in the
Dutch edition.
14 Preserved in the Tenri Library under the series title of "Tenmon hisho" (AA) [Secret books
on astronomy], 22 sheets.
15 Preserved in the Nagasaki City Museum, 90 sheets divided into three volumes.

This omission is indicated (B) in the diagram.

Dutch edition "P" 1 5 8 9 16
First manuscript
Second manuscript (A) (B)
----
Omission (A) is translated as follows:
The place which God has given people for habitation is commonly called the world, the Earth
sphere, the inhabited earth; the term world implies the entire created world, the universe; or, to be
more precise, everything that is within the circle of the planet Saturn, of which circle the Sun is the
center, and the radius of which extends from the Sun to Saturn. The Earth sphere is composed of
earth and ocean, of land and water. It contains many different kinds of materials which God has
created for the benefit of man, the quantity of which He has decided upon so that nothing could
be added to or taken away from either by the human mind nor by natural causes, for the mate-
rials by their nature are essentially distinct from one another, indestructible, incapable of increase
and unchangeable ... 16
The omission is apparently deliberate, motivated by the translator's abhorrence

of the account of God's Creation, and what is more, Creation seems to be associated
with the sun-centered universe. This is clear in contrast to his full and faithful trans-
lation of the purely scientific account of the heliocentric hypothesis, which imme-
diately follows the omitted paragraph in the Dutch edition. Of course, the Dutch
account itself was only a short outline of the daily rotation and annual revolution
and the difference between true (heliocentric) and apparent (geocentric) motions.
The Dutch edition gave a brief history of astronomy up to the time of Coperni-
cus and then proceeded to present the discussion involving Biblical issues caused
by Copernican theory. The second manuscript translated the historical account
up to Copernicus. It was in this connection that the name of Copernicus and the
information that Copernicus's heliocentricism was now generally accepted among
Western scholars appeared for the first time in Japanese literature.
However, the translator left out all the theological argumentation. This omitted
portion is (B) translated below.
However, the lower classes, or the excessively prejudiced (was this the case among lower clas-
ses only?), find this feeling strange, which seems to them to be contrary to what they see; apart
from the fact that they have peculiar ideas about this rotation ...
Even though it had pleased the Creator of all things to make the Earth and other planets turn in
the period of several months around the Sun, and each of them in the period of several hours around
their own axis, instead of making the Sun and stars and the immeasurable sky turn with an utterly
incomprehensible speed around the Earth for the Earth's benefit, the latter being in comparison
hardly a single tiny speck, we still should see everything in the same form as we see it now ...
However, we shall not go into this any further in order not to digress from the main subject, con-
sidering that this suffices to show that nothing more simple and comprehensive can be understood
16 A full translation of part (A) is available in Shigeru Nakayama, Abhorrence of 'God'
in the introduction of Copernicanism into Japan, "Japanese studies in the history of science", No.3,
1964, pp. 62-63.
r
than this explanation of Copernicus; and that only ignorant prejudice and certain passages of the
Holy Scriptures have caused this explanation to be discarded as being contrary to common sense ...
So there is nothing in the Holy Scriptures which could serve as an argument against this explanation
of Copernicus ... 1 7
The heliocentric account terminates at this point and then the text goes on to
discuss the use of the compass. Hereafter, the translator resumed his faithful trans-
lation again.
Published in the liberal Netherlands, the Dutch edition had no prejudice against
Copernicanism; it assumed the tone of enlightening ignorant seamen. After all,
it was written in the mid-eighteenth century, when Copernicanism was already
established. Yet, some obsolete theological discussion was added in order to meet
popular interest. Most likely, the translator learned from it the intimate relationship
between Copernicanism and the Christian God, and took special pains to introduce
only heliocentricism18.
The "Tenchi nikyu yohO". The second work by the same translator was the Tenchi
nikyu yohOX (the use of celestial and terrestrial globes) dated 1774. Its Dutch original
was Tweevoudigh onderwiis van de hemelsche en aardsche glob en (Amsterdam, 1666 19 ,
first edition, 1620).
The book was written and prefaced by Willem Janszoon Blaeu (or Blaaw, 1572-
1638), and edited and published by his son Johan. Willem Janszoon Blaeu was
a renowned Dutch cartographer and an intimate friend and disciple of Tycho Brahe.
He was also one of the early proponents of Copernicanism20 •
We have no way of proving when Blaeu's 1666 edition was brought to Japan.
It may be that it was imported into Nagasaki long before the Japanese translation
in 1774 and then buried in obscurity. But there may be a hidden reason on the part
of the translator why he picked on this particular work for translation.
At the time of the publication of Blaeu's book, the first edition of which appeared
as early as 1620, the Copernican controversy was raging furiously; and hence it
was naturally full of theological arguments. It is manifest that Blaeu wrote the book
with the intention of propagating the Copernican hypothesis.
While Blaeu's preface stated that his intent was to illustrate the Ptolemaic sys-
tem first, because it was more familiar and more easily comprehensible, and then
17 A full translation of part (B) in Nakayama, "Abhorrence", pp. 63-66.

18 Shigeru Nakayama, Motoki ryoei yaku 'Oranda chikyii setsu' ni tsuite (AB) [On the "Oranda
chikyu setsu" translated by Motoki Ry5ei], Rangaku shiryo kenkyiikai kenkyii hOkoku, No. 112
(1962) and No. 162 (1964).
19 Because of the long interval between the date of the original and that of the Japanese trans-
lation, Itazawa Takeo (AC) conjectured that the original was published in 1766 instead of
1666 in his Edo jidai ni okeru chikyii chidiisetsu no twkai to sono hando (AD) [The development
of the earth's sphericity and motion theory and the reaction to it during the Tokugawa period],
Shigaku zasshi (AE) 52(1), 12 (1941), but I found the 1666 edition in the Library of Congress.
20 Pierre Henry Bandet, Leven en Werken van Willem Janszoon Blaeu (1871); and Edward
Luther Stevenson, Willem Janszoon Blaeu (New York, 1914), pp. 11-13.
go on to the true theory of Copernicus, Motoki Ryoei's own preface merely mentions
the name of Copernicus as follows:
About one hundred years ago, there was a man called Nicolaus Copernicus. Being in intimate
communications with Tycho Brahe, the biggest figure in astronomical observations, Copernicus
investigated this [heliocentric] theory thoroughly and finally out of opaque darkness reached en-
lightenment 21 •
This extract is apparently an exposition of Copernican heliocentricism, but

we have found no further mention of it in this work. While the preface of Blaeu's
original had eight paragraphs, Ryoei translated and put into his own preface only
the first four paragrahps. Paragraphs 5 through 7 discussed Blaeu's plan of arrang-
ing the Copernican system as opposed to the Ptolemaic, but these are all omitted
from Ryoei's preface. Furthermore, Ryoei confused the historical relationship
between Copernicus and Tycho Brahe. This was the source of confusion among
later popularizers, who took Ryoei's writings as a basis.
Blaeu, with the intention of propagating the new theory, divided his work into
two volumes.
Volume I: Astronomical principles of celestial and terrestrial globes based on the
inadequate hypothesis of Ptolemy.
Volume II: Astronomical principles of globes based on the true hypothesis of Co-
pernicus.
Ryoei's translation terminated near the middle of Volume I (at page 120 of 163
pages) the part based on Ptolemaic geocentric theory. Apparently he had no inten-
tion of extending his translation further. It is highly probable that he deliberately
omitted the section on heliocentricism from the main text as well as from his own
preface.
It seems unlikely that the Copernican heliocentric theory was, despite its unfa-
miliarity, insurmountably difficult for Ry6ei to comprehend. Blaeu's astronomical
writing was not particularly advanced; Kepler's contributions did not appear in it.
Hence it would be more plausible to interpret this deliberate omission as being
caused by Ryoei's precaution against any subversive or unorthodox thoughts. The
translator, perhaps influenced by his own earlier experience of translation, replaced
Blaeu's long theology-filled preface with his own brief summary of a purely physical
nature and left entirely untranslated the second volume on the Copernican system22 •
The "Shinsei ten chi nikyil yoM ki". A more detailed and truly comprehensive
account of the Copernican system was translated in 1792-1793. It was entitled
Seijutm hongen taiyo kyuri ryokai shinsei tenchi nikyu yoM ki (the basis of astron-
21 The preface is more fully translated in Shigeru Nakayama, A history of Japanese astron-
omy; Chinese background and Western Impact (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 175-176.
22 Shigeru Nakayama, Motoki Ryoei no tenmonsho honyaku ni tsuite (AF) [On Motoki
RYOei's translations on astronomy], Rangaku shiryo kenkyilkai kenkyii hOkoku.. No. 66 (1960).
omy, newly edited and illustrated; on the use of celestial and terrestrial globes
according to the heliocentric system), and consisted of seven volumes 23 • The Dutch
original has been identified as Gronden der sterrenkunde, gelegd in het zonnestelzel
bevatlijk gemaakt; in eene beschrijving vant'n maaksel en gebruik der nieuwe hemel-
en aard-globen (Amsterdam, 1770), 470 pages24 •
Its author, George Adams the elder (died 1773), was a maker of mathematical
instruments under King George III. He had a worldwide reputation as a maker
of celestial and terrestrial globes. The ultimate original of Ryoei's translation,
Adams' Treatise describing and explaining the construction and use of new celestial
and terrestrial globes (London, 1766), passed through thirty editions in England
and was also printed in America 25 •
Ryoei's translation included the first 325 of the 360 paragraphs of the Dutch
original; only a portion on the use of globes was left untranslated. The original
began with a straightforward description and explanation of the solar system, in
which the relationship between the apparent and true courses of the planets was
expounded on the basis of the heliocentric scheme. It was already free of time-
honoured religio-cosmological controversy; its purely scientific arrangement seemed
to have appealed to the translator. It was translated in full and a truly comprehen-
sive account of the Copernican system, for the first time, became available in Japan.
He even ventured to put "heliocentric system" into the title of his translation.
The original was not an advanced treatise for professional astronomers, but a text-
book for navigators. The arrangement of themes was, however, strikingly different
from that of traditional treatises of calendrical astronomy. From the outset, the earth
was treated as a member of the solar system. First, detailed instructions were given
for the reduction from geocentric to heliocentric coordinates; then, the behavior
of the planets and satellites was expounded. But, lack of accurate detail made this
treatise of little use to Japanese practical astronomers.
Ryoei also gave brief summaries of Philosophische onderwijzer and Beginselen
der Natuurkunde 26 • The original of the former is Benjamin Martin's The philosophical
grammar (first edition 1738, Dutch edition 1744); that of the latter is the Anfangs-
grunde der PhysiP7 by Johann Heinrich Winkler (Dutch edition 1768). These works
elucidated the Newtonian laws of mechanics, but they were beyond Ryoei's concern
23 Vol. I is reprinted in Nihon tetsugaku zensho, vol. 8 (1936).

24 Itazawa, Edo jidai, p. 10. A first edition and an edition of 1771 were preserved in the sho-
gunate government library. Yogaku kotohajime ten, rangaku no shokei/u to Edo baku/u kyiizobon
(AG) [Catalogue of books, exhibited at the "Yogaku kotohajime ten", on earlier phases of Western
civilization in Japan], ed. Okubo Toshiaki [AH], pp. 17-18.
25 Dictionary of national biography, s. v.
26 See Johannes van Abkoude, Naamregister van de Bekendset en meest in Gebruik Zynde Ne-
derduitsche Boeken (Amsterdam, 1787), p. 579.

27 First edition published in Leipzig in 1753. An English translation was published in London
in 1757.
or comprehension 28 . He could only briefly compare the Ptolemaic, Tychonic and

Copernican systems.
The transformation from geocentricism to heliocentricism did not, in the absence
of certain religious and philosophical presuppositions, raise difficult technical prob-
lems. Thus, unlike the physical aspect of Newtonianism, the introduction of the
cosmological or geometrico-morphological aspect of Copernicanism never raised
difficult questions for Ryoei.
SHlZUKI TADAO - THE PHYSICAL ASPECT
While Motoki Ryoei was thoroughly loyal to his official duty and interested in
Copernicanism merely as an assignment, his pupil Shizuki Tadao (1760-1806),
also born in a family of Nagasaki official interpreters, renounced his hereditary po-
sition at the age of eighteen and devoted the rest of his life to the subjects of his
own interest-natural philosophy and cosmology29.
Immediately after his retirement from office, he undertook the introduction of
Newton's doctrines for the first time into Japan. The original version used by Tadao
was a Dutch translation by Johan Lulofs, Inleidinge tot de waare Natuur-en Ster-
rekunde (Amsterdam, 1741), of John Keill's (1671-1721) Introductiones ad veram
Physicam et veram Astronomiam (London, 1739).
Tadao spent more than twenty years on his translation. His preparatory notes
were made in three drafts, Tenmon kankiY (Astronomical collection; 1782), D6gaku
shinan z (Guide to mechanics; n. d.), and Kyushinryoku ron aa (on attraction; 1784)30.
These were revised with substantial amendment into the final monograph, entitled
RekishO shinsho (new treatise on calendrical phenomena), which appeared in three
volumes (completed 1798, 1800, and 1802).
Tadao's work was not a literal translations at all, but rather a collection of his
notes with abundant commentaries of hs own.
Tadao was not a mere linguistic expert but the most profound philosophical
mind of his day. Although a number of more systematically modernized text-books
on natural philosophy, such as B. Martin's, were available to him, he picked up the
then outdated work by Keill since Tadao, from his personal propensity for meta-
physics, was interested in its polemical manner in early Newtonian days.
Keill's work had the typical post-Newtonian deistic tone; unrestrained praise
of God's creation, harmony, order, symmetry, beauty, and so forth is lavishly distri-
28 Kuwaki Ayao (AI), Reimeiki no Nihon kagaku (AJ) [Japanese science at the dawn; Tokyo,
1947], pp. 105-107.
29 Watanabe Kurasuke (AK), Oranda Isuji Shizukishi jiryaku (AL) [Outline biographies
of the Shizuki family, hereditary Dutch interpreters; Nagasaki, 1957], pp. 32-34.
30 Osaki ShOji (AM), RekishO shinsho lenmei kyuyakubon no hakken, (AN) [The discovery
of manuscript translations preliminary to the Rekisho shinshol, Kagakushi kenkyu (AC), Nos. 4
und 5 (1943), p. 101.
buted throughout. These embellishments were eliminated from Tadao's translation,

except in one place where he rendered "the idea of God's design" as "the agency
of limitless prajiia (a Buddhist term, literally "wisdom")31.
To Tadao, the location of the sun, whether geocentric or heliocentric, was not
a basis issue of Copernicanism; the relativity of location and motion was the most
impressive and admirable feature of the heliocentric theory. Motion or rest depended
solely on the point of reference, and the two were therefore intrinsically indistinguish-
able. There was neither absolute rest nor absolute motion. For geographIcal lo-
cation, or even for family relations, there was no absolute measure. If the point
of observation was the sun, the earth was in motion, and vice versa. Thus there
was no reason to prefer either the ancient Chinese or the Western theory concern-
ing the motion of the sun or earth.
From this relativistic notion the plurality of worlds followed easily, since the
immediate world had no particular priority. To support this theory, Tadao quoted
Buddhist writers and Lieh-tzuab, an ancient and possibly legendary Chinese Taoist
thinker, whose grounds for this view were intuitive and metaphorical. Tadao cited
a Chinese statement that "things [fluid] pure and light go up and from the heavens,
while the turbid and heavy come down and make the earth32 ", and argued that
every star and planet was composed of the same kind of turbid matter as the earth.
Thus, he claimed that the plurality of worlds was known before the Westerners
advanced it. (The original content of this statement, which is perhaps a Neo-Con-
fucian saying, had nothing to do with the plurality problem as such.) While he saw
that the Western theories of the earth's motion and the plurality of worlds were signi-
ficant because they were based on properly related reasoning and observation, he
was also anxious that the contributions of his own cultural tradition be recognized.
In the appendix to Volume I, Tadao presented his own account of the heliocen-
tric system, entitled Tentairon 33 ,ac (discussions on the heavenly bodies). Tadao did
not evince any enthusiasm for the theory he was introducing. His intent was to rec-
oncile modern Western theory with traditional Chinese views.
In the appendix to Volume II, entitled Fusoku ad (Immensurability), he felt obliged
to justify his cosmologic views in terms of Confucian morality:
However, in everything there always exists a governing center. For an individual, the heart;
for a household, the father; for a province, the government; for the whole country, the imperial
court; and for the whole universe, the sun. Therefore, to behave well, to practice filial piety toward
one's father, to serve one's lord well, and to respond to the immensurable order of the haevens
are the ways to tune one's heart to the heart of the sun. This is the way to admire the sov-ereign
of the universe 34•
31 In RekishO shinsho, reprinted in Nihon tetsugaku shiso zensho, vol. 6, p. 117.

32 Nihon tetsugaku shiso zensho, vol. 6, p. 141.
33 Nihon tetsugaku shiso zensho, vol. 6, pp. 135-142.
When confronted with the incompatibility of the Copernican theory and the
traditional notion, which identified the sky with yang and motion and the earth
with yin and rest, Tadao sought to preserve the respectability of ancient Chinese
concepts by quoting an ancient passage which, interpreted very freely, referred to
the motion of the earth. And when the conservative Chinese attitude toward the
new theory was attacked on the grounds that even though the name of Copernicus
appeared in the Li-hsiang k'ao-ch' engac, the Chinese still did not adopt the Coper-
nican theory, Tadao again defended the Chinese. In a rather fair apologia, he point-
ed out that the Chinese were concerned only with observations and predictions
of the apparent courses of the heavenly bodies, and not with theory; therefore they
had no compelling reason to adopt heliocentricism.
At the end of Volume II, Tadao raised the question as to why all the planets rotate
and revolve in the same direction, in planes not greatly inclined to the ecliptic. By
way of an answer, he proposed at the very end of the treatise, in a section entitled
Kenkon bunpan zusetsuaf (the separation of opposites in the generation of the cos-
mos illustrated), a hypothesis concerning the formation of the planetary system.
He claimed it as his own idea, saying: "It may be that this theory has already been
formulated by some Western scholar, but we have never heard of it"3s.
Tadao's hypothesis immediately recalls the celebrated hypotheses of Kant and
Laplace. Of these Laplace's is scientifically the most advanced. Tadao's argument
was not Laplacian abstraction from a cautious synthesis of all relevant observatio-
nal data, but was somewhat closer to the rationalistic inferences of Kant.
In view of the relative inaccessibility of Western treatises, it is unlikely that
Tadao borrowed his idea from anyone else. His hypothesis, considering his back-
ground in Neo-Confucian ideas, was not a titanic leap. Many aspects of it were
already present in the Neo-Confucian vortex cosmogony, which claims that beginn-
ing with primordial chaos the light fluid tends to float to the surface and heavy
matter to precipitate at the center in the course of one-way revolution. Hence,
a small portion of the ideas of attraction and centrifugal force provided Tadao
with a more elaborate mechanical hypothesis, formulated in accordance with the
heliocentric system.
DIFFUSION OF COPERNICANlSM
At the time, no work by Motoki Ry6ei and Shizuki Tadao was ever published
in printed form. For the most part, their works were preserved in manuscript form
and circulated as handwritten copies.
It was Shiba K6kan ag (1747?-1818) who popularized the Copernican theory
through three printed books 36 : Chikyu zenzu ryakusetsu ah (An outline world atlas;

36 Kokan's works are reprinted in Nakai Sotaro (AP). Shiba Kokan (Tokyo. 1942).
1793); Oranda tensetsu a1 (Dutch astronomy: 1795); and Kopperunyu tenmon zukai aj
(Copernican astronomy illustrated; 1805). A literary dilettante and gifted free-
lance painter in the Western style, K6kan enjoyed more freedom than did the official
interpreters and astronomers. He frankly acknowledged Western achievements
and superiority, but never apologized, as Tadao did, for Sino-Japanese tradition.
Emancipating himself from the predominant notion that Western knowledge was
valuable only from a utilitarian point of view, he incorporated Western astrono-
mical concepts into his thought and used them as one basis of his unique material-
istic cosmology, in which fire was the fundamental element 37 . Still the depth of
his knowledge of Western astronomy did not exceed that of Motoki Ry6ei, whose
work was his main source.
Shizuki Tadao's physical ideas were taken over by the freethinker Yamagata
Bant6 ak (1748-1821), the head clerk of an Osaka business firm and an outspoken
polemist with conventional beliefs. While Tadao remained introspective and crit-
ical to anything extravagant, open-minded Bant6 extended Copernicanism freely
into his "great universe" picture, in which plural worlds were arranged in hierarch-
ical order, like Olbers' conception of the universe 38 .
Many other popularizers such as Hoashi Banri aI and Yoshio Hisasadaam fol-
lowed in expounding Copernican and Newtonian thought, but Shizuki Tadao's
contribution was so outstanding and penetrating that his work remained unsur-
passed until the middle of the nineteenth century.
THE ASADA SCHOOL - ASTRONOMICAL ASPECTS
Among the professional calendrical astronomers, Asada G6ryiian (1734-1799)

and his school first fully recognized the technical superiority of Western astronomy
over the traditional Chinese type, and gave effect to it in the Kansei ao calendar
reform (1798). This recognition followed upon the importation of such impressively
voluminous Sino-Jesuit works as the Hsi-yang hsin-fa /i-shu ap and Li-hsiang k'ao-
ch'eng.
Miura Baiena<I in his Kizan rokuar (Notes during a trip to Nagasaki) quoted a letter
from his close friend G6ryii in 1778 to the effect that: "later a man called Copernicus
appeared. On the nine-layered spheres of the cosmos he superimposed other two
heavens to account for the east-west and south-north precessions, building up a total
of eleven celestial spheres"39. Thus at this time, G6ryii still held an erroneous pic-
ture of Copernicus derived from the Hsi-yang hsin-fa /i-shu. On the other hand,
37 M u r a 0 k a Tsunetsugu (AQ), Zoku Nihon shisoshi kenkyu (AR) [Studies in the history of
Japanese thought, sequel; Tokyo, 1939], pp. 239 fr.

38 Takamichi Arisaka (AS), Chidoselsu no denrai 10 shin uchilron no shulsugen (AT) [An intro-
duction to the theory of earth's motion and the emergence of a new cosmology], Nihonshi no ken-
kyil (AU) [Researches on Japanese history; Kyoto, 1970], pp. 281-301.
39 Volume II. Reprinted in Nihon lelsugaku zensho, vol. 8, p. 185.
G6ryii must have learned from Baien about the heliocentric hypothesis, the gist
of which had been transmitted to the latter by Mastllmura Suigaias, a collaborator
of Motoki Ry6ei, during his trip to Nagasaki in 1778 40 .
It is, of course, quite possible that G6ryii was unable to identify the heliocentric
Copernicus with the conventional technician mentioned in the Sino-Jesuit treatises.
This would have been virtually impossible in view of the limited informai.ion pro-
vided by the missionaries in China.
Neverthless, G6ryii and his school committed themselves to Copernican helio-
centricism. His pupils claimed for him the honor of having discovered independently,
ca. 1796, although he did not publish it, the relationship between the distance of plan-
ets from the sun and the periods of their revolution (in other words, Kepler's
third law)41. The independence of his discovery is quite doubtful42 , but in any case
Kepler's third law could not have been reached without starting out from the Coper-
nican heliocentric scheme. Hence, at least G6ryii and such advocates of his discovery
as Takahashi Yoshitoki (1764-1804) and Hazama Shigetomi (1756-1816) must
have been convinced ofthe cosmological and physical truth ofthe Copernican scheme.
In fact, Takahashi Yoshitoki in the opening part of his ZoshushO ehO h043 , at (Hsiao-
-ch'ang method, revised and augmented, 1798) advocated Copernicanism enthu-
siastically, although it was completely irrelevant to his shOehO hOM. concept, which
deals exclusively with the matter of astronomical parameters. Around the same time,
Shigetomi wrote Tenehi nikyu yohO hyosetsu av (A commentary on Motoki Ry6ei's
translation work on heliocentricism, 1798), attempting to correct the astronomical
errors of Ry6ei, who knew no professional-level astronomy.
Why was it that calendrical astronomers, who had maintained a professional
indifference toward cosmology, developed a keen interest in Copernicanism? It is
true that Copemicanism included some computational novelties which calendrical
astronomers eagerly adopted, although in general they saw its cosmology as merely
a matter of transformation of the geocentric coordinates of Tycho into a he-
liocentric frame of reference. At least as Ry6ei understood and introduced it, it did
not show any potential for new solutions to classical Japanese problems, and thus
had little reference to the traditionally central issue of calendar reform.
Furthermore, by the late eighteenth century, when Copernicanism reached Japan,
the observational and astronomical innovations of Tycho, Kepler and also Cassini,
40Nihon tetsugaku zensho, vol. 8, p. 174.

41Takahashi Yoshitoki (AV), Shinshu goseihO zusetsu,furoku (AW) [Appendix to the illus-
trated planetary theory, newly revised, ca. 1802, preserved in Ina Museum]; Hazama Jushin (AX),
Senko Taigyo sensei jiseki ryakki (AY) [Outline of the work of my father Hazama Shigetomi, n. d.],
reprinted in Watanabe Toshio (AZ), Hazama Shigetomi to sono ikka (BA) [Hazama Shigetomi and
his family, 1943], p. 456.
42 Shigeru Nakayama, On the alleged independent discovery of Kepler's third law by Asada
Goryu, "Japanese studies in the history of science", No.7 (1968), pp. 55-59.
43 Preserved in Tokyo Astronomical Observatory.
Delahire and others were already available through Sino-Jesuit works. There was
no particular reason for the Japanese to pay particular regard to the astronomical
aspects of Copernicus's own work.
The answer must involve less obvious factors than simple computational con-
venience. Perhaps the most important element is that Copernican heliocentricism
functioned as the symbol for a novelty-oriented school of calendrical astronomers -
that of Goryfl and his followers - who were advocating the superiority of modem
Western astronomy over traditional one. The situation was similar to that in me-
dicine around the same period, when men like Sugita Genpaku aw (1733-1817)
and his associates enthusiastically advocated Western achievements in anatomy
although they had no direct application as Japanese medicine was then conceived.
Furthermore, their willingness to diverge from tradition led to a new interest
in planetary theory. In China, in the Li-hsiang k'ao-ch'eng hou-pien ax (1742), the
Keplerian ellipse was applied only to the movements of the sun and moon; extend-
ing them to the planets would have required Copernican coordinates, which the
missionary astronomers hesitated to adopt. Takahashi Yoskitoki, challenged by this
lacuna, took upon himself the task of extending the Keplerian ellipse into planetary
theory. He thus rejected Tychonic coordinates, which the Hou-pien stilI firmly main-
tained, in favor of the Copernican frame of reference; otherwise, with the planets
turning around the sun, which in tum turns around the earth, the result would have
been a complicated and ugly double elliptic scheme, and the aesthetic advantage
of adopting the ellipse would have been largely lost. Yoskitoki's scholarly devotion
to planetary theory was a remarkable departure from traditional calendrical concerns
towards an astronomy based on the concept of the solar system.
Yoshitoki's son, Shibukawa Kagesuke (1787-1856), the last of the great calen-
drical astronomers, adopted planetary elliptic orbits in the last luni-solar calendar
reform in 1843, but even in the final attempt at a traditional official treatise, Shinpo
rekisho 44 ,ay (A calendrical treatise by the new method, 1846), the framework
and construction remained traditional; the new cosmology could not be truly inte-
grated in it. Only the last five sections of the "zokuhen" (Sequel) were devoted to
the new Copernican and Newtonian approach, which were thus a mere appendix.
In the preface to the sequel, Kagesuke stated his intention to clarify from the
view-point of a professional astronomer points of confusion caused by the intro-
duction of heliocentric ism. He emphasized that geostatic motion is apparent while
heliostatic motion is physically true, but that this is merely a matter of coordinate
transformation; the astronomical implication are all the same, and both theories
have an equal logical claim to verisimilitude. This is the attitude of an astronomical
technician towards Copernicanism, not that of a man free to cultivate cosmological
or physical interests. Unlike such independent popularizes as Kokan, or such pio-
neering enthusiasts as Yoshitoki, the head of the Shogunate's bureau of astronomy,
44 Preserved in Naikaku Bunko Library.

Kagesuke, had to defend traditional bureaucratic responsibilities against modish

Western learning, and never accepted any Western theoretical novelty without res-
ervations. But among the professional astronomers of Kagesuke's generation,
Copernicanism was accepted as practically self-evident.
IDEOLOGICAL REACTIONS TO WESTERN COSMOLOGICAL THEORIES
The reactions of Buddhists, Confucians and Shintoists to Western cosmologic

theories varied widely, resistance to innovation being caused by a conflicting world-
view and unyielding commitment to Eastern culture.
The reactions of the Buddhists. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the Aris-
totelian type of cosmology had been diffused through the printed editions of T'ien-
ching huo-wen. Some Buddhists could not tolerate the diffusion of European cosmo-
logical ideas, which were incompatible with Buddhist beliefs. To refute these ideas,
a treatise entitled Hi tenkei wakumon az (Contra T'ien-ching huo-wen), by the learned
Buddhist monk Monnoba, was published in 1759. Another of his works, Kusen
hakkai toronbb (A discussion of the theory of the Nine Mountains and Eight Seas),
expounded Sumeru cosmology, which sets at the center of the earth Mount Sumeru,
round which the sun, the moon, and the stars revolved; this idea originated in Jaina
cosmography and was taken over by the Buddhists45 •
Generally speaking, Buddhist cosmology and astronomy had a much wider
scope than corresponding Western disciplines and enjoyed more freedom in the
infinity and plurality of worlds than the rigidly constructed Aristotelian world,
but this breadth and freedom was due to vagueness and lack of conviction concern-
ing the existence of an underlying regularity in the phenomenal world, and the pos-
sibility of discovering one.
Some of Monno's criticisms were interesting. For instance, according to him,
the universe is a limitless void, no bounds being even conceivable. The infinity of
the universe is a consequence of the emptiness of the phenomenal world. Attempts
to measure the dimensions of the universe are therefore ridiculous. If there are nine
spheres within the empyrean, he argued, why not an equal number of spheres out-
side it?
Monno's arguments were not very constructive, however. He denounced Aristo-
telian cosmology, but was unable to replace it with a more consistent system.
The creativity of Japanese Buddhism was in eclipse in the seventeenth century,
and intellectual leaderhip shifted to Confucianism, the state orthodoxy. During
the elghteenth century, as Western astronomy proved to Japanese intellectuals
its superiority and as knowledge of the Copernican system was disseminated through
the various popular editions of Shiba Kokan, a feeling of anxiety and crisis was
aroused among some sects of Buddhists. While the Confucians were not so strong-
45 cr. Sukumar Ranjan Das, The Jaina school 0/ astronomy, "Indian historical quarterly" 8,
30-42. 565-570 (1933).
ly opposed to the achievements of Western astronomy, the Buddhists tried to restore

their own intellectual aura by scoring a victory for Buddhist cosmology and by
defending it against Kokan's ridicule.
Among this group of Buddhists the most zealous and influential figure was
Entsiibc (1754-1834). His thirty years of labor in defense of Buddhist astronomy
culminated in his masterpiece, the Bukkoku rekishO henbd (On the astronomy and
calendrical theory of Buddha's country; five volumes, 1810)46, which was followed
by a number of other writings in the same vein.
From the outset, Entsii's single purpose of defending Buddhist doctrine from
the invasion of Western scientific ideas was marked. His motivation was a fear
that Christianity would undermine Buddhist teaching in Japan. In this respect, he
might be following the precedents of Chinese Buddhists' experience under Jesuit
influence. This basic attitude was not very different from that of his predecessors
such as Monno, but Entsii's investigations covered an extensive literature, not only
in cosmology, but also in the technical aspects of calendar-making. His sources
ranged from Buddhist sutras in Chinese translation and ancient and modern Chinese
astronomical treatises to Sino-Jesuit works and works on Western astronomy.
Although he was said to have had some background in Dutch learning, there is
no evidence that he was able to read Dutch. He probably relied on books written
by his Japanese contemporaries.
Entsii was not essentially opposed to Western influence in calendrical science,
since this traditional activity did not bear on cosmology. He argued, however, that
the only worthwhile aspects of calendrical science had originated in India. The
Chinese had appropriated the advanced Indian calendar during, for instance, the
T'ang period 41 • Citing a superficial Chinese account in the Ming history, he credited
India with the origina of Islamic astronomy, and thus also of European astronomy,
since the European ephemeris was practically the same as the Islamic. Thus distorting
the course of historical development of science, he claimed eventually the Western
appropriation of indigenous Indian science.
On cosmological questions, Entsii would yield nothing to the European system,
his argument being almost identical to that of his predecessor Monno, but more
amplified and emphatic48 • From beginning to end, he rigidly and literally supported
Sumeru cosmology. Furthermore, he made use of the ancient Chinese flat-earth
(kai-t'ien) theory, which also propounded a nonspherical model of the universe. The
kai-t'ien theory differed from Sumeru cosmology in that it had an empirical basis
and was virtually free from anthropomorphic and mythological elements, while
Buddhist cosmology was replete with religious fantasy and lacked an observational
46 A good summary of this work in English is Yo s h i 0 Micami's A Japanese Buddist's view

o/the European astronomy. "Nieuw Archiefvoor Wiskunde" 11. 1-11 (1912). In it the name "Entsu"
appears as "Yentsu".
47 Bukkoku rekisho hen. vol. 1.
48 Bukkoku rekisho hen, vol. 2.
foundation. However, Entsfi rationalized the difference by explaining that whereas

the Chinese were skillful at rational investigation, the Indian sages had penetratins
"spiritual eyes" which were given only to superior beings.
Entsfi was not rabidly anti-scientific; his object was simply to defend the sacred
Buddhist cosmology by all available means. Though he found many adherents
among Buddhist monks, his biased views never achieved orthodoxy, but were frown-
ed on by more modest people. He attempted to obtain a Buddhist imprimatur for
the publication of the Bukkoku rekishO hen, but the aged commissioner Sen'yabc
would not grant it, on the grounds that "since Entsfi was too involved in astronomy,
he confused the essentials of Buddhism with astronomical science. His opinions
might cause incalculable damage to genuine Buddhism"49.
Other monks also denounced Entsfi. It would be dangerous for Buddhism to
commit itself to Sumeru cosmology. Properly speaking, the Sumeru theory was
not of Buddhist origin, but was derived from older Indian ideas.
Some, while in basic agreement with Entsfi, considered his views too extremeS 0 ,
and others condemned his attempt to substitute for Sumeru the mathematically
elaborate kai-t'ien theory51. To clarify this point, a number of commentaries
on kai-t'ien theory appeared at that time 52 . Ina Tadatakabf, a prominent surveyor
in the Asada school, promptly came out with his Bukkoku rekishO hen sekim6b g
(A refutation of the Bukkoku rekishO hen; 1816 or 1817), a bitter denunciation of
Entsfi's unscientific and misleading dogma. Most top-rank astronomers, however,
merely disregarded or ridiculed Entsfi's work s3 •
Some of Entsfi's writings were suppressed in the 1820's54; but other exponents
of the same philosophy arose. Even during the Meiji period, when explosive western-
ization had almost eradicated traditional attitudes, a prolonged effort to defend
Buddhist cosmology was made. The most notable apologist was Sada Kaisekibh •
His main work to explain all celestial phenomena in terms of a complicated mecha-
nism, the Shijitsu t6shOgi shOsetsubi (A detailed account of an instrument by which
the apparent and real courses of the heavenly bodies are explained) appeared as
late as 1880.
The sensation caused by these unusually sharp Buddhist reactions to Western
49K () d a Rohan (BB), Kagyiian yatan (BC), [A night tale of Kagyiian; Tokyo, 1907], pp. 67 -76.
50For instance, Kanchu (BD), Shiji ido ben (BE) [The four seasons compared; 1843].
51 An example is found in Kojima T{)zan (BF), Bukkoku rekishO benmo(BG) [On the absurd-
ity of the Bukkoku rekisho hen; 1818].
52 For instance, Ishii Kand{) (BH), Shiihi sankei seikaizu (BI) [True illustration of the Chou-pi
suan-ching; 1813] and Shinohara Yoshitomi (BJ), Shiihi sankei kokujikai (BK) [A Japanese
annotated edition of the Chou-pi suan-ching; 1819].
53 Mikami Yoshio (BL), Nihon kagaku no tokushitsu: tenmon(BM) [The Characteristics of
Japanese science: astronomy], in Toyo shicho no tenkai (BN) [The development of Oriental thought;
Tokyo, 1936], pp. 60-63.
54 M i y a t a k e Gaikotsu (BO), Hikkashi (BP) [History of the suppression of literature in
Japan, Tokyo, 1911], p. 69.

cosmology prompted the circulation of a great deal of controversial literature on

astronomy. Thus, the Buddhists, by trying to block the advance of Western ideas
in Japan, actually stimulated the propagandising of Copernicanism. The result
was a heightened public interest in cosmology.
The reaction of the Confucians. By contrast with the pronounced, violent oppo-
sition of the Buddhists, we find relatively little reluctance on the part of the Confu-
cians to accept the Copernican system. Some were outspokenly hostile to everything
Western, and others claimed Western appropriation of ancient Chinese ideas. Neo-
Confucianism (Chu Tzuism), the Japanese state orthodoxy, formed its cosmological
background as an integral part of an unitary principle, and therefore, violations in
Western cosmology of this unity between human and physical nature were often
criticized; however, the Neo-Confucians did not, like the Buddhists or the medieval
Church, maintain a detailed religious cosmos, and in general were not concerned
with the appearance and morphological aspect (shape) of the universe. Therefore,
there was no clear point of conflict with Western cosmology.
The Neo-Confucian idea of cosmological unity was challenged by the Ancient
Learning (kogaku)bj school of Ito Jinsaibk and Ogiu Soraibl . They accused Neo-
Confucians of indulging in fruitless speculation concerning the heavens, when they
should be studying only moral and social problems. Regarding astronomy as a tech-
nique unrelated to Confucian moral values, they excluded both physics and natural
philosophy from their world-view.
Kan Sazanbm (1748-1828) commented that "there is no other use for astronomy
than the determination of the correct time; other concerns (viz., cosmology and gen-
eral astronomy) are merely useless argument and dull speculation"55. It would
not be far from the truth to assume that his attitude was largely shared by other
Confucian scholars, whose pragmatic interest in social and 'ethical problems exclud-
ed a disinterested concern with physical nature.
Influenced by the Ancient Learning school, Neo-Confucians themselves ceased
to defend the idea of cosmic unity in the vigorous manner of earlier generations.
Thus the Confucian framework of ideas became sufficiently flexible enough to tol-
erate the reception of Western cosmology without serious ideological difficulty. The
acceptance of Western learning was facilitated by two assumptions: that it was his-
torically of Chinese origin, and that as a mere technique it supplemented Eastern
values without threatening them 56.
55 Kan Sazan, Fude no susabi (BQ) [Writing for amusement's sake], reprinted in Nihon zuihitsu
taikei (BR) [A comprehensive collection of Japanese informal essays, Tokyo, 1927], I, 80.
56 Nakayama Shigeru, Edo jidai ni okeru jusha no kagakukan (BS) [Confucian views of science
during the Tokugawa period], Kagakushi kenkyii, No. 72, 157-168 (1964). See also George H. C.
Wong, China's opposition to Western Science during the late Ming and early Ch'ing, 'Isis'
54, 29-49 (1963) and his China's opposition to Western religion and science during late Ming and
early Ch'ing (University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich. L. C. Card no. Mic 58-7381; 1958);
and N. Sivin, On China's opposition to Western science during late Ming and early Ch'ing, 'Isis'
56: 201-205, (1965).
The belief that current Western scientific theories were originally Chinese was
propounded by contemporary Chinese intellectuals, who aimed at apologias for their
own tradition and also at the revival of native science, especially mathematics and
astronomy. Some of the Japanese Confucians were, as spokesmen for Chinese cul-
ture, also in a position to defend the Chinese scientific tradition and its abiding
value. Some orthodox Neo-Confucians, Asaka Gonsai s7,bn and Yasui SokkenS8,bo,
both teachers at the ShOheikobp, the official shogunal school and a stronghold of
conservatism, were typical in this respect. They merely imitated the Chinese way
of a grandizing classical achievements by extensive investigation of ancient writings.
On the matter of Copernicanism, they welcomed Shizuki Tadao's interpretation.
Deeply versed in Chinese classics, they often quoted an ambiguous passage, "the
earth has four displacements", from the Shang-shu wei k'ao-ling-yaobq (An Investi-
gation of the numinous luminaries; first century B. C.) to support their contention
that the heliocentric theory is of Chinese origin.
This classical phrase received the attentions of Chinese philosophers and was
interpreted in various ways by later commentators, but it was Japanese scholars
who first connected it with Copernicanism, a little earlier than the Chinese. The
Chinese priority in the idea of the earth's motion was claimed only on the premise
that the truth of Copernicanism was fully recognized. Thus the alleged Western
appropriation marks the time when Copernicanism was accepted among intel-
lectuals in general.
This scholarly defense by Japanese Confucians of Chinese culture, though clearly
directed against the aggression of Western science, was far less fanatic than the Bud-
dhist reaction. It was also more objective than the contemporary Chinese attitude,
which was limited by ethnocentricity. "It is the vice of the Chinese not to acknowledge
the strong points of other countries and always to insist that everything worthwhile
comes from China", wrote Ikai Keishobr (died 1845)59.
Rather than merely apologize for Western science, certain private schools of
Neo-Confucians acclaimed it outright. Notable was the Kaitokudobs school in Osaka,
which produced Yamagata Banto and Hoashi Banri, famous exponents of Western
science. Unencumbered by the responsibilities of public office, they could freely
develop their interests and criticism.
The idea that Western learning was a mere technique and as such did not con-
flict with Confucian values was perhaps insisted upon more and earlier in Japan than
in China. Japan thus felt free to choose between Chinese and Western techniques,
without being inhibited by cultural ties.
57 Asak a Gonsai, Nanka yohen (BT), vol. I (circa. 1837), reprinted in Nihon jurin sosho (BU)
[Source books of Japanese Confucianism], vol. 2 (1927).

58 Ya sui Sokken, Suiyo manpitsu (BY), in Nihon jurin sosho, vol. 2.
59 Ikai Keisho sensei shokan shii (BW). Undated correspondence; reprinted in Nihon jurin sosho
vol. 3.
The reaction of the Shintoists. During the eighteenth century, a group of Neo-
Shintoists (kokugakubt , literally, "national learning") gradually became influential.
Strongly opposed to the speculations of Buddhists and Confucians, these scholars
maintained a more or less positivistic attitude toward scholarly problems and were
generous and sympathetic to Western learning60 .
In 1790 Motoori Norinagabu (1730-1801) wrote a critical essay denouncing
Monno and Sumeru cosmology in favor of the spherical earth theory. He singled
out, one by one, the absurdities of Buddhists cosmology and concluded that the
Buddhists were so envious of the Western theory that they book unfair advantage
of the Chinese kai-t'ien theory to strengthen their position. Unlike the tradition-
bound Confucians and Buddhists, he plainly acknowledged the advanced state of
modern theory, saying: "The motive for which Western people study astronomy and
geography is not merely to succeed in scholastic debate or calendrical work. Their
science is of crucial importance for daily use in navigating the oceans; even a small
error would result in a grave accident"61.
But he was still far from comprehending the view point of Western science. In
his Tenmon zusetsubv (An illustrated description of astronomy; 1782), he wrote,
"the treatment of the five planets has nothing to do with calendrical science. Astron-
omers should not regard it as an important concern of theirs".
By the next generation, general knowledge of Western science, including the Co-
pernican and Newtonian theories, was more widely diffused. At the same time, be-
cause of increasing foreign threats, a nationalistic spirit and a desire for independent
identity were prevalent. Hirata Atsutane bW (1776-1843) and his followers tried
to establish a doctrinal basis for this nationalism out of the ancient native my tho-
poetic tradition, including elements of Christianity, Confucianism, Buddhism and
whatever else was available to him. They emphasized native contributions to Japan-
ese thought, which were uncontaminated by Chinese and Buddhist influences,
and also attacked current Confucian and Buddhist ideas.
Unlike the Buddhists and Confucians, the Neo-Shintoists did not have a quasi-
scientific tradition that required apology. The ambiguity of their mythology invi-
ted free interpretation. In the absence of historical domination and foreign authority,
they could "create" their own tradition and include aspects of Western scientific
thought.
Atsutane and his pupils, SaW Nobuhiro bx (1769-1850) and Tsurumine Shigenobu
(1786-1859)61,by, were all acquainted with fruits of Dutch learning and had an
unreserved appreciation for modern Western science. Earlier attempts had been
made to amalgamate Neo-Confucian cosmology with the native creation myths,
but Atsutane was bolder and quite cleverly utilized the most up-to-date Western
Muraoka Tsunetsugu, Nihon shisoshi kenkyu (Tokyo, 1930), pp. 297 fr.
60
Shamon Monno ga kusen hakkai toron no ben (BX) [A confutation of the monk Monno's
61
argument of the nine mountains and eight seas], reprinted in Zoho Motoori Norinaga zenshU (BY)
[Complete works of Motoori Norinaga, revised edition, Tokyo. 1926]. vol. 10, pp. 131-136.

theories available. The result was a curious combination of primitive myth and mod-
ern science 62 • The process of world creation, ignored in modern science, was ex-
plained by traditional myths: the creators, a god and goddess, formed the universe
from primordial chaos and gradually modeld the heliocentric system63 • Thus Atsu-
tane and his followers refuted Entsu's Sumeru argument and took full advantage
of Western science in their attempt to systematize primitive mythology into a consist-
ent cosmology.
THE IDENTIFICATION OF COPERNICUS
In China, the Jesuits' distorted account of Copernicus created a confused picture

reflected in Juan Yuan'sbz commentary on Copernicanism. This confusion was still
worse in Japan, where the name of Copernicus came to be known not only through
the Sino-Jesuits' works but additionally via quite another route, their own transla-
tions of Western works.
Motoki Ryoei, a professional interpreter, was not acquainted with the Chinese
astronomical writings and hence in his translations he freely employed his own tech-
nical terms and transliterations without attempting to identify them with the tra-
ditional terminology of calendrical astronomy and standard Chinese transliterations
for the names of such Western astronomers as Copernicus and Tycho.
As already indicated, Ryoei, in the preface of his second heliocentric translation,
apparently made the error of considering Copernicus a contemporary of Tycho.
To his third translation, he added an appendix consisting of summaries from Ben-
jamin Martin's Philosophical Grammar and Johann Heinrich Winkler's Anfangs-
grunde der Physik (both in Dutch translations), in which three systems, the Ptole-
maic, Copernican and Tychonic, were well illustrated. He did not commit any ap-
parent historical error, though passages relating to relationships of the three figures
are still somewhat clumsy. He well enough understood the major differences between
the Copernican and Tychonic systems. He placed Tycho's scheme after that of Pto-
lemy, while Copernican was given full credit among "contemporary" astronomers.
The confusion was increased still further by thoughtless popularizers such as
Shiba Kokan and Honda Rimeica• Kokan is credited as the first to print an identifi-
cation of Copernicus as mentioned in Ryoei's translation with the man identified
by a Chinese transliteration of his name in the Li-hsiang k'ao-ch'eng 64 • But Kokan
62 Fuj iwara Noboru (BZ),Edo jidai ni okeru kagakuteki shizenkan no kenkyii(CA) [A study
of scientific view of nature in Edo period; Tokyo, 1966], p. 77 If.

63 Hi rat a Atsutane, Tama no mahashira (CB) (1812), reprinted in Hirata Atsutannshiie ze
(CC) [Complete works of Hirata Atsutane], vol. 2 (Tokyo, 1911); Sato Nobuhiro, Yozo kaiku
ron (CD) [On the creation and formation of the world; ca. 1825], reprinted in Shinchii kogaku
sosho (CE) [series in Nipponology, re-edited; Tokyo, 1927], vol. 10; Tsururnine Shigenobu, Arne
1/() mihashira (CF) [The sacred heavenly pillar; 1821].
64 Though I suspect that Tadao identified them still earlier in his unpublished manuscripts.
confused Copernicus with Kepler taking "Kopperunyu", the Japanese reading

of the Chinese transliteration of "Kepler", as the equivalent of "Copernicus". He
even included this erroneous name in the title of his book, Kopperunyu tenmon
zukai (1805). Honda Rimei in his Seiiki monogatari (ca. 1798) wrote that "Coper-
nicus is a pupil of Tycho Brahe"65.
Shizuki Tadao took a much more cautious and scholarly attitude toward
this identification problem in the first part of Rekisho shinshocc (drafted in 1798),
noting that "someone said that Kopeni (Japanese reading of Chinese Ko-po-ni)
spoken of in the Li-hsiang k'ao-ch'eng must be identical with the Copernicus spoken
of in Western sources"66.
Finally the shrewd sense of a professional astronomer settled this identification
problem. Takahashi Yoshitoki in a letter to Hazama Shigetomi in 1800 compared
the relative distance of the solar perigee (or perihelion) given by various astron-
omers in the Jesuit treatises with those given in Ryoei's third translation (based on
Adams), concluding that the Sino-Jesuits' Copernicus was identical with the Coper-
nicus who appeared in the Dutch sources 67 , despite the fact that the latter writings
portrayed his cosmology as heliocentric and the former as geocentric.
"MOVING-EARTH" THEORY
It is interesting to note that how and why the present-day Japanese term "chid
selsu"cd and its equivalents in modern Chinese and Korean came to represent Coper-
nicanism or heliocentricism. Literally, chido selsu is "theory of the earth's motion",
but no such set phrase existed in any of the Dutch sources consulted by Motoki
Ryoei and Shizuki Tadao. Western sources employed such words as "Copernican
theory", "heliocentric hypothesis", or "sun-centered".
Generally, whenever the word "chido" ("Ii-lung" in Chinese) is found in the
Chinese classics, its interpretation is usually "earthquake". Some writers define
Ii-tung as a major earthquake, as distinguished from one of ordinary magnitude
ti-chence (earth tremor)68.
Even if we interpret Ii-tung liberally as equivalent to li-chuancf (earth-turning),
occasionally found in early Chinese cosmological writings, it Is not at all clear
whether this referred to the rotation or the revolution of the earth. Even in its present
usage, the word chidO is too vague to be employed as a scientific term. As a matter
of fact, a Japanese apologist for Buddhist cosmology, Entsii, attacked the word
chido as confusing and susceptible of various divergent interpretations.
65 Part I, reprinted in Nihon shiso taikei 44 (Tokyo, 1970), p. 95.

66 Nihon tetsugaku shiso zensho 6, p. 141.
67 Seigaku shukan (CG) [Notes and correspondence on astronomy; ed. by Shibukawa Ka-
gesuke] in Nihon shiso taikei 63, p. 213.

68 I am indebted for this remark to Professor Jeon Sang-woon (CH), a historian of Korean
science.
Then why was this misleading term adopted to denote such an important con-
cept as the Copernican world picture? Presumably the man who coined the phrase
chido no setsu (the theory of the earth's motion) was Shizuki Tadao, who in part I
of his RekishO shinsho (drafted in 1198) employed this phrase in his own commentary
on the appendix "tentairon" (on the heavenly bodies)69; in the preceding straight-
forward translation of John Keill's work, he simply transliterated the word "Coper-
nican" to describe the theory.
From the context of "tentairon", we can deduce two reasons why Tadao coined
this phrase:
1) In order to show that in ancient China, "there was a theory of the earth's
motion, preceding its Western counterpart", and thereby to defend the Asian scien-
tific tradition by demonstrating its priority.
2) In order to place Copernicanism in the framework of traditional natural
philosophy - nemely, the system based on the polar conception of yin and yang.
Arguments concerned only with local and morphological relationships, whether
heliocentric or geocentric, appeared rather superficial to traditional Asian thinkers.
The cosmic polar concepts of motion (to correspond to yang) and rest (to corres-
pond to yin) must have appealed to Shizuki Tadao as more profound and fundamental
in their implications. In other words, Copernicanism was comprehensible to him
primarily in terms of the physico-dynamical principle of "motion-rest". In the tra-
ditionallist of various dichotomies associated with "yang-yin", undoubtedly a very
important place is occupied by "motion-rest"; while "heaven-earth" or "sun-moon"
does form a dichotomy, "sun-earth" never does.
Tadao's attitude towards Copernicanism was welcomed and shared by Neo-
Confucian orthodox philosophers such as Asaka Gonsai and also by the official
atronomer, Shibukawa Kagesuke 70 •
We shall now turn to popular treatises in order to estimate the degree of dis-
semination of the term "theory of the earth's motion". In earlier works of the most
illustrious Copernican advocate, Shiba K6kan, such as Chikyu zenzu ryakusetsu
(1793) and Oranda tensetsu (1796), the term "earth's motion" does not appear ex-
plicitly, but Oranda tsuhaku Cg (Dutch oversea activities, 1805), which appeared
after the completion of RekishO shinsho, identified the Copernican view by saying
that "this is called the theory of the earth's motion !"71. In still later works, however,
he did not use "earth's motion" again. It may be that K6kan, thoroughly devoted
to things Western, might have had a distaste for the chauvinism of Shizuki Tadao.
Perhaps the book most instrumental in disseminating the term "the theory of
the earth's motion" was Y oshio Hisatada's Ensei kansho zusetsuCh (An illustrated
treatise on Western astronomy, first edition 1823). At the end was appended "chid6
69 Nihon tetsugaku shiso zensho 6, p. 136 if.

70 Shinp6 rekisho zokuhen.
71 Volume I, in Nakai, Shiba K6kan, p. 116.
wakumon"ci (Queries on the erath's motion), in which he tried to expound further

what Tadao had said in Rekishii shinsho. This work was reprinted again and again,
becoming the most standard textbook of astronomy in mid-nineteenth-century
Japan. Thus the term "earth's motion" entered the popular vocabulary. In the
succeeding Meiji period, when the modern educational system was established,
the phrase was adopted for mass enlightenment at the elementary text-book level
and has remained current since.
On the Chinese scene, "ti-tung" (earth's motion) appeared in Juan Yuan's
Ch' ou-jen chuan cj (Biographies of Chinese mathematicians and astronomers, 1799)
in reference to Michel Benoist's exposition of heliocentricism, though Juan himself
did not accept It. In the sequel of that book (prefaced in 1840), Juan tried to identify
the origin of heliocentricism in Chang Heng'sCk ti-tung Cl (earth's motion instrument,
second century A. D., presumably a kind of seismometer) and thereby defend his
own tradition on the ground that Copernicanism was accepted. The set phrase
ti-tung shuo (theory of the earth's motion) appears only as late as 1859 in T'an t'ien cm
(Discussion on the heavens), Li Shan-lan'scn translation of John Herschel's book.
It is impossible to conceive of any influence of Tadao on these Chinese works, but
they shared the same traditional mentality with its dichotomy of yin-yang and mo-
tion-rest.
In sum, among the various implications of Copernicanism, the physico-dynamic
aspect was most attractive, much more so than the geometrical or astronomical
aspects, because of the Chinese inclination to use the yin-yang dichotomy and its
various equivalents at the most fundamental level of explication of natural phenom-
ena. In this context, "theory of the earth's motion" received public recognition as
a popular as well as professional term.
CONCLUSION
To sum up, the Copernican system did not evoke bitter ideological opposition
in Japan except in Buddhist circles. Even the latter could not exert such a commanding
reactionary influence as was wielded by the Renaissance Church in Europe. The main
cause of the delay in the introduction of heliocentric theory into Japan was the se-
clusion policy of the government, rigidly maintained until the early part of the
eighteenth century and, secondly the linguistic barrier, which remained formidable
until the last quarter of that century.
Interest in Western cosmology was initiated not by the camp of traditional astron-
omers but by linguistic experts, who began with the introduction of the cosmolog-
ical aspect of Copernicanism. The principal concern with Copernican ism was shown
as regards its physico-dynamical aspect, which was interpreted in terms of Eastern
Naturphilosophie.
It seems that the question of the reception of Copernicanism was more or less
used in the more general problem of the superiority of Western learning. Coperni-
camsm never played a pivotal role in overthrowing tradltIOnal ideologies or recog-

nizing Western superiority. In this respect, recognition of Western superiority in
the astronomical domain had been well established earlier through Sino-Jesuits
works, and on the basis of this recognition Copernicanism, in spite of some ideolog-
ical incompatibility and conflict, had a rather smooth reception in the course
of the nineteenth century.
b .~ f..
e Jr__ j\
-:I It. '." ad -:r- I ~ 'J
a!! ffl <ft. ~ 11\

l &~ z.. f'f ft ~IJ 1iI !rl->
h
T~~
-t ~
fl.[
I<
-.i1.~
t1!., ~f ~
iL * i!J$..... rv
'1-- .1 #2 ~ ~tt,
;Ii=, "~I {i'u ~.j ~1\:1~- ~;:'l~~'
k Irr ~,\ r.;. ~ tt ~- t:: t, 'Fi ~
It: '/'it:r.. ~ 1L
~ (t~$lit f\ -t -t1 t1=J
~ ~ !!1-tL tl.!1 ", 'f( '1')-!L

~ ',. ~-t\' &0 '[;-.1...
;:. ~- tII~ ty,-- IlF ii1 if Fr.1.)~-1I!'
*
f!.. -r't fr1 tL &" ;. ':G' ~ 1m
~ ,', .if: (;f.. &r J... -{~:
~ ~ . f-r1 ~" 1'... ;', ~ "'"
~f '0 "~
~ P'f'."
-!!t: :')L. £. :--;;..
T<.. I&,
t- ;f;.. ~ ~i<. ...L.1i -1::
., ~l -:t t.e. ~~ a a..
~1
7. re :::
1---.. 'L..
st'rw jz. -:'f~ ..

• r ft tt: .4~ ~i~ •• . ~f1'z.-
~ _~ -4
\::r
~ te.. ::: l¥ IfH~ al[ ~ ~.~ P:l(' til.. ~~

1:-. ~ • '1 tt'r;~ rJ '-
iii j1J!~ az ,I~ ~ ~~- ~'F.1
(I)
j;. I1J ~'I 9~

be. l.. ..t ca
\!7 t'-.'('\""';>13.
~, ..
lib
1l.. ""' I' ~ .."I ~ eh
be cc ~t. (:I ; {
JIll!..
lid ~\J ~4-~ cd te.. ~H 'f.tv
be ,{J., f- ee tt. f ...
ht {f ~f !,~ cr -tt.:1~
h, (~,; ~ 4~ (ft- c, in 1i\ a~B
hh {"f;. \B AI-- & ch i!. ib7 ~i. ~ 'i~~
hl .fJl. 1 ~ ft~ ~ if- $;v cI 1.t.. '11 ")\;' r.:z1
bj tlrf c~ ds A..~
hl< {f ~~=m ck J~.. 1<t)
hI r. . '!. 18. ~*-. tt 'Il~'
b .. t~~ c... ~tr,
bn
~>+lft~ cr,
tt-q;
~.ff. ~,ff
bp
:; -f-f
hq ~l$t;;~'i
hr ~ t,~ ~F1
be ·~t ~.,t.
bt 1!I1 ~
bu $}!'~ k.
bv
J:- ~ i!~¥v
b.. 3f \Jl.~)~l
Ill!. ~ i:~ ~"J
by
'f~"1\f
ba
'ii fl...
Copernicanizm in Japan 185
~ I
1 it t·
21 )f 1! t
c ~k",-t;
D ~~
! rfl~ ~.,
I' .'~-!G
G ~.t~
H a 4>-1., ~~~t
I ~ a.ttt-
J ~~,k, ~' l' t.f
X" "~i\tt
1£:1 ~ "'tr ~f1 i~ #J.~ ~tt. 1f\'!i. ....
"-
:. -. " "'7
~: ij .~ 1 # Pft '(;f ~ 'K. ij. .~
~ li.. t!" *l,~ £..~...
:> ~ ~ 1\'
r "'~~~1r
Q
.... /1"
\3 IF ote
__ ,..:' 'K.t!.
~
R 1:. -In IN. ~l '-$

S 4'i\- il
T It ott fLifitftiL
IJ ~it-
v '~$~~~'~T.~~~~~~rn~~
11 ~ ~ ~ ff. tJ tq. i1 ~'.,.l- .1)
I a:t ~f ~ '--2-~t
y "'~~t.
z ~rt( ~., ~t-
t..it- t-
* *-
U "F-
AB ~~ if t\J ~ 1i!: Pf£'~;t ,z. .., 'I(
Ae ai ~rtt.
AI: ,r.. F e} ~', f;' 'I :; 1t!: "£f ~ ) I"~. 11 ~ ~"J l: 'f J) TA. ~tI
A~ ~ " ifi if.:

1.1' ;t ~ it ~ J) ~ ~ $ ~1~t ,...., .. 7
AG ,+,~" '1' l' l') ~ • fil.~ . . ~ f.t¥. t::t- 'P 4 ~ \'i3A'~

Ali ;:.. IJ... ~ 1'1-;,1,
Al ~ ~~' ,..i
;...; ~ ,;1Jf M .» 9 '$;(.,!'%-
;.r -It iJf 'fiR
A' rq ~ rt~~~ 1-..... ~ 1 ~~
1\ ~ iE ;J.:.
*' ~ f)?t ~
U!
~. )!: ~ "fIr -' ~ ... ~ n1 ~

i4 ~ 1if1 .~
tr
;'r"
A~ t Jt. 1, 1--
AQ ;t; ~ ~~
AR f.!t 9 .t:- 1-- ~_ 't,;;ff'~
At, ~ 'l ~ 'it J..
AT 1:t.. tIl ~ ;I) ~ ~ 't fq- 'f W~ .n ± ~
At' t3 *' 't. :J) ~'If rt
*
AV ~~taT
1s'f Ji i. it J1f ~ rrr~~
,., t. ft
~~ 1::.'- ;~ 1. l ~ ~~L.
i:~1-~K
•
,
I
,~'l -k (, - '1:. . .
l)O ~ f
~t . ~ -:~
~ ,'t
1"0 ~ ~ l~ t,..
rl' ~ ;~J...
( IL I1i. \i. <;"-;it-r:
• >ry Il~ ' 'I. f'"1 'f{'
~ H'- tLl
1~'~h i-~ ~~ ~
i.\ ,~
;f ..
J.'f"
·., If:
~4 ,t~ i~ ~'+ ~
=:J.:{l....
-:.: ~ $- ~, ') tl t ~~
l..il f ~.., ~ ~1
I-':a' 91 If!.
"'- & \ r'/i
~t.
~ .J '1 ~ t·
BP 13 ~ t! l 1:..J..
~~ f ~i {( ,~ ,.', J .~ ~ .) t4/~ ~t
,f;'1~~
a *- fl $l-l~
f-t: I~ ~
:H(
~ r6} ~Rj ~ 1. ! lit! t..
x ;, "9 ~ tt", II, J., I~ ~ ~ ., rtt
Br ~ ,~ At i '" 4::' t
BZ
iL1i J_
;:t. JF -t f\ ,,. 'h- '1 1 tt,~ ¢.; ~ ~'. it." lift:-t.

ti, ~ *l-
ee
co
C!
.l!..
Jf- " _~
ifr 11 t,f
<~
lft.. ~ l.
-r. ~
J..f
cr " " ft( ~ t ;)
CO L\~ ~~
CH .t~!,
JOHN L. RUSSELL
Heythrop College, London
THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM IN GREAT BRITAIN
I. THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM IN ENGLAND
During the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries England was, from the
scientific point of view, relatively isolated from the Continent. There had been a mod-
est but promising revival of learning in the early sixteenth century, in which John
Colet, John Fisher, William Grocyn, Thomas Linacre and Thomas More had played
a prominent part. They were helped by such international scholars as Desiderius
Erasmus and Luis Vives, who visited England and were on the friendliest terms with
the English scholars. This circle, apart from its theological interests, was mainly
concerned with humanistic studies and with the propagation of Greek studies in
the Universities and elsewhere. They were less concerned with philosophical and
scientific problems. The revival was brought to an end by the increasingly autocratic
behaviour of King Henry VIII, culminating in the execution of Fisher and More
in 1535 on religious grounds. For the next hundred years or more, English scientists,
with the notable exceptions of William Gilbert and William Harvey, contributed
little to the European cultural community. This is not to say that there was no scien-
tific activity during this period. There was a lively interest in practical applications,
especially in the fields of surveying and navigation. But the published works were
mainly textbooks or popular expositions, some of which reached a high standard
in their own field but which contributed little to the advancement of science. In any
case, they were normally written in English and were scarcely known on the Conti-
nent.
The Sixteenth Century
The first English writer to refer to the Copernican theory was Robert Recorde
(c. 1510-1558) in his book The Castle of Knowledge (1556)1. This was an elementary
treatise on astronomy written for students and set in the form of a dialogue between
1 London, Reginalde Wolfe, 1556.

190 John L. Russell
a scholar and his teacher. The treatment was on traditional Ptolemaic lines, as one
would naturally expect of an introductory textbook, but towards the end there was
a reference to Copernicus. Recorde has been giving the traditional arguments that
the earth is in the centre of the universe and then passes to the question whether
it is in motion or at rest:
But as for the quietness of the earth, I need not to spend any time in proving of it, since that
opinion is so firmly fixed in most men's heads, that they accompt it mere madness to bring the ques-
tion in doubt. And therefore it is as much folly to travail to prove that which no man denieth, as
it were with great study to dissuade that thing which no man doth covet, neither any man alloweth:
or to blame that which no man praiseth, neither any man Iiketh.
Scholar. Yet sometimes it chanceth, that the opinion most generally received, is not most true.
Master. And so do some men judge of this matter, for not only Eraclides Ponticus, a great
Philosopher, and two great clerks of Pythagoras school, Philolaus and Ecphantus, were of the con-
trary opinion, but also Nicias [Hicetas] Syracusius, and Aristarchus Samius, seem with strong ar-
guments to approve it: but the reasons are too difficult for this first Introduction, and therefore
I will omit them till another time. And so will I do the reasons that Ptolemy, Theon and others do
allege, to prove the earth to be without motion: and the rather, because those reasons do not proceed
so demonstrably, but they may be answered fully, of him that holdeth the contrary. I mean, concer-
ning circular motion: marry, direct motion out of the centre of the world seemeth more easy to be
confuted, and that by the same reasons, which were before alleged for proving the earth to be in the
middle and centre of the world.
Scholar. I perceive it well: for as if the earth were always out of the centre of the world, those
former absurdities would at all times appear: so if at any time the earth should move out of his place,
those inconveniences would then appear.
Master. That is truly to be gathered: how be it, Copernicus, a man of great learning, of much
experience, and of wonderful diligence in observation, hath renewed the opinion of Aristarchus
Samius, and affirmeth that the earth not only moveth circularly about his own centre, but also may
be, yea and is, continually out of the precise centre of the world 38 hundred thousand miles: but
because the understanding of that controversy dependeth of profounder knowledge than in this
Introduction may be uttered conveniently, J will let it pass till some other time.
Scholar. Nay sir in good faith, J desire not to hear such vain fantasies, so far against common
reason, and repugnant to the consent of all the learned multitude of Writers, and therefore let it
pass for ever, and a day longer.
Master . You are too young to be a good judge in so great a matter: it passeth far your learning,
and theirs also that are much better learned than you, to improve [i. e. disprove] his supposition by
good arguments, and therefore you were best to condemn nothing that you do not well understand
but another time, as I said, I will so declare his supposition, that you shaH not only wonder to hear
it, but also peradventure be as earnest then to credit it, as you are now to condemn it 2 •
It will be seen from this that Recorde was quite prepared to accept a diurna
rotation. The arguments of Ptolemy, Theon etc against it can be fully answered
He was at least sympathetic to the full Copernican system but his description 0
it was very incomplete. The reader is told that Copernicus accepted a diurnal ro-
tation and put the earth "continually out ofthe precise centre of the world" by nearly
4 million miles, but not that he put the earth in orbit round the sun. Evidently he
2 Castle, pp. 164-65. I have modernised the speHing.

Copernican System in Great Britain 191
thought that a full statement of the theory would unduly confuse students
at this stage in their studies. The Castle of Knowledge enjoyed a steady popularity
until at least the end of the century. A second edition was published in 1596. No
doubt it stimulated the interest of its readers in the work of Copernicus even if it
did little to satisfy their curiosity. It is unfortunate that Recorde did not live to
write the more advanced treatise referred to in the text.
Recorde, as a young man, had graduated at Oxford University, after which he
transferred to Cambridge where he took the degree of Doctor of Medicine in 1545.
The two most prominent Cambridge scholars at this time were Sir John Cheke (1514-
1557) and Sir Thomas Smith (1513-1577)3. Both were primarily classical scholars
but Smith in particular had an interest in astronomy and accumulated a good scien-
tific library which included a first edition of De Revolutionibus. It is quite possible
that Recorde came to know of the Copernican system through him, but there is
no definite evidence on this point.
Shortly after the publication of Recorde's book, the work of Copernicus was
referred to by two other mathematicians: John Dee (1527-1608) and John Feild
(1520-1587). Dee, in a preface to Feild's Ephemeris for 15574, deplored the inade-
quacy of the older astronomical tables:
A multis, et iIlis quidem cIarissimis Mathematicis, non soltun satis fuisse decantattun, Tabel-
las veteres, & eorundem canones, haud amplius ctun Phaenomenis conuenire: Vertun etiam ab ex-
cellentissimis artificibus, insigni veritatis demonstrandae modo, longissime, eius generis errores,
fere omnes, profiigatos arbitrabar. Sperabam etiam alios, iIlos praesertim qui in Astronomicis tum
multa, tum magna tractant, & moliuntur, de COPERNICI, aut Rhetici & Reinhaldti scriptis, vel
eoflUll saltern nominibus, auditione tandem aliquid accepisse: praecIaramque hortun famam,
istOflUll homintun aures iam circtunsonasse diutius. Illius quidem, ob lab ores plus quam Herculeos,
in coelesti disciplina restauranda, eademque firmissimis rationum momentis corroboranda, ab eodem
exantlatos: (cuius de hypothesibus nunc non est disserendi locus). Hortun vero, propter earn quam
ostenderunt strenuam in illius insistendo vestigiis diligentiam.
Dee therefore praised Copernicus "for the more than Herculean labours which
he endured in giving a new impetus to the study of the heavens and confirming it
most strongly by his calculations", but he added that "this is not the place to discuss
his hypotheses". He was clearly concerned more with the accuracy of the Coperni-
can tables than with their theoretical basis, on which he expressed no opinion. In
spite of his respect for Copernicus he never, in fact, committed himself to his system
and two years later, in his Propaideumata aphoristica s, he described the universe
in pre-Copernican terms. In aphorism 58, for instance, he referred to the diurnal
motion of the heavens from east to west as the swiftest of all motions. Aphorism
66 spoke of the sun as moving through the ecliptic "per proprium suum motum".
3 See Francis R. Johnson, Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England, Baltimore, Johns
Hopkins Press, 1937, pp. 87-90.
4 Ephemeris anni 1557 currentis iuxta Copernici et Reinholdi canones ... supputata, London,
Thomas Marshe, 1556, Sig. A2r-A2v.
5 London, 1558.
192 John L. Russell
Feild, on the other hand, apparently accepted the views of Copernicus without
qualification. In his own foreword to the Ephemeris he wrote:
"Quapropter hanc tibi peruulgavi Ephemeridem Anni 1557, in ea authores
sequutus N. Copernicum et Erasmum Reinholdum, quorum scripta stabilita sunt
et fundata veris, certis, et sinceris demonstrationibus"6. It does not seem that Feild
is praising merely the greater accuracy of the Copernican and Reinholdian tables.
It is more reasonable to suppose that the "writings" he refers to, which have been
"established and based upon true, certain and genuine demonstrations" include
also the theoretical basis of the tables.
Dee was the most prominent English mathematician of his day. He accumulated
a first class scientific library which contained two copies of De Revolutionibus as
well as works of Nicholas of Cusa, Ptolemy and many others of astronomical inte-
rest. His house at Mortlake attracted many visitors and became the main centre
of scientific activity in England during the third quarter of the 16th century. It is
probable that the Copernican theory was freely discussed within this circle and that
Dee himself helped to spread some knowledge of it 7 •
Neither Recorde nor Dee nor Feild had given any precise indication of what
Copernicus had actually taught, nor had any of them asserted unambiguously that
they accepted his theory. The first English writer to publish a clear exposition of the
system, and the first who publicly accepted it as true, was Thomas Digges (c. 1546-
1595). Thomas was the son of a distinguished mathematician, Leonard Digges.
After his father's death in 1559 he became a pupil of John Dee and thereafter re-
mained in close touch with him. In 1573 he published a short treatiseS on the new
star which had appeared in Cassiopeia during the previous year. In it he gave data
for the position of the star which were commended for their accuracy by no less
an authority than Tycho Brahe. Most of the book was devoted to a mathematical
treatment of diurnal parallax and its measurement but Digges also discussed briefly
the possibility of using the new star to test the Copernican theory, to which he was
obviously favourably inclined. He suggested two lines of investigation:
Praepostere etiam Antiquos progredi perspexi ex Theoricis scilicet fictis Parallaxeis et distantias
venari veras, cum inuerso ordine procedere potius debuissent, et ex Parallaxibus obseruatis et
cognitis, Theoricas examinare: et hac ratione haud difficile esset si diu perseuerauerit Phoenomenon
istud mirabile, exacto iudicio discernere an Terra immobilis in Mundi centro quiescat, et ingens
ilIa Orbium erraticarum et fixarum moles rapidissimo cursu 24 horarum spacio in gyrum rotetur,
seu potius fixarum illa immensa sphaera vere fixa maneat, et apparens ille motus tantummodo ex
Terrae circulari super Polis suis rotatione contingat ... Fuit igitur causa praecipua cur Copernicus
vir admirandi ingenii, & industria singulari, aliis hypothesibus uti, et nouam Coelestis Machinae
Anatomiam eruere conatus fiet: at prolixa nimis oratione et huic loco parum conuenienti opus
esset, vt dilucide collatis vtriusque generis hypothesibus veritas elucesceret, hoc saltem admonere
statui ansam oblatam esse, et occasionem maxime opportunam experiendi an Terrae motus in Co-
6 Op. cit., Sig. A3 r •

7 See Johnson, op. cit., pp. 137-39.
8 Alae seu Scalae MathematicQl', London, .Thomas Marshe, 1573.
pernici Theoricis suppositus, sola causa fiet cur haec stella magnitudine apparente minuatur, nam
si ita fuerit in Aequinoctio verno semper decrescens minima sua magnitudine conspiceretur. Post
vero si durauerit paulatim crescens in Iunio sequente eiusdem fere fulgoris erit quemadmodum in
prima sua apparitione, at in Aequinoctio Autumnali insolitae magnitudinis necnon splendoris
videbitur: eiusmodi autem quantitatum apparentium diuersitas nulla poterit alia assignari causa'
quam ipsius a terra elongationes, quoniam augeri aut minui stellam in Coelo, non solum Physicis
prorsum fundamentis contrarium esset, sed manifestis etiam mensuris hac arte adhibitis aliter esse
deprehendetur 9 •
Digges's argument is confused and suggests that he had not, at this stage, fully
understood the implications of the Copernican theory. His first suggestion is that
astronomers should try to discover·a diurnal parallax of the star in order to discover
whether it is the earth or the heavens which have a daily rotation. He does not ex~
plain himself further and one is left with the suspicion that he has failed to realise
that the diurnal parallax will be exactly the same whether the earth is rotating and
the heavens are at rest or vice versa. The second suggestion is that the diminution
in brightness of the star is due to the earth's recession from it in its orbit round the
sun. If this is the case, then the brightness should vary according to an annual cycle,
reaching a minimum at the spring equinox and then increasing to a maximum in
the autumn. Digges was, of course, writing shortly after the star had appeared, with-
out waiting to see whether the prediction would be fulfilled.
Digges's book was subjected to a lengthy criticism by Tycho Brahe in his Astro-
nomiae Instauratae Progymnasmata 10 • Tycho pointed out that Digges had completely
overlooked the fact that on the Copernican theory there should be not only a diurnal
but also an annual parallax. If the nova was near enough to shew a diurnal effect
(and this would put it, on Tycho's reckoning, no further away than the planet Mars),
then it must have a very large annual parallax which could not possibly have been
overlooked. The absence of any such effect implied that, if Copernicus was right,
the star must be far beyond the orbit of Saturn, in the region of the fixed stars.
This being so, it must be too far away for its apparent brightness to be affected by
the earth's position in its orbit round the sun. With some justification, therefore,
Tycho dismissed Digges's proposed tests as irrelevant.
Digges returned to the Copernican system much more fruitfully in 1576. In this
year he prepared for publication a new edition of a popular work on astronomy writ-
ten by his father and first published in 1553 11 • Leonard Digges had made no mention
of the Copernican theory and his son now decided to rectify the omission. He the-
refore added, as an appendix to the book, a translation of part of the De Revolu-
tionibus (Book I, chs. 10, 7, 8), in which Copernicus had summarised the main fea~
tures of his system and had answered the traditional objections against the earth's
9 Alae, Sig. A2v- A3V •
10 Prague, 1602, pp. 653-90. Reprinted in Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera Omnia, ill, 167-
203, (Ed. J. L. E. Dreyer).
11 A Prognostication euerlastinge of righte good effecte ... Published by Leonard Digges Gentle-
man ... Lately corrected and augmented by Thomas Digges his sonne. London, Thomas Marsh, 1576.
13 - The reception .••

194 John L. Russell
motion. (He omitted ch. 9, however, which dealt with the movements of precession
and 'trepidation'.) The translation was free but substantially accurate and was inter-
spersed with some material added by Digges himself. It was preceded by a preface
highly commending the system and insisting that Copernicus had propounded it
as true - not simply as a convenient mathematical device. It was also accompanied
by a diagram of the universe whioh would shew the reader at a glance what the sys-
tem involved. Digges's diagram has a special interest in that it shewed the fixed
stars at varying distances from the centre of the universe (the sun), and that the de-
scription of the outermost sphere, inserted into the diagram, ran:
This orbe of starres fixed infinitely up extendeth hit self in altitude sphericalIye, and therefore
immovable the pallace of foelicitye garnished with perpetuall shininge glorious lightes innumerable,
farr excelIinge our sonne both in quantitye and qualitye the very court of coelestiall angelles devoyd
of greefe and replenished with perfite endlesse joye the habitacle for the elect.
Digges, therefore, definitely held that the universe is infinite in extent. This view
was not, of course, new. It had been accepted by Anaximander and Democritus
among the Greeks. Nicholas of Cusa had taught that the universe is unlimited though
he would not apply the term 'infinite' to it. Nevertheless, Digges was the first to
propound this view within the context of the new astronomy: Copernicus himself
having left the question open. Eight years later it was to receive more vigorous sup-
port from Giordano Bruno in his De l'infinito universo e mondi, published in London,
1584. In a sense, both Nicholas and Bruno were more 'modern' than Digges since
both denied that the universe has a centre and both rejected the theory that celestial
matter is intrinsically immutable whereas Digges represented the heavenly regions
as an infinite sphere centred upon the sun and he apparently still held that the ce-
lestial bodies are incorruptible.
The revised Prognostication of 1576 was the first actual description of the Coper-
nican system in English or by an Englishman. As such it was, for many years to
come, the principal means by which English readers came to know of the system.
It must have reached a very wide circle since no less than seven editions were published
between 1576 and 1605, all with the Copernican appendix.
The Copernican theory was mentioned briefly by John Blagrave of Reading
in his work: The Mathematical Jewel (1585)12, in which he described a new type of
astrolabe he had invented. Referring to the complexity of the Ptolemaic planeta-
ry system he remarked:
Insomuch that of late yeares that singuler man Copernicus affirmeth that the sunne is the fixed
centre of the world, about whom the earth moueth (not the sunne about the earth) and that all the
rest of the planets moue regularly about the centre of the sunne sauing the moone which like an
epicicle moueth about the earth in the speere of the earth 13 times in his yearely motion. But omit-
ting the inuentions of Copernicus, and a number of the rest, I will only heere shew a figure of those
which haue always bene before his time ... 13
12 London, Walter Venge, 1585.

13 Ibid., p. 11.
There was no reason, in this purely practical work, why he should commit him-
self for or against the Copernican theory and, in fact, he gave no indication of his
attitude. Eleven years later, in his Astrolabium Uranicum Generale (1596)14 he more
definitely accepted at least a semi-Copernican theory. In this work he described
a new astrolabe designed on the supposition that the earth rotates on its axis and
the fixed stars are at rest. The heavens were engraved on a fixed spherical plate
instead of on the traditional moving rete and the earth, or rather, the horizon of the
terrestrial observer, was represented by a moving ruler and scale. He pointed out
that his instrument did not differ from those described by John Stoeffier and Geof-
frey Chaucer except for the fact that:
they according to the auncient Astronomers, appointed the Starry Heauens to mooue rightwards
from East towards West, vppon the earth or fixed Horizon of the place. An I according to Coperni-
cus cause the earth or Horizon to moue leftwards from West towards East, vppon the Starry Firma-
ment fixed: In so much, that if in this my Astrolabe you hold stilI that perticuIar moouer with one
hand, and with your vnder hand turne about the Celestiall, then is it iumpe Stophler againe. In which
motion (a pretty thing to note) one that standeth by shall hardly perceiue any other but that the
Reete mooueth, although in deede you tume about the Mater, strongly confirming Copernicus
argument, who sayth, that the weakenesse of our senses do imagine the Heauens to mooue about
euery 24 houres from East to West by a Primum mobile, where as in deede they haue been a1wayes
fixed, and it is the earth that whirleth about euery 24 houres from West to East, of his owne propper
nature allotted vnto him, as most fit for the receptacle of all transitory things, being appointed
in a place where nothing is to stay him from his continuall moouing 15 •
Blagrave thus explained how his astrolabe could be used by those who regarded
the earth as fixed, but he himself clearly preferred the 'Copernican hypothesis'
of a rotating earth. There was no mention in this book of the heliocentric system:
it would not, of course, have been relevant since it could not have been represented
in an instrument of this type. Johnson is therefore exaggerating when he says that
"with the publication of Blagrave's Astrolabium Uranicum Generale, sound infor-
mation about the mechanical details ofthe new heliocentric astronomy became readily
available to all his countrymen"16. The instrument did, however, graphically illus-
trate the fact that the two rival theories of a rotating heaven and a rotating earth
were observationally equivalent.
In chapter 2, Blagrave explained how the precession of the equinoxes could be
allowed for on his instrument. He did not explicitly state that this phenomenon
was due to a movement of the earth's axis but it would be clear to the user that it
could be explained on this supposition.
Thomas Blundeville, a friend and contemporary of Blagrave, took a less favour-
able view of the Copernican theory. He wrote a popular treatise on arithmetic and
cosmography entitled M. Blundevile His Exercises (1594)17 in which he rejected the
14 Printed by Thomas Purfoot for William Matts, 1596.

15 Sig. Flv.
16 Johnson, op. cit., p. 210.
17 London. John Windet, 1594.
196 John L. Russell
theory on philosophical and theological grounds, while celarly recognising its math-
ematical advantages. He said of it:
Some also deny that the earth is in the middest of the world, and some affirme that it is moueable,
as also Copernicus by way of supposition, and not for that he thought so in deede: who affirmeth
that the earth turneth about, and that the sunne standeth still in the midst of the heauens, by helpe
of which false supposition he hath made truer demonstrations of the motions and reuolutions of
the celestiall Spheares, then euer were made before, as plainely appeareth in his booke de Reuolu-
tionibus dedicated to Paulus Tertius the Pope, in the yeare of our Lord 1536. But Ptolomie, Aristotle,
and all other olde writers affirme the earth to be in the middest and to remaine immooueable and
to be the very Center of the world, proouing the same with many most strong reasons not needefull
here to be rehearsed, because I thinke fewe or none do doubt thereof, and specially the holy Scrip-
ture affirming the foundations of the earth to be layd so sure, that it neuer should mooue at any time:
Againe you shall finde in the selfe same Psalme these words, Hee appointed the Moone for certaine
seasons, and the Sunne knoweth his going downe, whereby it appeareth that the Sunne mooueth
and not the earth l8 .
Blundeville was a populariser rather than a professional mathematician and his

work was evidently widely read since it went through a number of editions, the 7th
and last appearing in 1638. Some additional matter was added to the 2nd edition
but the judgment on Copernicus remained unchanged to the end.
BIundeville's assertion that "few or none" of his contemporaries had doubts
about the geostatic universe underestimated the extent to which Copernicus, or at
least a semi-Copernican theory was accepted by the mathematicians of his day but
it was no doubt substantially true of the <intelligent layman' for whom he was writing.
In 1602 Blundeville published a further work on astronomy: The Theoriques
of the Seven Planets 19 : the first English work which gave methods for computing
planetary orbits. In the preface he says that it had been "collected, partly out of
Ptolomey, and partly out of Purbachius, and of his Commentator Reinholdus, also
out of Copernicus, but most out of Mestelyn, whom I haue cheefely followed, be-
cause his method and order of writing greatly contenteth my humor" 2 0. It was
a purely practical treatise and did not discuss the theoretical basis of planetary
motion.
The Copernican theory was briefly referred to in a treatise on iatrochemistry
published by Richard Bostocke in 1585 21 • It supported the Paracelsian system of
chemistry and medicine but, at the same time, said of Paracelsus:
He was not the author and inuentour of this arte as the followers of the Ethnickes phisicke doe
imagine, as by the former writers may appeare, no more then Wicklije, Luther, Oecolampadius,
Swinglius, Caluin, &c. were the Author and inuentors of the Gospell and religion in Christes Church,
when they restored it to his puritie, according to Gods word, [... J And no more then Nicholaus Co-
pernicus, which liued at the time of this Paracelsus, and restored to vs the place of the starres accord-
18 Exercises, fo!. 181 r.

19 London, A. Islip, 1602.
20 Sig. A3 r •
21 The difference between the auncient Phisicke ... and the latter Phisicke. London, R. Walley,
1585.
ing to the trueth, as experience & true obseruation doth teach is to be called the author and inuen-
tor of the motions of the starres, which long before were taught by Ptolomeus Rules Astronomicall
and Tables for Motions and Places of the starres ... 22
Johnson's remark, on the strenght of this passage, that "Bostocke was obviously
a Copernican"23 is hardly justified. He may well have been asserting no more than
that Copernicus had rectified errors which had crept into the medieval astronomical
tables through faulty observation. On the other hand, it may be an example of the
tendency, noted by Thorndike 24 among some writers of this period, to regard Co-
pernicus as having restored and developed the Ptolemaic system as against the me-
dieval Arabic and Alphonsine corruptions. It was, for instance, generally regarded
as a blemish on the late medieval system that it required two or even three spheres
outside the eighth sphere of the fixed stars in order to account for the (partly spurious)
phenomena of precession and trepidation. The fact that Copernicus could eliminate
these unwanted spheres by transferring their movements to the earth's axis helped
to restore the conceptual simplicity of the original Greek model. It must be remem-
bered also that many astronomers accepted only the semi-Copernican theory that
the earth rotates on its own axis at the centre of the universe. This could be regarded
as a comparatively minor modification of the Ptolemaic system, and one which
eliminated more than one blemish which it had either always possessed or had ac-
quired in the course of the Middle Ages.
Another example of the tendency to merge the Ptolemaic and Copernican theories
is to be found in Richard Forster's Ephemerides Meteorographicae (1575):
Languet apud nos in ipso pene exortu Mathematum disciplina, quae apud Anglos primum
renasci coepit, e tenebris in lucem emersa, per solertissimum Mathematicum nostratem Ioannem
Dee, nouarum hypothesium, & Ptolemaicae doctrinae acerrimum vindicem. Et nisi vir iIIe ingenue
Atlanti humeros supposuerit, breui tandem fiet, vt tota cum Copernici & Rheinoldi coelo corruat,
tanta est apud nos in artem grassatio imperitorum, & impunitas, vti hanc disciplinam Vraniae
sacram, temerare nihili aestimatur 25 •
It is not quite clear what Forster means when he describes Dee as "the keen cham-
pion of new hypotheses and Ptolemaic teaching". His further remark that if it were
not for his support the whole science of mathematics (in England) would collapse
"together with the heavens of Copernicus and Reinhold" suggests that he regarded
Dee as upholding both Ptolemy and Copernicus. It is possible, however, that the
distinction between Ptolemaic doctrina and Copernican hypothesis is meant to imply
that Ptolemy taught the true theory and that Copernicus had simply proposed a ma-
thematical device for simplifying the calculation of planetary paths.
22 Sigs. H7V-H8 r •
23 Op. cit., p. 183.
24 Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Vol. V, New York, Co-
lumbiaUniversity Press, 1941, p. 422.
25 Ephemerides meteorographicae ad annum 1575, London, J. Kingston, [1575], last page.
198 John L. Russell
Apart from Blundeville, already mentioned, the only other 16th century astro-
nomical writer of any significance who explicitly rejected the Copernican system
was Thomas Hill, who died about 1575. In his treatise on astronomy: The Schoole
of Ski!, published postumously in 1599 he wrote:
Aristarchus Samius, which was 261 yeares, before the byrth of Christ, tooke the earth from the
middle of the world, and placed it in a peculiar Orbe, included within Marses and Venus Sphere, and
to bee drawne aboute by peculiar motions, about the Sunne, which hee fayned to stande in the
myddle of the worlde as vnmoueable, after the manner of the fixed stars. The like argument doth
that learned Copernicus, apply vnto his demonstrations. But ouerpassing such reasons, least by the
newnesse of the arguments they may offend or trouble young students in the Art: wee therefore
(by true knowledge of the wise) doe attribute the middle seate of the world to the earth, and appoynte
it the Center of the whole, by which the risings, & settinges of the stars, the EquinoctiaIs, the times
of the increasing and decreasing of the dayes, the shadowes, and Eclipses are declared 26 •
Two works of some importance from the earlier part of the period under review
failed to make any mention of Copernicus, perhaps because their authors had not
heard of his theory. The first was by Leonard Digges: A Prognostication of Right
Good Effect 27 , of which the first extant edition was dated 1555 although the title
page and text indicate that this was a revised and enlarged edition of a work first
published in 1553. A third edition, still further enlarged, appeared in 1556 when
its title was changed to A Prognostication Euerlasting and this was reprinted unchan-
ged in 1564 and 1567. In 1576, as we have already seen, it was revised by his son,
Thomas Digges, who added an appendix expounding the Copernican system. The
Prognostication was a perpetual almanac containing, in accordance with the custom
of the time, a variety of astronomical, astrological and meteorological information.
It gave a short account of the Ptolemaic system whose validity was taken for granted
without discussion.
The second was William Cuningham's The Cosmographical Glasse (1559)28:
a popular treatise on mathematics, astronomy and geography; the first two books
of which covered much the same ground as Recorde's The Castle of Knowledge.
It was a less scholarly work than Recorde's and evidently fell short of it in popular
estimation since no further editions of it were called for.
The number of scientific books written and published by native English writers
during this period was relatively small but they were supplemented by translations
of various works by Continental authors which we shall now briefly survey. An early
example was a short treatise on navigation by Martin Cortes, first published in 1551;
translated by Richard Eden and published in London, 1561, under the title: The
Arte of Nauigation 29 • The first part consisted of an elementary introduction to astro-
26The Schoo/e 0/ Ski/, London, T. Judson for W. Jaggard, 1599, sigs. A3 r -A4r, pp.42-43
27London, T. Geminus, 1555.
28 London, John Day, 1559.
29 London, Richard Jugge, 1561. The translation was popular and went through at least
8 editions up to 1615.
nomy on traditional lines. In chapter 6 the author mentioned that "The Pithagorians
& other auncient naturall Philosophers (as saith Aristotle) were of opinion that the
earth dyd moue". This view was then briefly discussed and refuted by the usual Aris-
totelian arguments reinforced by a quotation from Scripture. There was no mention
of Copernicus and no indication that any modern astronomers accepted the theory.
A more important work, from the point of view of cosmology, was a long Latin
poem by Marcellus Palingenius entitled Zodiacus Vitae, first published in Venice
about 1531. It was a typical rena'ssance work aiming to give a summary of all
learning. Astronomy figured quite largely in it, especially in the eleventh book Aqua-
rius. It was popular in England both in the original Latin, of which at least 9 edi-
tions were published in this country between 1572 and 1620, and in an English trans-
lation by Barnaby Googe, of which the first three books appeared in 1560, the first
six in 1561 and a complete translation in 1565. Further editions of the complete
work were published in 1576 and 1588. The Latin poem was used as a prescribed
text in many grammar schools during this period. It was therefore widely read and
must have exerted considerable influence in this country.
Since no attempt was made to bring it up to date there was, of course, no mention
of Copernicus. The astronomy was generally traditional, with the earth motionless
in the centre of the universe. Palingenius accepted the Aristotelian distinction be-
tween the celestial spheres which are immutable, and the sublunary world of earth,
water, air and fire which are subject to death and decay. But there were some signi-
ficant departures from Aristotle. He accepted the neo-Platonic view that beyond
the outermost rotating sphere - the primum mobile - there is an infinitely extended
space, empty of matter but filled with light, the abode of the highest and most per-
fect immortal spirits. He also suggested that the stars are inhabited, though by a su-
perior type of being to ourselves. More important, perhaps, he vigorously maintai-
ned that such questions must be judged by reason, not by the authority of Aristotle
or anyone else.
Zodiacus Vitae, therefore, did nothing to spread a knowledge of the Copernican
theory but it gave some encouragement to the reader to free himself from traditio-
nal categories and to think for himself30 •
Another foreign work which had some influence in England at this time was
La Semaine, ou Creation du Monde, by Guillaume Du Bartas, first published in
its entirety at Paris in 1578. It was a popular work in this country; various portions
of it were translated into English in the late 16th century and a complete translation
by Joshua Sylvester was published in London in 1605 31 • There were many sub-
sequent editions throughout the 17th century. Du Bartas referred briefly to the Co-
30 For further details see Foster Watson, The Zodiacus Vitae of Marcellus Palingenius Stel-
latus, London, 1908.
31 Bartas: His Deuine Weekes and workes Translated ... by Iosuah Sylvester, London, Humfrey
Lownes, 1605.
200 John L. Russell
pernican system and decisively rejected it, giving a few of the traditional arguments
against it. This work would hardly have impressed mathematicians but many less
instructed readers may have been influenced by it.
Finally, mention must be made of two foreign scholars who exercised an in-
fluence on cosmological thought in England although none of their relevant writings
were translated into English. The first and more important was Giordano Bruno
who visited this country in 1583-85 and in 1584 published, in London, Cena de fa
Ceneri 32 - a vigorous defence of the Copernican system in which he taught de-
finitely that the universe is infinite in extent. This was followed, shortly afterwards,
by De I'Infinito Universo e Mondi 33 in which the infinity of the universe was again
asserted. Bruno's ideas were known and discussed within a fairly limited circle in
England, particularly, perhaps, by Thomas Hariot and his friends.
The second was Pierre de la Ramee, or Petrus Ramus, who discussed some cos-
mological questions in his Prooemium Mathematicum (1567)34. He had an evident
respect for Copernicus as a mathematician and astronomer but did not accept his
or any other current theory of the heavens. He wished, indeed, to eliminate all hy-
potheses from astronomy and to return to the purely numerical methods of comput-
ing planetary orbits which had been practised by the Chaldeans and Egyptians.
Ramus' works were studied by small but influential groups at Cambridge during
the late 16th and early 17th centuries and no doubt helped to loosen the grip of
Aristotelianism at that university3s.
The English Universities. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge shewed
little interest in science during the 16th century. In Oxford the normal teaching in
the Arts School was based almost entirely on Aristotle. Hence any astronomy that
was taught would have closely followed his system of the heavens with, perhaps,
some medieval accretions. There was, however, a certain discretion allowed to the
young regent masters who were bound to give courses of 'ordinary lectures' for two
years after their inception as Masters of Arts. These courses would normally have
been thoroughly conventional but there were some exceptions. Henry Savile, for
instance (who was later to found the SaviIian Professorships in Astronomy and Geo-
metry) broke with tradition in 1570 by giving advanced lectures on Ptolemy's AI-
magest 36 • It is quite possible that other inceptors who had acquired competence in
mathematics followed his example but if so, the fact has not been recorded. Some
elementary astronomical lectures were given in the Faculty of Medicine on account
of the importance of astrology in the medical practice of the time but these would
32[London; J. Charlewood), 1584.

33[London, J. Charlewood), 1584. Bruno's visit to England and his attitude to the Copernican
system are discussed by Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, London,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964, cbs. 12 and 13.
34 Paris, Andreas Wechelus, 1567, pp. 299-30l.
36 See Anthony a Wood, Athenae Oxonienses, (Ed. P. Bliss), vol. II, London, 1815, p. 310.
not have been attended by the ordinary Arts students. There is no reason to suppose
that such lectures would have dealt with the more modern theories.
Cosmological questions were sometimes debated in the public disputations which
candidates for the degree of Master of Arts had to undertake. Among these were:
An terra quiescat in medio mundi? (1576); An materia sit in coelo? (1581); An sint
plures mundi? (1588)37. Johnson draws the conclusion that such questions as the
Copernican theory, the contemporary observations on comets and so on were being
discussed and that the fundamental principles of Aristotle were being questioned 38 .
This is possible but, in my view, unlikely. All the above questions were carefully
discussed by Aristotle himself in De Coelo, and were debated at considerable length
by medieval scholastics such as John Buridan and Nicholas Oresme. They would
probably have been making occasional appearances in the Oxford disputations
ever since the 14th century. There is no good evidence that Copernican ideas had
made any serious impact on the university at this time.
At Cambridge, mathematics and astronomy were, if anything, even more neglec-
ted than at Oxford. In the Statutes of Edward VI (1549) undergraduate students
were required to attend an elementary course on these subjects but this provision
was changed in the Elizabethan Statutes of 1572. Thereafter, until the end of the
century, no mathematical or scientific instruction was given for the B. A. degree.
The three extra years of study required for the M. A. degree did, however, include
some elementary lectures on mathematics. Though nominally compulsory, they
seem to have been poorly attended in practice 39 .
However, the opportunities for becoming acquainted with the newer learning
may have been slightly greater at Cambridge than at Oxford since a few prominent
scholars such as Everard Digby, WilIiam Temple and Gabriel Harvey publicly
supported the teaching of Petrus Ramus from 1570 onwards and, like him, stressed
the importance of mathematics in education. Gabriel Harvey refered to Copernicus
with respect in his Marginalia but there is no evidence that he or any of the other
Cambridge Ramists accepted his theory. They were, in any case, unable to influence
the official teaching of the university though they must have encouraged some of the
students to take an interest in contemporary scientific developments. Most of the
leading scientists of the early 17th century were, in fact, educated at Cambridge.
London. There was, of course, no university in London until the 19th century.
However, in 1588 the City of London embarked on a small venture in adult educa-
tion. They instituted a lectureship in mathematics, primarily in order to foster
the arts of surveying and navigation but also to give general instruction, at an ele-
mentary level, in astronomy and mathematics. The first (and only) holder of the
37 Andrew Clark (Ed.), Register of the University of Oxford, vol. 2, part 1, Oxford, 1887.
38 Op. cit., p. 18I.
39 See James B. Mullinger, The University of Cambridge from the Royal Injunction of 1535
to the Accesion of Charles the First (History of University of Cambridge, vol. 2), Cambridge 1884,
pp. 109-111, 401-404
202 John L. Russell
post was Thomas Hood, who published several good elementary textbooks to cover
the various parts of his course40 . He did not discuss the theory of celestial motion
and took for granted the geocentric system, as was to be expected in a book of this
type. He did, however, draw attention to one modern discovery when he described
the nova of 1572 and asserted that it was situated above the sphere of the moon.
Nevertheless, he apparently still accepted that comets are normally produced in
the upper regions of the air.
Hood's lecture courses were continued for at least four years but were terminated
some time before 1596. In 1597 a more permanent centre for adult education was
founded in the City of London. This was Gresham College: named after its founder,
Sir Thomas Gresham. Its teaching staff consisted of six Professors who taught,
respectively, Divinity, Astronomy, Geometry, Music, Physic [i. e. Medicine] and
Rhetoric. Judging by their published works, most of the Professors of Astro-
nomy and Geometry were more interested in the practical aspects of their subjects -
navigation, dialling and surveying - than in cosmological theory. It is unlikely
that any of them, before the mid 17th century, paid much attention to the Coperni-
can system in their lectures. The first who was clearly committed to the new cosmo-
logy was Seth Ward (Geometry, 1643) though Henry Briggs (Geometry, 1597-
1619), Henry Gellibrand (Astronomy, 1626-36) and Samuel Foster (Astronomy,
1636-37, 1641-52) evidently favoured it. Their views will be considered in the next
section.
In addition to its formal lecture courses, Gresham College provided a valuable
meeting place for scholars, where new scientific ideas could be and were discussed.
It was particularly active in this respect from the 1640's onwards.
The Sixteenth Century: Summary. The impact of the Copernican system, as re-
flected in published work, was rather small before 1600. Thomas Digges (1576)
had accepted it wholeheartedly, Robert Recorde (1556) was sympathetic to it; John
Blagrave (1596) certainly accepted the diurnal rotation of the earth and perhaps
also its orbital motion; John Feild (1556) accepted it but John Dee, though respectful,
was apparently unconvinced. Richard Forster (1575) and Richard Bostocke (1585)
both admired the achievement of Copernicus and may have accepted his system.
There were others, such as William Gilbert, Edward Wright and Thomas Hariot,
who were either full or semi-Copernicans during this period but who did not publish
anything on the subject before 1600. These will be discussed in the next section.
Among non-mathematicians the new theory had, up to this time, been generally
ignored. Apart from Gabriel Harvey, who has already been mentioned, the only
reference that I am aware of is in a poem by John Davies: Orchestra (1596)41 in
which he referred briefly to the possibility that the earth moves but expressed no
opinion on it. There seems to have been little consciousness of, or interest in the new
cosmology among the general public.
41 London. J. Roberts for N. Ling, 1596.
The Seventeenth Century I: 1600-1640
William Gilbert. England produced only one scientist of major importance whose
work was done almost wholly within the 16th century. This was WiIIiam Gilbert
(1540-1603). He was born in Colchester and graduated at St John's CoIlege, Cam-
bridge where he was elected feIlow of the coIlege in 1561. In 1569 he left Cambridge
and practised as a physician in London until his death in 1603. The only work of his
which was published in his lifetime was De M agnete42 • After his death, some of his
manuscript papers on cosmology and meteorology were edited by his half-brother,
also caIled WiIIiam Gilbert, and published in Amsterdam under the title De Mundo
in 1651 43 •
One of the main purposes of De Magnete was to prove that the earth itself is
a great magnet which, in its magnetic properties, does not differ essentiaIly from
a spherical loadstone. In the sixth and last book of the treatise he considered the
wider cosmic aspects of his theory and discussed, more specificaIly, the movement
of the earth. Gilbert's treatment of this question was much more detailed and care-
fuIly reasoned than that of any of his predecessors. It wiII therefore be necessary
to examine his views in detail since they exerted a strong influence on his contempo-
raries and immediate successors.
Gilbert regarded the diurnal rotation of the earth as having been established
beyond any reasonable doubt. The reasons he gave were mainly negative and were
based upon certain unsatisfactory or rather, in his opinion, patently absurd features
of the traditional geostatic theory. His main objections to the latter were: (a) the
lack of any reasonable proportion between the so-caIled first and second motions
of the heavenly bodies. The second, or orbital, motions shewed a clear general re-
lation between distance from the earth and period of the orbit such that the nearer
a body was to the earth the shorter was its period: ranging from 27 days for the
moon to 30 years for Saturn and 36000 or (according to Copernicus), 25816 years
for the fixed stars. It should be noted that here Gilbert was somewhat inconsistently
arguing on the basis of the Ptolemaic theory; he himself foIlowed Copernicus in
transferring the precessional motion from the fixed stars to the earth. AIl these
bodies, moreover, rotated in the same direction from West to East. But then, inex-
plicably, beyond the fixed stars was the outermost sphere or primum mobile which
revolved in the opposite direction, from East to West, in the incredibly short time
of 24 hours. (b) His second objection was a mechanical one: that no physical struc-
ture could stand the strain imposed upon the outermost sphere by its enormous
42 Guilielmi Gilberti Colcestrensis, Medici Londinensis, De Magnete, Magneticisque Cor-
poribus, et de Magno magnete tellure, Physiologia noua, London, Peter Short, 1600. Later editions:
Stettin, 1628 & 1633; Berlin, 1892. English translations by P. Fleury Mottelay, New York, 1893;
reprinted by Dover Publications, New York, 1958); and by the Gilbert Club, London, 1900.
43 Guilielmi Gilberti Colcestrensis, Medici Regii, De Mundo nostro sublunari, Philosophia
Nova, Amsterdam, L. Elzevir, 1651.

204 John L. Russell
rotational speed. Even on the old Ptolemaic system the speed was implausibly high,
owing to the great distance of the primum mobile. But Gilbert, influenced no doubt
by Thomas Digges, maintained that the universe must be much larger than previously
supposed. He argued that the stars are not all fixed in the inner surface of a sphere
but are at different distances from the earth: the fainter being, in general, more dis-
tant than the brighter. There must be countless numbers which are so far away
as to be invisible. This will make the required velocities still more incredible.
Gilbert's own view was that the universe is infinite, in which case the idea that
it rotates is absurd: "At infinitatis atque infiniti corporis motus esse non potest,
neque idcirco vastissimi illius primi mobilis diurnus"44. But even if a finite world
is granted, the speeds are too high to be acceptable.
Has the rotation of the earth. been proved with certainty? In the heading of book 6,
chapter 3 Gilbert said: "De terrestris globi diurna reuolutione magnetica, aduersus
primi mobilis inueteratam opinionem, probabilis assertio"; but towards the end of
the chapter he made the stronger claim: "Ex his igitur rationibus, non probabilis
modo, sed manifesta videtur terrae diurna circumuolutio, cum natura semper agit
per pauciora magis, quam plura; atque rationi magis consentaneam vnum exiguum
corpus tell uris diurna volutationem efficere potius, quam mundum totum circum-
ferri". In De Mundo he again took the more cautious line: "Terram circumvolvi
diurno motu, verisimile videtur"45. This probably represents his more considered
opinion but the degree of probability which he attached to the theory was obviously
very high.
Gilbert's cosmology was closely linked with his magnetic theories but the precise
nature of the connexion is not always clear. One point of contact, however, was
insisted on strongly by him. He was very conscious of the traditional objection to
a rotating earth; that it required the earth to have two or more diverse natural
motions, thus contradicting the basic Aristotelian principle that each type of matter
could have only one natural motion. Earth has undoubtedly a natural tendency
to move vertically downwards; how then could it also have a natural tendency to
rotate? Gilbert countered this by pointing out that a compass needle, or his small
spherical loadstone, tended to rotate naturally in order to take up its correct orien-
tation with respect to the earth's magnetic poles. Hence magnetic bodies clearly
do have a natural movement of rotation, and this should apply also to the earth46 .
The analogy may seem a little weak to the modern mind. A magnet only rotates
until it reaches its correct alignment and then stops; the earth continues to do so in-
definitely. Gilbert, however, approached the problem from an angle very different
from our own. Whereas we think of magnetism as a purely mechanical interaction,
he took a much more teleological view. The earth and the heavenly bodies were for
44 De Magnete, Lib. VI, c. 3.

45 De Mundo, p. 135.
46 De Magnete, VI. 4.
him, as for very many of his contemporaries, animated beings which moved for
a purpose: either for their own good or for that of the whole system to which they
belonged. Magnetic force was an expression of this natural tendency to seek the good.
An ordinary compass needle achieved a better state by aligning itself with the earth's
magnetic field; it therefore ceased to rotate when it had achieved this end. But the
good of the earth requires (a) that it should rotate continually so that the warmth
and life-giving influence of the sun is received by every part of its surface; (b) that
its axis should be inclined to the plane of the ecliptic in order to produce the regular
succession of the seasons; and (c) that the axis should precess in order that the stars,
by slowly changing their declination, should distribute their influences more evenly
over the earth's surface. Hence the same magnetic force which gives a limited power
of rotation to the compass needle can give a permanent and more complex power
to the earth47 •
Gilbert extended his concept of magnetism to explain the orderliness of the plan-
etary system, which he thought of as a society of animated beings <inciting' each
other to the production of a harmonious and mutually beneficial order. The sun
exerted the main controlling influence but all the other planets and the earth made
their contribution as well. The stars, on the other hand, were beyond the sphere
of the solar magnetic influence and were, to that extent, immobile, though he did
not exclude the possibility that they might themselves be magnetic systems with
intrinsic movements which we cannot detect owing to their great distances 48 • Thus
when Gilbert ascribed the constant orientation of the earth's axis in space to magne-
tic force he did not mean, as we might suppose, that there were magnetic poles si-
tuated in the distant heavens, relative to which the earth aligned itself. Indeed he
expressly rejected this supposition. The constancy arose rather from the mutual
ordering of the earth and the planets49 •
Gilbert's attitude to the heliocentric theory is very difficult to assess. He had no
doubt about the diurnal rotation of the earth but he never clearly committed himself
either for or against an orbital motion around the sun. In De Magnete he did, in
one place refer to the sun as if it were one of the planets with its own orbital motion
but the sentence is - no doubt deliberately - ambiguous so • And there is one pas-
sage where he seems to come out in favour of Copernicus:
Tellurem circulariter moueri super suwn centrum posuimus, diem conficientem integra reuolu-
tione ad solem. Luna menstruo cursu circa tellurem voluitur, & solis conjunctionem a priore synodo
repetens, mensem constituit siue diem Lunarem. Medium orbis concentrici Lunae Copernici &
recentiorum obseruationibus plurimis, inuenitur distare a centro tell uris 29 diametris telluris &
quasi 5/6. Reuolutio Lunae ad solem, fit 29 diebus, t, & horae minutis 44. Motum obseruamus
ad solem, non periodicum, quemadmodum dies est reuolutio integra telluris ad solem, non perio-
47 Ibid., VI. 4
48 Ibid., VI. 6
49 Ibid., VI. 4
50 Ibid., VI. 3
206 John L. Russell
dica; quia sol causa motus est, tam terrestris, quam Lunaris: etiam quia (iuxta recentiorum hypo-
theses) mensis synodicus sit vere periodicus, propter tell uris motum in orbe magnoSi.
In this passage Gilbert is discussing an apparent relation between the diameter

of the earth and its period of rotation on the one hand, and the radius of the moon's
orbit and its periodic time on the other. Taking the diameter of the earth and the
day as the units of length and time respectively, he points out that the mean distance
of the moon from the earth is about 29 5f6ths diameters and the period of the lunar
cycle is about 29t days. The relationship, such as it is, required him to take the
moon's synodic period (new moon to new moon) rather than the sidereal period
(the time required for it to return to the same position relative to the fixed stars).
He gives three arguments to justify this: (a) because we measure the day synodically;
i. e. we use a solar rather than a sidereal measure for it: hence, by analogy, we should
do the same for the moon; (b) because the sun is the cause of motion of both the
earth and the moon; (c) finally, he gives his third argument: because "according
to the hypotheses of recent astronomers, the synodic month is really periodic on
account of the earth's motion in its great orbit". The argument is not altogether
clear but the point seems to be that if, as on the traditional theory, the earth is at
the centre of the universe and the sun moves around it, then the only intrinsic period
of the moon's motion (i. e. the only one arising wholly from its own motion), is
the sidereal period of 27 days. The additional two days required to make up the syno-
dic month would be due to the sun's motion, not to the moon's. On the other hand,
if the sun is stationary, then it is the lunar motion alone which produces the synodic
cycle; in this case it will be a true periodic time.
This passage is evidence that Gilbert was prepared to be open-minded about
the Copernican theory but it hardly amounts to a positive acceptance. It is only
one of three arguments adduced and is qualified by the phrase: "secundum recen-
tiorum hypotheses". He gives it for what it is worth but does not depend on it. Some
historians of science have searched De Magnete for clues as to Gilbert's views on
the earth's orbital motion but this is, in my view, an unprofitable exercise. It seems
clear that he did not wish to come to any decision on the subject. A similar reticence
is to be found in his De Mundo. Although this work dealt ex professo with the struc-
ture of the universe and although it defended the axial rotation of the earth, the
question of orbital motion was deliberately left undecided: "Terram circumvolvi
diurno motu, verisimile videtur: an vera circulari aliquo motu annuo cieatur, non
hujus est loci inquirere". In chapter 20 he returned to the problem:
Copernici vero ratio magis incredibilis, licet minus in motuum convenientiis absurda; quod
terram triplici oportebat motu agitari, tum vel maxime, quod nimis vastam capacitatem inter orbem
Saturni & octavam sphaeram esse oportet, quae prorsus sideribus vacua relinquitur 52 •
The explanation of Copernicus is less absurd in the way that it relates the planetary motions to
51 ibid., VI. 6.
52 De Mundo, p. 193.
each other but more incredible in so far as it gives a threefold motion to the earth and, more
especially, because it requires such a vast empty space between Saturn and the eighth sphere
(De Mundo, p. 135).
But there is no indication whether the 'absurdity' of the one theory or the 'in-
credibility' of the other is to be preferred. Similarly, in the diagram of the planetary
system which he gave on p. 202, it is left undetermined whether it is the sun which
is in orbit round the earth or vice versa.
Gilbert's Influence. De Magnete was highly esteemed by his contemporaries
and immediate successors. GaIiIeo praised it and discussed it at some length in his
Two World Systems 53 • Kepler referred to it in terms of warm appreciation in his
Astronomia Nova 5 4, using it as a basis for his own cosmological theories. However,
Kepler's application of magnetic principles differed significantly from Gilbert's.
Gilbert had stressed the spontaneity with which the earth and the planets move:
each seeking its own good by virtue of an inner striving. They are 'incited' thereto
by the sun and other heavenly bodies; the sun, indeed, is called the cause of the earth's
rotation but the causality envisaged is more closely analogous to a psychological
influence than to a mechanism. The idea of mechanical force is not entirely absent
but it plays a very subordinate role; the universe as a whole is more like a community
of souls stimulating each other to activity than to a purely mechanical system. Kepler,
on the other hand, while still prepared to endow the earth with a soul, shifted the
balance much further towards the mechanical side. His explanation of planetary
motion was primarily in terms of mechanical quasi-magnetic fibrils which surrounded
the sun and entrained the planets, thus carrying them around in their orbits. The
important difference between the two approaches was that Gilbert's was equally
compatible with a geocentric and a heliocentric theory, so that he never felt called
upon to decide between the two, whereas Kepler's necessarily involved the helio-
centric. If the heavenly bodies move spontaneously, through an intrinsic desire,
there is no reason why the sun should not do so, in any way that is for its own good
and for that of the world as a whole. Whereas if motion is due to a mechanical and,
in principle, quantifiable force, then it is obviously more plausible to regard the
small earth as being moved around the much larger and more massive sun, rather
than vice versa.
Kepler's planetary theory attracted little attention until the 1630's55 whereas
Gilbert's magnetic theories exerted considerable influence from the time of their
publication. This may partly account for the prevalence of semi-Copernican theories
and the neglect of heliocentrism during this period. Nevertheless, one must not see
Gilbert and Kepler as radically opposed to each other. There are the beginnings
53 Dialogo ... sopra i due Massimi Sistemi Del Mondo ... 3rd day, Opere (Ed. A.Favaro), VII,
pp. 426-~.
S4 C. 34 and c. 57. Gesammelte Werke (Ed. M. Caspar), III, p. 246; 350-355. See also Kepler's
Correspondence, G. W. XV, p. 232 and elsewhere.
S5 See J. L. Russell, "Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion",Brit. J. Hist. Sci. II, 1964, pp. 1-24.
208 John L. Russell
of a genuinely dynamic theory of planetary motion in Gilbert's work. It is not unrea-

sonable to regard Kepler's dynamics of the solar system as a fruitful development
of something already there in germ.
Gilbert's work exerted an immediate influence on many of his English contem-
poraries. One of his first supporters was Edward Wright (1558?-1615). Wright
graduated at Caius College, Cambridge, where he was a Fellow until 1596. He is
known mainly for his contributions to the mathematical theory of navigation.
He contributed an enthusiastic preface to De Magnete in which he endorsed Gilbert's
views and, in particular, proclaimed his own acceptance of the earth's rotation.
Unlike Gilbert, however, he definitely rejected the earth's orbital motion: In suo
namque eodemque loco terra semper man ere poterit, ut non vaga aliqua latione di-
moueatur, aut extra sedem suam (in qua a diuino opifice posita primum fuit) transfe-
ratur. Nos itaque [... J experimentis & rationibus philosophicis non paucis inducti,
satis probabile esse existimamus, terram, quanquam super centro suo, tanquam basi &
fundamento immobili innixam, circulariter tamen circumferri 56 •
A year later, Gilbert's theory of a rotating magnetic earth was taken up by Ni-
cholas Hill (1570? -1611) in his Philosophia Epicurea 5 7, in which he defended a form
of Democritean atomism, propounded succinctly in a series of 509 propositions
with a minimum of supporting argument. Among these were two which maintained
the Copernican system. In prop. 20 he asserted: Omnis apparentia Coelestis, diurna,
menstrua, annua, secularis & periodica conuenientius, facilius, aptius per motum ter-
rae suppositum, quam solis saluatur, & soluitur. Clearly, therefore, he accepted not
only the earth's diurnal rotation but also its orbital and precessional motions. In
prop. 434 Hill briefly enumerated 19 arguments in favour of the system:
1. Magneticus confiuxus grauissimorum. 2. Polorum magneticorum constantia & axeos.
3. Astrea terrae natura probabilis. 4. WIXLVOlL€VWV explicatio optata. 5. Eccentricitatum mille absur-
ditas sublata. 6. Continua generatio torporiferam quietem non admittens. 7. Aquarum terrae pene
aequiponderantium motus manifestus. 8. Terrae in soluto & libero aethere suspensio absque basi
ad quietem necessaria. 9. Terrae animalitas, & primordialitas non sine motu locali intelligibilis,
qui generalis rerum vita est. 10. Terrae figura admissa, demonstrata. 11. Terrae cohaerentia & fir-
mitas. 12. Grauitatis nullitas praesertim rerum in proprijs locis existentium. 13. Improbabilis cen-
tri, & medij puncti infinitas. 14. Medij in mundo infinito nullitas. 15. Terrae tam exiguae impoten-
tia continui solis ferendi. 16. Ignei solis dissipabilis substantia. 17. Naturae compendiosa perficiendi
ratio. 18. Necessaria homogeneitas primarum & notabilium mundi partium. 19. Rotatio partium
separatarum.
Many of these arguments shew the influence of Gilbert: e. g. nos. 1, 2, 9, 19
and probably others. 15, however, suggests that his approach was more mechanistic.
Like Gilbert, he accepted an infinite universe (n. 14).
Hill had been a student at St John's College, Oxford. According to Anthony
Wood he had a reputation for eccentricity and for maintaining "fantastical notions
De Magnete, Preface, sig. 5'.
56
Philosophia Epieurea, Democritiana, Theophrastiea, proposita simpliciter, non edoeta, Paris,

57
1601. Another edition was published at Geneva, 1619.

in his philosophy"S8 so we can hardly regard his book as evidence for any wide-
spread interest in Copernicus at Oxford at this time. As we shall see, the available
evidence does not support such a view.
Gilbert's magnetic theory of rotation received further support from Mark Ridley
(1560-1624), a distinguished London physician who had been educated at Clare
Hall, Cambridge. In 1613 he published: A Short Treatise of Magneticall Bodies
and Motions S9 in which he further developed Gilbert's ideas, using for this purpose
the telescopic discoveries of Galileo, Kepler and Fabricius. He used these as argu-
ments in favour of the earth's rotation:
... it is lately obserued vnto our sences by helpe of the truncke-spectakle [telescope], both
by Galileus and Kepler, famous Mathematitians, that the great body of the globe of Iupiter, being
twelue times greater then the Earth, doth tume about in lesse time then a day vpon his axis and
poles, who also haue obserued foure Moones, attendant on Jupiter, which moue round about him,
the slowest in 14 dayes, the next in seuen dayes, and the rest in shorter time. So likewise John Fabri-
cius hath obserued, that the great globe of the Sunne, hauing three great spots, like continents in
him, and being sixty times greater then the Earth, to moue about his axis and poles neere the time
of ten dayes, or thereabouts [... ] therefore it being certaine by obseruation, that the globe of Jupiter
and the Sunne do tume about their axis and poles, whose materials we know not, we need not doubt
that the Earth should haue a circular motion for her great good60 •
This passage shows that Ridley had up-to-date information about recent astro-
nomical discoveries but he used his sources carelessly. Kepler, for instance, in his
Dioptrice (1611)61 deduced from his magnetic theory that Jupiter must have an
axial rotation with a period of less than one day, but neither he nor Galileo claimed
to have observed it. Its actual period of about 10 hours was first established by J. D.
Cassini in 1665 62 • Fabricius did not assert that the sun has a period of rotation of
10 days; he said that 10 days elapsed between the disappearance of the third of his
three spots behind one limb of the sun and the reappearance of the first of them at
the other limb - an observation which is quite consistent with the true synodic
period of 27 days 63. In spite of these errors, however, Ridley was justified in claiming
that the recent discoveries had greatly increased the plausibility of the earth's motion.
Ridley was silent about the heliocentric theory. He asserted positively that Mer-
cury and Venus go round the sun but he did not say whether the other planets or
the earth did so, nor does the diagram of the heavenly bodies on the title page of
his book give us any clue. In a subsequent work: Magneticall Animadversions (1617)
he briefly referred to "Copernicus and Tichobrahe, most perfect and exact Astro-
nomers, who make the Sunne to be centrum vniuersi & planetarum"64 without pass-
58 Athenae Oxonienses (Ed. P. Bliss), II, London, 1815, pp. 86-87.

59 London, Nicholas Okes, 1613.
60 Short Treatise, pp. 14-15.
61 Augsburg, 1611, p. 14; Ges. Werke, IV, p. 343.
62 Journal des Sfavans, Paris, 1665, p. 69.
63 De Maculis in Sole Observatis, Wittenberg, 1611.
64 London, N. Okes, 1617, p. 9.
14 - The reception •..

210 John L. Russell
ing any judgment on this view. He evidently considered it was impossible to deter-
mine whether the earth or the sun is 'centrum universi'.
Ridley'S main interest was in magnetism rather than astronomy and the same
is true of William Barlowe (d. 1625), with whom he was soon to find himself in con-
troversy. Barlowe was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, took Holy Orders and
in 1615 was appointed Archdeacon of Salisbury. He had been experimenting in
magnetism for many years when in 1616 he published a book entitled Magneticall
Aduertisements 6S in which his own investigations, and Gilbert'S, were summarised.
He had a high respect for Gilbert, with whom he had been on friendly terms, but
vigorously rejected the view that the earth rotates. He regarded this as contrary to
Scripture. It was in reply to this work that Ridley wrote his Magneticall Animadver-
sions mentioned above, in which he both defended himself against a charge of pla-
giarism which Barlowe had levelled against him and reasserted his cosmological
principles. Barlowe returned to the fight with a rejoinder: A Briefe Discovery of the
Idle Animaduersions of Marke Ridley ... 66 in which he ridiculed the Copernican
system and rejected it completely.
Gilbert's ideas on cosmic magnetism found another and perhaps more influential
supporter in Nathanael Carpenter (1589-1628?), of Exeter College, Oxford. In
his book: Geography Delineated (1625)67 he defended the proposition: "It is probable
that the terrestrial Globe hath a circular motion"68 - i. e. a diurnal rotation. His
main argument in favour, like Gilbert's, was the improbably high velocity which
the primum mobile must have on the traditional view. The cause both of the earth's
rotation and of the constant direction of its axis was its magnetism. Carpenter did
not accept either the annual or the precessional motions because he considered it
more reasonable that the earth, the sun and the system of fixed stars should each
have one proper motion rather than that the earth should have three and the sun
and stars should be stationary69. He also thought that the arguments from Scripture
against an orbital motion of the earth were more powerful than those against a diur-
nal rotation. Even the latter was only proposed as a probable theory.
Apart from giving the earth an axial rotation, Carpenter's theory was Tychonic:
the sun went round the earth and all the other planets round the sun. Throughout
the discussion he gave the impression that the geocentric, and indeed the geostatic
view was the one currently accepted in his day. For instance, after expounding
(and generally approving) Ptolemy's arguments that the earth is in the centre of the
universe he concluded: "But these demonstrations of Pto[omy, as I haue set them
downe enlarged and explained by our later writers, may seeme sufficient, especially
London, E. Griffin for T. Barlow, 1616.

65
66London, E. Griffin for T. Barlow, 1618.

67 Geography Delineated Forth in Two Bookes, Oxford, J. Lichfield and W. Turner for H.
Cripps, 1625. (Second edition, Oxford, 1635.)

68 Ibid., p. 76.
69 Ibid., p. 98.
in a matter of few called in question". And again, when he expresses his hesitation
in proposing a new planetary theory: "1 might see me perhaps presumptuous beyond
my knowledge, to reiect and passe by the draughts and delineations of Pto!omy,
A!phonsus and their followers, which are commonly defended and in use"70.
Carpenter had already discussed astronomical problems more briefly in his
Philosophia Libera (Frankfurt, 1621), especially in the enlarged 2nd edition (Oxford,
1622)71 and had reached similar conclusions. The 2nd edition is significant as the
first published work by an Englishman in which Kepler's theory of planetary ellipses
was discussed. Carpenter treated the theory with respect but rejected it on the ground
that circular paths seemed to be more consonant with the order and perfection of
nature than non-circular 72 •
Another writer who was directly influenced by Gilbert was Francis Godwin who
graduated at Christ Church, Oxford in 1581 and subsequently became Anglican
Bishop of Llandaff (1601) and Hereford (1617). His book: The Man in the Moone 73
was published postumously in 1638. The date of its composition is uncertain. John-
son 74 regarded it as having been written soon after the publication of De Magnete -
certainly before 1610 - whereas H. W. Lawton75 and G. McColley76 both put it
later than 1625. It is a work of science fiction in which a Spaniard, Domingo Gonsa-
les, having made a voyage to the moon and back, describes the various appearances
of earth, moon, etc, as they were observed by him in the course of his journey. The
phenomena encountered were all based directly on Gilbert's theories. The earth
and the moon were both found by the traveller to be great magnets and he was able,
from his position in space, to observe the rotation of the earth on its axis. Gonsales,
who was clearly a spokesman for Godwin himself, accepted the axial rotation as
proved, but rejected both the orbital and precessional movements of the earth, the
latter being ascribed to the fixed stars.
Godwin's book was very popular. There were at least 8 English editions between
1638 and 1768, mostly somewhat altered and abbreviated. It was translated into
French (1648), Dutch (1651) and German (1659). At least 12 Continental editions
had appeared by 1718.
Most of the leading English astronomers between 1600 and 1640 were strongly
influenced by Gilbert. There were two, however, who stood somewhat apart from
the main stream: Thomas Hariot and Jeremiah Horrox. Both were men of outstand-
ing ability and both supported the Copernican system but each failed, for different
reasons, to exercise the influence that his talents deserved. Thomas Hariot (or Har-
70 Ibid., pp. 110-111.

71 Subsequent editions were published at Oxford 1636 and 1675.
72 Pp. 384-6.
73 London, J. Norton for J. Kirton and T. Warren, 1638.
74 Op. cit., p. 233.
75 "Bishop Godwin's «Man in the Moone»", Review of English Studies VII (1931), pp. 35-37.
76 "The Man in the Moone", Smith College Studies in Modern Languages XIX, No.1 (1937).
212 John L. Russell
riot) (1560-1621) was a mathematician of great distinction whose Artis Analyticae

Praxis was published posthumously in 1631. He was interested in astronomy but
published nothing on the subject. He had, however, a devoted circle of friends and
pupils whom he helped and instructed. He read and evidently approved Kepler's
Astronomia Nova soon after it appeared in 1609. A letter to him from his pupil
William Lower, written in 1610, makes it clear that at that time both he and Lower
accepted the Copernican system and the principle of elliptical orbits. There is evi-
dence also that he and his pupils were making telescopic observations on the planets
independently of GaliIeo prior to the publication of Sidereus Nuncius. But this work
was never published and was known only to his own limited circle 77.
The heliocentric system was accepted without reservation by Jeremiah Horrox
(1617?-1641), an astronomer of great ability whose achievement was frustrated
by his early death. In 1633 he began to compile a set of astronomical tables using,
initially, those of Philip Lansberg as the basis of his own. He soon found that these
were too unreliable so, on the advice of his friend William Crabtree, he changed
over to Kepler's Rudolphine Tables which were greatly superior. Thereafter, he
was a convinced adherent of Kepler's elliptical orbits and of his physical theories
of planetary motion. During his short life he made substantial contributions to the
theory of lunar motion and discovered the 'great inequality' of the mean motions
of Jupiter and Saturn. He was the only astronomer to predict, and then to observe,
the transit of Venus in 1639. At the time of his death he was engaged in writing a book
in support of Kepler which was published posthumously by John Wallis in 1673 78 •
In this he strongly upheld the Copernican theory and insisted that it should be re-
garded as true, not merely as a convenient hypothesis for the purposes of calcula-
tion. Horrox's library contained a copy of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus as well
as the more important works of Kepler, Lansberg and other 17th century astrono-
mers 79 •
Popular Astronomy. The Almanacs. The ordinary educated man would derive
such knowledge of astronomy as he possessed, mainly from the popular almanacs
which competed with each other for the public favour. These all followed substan-
tially the same pattern: a calendar for the year with data on the rising and setting
of the sun, the phases of the mon, astrological predictions and advice, together
with miscellaneous items of astronomical information which varied considerably
in extent and usefulness from one writer to another. Few of them expressed any opi-
nion either for or against Copernicus. Johnson 80 , in his extensive researches up
77 For further details on Hariot's astronomical work, see S. P. Rigaud (1833) and Henry Ste-
vens (1900) in the General Bibliography.
78 Opera Posthuma. viz Astronomia Kepleriana. defensa et promota .... London. W. Godbid
for J. Martyn. 1613.

79 Horrox's work is discussed in more detail by A. B. Whatton. A Memoir of the life and la-
bours of the Rev. Jeremiah Horrox ... to which is appended a translation of his celebrated discourse
upon the Transit of Venus across the Sun. London. 1859.
80 Op. cit.• pp. 248-58.
Copernican System in Great Britain '213
to about 1640, found only two who definitely supported the heliocentric theory.
These were Edward Gresham, whose almanacs for 1604, 1606 and 1607 are extant,
and Thomas Bretnor for whom we have a whole series from 1605 to 1618. Gresham,
in the preface to his almanac for 1607, remarked that he was regarded by some
as a heretic because of his cosmological views: "And some (I heare) who (for that I
am paradoxall in many things, but especially in the frame and systeme of the world,
differing from all Phylosophers and Diuines in that poynt, as they thinke) absolutely
condemne me of Atheisme and Haeresie. To these I reply, that Apostasie from
Errour to Truth, is no good Argument of Atheisme ... "81 This can only refer to the
heliocentric theory which he asserted explicitly in the body of his work.
Bretnor's Copernicanism was propounded more aggressively. In his almanac
for 1615 he wrote: "This Brumal season, commonly called Winter, ... tooke its
beginning the 11 of December last: for then (according to old dotage) did the Sun
enter the first scruple of the cold and melancholick signe Capricorne, or rather
according to verity this earthly planet entring the first minute of Cancer, and fur-
thest deflected from the Sunnes perpendicular raies, did then receiue least portion
of Sunshine, and greatest quantitie of shadow"82.
Bretnor and Gresham both had a high reputation for learning; Bretnor in par-
ticular was regarded by his countrymen as the leading almanac maker of his time.
Their support must have been an important influence in favour of Copernicus. Some
other respected writers were, however, definitely anti-Copernican. Among these
were Arthur Hopton in his almanac for 1613 and, more explicitly, in his larger work:
A Concordancy of Years 83 , and also Richard Allestree 84 . Most writers of this class,
however, either gave no indication of their views or used geostatic language in a way
that may have been purely conventional.
Anti-Copernicans: 1600-1640. A balanced picture of the situation in England
must, of course, take account of those who opposed as well as of those who supported
the Copernican system. After 1600 the number of writers with any technical compe-
tence who rejected all movement of the earth was, in fact, very small. Two of them,
Hopton and Allestree, have already been mentioned. Another was Nathanael Tor-
porley (1564-1632) of Christ Church, Oxford, in his Die/ides Coelometricae 85
(1602). Torporley rejected all the current systems - Ptolemaic, Tychonic and Coper-
nican - and proposed instead a theory based upon the Homocentricon of Fracas-
torius (1538) in which a motionless earth was surrounded by a complex system of
homocentric spheres. He referred with respect to both Copernicus and Tycho;
81 Gresham 1607. A new Almanacke and Prognostication for the yere of our Lord God 1607,
London, for the Company of Stationers, sig. B2V.

82 Bretnor 1615. A Newe Almanacke and Prognostication for the yeare of our Lord God 1615,
[London], sig. C2V •
83 London, for the Company of Stationers, 1612. Later editions 1615, 1616, 1635.
84 A/lestree 1620. A New Almanack ... for this yeare of our Lord, 1620. [London], sig. C3 r -C3".
15 London, Felix Kingston, 1602.

214 John L. Russell
he looked forward to the publication of Tycho's observational data which, he hoped,

would shew whether his own theory was preferable to that of Copernicus or not.
Thomas Lydiat (1572-1646), of New College, Oxford, likewise rejected all
current systems 86 . He proposed a modified Ptolemaic system in which the universe
was filled with a fluid aether whose density decreased regularly with height. The
planets floated in this medium at varying distances from the earth, which was at
the centre and motionless. The world was surrounded by a solid firmament whose
rotation produced a corresponding circular movement of aether and planets. Lydiat
recognised that the distance of any given planet from the earth was variable; he
explained this by supposing that the sun's rays acted upon the aether to produce
local variations in density.
The different world systems were briefly discussed by Samuel Purchas (1575?-
1626) of St John's College, Cambridge, in the 2nd edition of Purchas his Pilgri-
mage (1614), in which he also gave a short account of Galileo's telescopic discov-
eries. He expressed a preference for Tycho's cosmology but his final conclusion
was sceptical: "A learned ignorance shall better content me, and for these varieties
of motions, I will with Lactantius ascribe them to God the Architect of Nature and
co-worker therewith by wayes Natu[r]all, but best knowne to himselfe"87. Tycho's
system was also accepted by John Swan in his Speculum Mundi (1635)88. This was
an encyclopaedic survey of contemporary scientific knowledge which achieved con-
siderable popularity. The author rejected all movement of the earth on both phi-
losophical and Scriptural grounds, though he followed Tycho in regarding the heav-
enly bodies as changeable. A more conservative writer was George Hakewill (1578-
1649) of Exeter College, Oxford. His Apologie or Declaration ... (1627)89 was written
with the purpose of praising the modern times and their achievement. Nevertheless
he not only rejected the earth's movement but also accepted the Aristotelian doctrine
of the celestial spheres and the incorruptibility of the heavenly bodies. As will be
mentioned later, in the 2nd and later editions he reproduced a letter from Henry
Briggs which commended the Copernican system but this did not lead him to modify
his own views in any way.
Purchas, Swan and Hakewill were not professional astronomers, nor were they
particularly well qualified to judge on cosmological questions. But they must have
been representative of a large number of educated people who were sympathetic
to the new learn:ng but unwilling to abandon completely the principles on which
the traditional cosmology had been built.
86 Praelectio Astronomica de Natura Coeli & conditionibus Elementorum: tum autem de Causis
Praecipuorum Motuum Coeli & Stellarum, London, J. Bill, 1605.

87 London, w. Stansby for H. Fetherstone, 1614, p. 10.
88 Cambridge, by the Printers to the University, 1635. Later editions: 1643, 1665, 1670.
89 An Apologie or Declaration of the Power and Prouidence of God in the Gouernment of the
World, Oxford, J. Lichfield and W. Turner, 1627. Later editions: Oxford, 1630; London, 1635.
The most prominent English philosopher-scientist who rejected the Copernican

theory was Francis Bacon (1561-1626). His lack of sympathy with it is surprising
since he was generally receptive to new scientific ideas; he believed, for instance,
that the heavenly bodies were made of the same sort of matter as the earth and re-
jected the Aristotelian solid spheres. He also insisted that we must approach all
such questions with an open mind, not allowing our judgment to be swayed by
undue reverence for antiquity.
Bacon referred briefly to the Copernican system in De Augmentis Scientiarum 90 ,
published in 1623 but mainly written in 1605. After subjecting the Ptolemaic theory
to a lengthy criticism he concluded: "And it is the absurdity of these [Ptolemaic]
opinions that has driven men to the diurnal motion of the earth; which I am con-
vinced is most false". He repudiated it also in the Novum Organon, when criticising
GaliIeo's theory of the tides:
And it was upon this inequality of motions in point of velocity that Galileo built his theory
of the flux and reflux of the sea; supposing that the earth revolved faster than the water could fol-
low; and that the water therefore first gathered in a heap and then fell down, as we see it do in a ba-
sin of water moved quickly. But this he devised upon an assumption which cannot be allowed,
viz. that the earth moves; and also without being well informed as to the sexhorary motion of
the tide 91 •
He elaborated his objections to Copernicus in another work: Descriptio Globi

Intellectualis 92 , written about 1612 but not published until 1653. In this he wei-
ghed the arguments on both sides and eventually decided against him but less
decisively than in the De Augmentis. After giving some arguments in favour of his
system he concluded:
Nevertheless, in the system of Copernicus there are found many and great inconveniences;
for both the loading of the earth with a triple motion is very incommodious, and the separation of
the sun from the company of the planets, with which it has so many passions in common, is likewise
a difficulty, and the introduction of so much immobility into nature, by representing the sun and
stars as immoveable, especially being of all bodies the highest and most radiant, and making the
moon revolve about the earth in an epicycle, and some other assumptions of his, are the specula-
tions of one who cares not what fictions he introduces into nature, provided his calculations answer.
But if it be granted that the earth moves, it would seem more natural to suppose that there is no sys-
tem at all, but scattered globes ... than to constitute a system of which the sun is the centre ... But
if the earth moves, the stars may either be stationary, as Copernicus thought or, as is far more pro-
bable, and has been suggested by Gilbert, they may revolve each round its own centre, in its own
90 De Dignitate et Augmentis Scientiarum Libri IX, London, J. Haviland, 1623, with many
later editions. Reprinted in The Works of Francis Bacon, (Ed. Spedding, Ellis and Heath), new edi-
tion, London, Longmans, vol. 1 1870. English translation: vol. 4, p. 348.
91 Francisci de Verulamio, Instauratio Magna, London, John Bill, 1620. Reprinted in Works,
vol. 1 (1870). English translation, vol. 4, p. 212.

92 First published in: Francisci Baconi de Verulamio Scripta in Naturali et Universali Phi-
losophia, Amsterdam, L. Elzevir, 1653. Later editions 1685, 1699. Reprinted in Collected Works,
vol. 3; English translation, vol. 5.
216 John L. Russell
place, without any motion of its centre, as the earth itself does; if only you separate that diurnal
motion of the earth from those two supposititious motions which Copernicus superadded 93 •
Bacon's main weakness as a philosopher of science was his failure to appreciate

the role of mathematics in science. He regarded all attempts to obtain exact math-
ematical descriptions of planetary paths as a waste of time unless these were based
on sound physical principles backed, where possible, by experiments. These princip-
les, he thought, favoured a geostatic system though he did not exclude the possibility
of a diurnal rotation.
The Universities. The writers whom I have so far considered, from 1600 onwards,
were all or nearly all educated at Oxford or Cambridge but did not hold teaching
POits in astronomy or mathematics. It is now time to ask what sort of instruction
was in fact given in these subjects. Did the universities have any official attitude,
favourable or unfavourable, towards the Copernican system? As a matter of con-
venience I shall carry this survey up to the end of the 17th century, although this
will involve some overlapping with the next section. I shall also say something about
Gresham College which did not have university status but was, nevertheless, concer-
ned with higher education.
Gresham College. There is no evidence to shew whether the Gresham professors,
up to 1640, ever discussed the Copernican system in their lectures. There would
have been no absolute necessity for them to do so, since they were mainly concerned
with the practical arts of navigation, surveying etc. The references to Copernicus
in their published writings are, in fact, very few and indefinite. Henry Briggs (1561-
1630), professor of geometry from 1597 to 1619 and subsequently Savilian Professor
at Oxford until 1630, published nothing on the subject himself. He did, however,
express his opinion in a letter written to George Hakewill and printed by the latter
in the 2nd edition of his Apologie (1630), to which reference has already been made.
Briggs was supplying Hakewill with ammunition for his defence of modern learning
against that of the ancients; for this purpose he enumerated some scientific achie-
vements of the present time. The first item on his list of Mathematica ab antiquis
minus cognita was:
Astronomia Copernicana quae docet Terram esse centrum orbis Lunaris, Solem vero esse
centrum reliquorum omnium planetarum... Docet etiam per motum Telluris diumum, Ortus &
Occasus omnium Syderum: Et per motum ejusdem annuum in Orbe suo magno, omnium Pla-
netarum motus & distantias, eorumque in caelo progressus stationes & regressus, multo faeilius &
accuratius investigare, quam per Ptolomaei aut antiqui cujusquam Epieyelos aut alias Hypotheses 94 •
It is reasonable to conclude that Briggs accepted the Copernican system which,

as he says, explains the phenomena 'much more easily and accurately than any
other'.
93 Descriptio, [in:] Coli. Works, vol. 5, pp. 516-7.

94 Ap%gie. 2nd ed .• p. 263.
The attitude of Henry Gellibrand (1597-1636), professor of astronomy from

1621 to 1636, was more ambiguous. He referred to the Copernican theory in his work
on terrestrial magnetism in the following terms:
I will not here enter into a dispute concerning the cause of this sensible diminution [of the mag-
netic variation], whether it may be imputed to the Magnet, or the Earth, or both. It is not unknowne
to the world, how the Greatest Masters of Astronomie, which this age hath afforded, for the more
easy salving of the apparent anomalar motions of the fixed and erratique caelestiall lights, and
avoyding that supervacaneous furniture of the Ancients, do with all alacrity embrace that admira-
ble Copernicean Hypothesis of the diurnal, Annual, & Secular motions of the earth, in so much
as conferring with that Great Astronomer D. Phil. Lansberg in Zealand about Astronomicall matters,
did most seriously affirme unto me, he should never be disswaded from that Truth. This which he
was pleased to stile a truth, I should readily receive as an Hypothesis, and so be easily led on to
the consideration of the imbecillity of Mans apprehension, as not able rightly to conceive of this
admirable opifice of God or frame of the world, without falling foule on so great an absurdity.
Yet sure I am, it is a probable inducement to shake a wavering understanding9s.
The meaning of the passage is obscure but the general argument seems to' be
that it would be unprofitable to try to find a cause of the earth's magnetic variation
since such explanations are beyond the reach of man's intellect. This is shewn by the
fact that the Copernican hypothesis is the most plausible theory of planetary mo-
tion and yet is absurd. God's workmanship is beyond our comprehension. Such spec-
ulations are an "inducement to shake a wavering understanding" (and therefore,
presumably, are best avoided). Gellibrand may be implying that he regarded the
hypothesis as possibly true in spite of its (apparent) absurdity, or he may mean that
it is an attractive hypothesis which is actually false. But on any interpretation he
clearly did not wish to commit himself definitely to it.
Finally, towards, the middle of the century, Samuel Foster, professor of astronomy
from 1636-37 and 1641-52, mentioned and approved the theory in an essay Of
the Planetary Instruments 96 in which he wrote: "The way that I go is (in general)
agreeable to Copernicus his frame of the world; and in particular to that which Kep-
ler useth in his Rudolphine Tables. Only this difference there is: Kepler makes the
Orbits of the Planets to be Ellipses, which is the better way; and I here do make them
perfect circles which is the easier way". Evidently, then, he was teaching the Coper-
nican system at some time before his death in 1652.
Oxford University. At the beginning of the 17th century Gresham College was
the only institution in England where regular scientific instruction was given. In
1619, however, Sir Henry Savile founded professorships of geometry and astro-
nomy at Oxford, both of which attracted distinguished occupants throughout the
century. From this time onwards, regular university lectures were given in both
9S A Discourse Mathematical on the Variation of the Magneticall Needle, London, William

Jones, 1635, p. 20.
96 Published posthumously in: Miscellanies: or, Mathematical Lucubrations of Mr Samuel
Foster ... , London. R. & W. Leybourn, 1659.
218 John L. Russell
subjects. All students in the Faculty of Arts were required to attend a course in geo-
metry. The professor of astronomy, however, lectured only to those who had already
obtained the degree of B. A. and were studying for the M. A. degree. Concurrently
with their astronomy lectures, these latter had also to attend a course on natural
philosophy in which the cosmological section was based on Aristotle's De Coelo.
The duties of the professor of astronomy were laid down by Savile and incorporated
into the University Statutes as follows: Astronomiae Professor ad suum Munus sciat
necessario pertinere interpretationem totius Mathematicae Constructionis Ptolemai
(Almagestum vocant), adhibitis, suo loco, Copernici, Gebri et aliorum Recentiorum
inventis ... Ita tamen, ut Sphaeram Pro eli, vel Hypotheses Planetarum Ptolemai, possit
(introductionis ad interiorem Artem gratia) Auditoribus proponere. He was also for-
bidden to practise divinatory astrology and was urged ad imitationem Ptolemaei
et Copernici to make astronomical observations himself, this being the only way
in which the ancient astronomy could be either established or, if necessary, emended 97 •
Savile clearly envisaged that the teaching would be basically Ptolemaic but would
take account of the discoveries of <Copernicus, Geber and other more recent astro-
nomers'. The coupling of Copernicus's name with that of the medieval astronomer
Geber 98 suggests that he was thinking of the more accurate observations and techni·
ques of <recent' astronomers, rather than of radically new theories. His primary
duty was to lecture on practical and mathematical astronomy. The theory of the
heavens would have been dealt with, officially, by his colleague in the school of
natural philosophy where the teaching throughout was based upon the works of
Aristotle.
The first Savilian Professor of astronomy was John Bainbridge (1582-1643),
who held the post from 1621 to 1643. In 1618 he had published a book on the comet
of that year, in which he gave a guarded approval to the heliocentric theory:
These considerations [concerning the orbit of the comet] bee only fit for those who haue
beene rapt vp aboue the elementary regions of vulgar Schooles: and slept not in Parnassus, but
Olympus, vnder the spangled canopy of Vrania; I can hardly keepe within the sphaere of this little
Treatise, and scarsely refraine from the Samian philosophy of Aristarchus in the earths motion were
it not I feared another Aristarchus his broach: and that I must reserve these mysteries for a more
learned language99 •
He was obviously attracted by <the Samian philosophy' but was afraid to ex-
pound it in a popular treatise. And in spite of his 22 years as a professor of astro-
nomy, he never published anything more on it, even in Latin.
Bainbridge was succeeded in the chair of astronomy by John Greaves (1643-
1648) whose published writings were entirely concerned with the history of ancient
97 See: Statutes of the University of Oxford codified in the Year 1636 ... Edited by John Grif-
fiths, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1888, p. 245.

98 1. e. Gabir ben Aflah (d. 1145), not to be confused with the alchemist Gabir ben Haijan.
99 An Astronomical Description of the late Comet, London, E. Griffin for H. Fetherstone, 1618,
p. 5. (Broach = 'lance' or 'spear')
Astronomy and related topics. The views of Henry Briggs, the first professor of geo-
metry (1619-1630) have already been discussed. He evidently approved the Coper-
nican theory but published nothing on it himself. His successor, Peter Turner (1631-
1648), gave no public indication of his view, so far as I know.
In view of the widespread interest in, and sympathy with the new cosmology
in England during this period, the reticence of the Savilian professors before 1649
is at first sight surprising. They, more than anyone, should have felt themselves
professionally concerned with it. They were, however, in a difficult position. By
the Statutes they were bound to base their teaching substantially on Ptolemy'S
Almagest. By way of introduction they could explain the author's hypotheses but
it was not their business to lecture, ex professo, on the theory of the heavens. No
doubt if they had sincerely accepted the Ptolemaic theory they could have taken part
in the current debates with a clear conscience. But to come out against it would have
been, to some extent at least, in conflict with their statutory duties; they would also
have been encroaching on the domain of their philosophical colleagues. They may
well have decided that a diplomatic silence was preferable 1oo •
After 1648 the situation at Oxford improved. In 1649 Seth Ward and John Wal-
lis were appointed Savilian professors of astronomy and geometry respectively.
Together with John Wilkins, Christopher Wren and - a few years later - Robert
Boyle and Robert Hooke, they formed the nucleus of a small scientific society which
met regularly to discuss questions of interest and to perform experiments. All were
thoroughly in sympathy with the new cosmology. Apart from Boyle who apparently
regarded the systems of Copernicus and Tycho as equally probable, they were all
Copernicans. From this time onwards, whatever may have been the official teaching
given to students in the Arts Schools, the more modern ideas were freely examined
and discussed, at least within a limited circle.
Nevertheless, the University remained officially committed to Aristotle's philos-
ophy including, it would seem, his cosmology, until near the end of the 17th century.
Until 1677 or later, successive Vice-Chancellors repeatedly promulgated ordinances
to the effect that all who defended theses in the public disputations must support
the doctrines of Aristotle in accordance with the University Statutes 101 • A study
of the actual topics proposed for debate indicates that this was generally observed,
at least on paper, though occasional exceptions were apparently allowed. In 1634,
for instance, one candidate defended the (anti-Aristotelian) thesis that comets may
be composed of celestial matter. But even in 1671 the question "An Terra sit mobi-
lis?" was still being answered in the negative. One must not attach too great weight
to these documents since there is good evidence that the disputations were not taken
very seriously by the students, in spite of repeated exhortations by the authorities
100 Of the High Veneration Man's Intellect owes to God, Oxford, M. F. for Richard Davis,
1685. Reprinted in Robert Boyle's Collected Works, London, 1772, vol. 5, pp. 130-57.
101 For information concerning these disputations I have used mainly the Wood Collection
in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, esoeciaIly those in the volume Wood 276a, nn. 419 onwards.
220 John L. Russell
that they should be conducted in a seemly manner. It must, however, be concluded

that they represented the official teaching given in the School of Natural Philosophy.
One piece. of indirect evidence to this effect was the publication at Oxford in 1671
of a small work by Robert Sanderson: Physicae Scientiae Compendium 102 which
gave, in an elementary form suited to students, a summary of physics and cosmology
based almost entirely on Aristotle untouched by any modern discoveries. In it the
heavens were said to consist of ten solid spheres rotating round a motionless earth
and comets were situated in the upper atmosphere. It was not stated that the work
was intended for use by university students but it is difficult to see who else would
have had much use for it. It must have had a reasonably wide clientele since a se-
cond edition, substantially unchanged, was issued in 1690. Robert Sanderson,
who died as Bishop of Lincoln in 1663, probably wrote the book before 1619 so
he can hardly be blamed for its complete neglect of later developments.
Another indication of the traditionalism of Oxford philosophy at this period
was the popularity of a small textbook by Christopher Scheibler: Philosophia Com-
pendiosa. Six editions of this, all published at Oxford, are extant, the first being dated
1628 and the latest (the 10th) 1685. The book included a section on astronomy
which was almost entirely Aristotelian and Ptolemaic; the one exception being that
Copernicus's value for the precessional period of the fixed stars, 25,816 years, was
given in preference to Ptolemy'S 36,000 years. Whether or not this was an official
textbook at the university, it must have been widely used.
Cambridge University. At Cambridge, there was no university course in math-
ematics or science for Arts students at the undergraduate level before the middle
of the 17th century, but some of the colleges provided instruction at a very elemen-
tary level. The Elizabethan Statutes, still in force, prescribed an elementary course
for M. A. candidates but even this was largely neglected 103 . An interesting light
on the state of these studies in the university is given by an anonymous and uniden-
tified writer, T. B., in a short work entitled Nuncius Propheticus 104• At the end of
it the appended the text of a lecture which he claimed to have given at Cambridge
'in Scholis Mathematicis' in May 1639. In this lecture he protested against the neg-
lect of mathematics at the university which he described as an indulgent mother to
all other arts but an unjust stepmother to mathematics. He deplored the fact that
many of the students completed their studies successfully without having studied
any astronomy at all. He praised Copernicus warmly and stated that his theory
of the diurnal rotation of the earth was defended by "Astronomorum pars major
et melior"105.
Oxford, H. Hall for R. Davis, 1671.

102
J. B. MuIlinger, op. cit., pp. 401-3.
103
104 Nuncius Propheticus: sive, Syllabus Selectiss. Valiciniorum Theologico-Mathematicorum ...
London [No publisher], 1642. The title page is anonymous but the signature T. B. appears on p. 44.
105 P. 52. See also p. 68.
The almost complete neglect of mathematics and science in the official teaching
at Cambridge before 1650 is well established by the evidence. It is all the more sur-
prising that so many of the leading scientists and mathematicians of the time came
from this university. The list includes such names as Dee, Gilbert, Wright, Ridley,
Briggs, Bainbridge, Horrox, Seth Ward and John Wallis. All these, except
perhaps Dee, were either Copernicans or semi-Copernicans. Some, such as Gilbert,
Ridley, Briggs and Bainbridge may have received some instruction in astronomy
in the medical school, but the rest must have been largely self taught. The eventual
revival of scientific studies probably owed much to the philosopher Henry More
(1614-1687) who entered Christ's College in 1631 and remained there all his life,
first as a student and then as a fellow. He defended the Copernican system in a poem
Psychathanasia (1642)106 and in other later writings. He accepted the system un-
reservedly and was scornful of those who opposed it. For many years he was a fol-
lower of Descartes but eventually came to reject much of his system. It may have
been due to his influence that Descartes' cosmology was taught at Cambridge dur-
ing the latter part of the 17th century, being eventually displaced by Newton's in
the early 18th century, largely through the influence of Samuel Clarke.
Advanced mathematical teaching was officially introduced for the first time
at Cambridge in 1663 when Isaac Barrow became the first Lucasian Professor of
that subject. Barrow was a good mathematician in his own right and was the teacher
of Isaac Newton who succeeded him in the professorship in 1669. It can safely be
assumed, then, that the Copernican system was being taught at Cambridge by
about 1670 at the latest, and probably for some years previously107.
The Seventeenth Century II: After 1640
The early 1640's marked the beginning of a new scientific awakening in England.
Among the astronomers, the Copernican works of Lansberg, Galileo, Kepler and
(a little later) BouIIiau were being more and more widely read and approved. In
consequence, both the geostatic system and the semi-Copernican compromise of
Gilbert and his followers fell out of favour. After 1640 no new scientific works of
any importance were published in England in which the heliocentric system was
definitely rejected. The more competent astronomers, without exception, accepted it.
106 Published in Psychodia Platonica: or A Platonicall Poem of the Immortality of the Soul ...
By H. M ... Cambridge, Roger Daniel, Printer to the University, 1642. The whole of Book III,
canto 3 (pp. 80-99), of Psychathanasia was devoted to a defence of Copernicanism.
107 The official textbook for many years was Jacques Rohault's Physica which was heliocen-
tric and thoroughly Cartesian. First published (in French), Paris 1671; Latin translations were
published in London 1682 and 1697 with at least three later editions. It was translated into English
by John Clarke in 1723 (3rd ed. 1735). Most of these editions had notes by Samuel Clarke in which
the Newtonian system was expounded. Further information about Cartesianism at Cambridge
is given by Marjorie Nicolson, "The early stages of Cartesianism in England", Studies in Philology,
vol. 26 (1929), 356-74.
222 John L. Russell
Between 1640 and 1642 three writers expounded and defended the heliocentric
system. The first, and most influential, was John Wilkins (1614-1672). Educated
at Oxford, he later lived in London where he was one of the leaders of the scientific
group which met at Gresham College from 1645. In 1648 he returned to Oxford
and became the centre of a similar group, to which reference has already been made.
In 1638 he published a small book: The Discovery of a World in the Moone 108 ,
in which he referred briefly to Copernican system. He did not then express any
opinion on it except to remark that "how horrid soever this may seeme at the first,
yet is it likely enough to be true". The book achieved immediate popularity. When
the third edition appeared in 1640 Wilkins added another treatise to it: A Discourse
concerning a New Planet: Tending to prove, That tis probable our Earth is one of the
Planets 1 09. In this he defended the Copernican system in detail, dealing more par-
ticularly with the objections which had been broght against it by Alexander Ross
in his violently anti-Copernican Commentum llO • Wilkins's book was popular in
style; it did not have much to say on the technical astronomical reasons for preferr-
ing the system but it did deal effectively with the traditional objections. In view
of his influence in scientific circles, his support must have played an important part
in making it acceptable to his countrymen.
The second writer of this group has already been mentioned in the section on
Cambridge University. He was Henry More, whose P,sychathanasia (1642) contained
a detailed and vigorous defence of the heliocentric system.
In the same year, further support was given by Thomas White (1593-1676).
White, who wrote under a variety of pseudonyms - Anglus, Albius, Blacloe and
Blacklow - was a Roman Catholic priest who at one time lectured on philosophy
and theology in the ecclesiastical seminary at Douai and later came to England
to exercise his priestly ministry. He wrote a number of controversial theological
works, some of which provoked strong opposition among his fellow Catholics.
He also published three scientific works: De Mundo (1642), Institutionum Peripa-
teticarum (1646) and Euclides Physicus (1657). The Copernican system was discus-
sed at considerable lenght in the first of these and more briefly in the second. De
Mundo 1ll was clearly modelled upon Galileo's Dialogo, and was in dialogue form,
so that White was not called upon to state his own view explicitly. It is quite clear,
however, that he favoured the system. Of the three participants in the dialogue -
Andabata, Ereunius and Asphalius - only Andabata, who corresponds to Simpli-
108 The Discovery of a World in the Moone: or, a discourse, tending to prove, that 'tis probable
there may be another habitable world in that planet. London, E. G. for M. Sparke and E. Forrest,
1638. [Anon].
109 The two works were issued with a common title page: A Discourse concerning a New World
and Another Planet, in 2 Bookes, London, J. Maynard, 1640 [Anon].

110 See p. 230.
111 De Mundo Dialogi tres, ... Authore Thoma Anglo, Paris, 1642. The Copernican system was
discussed in the 2nd dialogue.

cius in Galileo's work, was against it. Ereunius definitely accepted it and Asphalius
was favourable. The Greek derivations of the names are a sufficient indication that
White's sympathies lay with Asphalius (steadfast) and Ereunius (the searcher).
An andabata, in ancient Rome, was a gladiator who fought in the arena blindfol-
ded. In the dialogue Andabata confesses that he "prefers to remain on the ground
in secure ignorance rather than seek dangerous knowledge by flying on the wings
of the wind" (Malo in secura ignorantia humi degere, quam in scientia periculosa
super pennas ventorum volitare) 112. This was certainly not Thomas White's ideal.
The movement of the earth was more positively asserted by White in his Insti-
tutionum 113 , published four years later. Here he was writing in his own name and
made his position quite clear. Mter describing the rotational and orbital motions
of the earth he continued:
Astronomers prove these motions of the Earth: because, otherwise, greater motions of greater
bodies must be suppos'd; and these, neither themselves constant, nor proportion'd to the bodies,
and besides, more entangled, both in the Stars and in the Sun it self, as is apparent by its Spots:
Which if you say make not up a perfect Astronomicall Demonstration, that Maxime must be
renounc'd upon which all Astronomy depends, viz. that the Phenomena (or appearances) are to be
solv'd the best way we can.
Again; because there follows a variety in the fixed stars, from the diversity of the Earth's po-
sition in its Orbis Magnus; when there is once found out a Telescope. of like perfection as to be
able to distinguish that variety, we may expect a Geometricall Demonstration: and because for
the same reason. there must needs be a variety of reflection from Mars and Iupiter; when the laws
& rules of light shall be better known, there will not want a Physical Demonstration.
White was strongly influenced by Galileo but he rejected the latter's explanation
of the tides. He propounded a theory of his own, according to which the sun and,
to a lesser extent, the moon act upon the earth's atmosphere to produce systematic
prevailing winds in different regions. These set up ocean currents which, by press-
ing on the shore, not only cause the tides but also produce both the rotational and
orbital motions of the earth. The movements of the other planets were similarly
explained by the action of the sun on them. Hence the sun, ultimately, is the source
of all movement in the solar system. White was, as I have said, involved III various
theological controversies but none of these was concerned with his views on the
Copernican system which, so far as I know, were never condemned by the eccle-
siastical authorities.
The battle for Copernicus had been effectively won by 1650. The victory was
finally sealed when English astronomers discovered, rather belatedly, the planetary
theory of Kepler, together with Ismael Boulliau's modified version of it. The first
English writer to accept and recommend KeIper's elliptical orbits was Vincent
112 P. 133.
113 Institutionum Peripateticarum ad mentem summi viri. clarissimique Philosophi Kenelmi
Equitis Digbaei ...• Authore Thoma Anglo, Lyons, 1646. A 2nd edition was published in London,
1647, and an English translation London, 1656, under the title: Peripateticall Institutions. The ext-
ract which follows is taken from this translation, p. 176.
224 John L. Russell
Wing who, from 1641, was probably the best known and most competent compiler
of almanacs. In his almanac for 1647114 he was anti-Copernican but within the
next four years he changed his views completely. In his Harmonicon Coeleste
(1651)115 he strongly supported Kepler and Boulliau, asserting that the movement
of the earth was "clearly proved". Elliptical orbits were accepted also by Jeremy
Shakerley (1653)116, Seth Ward (1654 117 , 1656 118), John Newton (1657)119, and
Thomas Streete (1661)120. By this time the heliocentric system was so thoroughly
taken for granted that few writers thought it necessary to discuss the question at all.
A few other astronomical works may be briefly mentioned. In 1661 Thomas
Salusbury published a translation of Galileo's Dialogo in his Mathematical Collec-
tions and Translations 121 . A few years earlier, Joseph Moxon had translated Wil-
liam Blaeu's Copernican treatise: Institutio Astronomica under the title: A Tutor
to Astronomy and Geography (1654)122. Moxon also published two astronomical
works under his own name: (a) A Tutor to Astronomie and Geographie: Or an Easie
and Speedy Way to know the Use of both the Globes, Celestial and Terrestrial ...
(1659)123 and (b) A Tutor to Astronomy and Geography, or, The Use of the Copernican
Spheres (1665)124. In spite of the similarity of title these two works were entirely
distinct from each other. Both were textbooks, (a) being based on Tycho's system
(b) on that of Copernicus. The fact that the former went through five editions be-
fore 1700 whereas the latter was never reprinted may indicate that the elementary
teaching of astronomy remained predominantly geocentric until the end of the cen-
tury.
The Copernican System in English Literature. As the 17th century moved forward,
more and more people must have acquired at least some knowledge of the Coperni-
can system. References to it in the literature of the period are not, however, partic-
ularly frequent. The specific question at issue - whether the earth is moving or
at rest - does not seem to have aroused much interest. It was, however, one factor
among many which played its part in the struggle between supporters of the ancient
and the modern learning. To the more progressive minds it was a proof that knowl-
edge really is increasing and that we can add substantially to the inheritance of
114 An Almanack and Prognostication for ... 1647, London, J. Legatt for the Company of Sta-
tioners, 1647, sig. C6v-C7r.

l1S London, R. Leybourn for the Company of Stationers, 1651.
116 Tabulae Britannicae. The British Tables ... , London, R. & W. Leybourn, 1653.
117 Idea Trigonometriae ... item Praelectio de Cometis et Inquisitio in Bullialdi Astronomiae
Philolaicae Fundamenta, Oxford, L. Lichfield, 1654-53.

118 Astronomia Geometrica, London, J. Flesher, 1656.
119 Astronomia Britannica, London, R. & W. Leybourn, 1657.
120 Astronomia Carolina: a new Theorie of the Coelestial Motions, London, for L. Lloyd, 1661.
121 London, W. Leyboume, 1661.
122 London, J. Moxon, 1654.


wisdom which has been handed down from the past. To the conservatives it was
a sad sign of the break up of the traditional world system and its replacement by
a general atmosphere of scepticism.
Robert Burton's attitude to the new cosmology in his well known and widely
read work The Anatomy of Melancholy125 is typical of some of the more moderate
conservatives. Burton (1577 -1639) was a student of Christ Church, Oxford where
he remained for most of his life. He read widely, if rather superficially, in the science
of his day, from which he quoted extensively in his book. His own personal library
included a copy of the first edition of De Revolutionibus, Thomas Digges's Alae
seu Scalae ... (1573) and other important astronomical works. He discussed the new
cosmology sympathetically but non-committally; he definitely rejected the Aristo-
telian solid spheres 126 but could not make up his mind on other points. He had no
sympathy with the more frevid anti-Copernicans such as Alexander Ross127; on
the other hand he found the heliocentric theory difficult: partly because of the enor-
mous distances at which the fixed stars must be situated and partly on account of
the implication that if the earth is a planet, then the other planets must also be in-
habited - a conclusion which was hard to reconcile with the principle that all
things were made for man 128 . He therefore regarded as more probable the semi-
Copernican theory that the earth has a diurnal rotation only. But his final conclu-
sion was sceptical; we cannot hope to discover the truth:
In the meantime, the world is tossed in a blanket amongst them [the astronomers], they hoist
the earth up and down like a ball, make it stand and go at their pleasures: one saith the sun stands,
another he moves; a third comes in, taking them all at a rebound, and, lest there should any para-
dox be wanting, he finds certain spots and clouds in the sun ... and so, whilst these men contend
about the sun and moon, like the philosophers in Lucian, it is to be feared the sun and moon will
hide themselves, and be as much offended as she was with those, and send another messenger to
Jupiter, by some new-fangled Icaromenippus, to make an end of all those curious controversies,
and scatter them abroad l29 •
A similar attitude is to be found in a poem written by John Donne (1573-1631):

An Anatomie of the World; The First Anniversary (1611)130:
And new Philosophy calls all in doubt,
The Element of fire is quite put out;
The Sun is lost, and th'earth, and no mans wit
Can well direct him where to looke for it.
12S Oxford, J. Lichfield & J. Short for H. Cripps, 1621. It went though many subsequent
editions, the earlier ones having been extensively revised by Burton himself. Page references are to
the Everyman edition, London, J. M. Dent, 1948,3 vols.
126 Vol. II, p. 50.
127 II, p. 57.
128 II, pp. 53-55.
129 II, pp. 57-58.
130 London, S. Macham, 1611 (Anon.]. Reprinted in John Donne's Complete Poetry and Se-
lected Prose, Edited by John Hayward, London, Nonesuch Press, 1929.
15 - The reception ..•

226 John L. Russell
And freely men confesse that this world's spent,

When in the Planets, and the Firmament
They seeke so many new; then see that this
Is crumbled out againe to his Atomies.
cTis all in peeces, all cohaerence gone;
All just supply, and all Relation l31 .
It was the loss of the old certainties which distressed the poet, rather than any
specific feature of the 'new philosophy'. He had, apparently, no serious objection
to the Copernican system as such. In his satirical work Ignatius his Conclave (1611)
he remarked that the opinion of Copernicus "may very well be true"132. These words
are, admittedly, put into the mouth of the arch-villain Ignatius but the context
suggests that they represented the view of Donne himself. In his other writings,
however, when he had occasion to refer to cosmological theories, it was the tradi-
tional geostatic system which he seemed to prefer.
John Milton (1608-1674), in his epic poem Paradise Lost (1677) shewed himself
to be familiar with the main outlines of the Copernican system as well as with Ga-
lileo's telescopic discoveries. In Book VII, for instance, the angel Raphael puts
the question to Adam:
What if the sun
Be centre of the World, and other stars,
By his attractive virtue and their own
Incited, dance about him various rounds?
[•••J and what if, seventh to these
The planet Earth, so steadfast though she seem,
Insensibly three different motions move
Which else to several spheres thought must ascribe?133
But once again, the final conclusion tended to scepticism:

But whether thus these things or whether not,
Whether the sun predominant in heav'n
Rise on the earth or earth rise on the sun [...]
Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid:
Leave them to God above, him serve and fear ..•
[••• J heav'n is for thee too high
To know what passes there; be lowly wise:
Think only what concerns thee and thy being;
Dream not of other worlds, what creatures there
Live, in what state, condition or degree
Contented that thus far hath been revealed
Not of earth only but of highest heav'n I34.
131 Nonesuch ed., p. 202.

132 London, N. Okes for R. More, 1611, [Anon.], Nonesuch ed., p. 366.
133 VII, lines 122-31.
134 VIII, lines 159-78.
The only other poet of importance who shewed an interest in cosmology during
this period was John Dryden (1631-1700). He was, for a short period (1662-67),
a Fellow of the Royal Society though he never engaged in scientific research. There
are occasional references to scientific themes in his writings but the few mentions
of the Copernican system give no indication whether he accepted it or not.
On the whole, therefore, English literature in the 17th century does not manifest
any great interest in cosmological questions. The poets and essayists were aware
of their existence but did not feel particularly concerned with them. It has often
been asserted in the past that the Copernican theory was deeply disturbing to many
people because it displaced man from his central position in the universe and thus
made him appear less important in the scheme of things. A. O. Lovejoy pointed
out, many years ago, that this was not, in general, the case 135 • For the popular pre-
achers and moralists the centre of the universe was not the most important but the
least and lowest place of all - the place where the 'dregs of the universe' (faeces
mundi) were to be found. Terrestrial matter was the most imperfect; it must there-
fore be at the greatest possible distance from the empyrean heaven. The lesson they
drew from this was that man in himself, and except in so far as he is ennobled by
the love of God, is a vile and worthless creature. Gilbert, Carpenter and Wilkins 136
all found it necessary to refute the traditional argument that the earth must be in
the centre because it is composed of the most imperfect material. They met it by
maintaining that the earth is not unimportant and that its matter does not differ
essentially from that of the other planets.
The Copernican system undoubtedly did disturb some people. This, however,
was not because it reduced man's importance but because it undermined his confi-
dence in the power of reason. The essential features of the traditional Aristotelian-
Ptolemaic system had seemed for many centuries to be established with complete
certainty. But then, suddenly, the ordinary man found himself confronted with three
rival systems, none of which was capable of proof. Instead of demonstrative cer-
tainty he had to be content with doubt and hypothesis. It was this sense of uncer-
tainly which, both for Burton and Donne, was conducive to melancholy and which
led Milton to tell Adam that he should not seek to unravel the secrets of the heavens.
Eventually the work of Descartes and Newton would help to restore men's faith
in the power of reason but, until then, the loss of intellectual security was a cause
of discomfort to many.
II. THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM IN SCOTLAND
Scotland until the end of the 17th century was politically, economically and
culturally independent of England. The first step towards union was taken in 1603
when James VI of Scotland succeeded to the throne of England as James I. Thereaf-
135 A. O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain 0/ Being Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1936.
136 W. Gilbert, De Mundo (1651), pp. 116-7; N. Carpenter, Geography Delineated (1625).
p. 100; J. Wilkins, That the Earth may), Prop. VI.
228 John L. Russell
ter the two nations had the same king but in other respects continued to be
politically independent. It was not until 1707 that a full political union was
effected.
The intellectual climate in Scotland also differed widely from that of England.
The country was economically poor and, especially in the 16th century, politically
unsettled. As a result, many of the more enterprising young men went abroad for
their studies. They were to be found as students, and later as teachers, in many of
the European universities. A few of them are known to have played an active part
in promoting or opposing the Copernican system.
Perhaps the most interesting of these expatriate scholars was Duncan Liddel
(1561-1613). He received his early education in Aberdeen but left his native country
at the age of 18 to study at Frankfort a. O. and at Breslau where he learnt of the
Copernican system from Paul Wittich. He then lectured on mathematics at the uni-
versities of Rostock, Frankfort and Helmstedt, finally returning to Scotland in
1607137 . In 1613 he endowed a professorship of mathematics at Marischal College,
Aberdeen, which was not, however, inaugurated until 1626 owing to financial dif-
ficulties. He also bequeathed a fine collection of mathematical, scientific and medical
books to the same college, which included copies of both the first and second edi-
tions of the De Revolutionibus. In the second edition he transcribed a complete text
of the Commentaries of Copernicus 138 .
His friend John Caselius tells us that Liddel, in his mathematical lectures at
Rostock (1588), expounded the Ptolemaic, Copernican and Tychonic systems side
by side (without, it would seem, making any definite choice between them) and he
added that, so far as he knew, Liddel was the first in Germany to treat of the Coper-
nican system in this way. Tycho Brahe had explained his (not yet published) system
to Liddel when the latter had visited him at Hven in 1587. Unfortunately the friendly
relations between the two were ruptured a few years later when Tycho began to
suspect, without any good evidence, that Liddel was claiming to have invented the
Tychonic system himself139. There is, in fact, no reason to think that he ever made
such a claim.
Liddel, while a student at Frankfort, had been taught by a fellow Scot, John
Craig, who also spent much of his life in German universities. Craig, however, was
a traditional Aristotelian with little sympathy for contemporary developments
137 Lidders academic Career in Germany and hist attitude to the Copernican system were de-
scribed by his friend John Caselius in a letter to John Craig reproduced in his preface to Lidders
Ars Medica (Hamburg, 1608). Further information is to be found in a letter of Daniel Cramer
to Holiger Rosencrantz, 31st March, 1598, printed in T. Brahe, Opera Omnia (Ed. J. L. E. Dreyer),
VIII (1925), 37-43.
138 See W. P. D. Wightman, Science and the Renaissance. An annotated Bibliography of the
Sixteenth-Century Books relating to the Sciences in the Library of the University of Aberdeen, Edin-
burgh and London, Oliver and Boyd, Vol. II. (1962).
139 See letters by and to Brahe, published in his Opera Omnia, VIII, 37-43. 56-59, 205-206.
in astronomy. He maintained the immutability of the heavenly bodies and entered

into a controversy, very ineffectively, with Tycho Brahe on this subject14o.
Two Scotsmen are known to have been actively propagating the new astronomy
in Europe during the early 17th century. These were Thomas Seggeth (c. 1569-1627)
and John Wedderburn, or Wodderburn (1583-1651). Seggeth went to Padua in
1597 where he became friendly with Galileo. In 1611 he was helping Kepler with
his observations on the satellites of Jupiter in Prague. When Kepler published his
Narratio de observatis quatuor Jovis satellitibus, Seggeth added a set of epigrams,
one of which included the famous saying Vicisti Galilaee I, in praise of Galile0 141 .
Wedderburn was a pupil of Galileo's at Padua and wrote, in 1610, a treatise
defending the latter's Sidereus Nuncius 142 against an attack by Martin Horky. He
continued to live on the Continent but made occasional visits to Scotland. It is
not known whether he attempted to interest his fellow countrymen in the new astro-
nomy.
A few other names may be briefly mentioned. James Cheyne, of Arnage 143 ,
was born about 1545, graduated at Kings College, Aberdeen, in 1566, and was later
ordained priest in the Catholic Church. He lectured in astronomy and other subjects
at the university of Douai from 1572 and later at Paris. In 1575 he published a work
on spherical astronomy144 which was substantially based on the De Sphaera of
Joannes Sacrobosco. It made no mention of Copernicus.
John Barclay (1582-1621), of Scottish parentage, was born and educated in
France and came to London after the accession of James I. In 1614 he published
Icon Animarum 14S in which the Copernican system was briefly referred to and de-
cisively rejected.
The most competent work on astronomy published by a Scotsman before 1660
was probably Hugh Semple's De Mathematicis Disciplinis (1635)146. Semple was
born at Craigevar, entered the Society of Jesus at Toledo in 1615 and became rec-
tor of the Scots College at Madrid where he died in 1654. As was to be expected
under the circumstances, he rejected the Copernican theory. The main reason he
gave for doing so was the absence of any observable stellar parallax but he added
140 Brahe, Opera Omnia IV (1922), 415-476; 477-488. See also the correspondence be-
tween Brahe and Craig in Vol. VII, pp. 175-182 and subsequently.
141 J. Kepler, Narratio de observatis quatuor Jovis satellitibus, Frankfort, Zacharias PaIthenius,
1611.
142 Quatuor problematum quae Martinus Horky contra Nuntium sidereum de quatuor planetis
novis disputanda proposuit. Confutatio per Ioannem Wodderbornium scotobritannum, Padua 1610.
143 See W. P. D. Wightman; James Cheyne of Arnage. In: Melanges Alexandre Koyre, Her-
mann, Paris, Vol. 2 (1964), pp. 587-601.

144 De Priore Astronomiae Parte seu de Sphaera Iibri duo, Douai, 1575.
14~ Ioannis Barclaii Icon Animorum, London, J. Bill, 1614. An English translation was published
ander the title: The Mirrour of Mindes, London, J. Norton for T. Walkley, 1631; 2nd edition 1633.
146 Hugonis Sempilii Craigbaitaei Scoti e Societate Jesu de Mathematicis Disciplinis Iibr; duo-
decim .. , Antwerp 1635.

230 John L. Russell
that there were also philosophical and scriptural objections. He accepted Tycho's
world system with slight modifications and shewed himself to be acquainted with
the work of Kepler, Galileo and other modern astronomers. He discussed opposing
theories with a moderation and respect not always to be found among the tradi-
tionalists of his time. Semple wrote also a more detailed work - Dictionarium Ma-
thematicum - which was never published.
If we turn now to writers who studied or worked in Scotland, we find very few
who wrote on astronomy during the 16th and 17th centuries. Setting aside, for the
moment, the university thesis lists which were in a special position and were read
only within a very limited circle, the available material is scanty indeed.
George Buchanan (1506 -1582), a famous scholar and Latin poet in his own
day, was born at Killearn, Stirlingshire, and educated partly at St Andrews, partly
in Paris. He wrote a long astronomical poem, De Sphaera, published posthumously
at Geneva in 1584147 in which he discussed and rejected the possibility of a mov-
ing earth.
One of the most vigorous but least competent opponents of the new learning
in the early 17th century was Alexander Ross (1591-1654). He graduated at King's
College, Aberden, and later migrated to England where he was appointed master
of the free school at Southampton. In 1634 he published a treatise on the immobi-
lity of the earth 148 in which he attacked the Copernican and semi-Copernican works
of Philip Lansberg and Nathanael Carpenter 149 respectively. This was answered
by John Wilkins in his Discourse concerning a new planet (1640)150 to which Ross
replied in another work: The New Planet no Planet (1646)151. Ross's books were
violent in tone but very superficial in content. It is unlikely that they would have
had much influence with educated readers.
A more moderate and intelligent defence of the Aristotelian cosmology was
to be found in David Person's Varieties (1635)152. He held that celestial bodies are
incorruptible and did not believe that new stars were natural phenomena. Instead,
they were "extraordinary workes of the great maker, threatening mortalls by their
frownings" (p. 7). Comets in general were sublunary but he recognised that some
of them had been shewn by recent astronomers to be above the moon. He rejected
Copernicus on the ground that the universe, as it revolves, must have an immov-
able centre which is the earth.
147 It was included in a collection of his poems: Franciscanus et Fratres, Geneva 1584, and
was published separately in 1585. It went through many editions.
148 Commentum de terrae motu circulare: duobus libris refutatum. Quorum prior Lansbergii,
posterior Carpentarii argumenta ... refellit, London, T. Harper, 1634.
149 See p. 210.
150 See p. 222.
151 London, L. Young, 1646.
152 Varieties: Or, a Surveigh of rare and excellent matters, necessary and delectable for all
sorts ofpersons ... , By David Person, of Loghlands in Scotland, London, Richard Badger for Thomas
Alchom, 1635.
I have been unable to find any other books in which the questlOn of a moving
earth was discussed before 1663, the year when James Gregory published his Optica
Promota 153 • This marked the beginning of a new epoch in Scottish science. It was
primarily a treatise on optics in which Gregory described the reflecting telescope
which he had invented. At the end he added an appendix in which he discussed
a number of astronomical problems. He fully accepted the heliocentric theory to-
gether with Kepler's first law of planetary motion. Instead of the 2nd law, however,
he used Seth Ward's approximation in which the empty focus of the ellipse was
treated as an equant point.
James was the first of a distinguished family of Gregorys who for many years
played a leading part in establishing the vigorous scientific tradition which has cha-
racterised the Scottish universities ever since. He took his degree of M. A. at Mari-
schal College, Aberdeen, in 1657. In 1668 he became the first professor of mathema-
tics at St Andrews University whence he moved in 1674 to Edinburgh to become
the first occupant of the corresponding chair in that university. He was succeeded
at St Andrews by his nephew, James Gregory the younger. The Edinburgh chair
remained vacant after the elder James's death in 1675 until 1683 when it was filled
by another nephew, David Gregory (1661-1708) who in 1691 became Savilian Pro-
fessor of Astronomy at Oxford. David published, in 1702, Astronomiae Physicae
et Geometricae Elementa 154 • This was based on Newton's Principia, which he fully
accepted.
Only one more work remains to be noticed: Physiologia Nova Experimentalis 1SS
by James Dalrymple, first Viscount Stair (1619-1695). Dalrymple had taken his
degree at Glasgow University in 1637 and taught there from 1641 to 1647. After-
wards he had a distinguished career as a lawyer and a politician but found time
to write the Physiologia during a period of exile in Holland. A large section of it
was devoted to astronomy. In it he discussed the systems of Copernicus, Tycho,
Descartes, Duhamel and others. His own theory was a somewhat implausible mod-
ification of Descartes' vortex theory in which the earth was at the centre of the uni-
verse and was surrounded by a vortex which gave it a diurnal rotation. This terres-
trial vortex was embedded, without mutual interference, in a larger vortex which
carried the sun and the superior planets around the earth. Circulating around the
sun was a secondary vortex in which were embedded the inner planets, Mercury
and Venus.
It will be clear from what has been said so far that the published literature of
the period gives us a very incomplete picture of the history of the Copernican sys-
IS3 Optica Promota, seu abdita radiorum refiexorum & re/ractorum mysteria, geometrice enu-
c1eata: cui subnectitur Appendix subtillissimorum astronomiae problematon resolutionem exhibens,

London, J. Hayes for S. Thomson, 1663.
1S4 Oxford 1702.
15S Leyden 1686. The term Physiologia was here used, as in some other 17th century works,
to cover all branches of natural science.

232 John L. Russell
tem in Scotland. We can, however, obtain much more detailed information from
the graduation theses of the Scottish universities during the 17th century. I will
conclude, therefore, with a brief summary of these documents.
Scotland differed from England in having five universities - two in Aberdeen:
King's College and Marischal College (which were combined into a single Univer-
sityof Aberdeen in 1859), and one each in Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews. /
Each of these was, of course, much smaller than Oxford or Cambridge but taken
together they must have provided a good higher education for a much larger propor-
tion of the population than was available in England.
The teaching system differed from the English in several respects. (1) The Arts
course lasted for 4 years only and led directly to the degree of Master of Arts. (2) In
general, the Scottish universities throughout the 17th century adopted a system of
circulating regents, i. e. there were no specialist teachers but each lecturer (or regent,
as they were called) took a particular class for the whole 4 year course, lecturing
in all subjects to the same set of students: Greek in the 1st year, logic in the 2nd,
ethics in the 3rd, natural philosophy with some mathematics and astronomy in the
4th. At the end of the four years he would start again with a new class in its 1st year,
and so on. The Arts Faculty consisted therefore of precisely four regents, working
in rotation.
There were some exceptions to this system. Marischal College until about 1640
had specialist regents, each of whom lectured to all students in one subject only.
King's College had a similar system b~tween 1616 and 1638. Thereafter both rever-
ted to the normal system of circulating regents. In addition Marischal College had
a professor of mathematics from 1626 who lectured to all the students in that subject.
St Andrews founded a professorship of mathematics in 1668 and Edinburgh in
1674. Mathematical astronomy was included in the mathematics course but cosmo-
logical questions concerning the structure of the universe, the nature of the heavenly
bodies etc. were generally treated in natural philosophy. Towards the end of the
century, however, this distinction tended to disappear.
The 4 year course culminated in a graduation ceremony which included a public
disputation. The regent responsible for the graduating class would publish before-
hand a long list of "theses", or topics for debate, covering substantially the whole
of the course. The candidates were then called upon, in turn, to defend one or other
of the theses against objections propounded by regents, students or visitors. The
theses expressed the opinions of the regent himself and the students were bound
to defend his view whether they agreed with it or not. Towards the end of the cen-
tury, however, this requirement was progressively relaxed. Many of these published
theses are now no longer extant but where they have survived it is possible to re-
construct the contents of the lecture courses in considerable detail. The most complete
series is available for Edinburgh University. Of the 113 years from 1596 (the earliest
known list) until 1708 when this form of disputation was abandoned, the lists for
at least 68 years are extant. The other universities are less well represented but,
except for Glasgow, enough lists have survived to give a general indication of the
teaching 156 •
The value of these lists for our present purpose is that they enable us to deter-
mine the views of the different regents on the Copernican system and to discover,
at least approximately, when it was first taught to the students. Not all the lists con-
tain explicit reference to the system but nearly all contain some cosmological theses
from which the attitude of the regent to it can be inferred. I shall concentrate mainly
on the teaching in Edinburgh since the information for this university is so much
more complete than for the others.
From 1596 till 1616 the cosmological teaching in Edinburgh was predominantly
Aristotelian, following closely the theories propounded by Aristotle in his Physica
and De Coe/o. The only regent during this period who did not conform was James
Knox who, in 1601, asserted, against Aristotle, that the heavenly bodies are change-
able. The year 1616 marked the beginning of a 10 year period during which the
teaching was progressively modernised. William King, in this year, referred to the
comet of 1577 as evidence that celestial bodies are mutable. Eight years later, in
1624, he also mentioned the new stars of 1600 and 1604 in support of this conclusion.
However, he was not altogether happy about his rejection of tradition. He conclu-
ded his discussion with a warning that we cannot hope to reach certainty on this
question; it is safer simply to admit that we are ingorant.
Another regent at this time, Andrew Young, was apparently making astrono-
mical observations with his students between 1617 and 1620. In his theses for 1617
and 1621 he published data for the elevation of the sun at Edinburgh at the vernal
equinox of 1617 and the summer solstice of 1620 respectively. He also reported,
in 1621, observations on the comet of 1618 which proved that its diurnal parallax
was undetectable; hence it must have been situated far beyond the sphere of the moon.
He therefore rejected the theory of solid celestial spheres. Young died in 1623 and
there is no evidence that the observations were continued by his successors.
A third modernising regent during the same period was James Reid. In 1618
he defended the Ptolemaic system but four years later, in 1622, he asserted that
many different hypotheses, including the Copernican, can explain the planetary
paths equally well. He concluded from this that it is impossible to reach any certain
conclusions in cosmology. Finally, in 1626, he suggested, very cautiously, that
we may hold at least as a supposition, that the earth rotates on its axis while re-
maining at the centre of the universe. He defended himself against any accusation
of religious unorthodoxy by pointing out (a) that he was speaking only hypotheti-
cally - ex suppositione - and (b) that Scripture does sometimes describe pheno-
mena as they appear to the senses rather than as they are in themselves.
B6 For a list of the extant theses see H. G. Aldis: A List of Books printed in Scotland before
1700. Reprinted with additions ...• Edinburgh, National Library of Scotland, 1970.
234 John L. Russell
Unfortunately these theses of 1626 raised a theological storm 157 • The ministers
of the Scottish Church immediately insisted that Reid should be dismissed from his
teaching post. The Edinburgh Town Council, which at that time controlled appo-
intments to the university, resisted their demands for several months but eventually,
under mounting pressure, gave way and asked Reid to resign, which he did. The
ostensible reason for this attack was very trivial: in one of his theses Reid had mild-
ly criticised a minister who, a few months previously, had delivered a violent attack
upon philosophy in one of his sermons. This was seized upon as a casus belli by the
ministers but it was clearly only a pretext; the real target was evidently the Uni-
versity philosophical teaching as a whole.
Whatever may have been the precise motives of the theologians, their victory
did in fact crush the progressive movement for many years. The immediate conse-
quence, clearly shown in the theses from 1627 to 1632, was a reversion to strict Aris-
totelian orthodoxy, with its solid planetary spheres and immutable celestial bodies.
No theses have survived from the years from 1633 to 1640 inclusive but by 1641,
when the series resumes, the solid spheres had apparently been tacitly abandoned
since there was henceforward no further mention of them. Between 1641 and 1650
some at least of the regents still regarded celestial bodies as unchangeable and none
explicitly rejected this principle. During this period the Copernican system was never
mentioned but the generally traditional tone of the theses makes it unlikely that
any of the regents could have taught it.
From 1651 to 1658 there is another gap in the series. By 1659 the immutability
of the heavenly bodies was no longer being taught. The Copernican system was
now beginning to receive more attention: between 1659 and 1669 it was discussed
but rejected in four out of the seven extant lists; the others did not refer to it. At
least one regent - John Wishart in 1661 - was teaching the Tychonic system and
it is quite possible that the others were doing so too, though they did not refer to it
explicitly.
In 1670, John Wood, allowed his students for the first time to accept the Coper-
nican system if they wished, but he did not himself express any opinion on its truth.
The same option was given in 1674 and 1675 but the system was still b~ing rejected
by more conservative regents in the two following years. The first to accept a mov-
ing earth unreservedly and definitively was Gilbert McMurdo in 1682. This year
marked a turning point in the university teaching. A completely new team of regents
took over, all of them firmly committed to the philosophy of Descartes including,
with some reservations, his philosophy of nature. All accepted a Cartesian helio-
~entric system.
When Newton's Principia was published in 1687 it was taken up with remar-
kable alacrity at Edinburgh. As early as 1688 there was a favourable mention of
157 The incident is described by Thomas Craufurd, History of the University of Edinburgh
from 1580 to 1646, Edinburgh, 1808, p. 106-7.

Copernican System in Great Britatn 235
it in the theses of Alexander Cockburn. Herbert Kennedy in 1690 and again in 1694
expounded and accepted its basic principles. In the surviving theses of the early 18th
century, the cosmological teaching was firmly based upon it.
It is not possible to follow the development of cosmological theory in the same
detail for the other Scottish universities since not nearly so many of their thesis
lists have survived and they are particularly scarce for the important years between
1650 and 1680. The evidence suggests, however, that the Copernican system may
have been taught at the Aberdeen universities and St Andrews at least ten years
earlier than at Edinburgh. Of the lists which are extant special mention may be made
of (1) Andrew Cant's theses for Marischal College (1654), the first (apart from the
ill-fated Edinburgh theses of 1626) which admitted the possibility of a moving earth,
though Cant himself preferred the Ptolemaic theory; (2) William Sanders, at St And-
rews, 1674, fully accepted the Copernican system and quoted Kepler's first two laws
of planetary motion in its support; (3) James Gregory the younger, St Andrews
1690, gave a detailed exposition of Newton's physics and cosmology which he un-
hesitatingly accepted.
Finally, something must be said about the Professors of Mathematics, whose
views were not always represented in the thesis lists. The first Chair, as we have
said, was inaugurated at Marischal College in 1626. The founder, Duncan Liddel,
had laid it down that the professor should be "well versed in Euclid, Ptolemy, Co-
pernicus, Archimedes and other mathematicians", and that he should teach mathe-
matics and astronomy to the students in their 3rd and 4th years. The first professor
was William Johnston who held the post from 1626 until his death in 1640. There is,
in the Aberdeen University Library, a MS text of his dictated lectures for 1633-34.
recorded by James Dounie, one of his students 158 • It includes a treatise on the theory
of the planets, in which the systems of Ptolemy, Copernicus and Tycho Brahe were
discussed, together with the semi-Copernican theory that the earth is at the centre
of the universe but rotates on its own axis. Each theory was treated objectively and
sympathetically; each was apparently regarded as tenable. Johnston himself seemed
to favour the semi-Copernican theory but his final conclusion was that since it is
impossible to attain to any certainty on the question it is perhaps better to rely on
the evidence of our senses and to follow Ptolemy. This may have been said simply
in deference to his philosophical colleagues who, at this time, would certainly have
regarded a moving earth as metaphysically unacceptable. On one point, however,
Johnston was quite definite: we must abandon the theory of solid celestial spheres.
He made effective use of Tycho's arguments to establish this conclusion.
During Johnston's tenure of office, astronomical theses were not included in the
annual disputations at Marischal College so we do not know whether his views chan-
ged as time went on. It seems clear, however, that during the 1630's the students of
this university received more competent and up to date instruction in astronomy
IS8 MS. Aberdeen University Library, M. 181.

236 John L. Russell
than at any other British university with the possible exception of Oxford. The pro-
fessorships in mathematics at St Andrews and Edinburgh haxe already been mentio-
ned. The Gregorys who were the first occupants of these Chairs - James the elder,
James the younger and David - played a leading part in the rapid and complete
modernisation of the science teaching which began about 1670.
Conclusion. There is no evidence, either from books or university records, that
there was much interest in the Copernican system in Scotland before the 1660's.
The first to accept it publicly was James Gregory in 1663. In Edinburgh University
it does not seem to have become academically respectable until about 1670. It was
given sympathetic treatment at Marischal College, Aberdeen, in the 1630's by Wil-
liam Johnston and again in 1654 by Andrew Cant but the latter, at least, did not
accept it and the former, in his lecture course, avoided any firm conclusion. It is
impossible to fix any precise date when it was first accepted in any of the universities
apart from Edinburgh since the extant thesis lists are too few. It was presumably
taught by James Gregory at At Andrews from 1668 and at Edinburgh in 1674-75.
It may have been cautiously admitted in some of the missing Aberdeen theses of
the 1660's but probably not earlier. The earliest known lists in which a moving
earth was accepted are A. Alexander's at Marischal College, 1669 (with the proviso,
however, that the earth, though a planet, is stationary with respect to it.> vortex);
William Sanders's, 1674, at St Andrews, George Middleton's, 1675, at King's Col-
lege, Aberdeen, and Gilbert McMurdo's, 1682, at Edinburgh.
The Scottish universities in the first half of the 17th century were predominantly
Aristotelian and, in general, hostile or indifferent to the new astronomy. But from
1670 onwards they modernised their teaching with exceptional speed and through-
ness. By 1680, and for many years afterwards, they compared favourably with any
other university in Europe for their interest in modern science and for their readi-
ness to incorporate its more significant findings into their teaching syllabuses.
BmLIOGRAPHY
I. The Copernican System in England. General Studies
Johnson, Francis R., Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
Press, 1937 (reprinted: New York, Octagon Books, 1968). This is much the most complete study
of the subject, up to the year 1645, that has ever been made. It includes detailed discussions of
all the important sources with extensive quotations. It is essential reading for all students of
the period, and, as a source book, is thoroughly reliable. Johnson's enthusiasm for the achie-
vements of English scientists does, however, lead him to exaggerate the extent to which the
Copernican system was actually accepted, b9th by some of the individuals whom he discusses
and in the country as a whole. But he presents his evidence in such detail that the careful reader
can generally make the necessary corrections for himself.
Applebaum, Wilbur, Kepler in England: The reception 0/ Keplerian astronomy in England, 1599-
1687. (Thesis). Diss. Abs. Int. 30, 1969, 2440A. I have not had an opportunity of seeing this
thesis.
Jones, R. F., Ancients and Moderns. A study of the rise of the scientific movement in seventeenth-
-century England, 2nd ed. St Louis, Washington University Press, 1961 (reprinted: California
University Press, 1965). The cosmological debates of the 17th century are examined in the light
of the more general conflict between new science and old Aristotelianism at the time.
Kocher, Paul H., Science and Religion in Elizabethan England, San Marino, California, The Hun-
tington Library, 1953.
Nicholson, Marjorie, English Almanacs and the 'New Astronomy', "Annals of Science", 4, 1939,
1-33. A comprehensive survey of the English almanac-makers of the 17th century and their
attitude to such questions as the Copernican and Tychonic systems, comets, novae, etc.
Universities and Colleges. Cambridge

Costello, W. T., The Scholastic Curriculum in Early Seventeenth Century Cambridge. Cambridge,
Mass., Harvard University Press, 1958. A good account of the formal scholastic training given
at the university, but has little to say on the state of scientific and mathematical instruction.
Hoskin, Michael A., 'Mining All Within': Clarke's Notes to Rohault's "Traite de Physique", "The
Thomist", 24, 1962, 353-363. Describes the introduction of Newtonian science into the Cam-
bridge teaching syllabus, under the guise of annotations to Rohault's work.
Nicolson, Marjorie, The Early Stage of Cartesianism in England, "Studies in Philology", 26, 1929,
356-374. Chiefly concerned with Henry More: his attitude to Descartes and his influence
on the growth of Cartesianism at Cambridge.
Webster, C., Henry More and Descartes: Some New Sources, "Brit. J. Hist. Sci.", 4, 1969, 359
377. Supplements and to some extent supersedes Marjorie Nicolson's study.
Gresham College
Johnson, Francis R., Gresham College: Precursor of the Royal Society, "J. Hist. Ideas", 1, 1940,
413-438.
HilI, Christopher, The Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1965. Chapter 1 includes a detailed discussion of the influence of Gresham College and of the
London scientists generally. Good background material but is inclined to exaggerate the in-
flm,nce of Puritanism on English science.
Ward, John, The Lives of the Professors of Gresham College, London, 1740. Reprinted by The
Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York, 1967.
The Copernican System and English Literature
Coffin, C. M., John Donne and the New Philosophy, New York, Columbia University Press, 1937.
Shews that Donne had a good general knowledge of the work of Copernicus, Tycho, Gilbert.
Kepler and GaIiIeo. He was interested in the new astronomy but he himself remained essentially
Ptolemaic in his outlook.
Meadows, A. J., The High Firmament. A survey of astronomy in English Literature, Leicester Uni-
versity Press, 1969.
Nicolson, Marjorie, Science and Imagination, New York, Cornell University Press, 1956. A col-
lection of articles published from 1935 onwards. The best general treatment of the influence
of the new science on English literature during the 17th century.
Svendsen, Kester, Milton and Science, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1956. A com-
prehensive survey of the popular encyclopedias and similar sources available to Milton, and
the influence which they exerted on his writings.
Studies on Individual Scientists

Gunther, R. T., The Uranical Astrolabe and other Inventions of John Blagrave of Reading, "Ar-
chaeologia", 79, 1929, 55-72.
238 John L. Russell
Johnson, Francis R., The Influence of Thomas Digges on the Progress of Modern Astronomy in
Sixteenth-Century England, "Osiris", 1, 1936, 390-410.
Johnson, Francis R., Thomas Digges, the Copernican System, and the Idea of the Infinity of the
Universe in 1576, "The Huntington Library Bulletin", No.5, 1934, 69-117.
La wton, H. W., Bishop Godwin's 'Man in the Moone', "Rev. of English Studies", 7, 1931, 23-55.
McColley, Grant (Ed.), Francis Godwin's 'The Man in the Moone', Smith College Studies in Modern
Languages, 19, No.1, 1937. A reprint, with introduction and notes, of the first edition of God-
win's book, London, 1638.
Kelly, Sister Suzanne, The 'De Mundo' of William Gilbert, Amsterdam, Menno Hertzberger, 1965.
Roller, Duane H. D., The 'De Magnete' of William Gilbert, Amsterdam, Menno Hertzberger,
1959.
Stevens, Henry, Thomas Harriot: The Mathematician, the Philosopher, the Scholar, London,
1900.
Tanner, Rosalind C. H., The Study of Thomas Harriot's Manuscripts, I. Harriot's Will, "History
of Science", 6, 1967, 1-16.
Pepper, Jon V., The Study of Thomas Harriot's Manuscripts, II. Harriot's Unpublished Papers, ibid.
17-40. Very little of Harriot's astronomical work has yet been published or investigated ade-
quately. These two articles provide a preliminary survey of the unpublished material.
Quinn, David B. & Shirley, John W., A Contemporary list of Hariot References, Renaissance
Quarterly, 22, 1969, 9-26.
McColley, Grant, Nicholas Hill and the "Philosophia Epicurea", "Annals of Science", 4, 1939,
390-405. An analysis of this work, with special reference to the scientific ideas propounded
in it.
Barocas, V., Jeremiah Horrocks (1619-1641), "J. Brit. Astron. Assoc". 79, 1968,223-226. A brief
general survey of his life and work.
Gay thorpe, S. B., Jeremiah Horrocks and his 'New Theory of the Moon', "J. Brit. Astron. Assoc."
67, 1957, 134-144. A technical exposition of Horrocks's theory of the moon's orbit.
Plummer, H. C., Jeremiah Horrox and his "Opera Posthuma", "Notes and Records of the Royal
Society", 3, 1940, 39-52. The "Opera Posthuma" contains Horrocks's defence of Kepler and
the Copernican system.
Whatton, A. B., A Memoir of the Life and Labours of the Rev. Jeremiah Horrox ... To which is
appended a translation of his celebrated discourse upon the Transit of Venus across the Sun,
London, 1859.
Johnson, Francis R. & Larkey, Sanford V., Robert Recorde's Mathematical Teaching and the
Anti-Aristotelian Movement, "The Huntington Library Bulletin", No.7, 1935, 59-87.
Patterson, L. D., Recorde's Cosmography, 1556, "Isis", 42, 1951, 208-218. Examines Recorde's
attitude to the Copernican system. A useful corrective to Johnson's rather exaggerated estimate
of the extent to which Recorde was a Copernican.
Bowen, E. J. & Hartley, Sir Harold, The Right Reverend John Wilkins, F. R. S., "Notes and Re-
cords Roy. Soc.", 15, 1960, 47-56.
McColley, Grant, The Debt of John Wilkins to the 'Apologia pro G.,alileo' of Tomasso Campanella,
"Annals of Science", 4, 1939, 150-168.
McColley, Grant, The Ross-Wilkins Controversy, "Annals of Science", 3, 1938, 153-189. A dis-
cussion of the controversy between Alexander Ross and John Wilkins referred to on p. 230
above. Gives extensive references to other 17th century works which illustrate the relations
of science and religion at this time.
Shapiro, Barbara, John Wilkins (1614-1672). An Intellectual Biography, Berkeley, University
of California Press, 1969.
Parsons, E. J. S. & Morris, W. F., Edward Wright and his Work, "Imago Mundi", 3, 1939,61-
71.
II. The Copernican System in Scotland
Anderson, P. J., Notes on Academic Theses, with a Bibliography of Duncan Liddel, "Aberdeen
University Studies", No. 58, 1912.
Favaro, Antonio, Galileo Galilei a Padova, Padova, Editrice Antenore, 1968. There is a short
biography ofJohn Wedderburn onpp. 279-285 and a note on Thomas Seggett on pp. 215-216.
Johns tone, James F. Kellas, The Lost Aberdeen Theses, Aberdeen University Press, 1916. Reprin-
ted, with additions, from "Aberdeen University Library Bulletin", Vol. 2, No. 12. It includes
a general description of the Scottish graduation theses and their place in the university teaching
system.
Naiden, James R., The Sphera of George Buchanan, Philadelphia, W. H. Allen, 1952. A transla-
tion of Buchanan's astronomical poem with notes, bibliographical data etc.
Rosen, E., Thomas Seget of Seton (1569 or 1570 to 1627), "Scottish Hist. Rev." 28,1949,91-95.
Turnbull, H. W. (Ed.), James Gregory Tercentenary Memorial Volume, London, Bell, 1939. In-
cludes many unpublished letters and papers of Gregory.
Turnbull, H. W., Early Scottish Relations with the Royal Society, "Notes and Records Roy. Soc.".
3, 1940, 22-38. Chiefly concerned with James Gregory.
HENRIK SANDBLAD
Goteborg University
THE RECEPTIONS OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM IN SWEDEN
1.
At the time of the publication of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coeles-

tium, the learned and scientific culture of Sweden was in a profound state of decay.
The Lutheran Reformation had resulted in confiscation by the State of the eccle-
siastical property upon which all learned education rested. Medieval monastery
culture had disappeared and all its libraries were scattered, the educational system
was totally disorganized, and the University of Upsala, founded in 1477, ceased
to exist for more than half a century. That university, or studium generale, was the
only one within the State of Sweden, which at that time (and till 1809) included
Finland as well. The few Swedes, who acquired any higher education and had any
close contact with international science during this period, had to go abroad, above
all to universities in Protestant Germany.
In the 1570's,a modest attempt at reviving the University of Upsala was made,
and the astronomy was taught as well. One of the teachers, Olaus Jonae Luth, left
an astronomical text-book from 1579 in a manuscript which is probably based on
lectures given at the university!. Characteristically enough, the picture of the world
represented there is entirely the Ptolemaic one, in the form it was given by Sacro-
bosco and his commentators, including Hartmann Beyer, the disciple of Melanchton,
and it lacks any trace of knowledge of Copernicus, in spite of the fact that Luth
studied at three German universities and obtained his master-of-arts degree.
In fact, it is as late as 1588 that the name of Copernicus is mentioned in Swedish
literature for the first time, in a large Calendarium duplex, published by the other-
wise unknown Georgius Olai (d. 1592)2, who had spent some time in Germany where
1 OlofLuth, Nogre stycker affthennfrije Konst Astronomia (Cod. Holm. D 77). With an intro-
duction ed. by H. Sandblad, Skrifter utg. av K. Hum. Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala, 29:4. Upsa-
la & Leipzig, 1935.
2 Georgius Olai Ups aliens is, Calendarium duplex, Christianorum et ludaeorum, Cum pro-
gnostico astrologico ... , Stockholm, 1588.

242 Henrik Sandblad
he probably acquired his vast knowledge of astronomy. There he probably learned

also about the current astronomical discussion concerning the Copernican system,
although there are no obvious traces of that in his work. In the introduction to his
calendarium however, he points out that there are two different calculations of the
orbits of the planets: one by Johannes Stadius who follows the method of Nicolaus
Copernicus and Erasmus Reinhold's Tabulae Prutenicae, based on that method,
the other by Cyprianus Leovitius who follows the old Tabulae Alphonsinae and the
. Tables of Johannes Schonerus. Since the difference between these two is often great,
Georgius wants to quote them both, to enable examination "thereby in the changes
of weather" as to which is the most correct. Furthermore, in the calendarium itself
he often gives information "secundum Copernicos". He does not go further than
that in using Copernicus' calculations.
During the last decades of the century, more and more Swedish students went
to universities of the continent, and, of course, in doing so many of them learnt
about the results of the new natural research. And one also finds that in their disser-
tations at foreign universities, many of them had reasons to deal with Copernicus.
Thus a certain Johannes Laurentii Gevaliensis defended a thesis De elementis 3
in Greifswald in 1597, briefly citing the Copernican theory of the three motions of
the earth: the diurnal one around the earth's axis, the annual around the sun, and
the annual motion of declination which would explain precession. However, basing
his argument upon the motion concept of the prevailing Aristotelian physics he
denies the possibility of terrestrial motion. For the future, that concept was to be
one of the main obstacles for the Copernican system. Defending a theses De stel-
[arum natura et proprietatibus 4 in Rostock in the same year, Jacobus Simonis Stock-
holmen sis uses the same argument to prove the immobility of the earth in the centre
of the universe, polemising with dissentient opinions but without mentioning the
name of Copernicus. Johannes Schroderus, later famous as a statesman and a leading
personality in Swedish cultural politics under the name of Johan Skytte, defended
a dissertation on various philosophical and scientific problems in Marburg in 1598 5 ,
mentioning Copernicus with admiration and recognition along with Ptolemy,
though adopting without hesitation the system of the latter. In surprising contrast
with that, two years later a collection of theses was discussed at the same university
by Jonas Petrejus Upsaliensis6 • This dissertation is a strikingly sharp defence of the
Copernican doctrine of the motion of the earth, and the author does not even hes-
itate to maintain that it is supported by Holy Scripture, introducing some rather
daring interpretations of the Bible. That dissertation should be regarded as a very
3 The praeses and perhaps author was Prof. Jacobus Seidelius.
" Praes. Johannes Sturmius.

5 Problemata ex artium liberalium suavissimis et amoenissimis fontibus, praes. Rodolphus Goc-
lenius.
6 Centuria thesium physicarum de coelo et terra, praes. Nicolaus Chesnecopherus, a Swede
who was professor of mathematics in Marburg for a short time.

Copernican System in Sweden 243
unusual phenomenon, however, and it seems that to some extent the sharp phrasing
of the theses may have been due to the dialectic exercise at the public discussions.
In the same year, the same scholar defined another dissertation in which some theses
about the immobility of the earth in the middle of the world are presented for dis-
cussion7 • It is this dialectic purpose of the academic literature of that time which
often makes it difficult to estimate the meaning of the opinions stated, especially
as regards views as delicate and controversial as those of cosmology.
At that time, however, scientific activities within the boundaries of Sweden had
entered a new phase with their richer possibilities, since the University of Upsala
had been re-established in 1595. The first Professor of Astronomy of the renewed
educational centre was the young Laurentius Paulinus Gothus (1565-1646), later
a bishop and finally archbishop, philosophically and pedagogically an ardent fol-
lower of Petrus Ramus. Even during his student years in Rostock, where his most
prominent teacher of astronomy was Heinrich Brucaeus, friend of Tycho Brahe,
he published an almanac and an astrological practice for the year of 15928 • There
he deals with a forthcoming eclipse, mentioning its time according to the Alfonsine
calculation. But at the same time he gives his own, dissentient estimation, adding
that it corresponds to "Calculo Copernicano", which, in fact, means only that
he used Copernicus' Tables. However, in Rostock no doubt he was given the op-
portunity to study the Copernican system thoroughly. It was presented in lectures
there, although the teacher, Brucaeus, adhered principally to the Ptolemaic cosmo-
logy9.
About his work as professor of Astronomy in Upsala (till 1600) Laurentius Pau-
linus himself several years later states that he was not only teaching the celestial
motions according to the Tables, but also lectured on the three different planetary
hypotheses: the Ptolemaic, the Copernican and the Tychonic. This information
is fully confirmed by a large number of detailed notes, made by Paulinus himself
in a copy of Georg Peurbach's famous work Theoricae novae planetarum from the
middle of the 15th century, still used in academic education all over Europe many
years laterlo. The notes are made in 1599, obviously in connection with lectures
at the universityll. They contain detailed accounts of Copernicus' planetary sys-
tem, illustrated with a large number of figures, with mathematical comparisons to
the Ptolemaic system and also that of Tycho Brahe. It is obvious that Paulinus had
7 E')l'xvxAOnat6ew sincerioris & Socraticae philosophiae, praes. Rodolphus Goclenius.

8 Almanach Och Practica wppd theft M.D. XCII. Ahret ... , Greifswald, 1591.
9 So he does in his principal astronomical work, De motu primo, Rostock, 1573, 5th ed.
1604, which was used in Swedish academic education for a long time.
10 Laur. Paulinus has used the edition Basileae, 1573. His copy now belongs to the library of
the Upsala Observatory.

11 The Latin original is published with a Swedish translation by N. V. E. Nordenmark, Lau-
rentius Paulinus Gothusforeliisningar vid Uppsala universitet 1599 over Copernicus hypotes, [in] "Arkiv
fOr astronomi", vol. 1, No. 24, Stockholm, 1951.
244 Henrik Sandblad
a great interest in the Copernican theory, but he does not express his own stand-
point.
Thus it is evident that the students in Upsala at this time obtained detailed know-
ledge of Copernican astronomy. Copernicus' doctrine was, as yet, however, hardly
considered so dangerous and repudiable as would be the case during the following
period, when Aristotelian scholastic philosophy with ecclesiastical orthodoxy took
command of university learning, in Sweden as well as in many other European cir-
cles.
Those Swedes showing a more definite interest in the Copernican system in the
period immediately following are found outside university life.
One of them is Sigfrid Aronus Forsius (d. 1624), a clergyman of Finnish extrac-
tion, natural philosopher and an astrologist of strong apocalyptic inclination. Dur-
ing the early 17th century, he published almanacs with prognostics, and in one of
them, that of 1610 12 , he talks about the reasons for the uncertainty of astrological
calculations, one of which is that the foremost astronomers have offered such dif
ferent hypotheses about the planetary motions. In doing so, he briefly describes
the three great world systems, those of Ptolemy, Copernicus and Tycho. This ac-
count is particularly interesting in that it is the first actual description of the Coper-
nican system printed in Swedish literature. Forsius does not express his own opi-
nion; he only emphasizes that another long period of observations is needed in order
to ascertain the truth. He returns to the question in his large, principal work of natu-
ral philosophy, Physica, completed in 1611, the printing of which was prevented
by ecclesiastical orthodoxy because of certain heretical, Paracelsic parts 13. In its
chapter on cosmology, Copernicus' heliocentric view is mentioned very briefly,
with the addition that it is universally disapproved of, because it is incompatible
with Holy Scripture. For the future, Forsius explicitly adopts the geocentric princi-
ple, and it seems as if he inclines to accept Tycho Brahe's system. He does not give
any scientific arguments against Copernicus, and it may be regarded as characteris-
tic that he, consequently, disregards the strong objections raised by Aristotelian
physics, from which Forsius diverges in several passages of his work 14 •
At this time, Sweden had its first - also for long the only - Copernican, Johan-
nes Thomae Bureus (1568-1652). Bureus was a polyhistor with a very strange
personality, ana antiquarian, a linguist and a religious mystic on a neo-Platonic basis
with strong cabbalistic and Paracelsic elements. His work and thinking are entirely
separated from the academic circles and their official doctrines, apart from the fact
the he, in the 1590's, was matriculated at the University of Upsala, where he may
12Prognosticon astrologicum ... Till thet Adr ... MDCX, Stockholm, 1609.
13Physica Eller Naturlighe tings Qualiteters och Egendomars Beskrijfuelse, first published by
J. Nordstrom, Sigfridus Aronus Forsius, Physica (Cod. Holm. D 76), Upsala, 1952.
14 Forsius's natural philosophy has been studied especially by S. Lindroth, Paracelsismen
i Sverige till 1600-talets mitt, Upsala, 1943 (Lychnos-Bibliotek, 7), pp. 391 et seq.
have heard the teaching of Laurentius PauIinus. Anyhow, his peculiar views are
the products of his own studies and his own speculation 1s .
Like so much connected with this man, the documents illustrating his astrono-
mical views are not always unambiguous. But it seems that he entertained Coperni-
can notions while still quite young. In his diary there are astronomical notes from
1601, where Copernicus' theory of the motion of the earth and the immbolllty
of the sun is mentioned in a way indicating that it was not unfamiliar to Bureus him-
self. His printed publications are scarce, and his written heritage largely consists
of miscellaneous notes, often somewhat chaotic, which makes it impossible to get
a clear picture of his views on astronomical subjects 16 • It can hardly be regarded
as remarkable that he used Copernicus' planetary Tables, because so did many
astronomers who otherwise adhered to the old system. It is far more interesting that
he, in his notes from the beginning of the 17th century, drew a model of the Coperni-
can planetary system. Furthermore, one finds that at the same time he was occupied
with extensive cosmological speculations, which were very close to a Copernican
view but above all influenced by Nicolaus Cusanus, whose doctrine of a cosmos that
is infinite and accordingly has no fixed centre - notions which were of the greatest
importance for Giordano Bruno's cosmology - is obviously behind Bureus's state-
ments that the centre of the earth is everywhere, i.e. in all its bodies, and its circum-
ference nowhere; thus no fixed centre can be determined. As a logical consequence,
Bureus maintains that all celestial bodies are mobile. Probably also influenced by
Cusanus, Bureus arrived at a notion no less daring and heretical - it was also cul-
tivated by Forsius - that all celestial bodies are inhabited by living creatures.
Thus it seems that, as early as this time, Bureus had not only arrived at a Coper-
nican standpoint, but that he was also familiar with thoughts reaching much further.
During his later years, when on the whole he had reached a more circumspect and
consequent way of thinking, he expressed himself more clearly in these matters,
above all in a printed natural-philosophy publication in 1641 17 • In that work, he
very schematically presents his peculiar, biblically inspired conception of the origin
and structure of the cosmos. The sun is at rest in the centre of the universe, and out-
side the earth revolves among the other planets, while the innumerable fixed stars
are situated farthest out under the firmament. Thus, in this work Bureus stands out
as essentially a Copernican.
Some words should also be said about another prominent polyhistor, Georg
Stiernhielm (1598-1672), best-known as the greatest Swedish poet of the century
but also a linguist, a natural scientist and a philosopher of very radical, anti-Aristo-
IS Lindroth, op. cit., pp. 82-252, contains a thorough monograph on Bureus and his opi-
nions.
16 These astronomical notes in his diary and his various manuscripts are dealt with by H. Sand-
blad, Det copernikanska viirldssystemet i Sverige, I. Aristotelismens tidevarv, [inl "Lychnos" 1943,
pp. 156 et seq.
17 Hebraeorum philosophia antiquissima, Upsaliae, 1641. cr. Lindroth, op. cit.• Pl'. 218 et seq.
246 Henrik Sandblad
telian views on the neo-Platonic tradition. In many ways, he was a Burean scholar,
but whether that applies to cosmology as well may be regarded as uncertain, although
the speculations of the two in that domain have much in common. In his cosmolo-
gical conception, Stiernhielm was particularly influenced by Giordano Bruno.
Together with him, he embraces the idea of an infinite world-space, with the conse-
quence that it is futile ot talk of a fixed centre of the universe; it is everywhere and
nowhere. The earth is a planet, which on the other hand the sun is not, and all
stars and planets are suns and earths in an infinite number of worlds. Thus, the
firmament is not the heaven of our earth but belongs, says Stiernhielm, to every
star or material body which is part of it, like another earth or another world; accor-
dingly, this thesis means that from any other star the cosmos looks the same as from
our earth. In fact, these notions include Copernicus' system but they reach much
farther. To the predominant way of viewing nature at that time they had indeed
a revolutionary significance. Stiernhielm never published them, however, and in fact
his Swedish contemporaries would have regarded them as absolutely intolerable.
In their cosmological speculations, Bureus and Stiernhielm are isolated pheno-
mena, very interesting on their own merits but insignificant for the future progress
of the Copernican system in Sweden. One obvious reason for that is the fact that
they were printed or otherwise propagated to such a small extent. The road along
which the new picture of the world had to struggle, came up against conservative
university science.
2.
During the first part of the 17th century, the State of Sweden carried through
that political and military expansion, which for almost one hundred years made
it one of the Great Powers of Europe. Simultaneous with this expansion, a magni-
ficent cultural policy with a large-scale expansion of all higher education was started
under King Gustav Adolphus. The University of Upsala was now given the organi-
zation and the material resources which enabled activities tolerably comparable
to those of the larger continental centres of learning. By and by, new universities
arose in different parts of the Baltic. Upsala remained the leading university, and
the mathematical sciences received there three professorial chairs, the holder of that
of astronomy having the significative title of "professor Ptolemaicus". In" the gene-
ral educational regulations, issued in 1626, Copernicus is mentioned among a num-
ber of other, mostly older, "authores probatissimi". It would be rash, however,
to assume from that the Copernican system had met with approval in Swedish
university learning, although, now as before, the students were introduced to it.
The special instructions for the professorship of astronomy mention only three
text-books, all based on the classical picture of the world: Sacrobosco's Sphaera,
Peurbach's Theoricae and Brucaeus's De motu primo.
The military enterprises were also used for direct support of national cultural
life. An extensive number of books taken as spoils of war on the continent were
brought home, above all to Upsala. Thus it occurred in 1626 that the Swedish forces
in East Prussia took those books and manuscripts by Copernicus that had been be-
queathed to the Cathedral of Frombork. They are still kept in Swedish libraries and
archives, mainly the Upsala University Library 18.
The astronomic standpoint dominating the learned life of Sweden during this
era, is found at its best in the academic dissertation literature. The discussion about
Copernicus and his system carried on there, will now be summarized. It can be said
at once that in this literature one hardly finds any contribution of international
significance. Not only does it lack true originality - which indeed it did not claim -
it is also conspicuous that only occasionally does it contain any work showing a de-
eper and farther-reaching study of the cosmological questions of principle so inten-
sely and vitally debated during this period. It can also be said that in the main the
development in Sweden follows the general European and continental development,
that only here and there does the Swedish material show any direct or close contact
with the current exchange of opinions in the culturally progressive countries 19 •
The first author we meet here in Upsalian literature is Martinus Erici Gestri-
nius (1594-1648). Mter studying at various German universities he became Profes-
sor of Mathematics in Upsala in 1621. He seems to have devoted quite as much time
to astronomy, however, and his activities as a teacher for 27 years were of great
importance for the introduction of the new astronomy into Swedish science. As one
might expect, he adheres to the geocentric principle, but in many details he accepts
the results of up-to-date studies, which is shown as early as 1622 in a thesis De
stellis. A dissertation De sole, ventilated in 1632, is more interesting than any other
under his patronage. The respondent, and perhaps the author, was Simon Kexlerus,
later to become the first Professor of Mathematics at the University of Turku,
Finland, founded in 1640. The author sets out to deal with the annual motion referr-
ing to the sun, of which many hypotheses - three in particular - had been propo-
sed. Of those he wants to confine himself to "observationes eruditissimi viri &
excellentissimi Astronomi Nicolai Copernici". He at once dismisses Copernicus'
theories of the earth's multitudinous motion and the immobility of the sun in the
centre of the universe; without further argumentation he declares that they are too
remote from the physical reality and completely absurd. However, he says, they have
led to important observations worth of closer examination and explanation, especial-
ly concerning certain irregularities of the motion of the sun. The author wants to
explain them in a way that makes Copernicus' theories of the motions of the earth
superfluous. He does it by means of complicated epicycle and deferent theory, in
18 The Upsala University Library now owns three copies of the original edition of De revo-
lutionibus. One of them, having Georg Joachim Rheticus's personal autograph, was captured at the
same time together with the other books of the Jesuit College in Braniewo.
19 A detailed investigation fully documenting the discussion about Copernicus in the Swe-
dish academic dissertations of this period is made by Sand blad, op. cit., pp. 160-188.
248 Henrik Sandblad
the main coinciding with the Ptolemaic explanation of the irregularities of the pla-
netary motions. To this treatment of certain special problems in the Copernican
system some corollaries have been added, in which the author states his general
attitude to Copernicus' fundamental ideas. The questions as to whether the sun
is at rest in the centre or is moving as the central one of the planets in the ethereal
region, both receive the answer that both alternatives are astronomically possible,
but only the latter physically. The question as to whether the earth, situated in or
outside the centre, is mobile or immobile, is answered thus: if it is situated outside
the centre of the universe it is mobile, but if it is situated in the centre, both alterna-
tives are possible.
Kexlerus's dissertation, undoubtedly bearing the impress of the opinion of his
teacher, Martinus Gestrinius, is the first Swedish work in which Copernican lines
of thought are subjected to any real discussion. The work evinces a thorough study
of De revolutionibus and a marked admiration of Copernicus' adhievements. The
author's attitude to the Copernican system seems on the whole benevolent; in reject-
ing it, he gives physical reasons only, whose content is, however, not even suggested.
In a hand-written astronomical text-book by Gestrinius 20 of the same year, 1632,
the question of the place of the earth in the universe is treated somewhat more ex-
haustively. For three different reasons, all of them purely astronomical, the author
assumes that the earth is immobile in the centre of the universe: (1) of the signs
of the zodiac six are always above and six below the horizon; (2) the size, grouping
and relative distance ofthe fixed stars appear identical everywhere on earth; (3) every-
where, the time from sunrise to noon is the same as from noon to sunset. With these
arguments, some of the most common ones in the more popular criticisms of Coper-
nicus, the author rests content. One special chapter shortly relates the most importan-
hypotheses that have been given through the ages, of the structure of the universe
and the planetary motions. Of course, the Copernican system is also described;
it is observed that its fundamental idea had been presented already by Aristarchus,
long before the birth of Christ. Gestrinius does not take a stand for or against any
hypotheses; he only points out that hitherto the Ptolemaic one has been followed
"in the schools" - i.e., university education because, knowing that, anybody may
easily initiate himself into the others on his own. This statement is probably meant
to justify the fact that he made the Ptolematc hypotheses the basts of his own work,
which was presumably meant for junior university studies. The whole of this ex-
position of the different systems later re-appears in Gestrinius' printed text-book
Urania 21 •
Judging by his extant works, this is what was written about the Copernican sys-
tem by Martinus Gastrinius, the foremost representative of the mathematical scien-
ces in Upsala and Sweden during the time up to the middle of the century. It is true
20 MS No. A 502: 10, Upsala University Library (untitled).

21 Uraniae libri IV, Upsaliae, 1647.
that he rejects the heliocentric principle, but he has not made any detailed refuta-
tion, and on the whole his position seems to be cautious and rather divergent.
As a teacher of astronomy he undoubtedly influenced the following generation con-
siderably.
Several contemporaries of Martinus Gestrinius in Upsala briefly touched on
different occasions upon the Copernican system. One of them is Johannes Franck
(1590-1661), Professor of Medicine and in certain respects influenced by Paracel-
sus, though as a natural-philosopher he was foundamentally an Aristotelian. He
devoted several dissertations to astronomical and physical subjects, and one of them,
De calore solis in 1625, was earlier regarded as indicating strong Copernican sym-
pathies. That, however, was due to a misunderstanding of a polemic passage, where
Franck talks about the famous astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, who thinks that
the earth is moving, while the sun is immobile, a view nowadays zealously "a quam
plurimis" defended as correct. That statement did not imply any direct support
of Copernicus, although Franck greatly admired him and was obviously interested
in his system, whose success abroad he used as an argument in that part of the dis-
sertation where the question of the heat of the sun was dialectically treated. In later
dissertations he also stands out as a spokesman of a conservative cosmological con-
ception. In one of them, De orbium coelestium realitate, 1627, the question is discus-
sed whether the different planetary spheres really exist, as classical physics taught,
or whether these spheres, in accordance with the view common among more modem
astronomers, are purely fictions, heaven being one great etheral space, where the
planets of their own force run in their set orbits, "like fish in the water and birds
in the air". Strictly formally, Franck defends the former standopint, but it is ob-
vious that this is only a dialectical gambit, and that he is actually espousing the op-
posite opinion. The most important thing, however, is that Franck's discussion of
the question is wholly and entirely based upon the geocentric standpoint. That is
also clearly shown in a corollary concerning the question as to whether the earth
is moving in a circle, as Copernicus and his supporters allege, and heaven is immo-
bile instead. This question is answered in the negative. It seems clear that Franck's
principal conception is geocentric - perhaps rather concurring with the of Tycho
Brahe, whom he calls "Astronomorum Aquila & Atlas".
Franck's statement that at this time the Copernican system was widely spread
abroad, should be interpreted with a certain caution. But no doubt it had established
its ground at several German universities, even if it was not always taught publicly;
and there it could influence the numerous Swedish students still going to the continent.
One example of that is a philosophical dissertation 22 presented in 1626 in Greifswald
by the Swede Olaus Moraeus. In one of the corollaries the respondent agrees to
defend the opinion maintained by Copernicus, Kepler, Origanus and others, that
heaven is at rest while the earth is moving with the sun as a centre.
22 De ente eiusdem conceptu, praes. Johannes Segerus.

250 Henrik Sandblad
Such bold theses, however, were not vindicated by those students staying in
Sweden. Nor are there, in the Upsalian literature of the next decades, any great
number of passages mentioning Copernicus' name or even discussing the cosmolo-
gical matters of principle. In several passages, Copernicus' system is mentioned very
briefly and dismissed equally briefly with theses out of Aristotelian physics, someti-
mes with an acknowledgment of those modifications caused by Galileo's sensatio-
nal telescopic discoveries. One of the most interesting and able contributions to
this literature is a dissertation De sole, ventilated in 1649 for the Professor of Optics
and Mechanics, Martinus Olai Nycopensis (1596-1657), who probably was the prin-
cipal author himself. Having given an account of the Ptolemaic system, the author
points out that it was entirely changed by Copernicus and the Copernicans, who
put the sun, immobile, in the place of the earth, while the earth takes that of the sun
and is subject to a threefold motion: the diurnal, the annual and that of libration.
This view, it is said, is old enough, because even Philolaus and the Pythagoreans
espoused it. Thus, here is a reference to the Pythagorean doctrine of the central
fire of the universe, around which the earth and the other celestial bodies move.
In later times, particularly during the discussion of the Copernican system, this cen-
tral fire was incorrectly interpreted as identical with the sun - i. e., a misconception
re-appearing in Martinus Nycopensis' dissertation. Finally, the author sums up the
system formed by Tycho Brahe, with which, he says, most modern astronomers
agree. To him that hypothesis seems the most correct. As expressed by Longomon-
tanus, the reason is that it is some kind of a middle course between the old Ptolemaic
and the admirable Copernican hypothesis: on the one hand it excludes the compli-
cated epicycle theory, used by Ptolemy in an attempt to explain the irregularities
of the annual planetary orbits, and on the other it excludes Copernicus' absurd
theory of the annual motion of the earth. Consequently, Tycho's hypothesis is the
best and most expedient way of explaining the symmetry of the cosmos.
In this quotation from Longomontanus - i. e. Christen Sarensen of Lomborg,
the great Danish mathematician and astronomer, a disciple and assistent of Tycho -
the criticism of Copernicus concerns only the annual motion. In fact, Longomon-
tanus deviated from Tycho's system in so far that he accepted the Copernican theory
of the diurnal motion of the earth around its axis. It is not clear whether the Upsa-
lian author agrees with this so-called semi-Tychonic standpoint, given final shape
by Longomontanus in his principal work Astronomia Danica (1622), from which
the quotation is taken23 • Anyhow, here as in other dissertations by Martinus Nyco-
pensis, one finds that he principally accepts Tycho's system. On the whole, he is
a typical representative of numerous scientists all over Europe at this time; they
all found the Ptolemaic system untenable, but at the same time they were incapable
of accepting a heliocentric conception and therefore they espoused the Tychonic or
at most the semi-Tychonic.
23 Astronomia Danica, Amsterdami, 1622, Pars posterior, lib. J, cap. I, D. 21.

Clearly, those supporters of the geocentric principle so far mentioned have

not to any major extent given the motives for their stand, and the astronomical
arguments against Copernicus are very meagre. The question presenting itself is:
what was the fundamental cause of the opposition so commonly offered to Coper-
nicus by the representatives of academic learning?
The answer seems evident. The conclusive arguments came from Aristotelian
natural philosophy which almost totally leavened university culture during this
period, in Sweden as in most places in Europe. As long as that dominating position
remained unshaken, the obstacles to Copernican system were insurmountable. There
is no doubt that these traditional scholastic physics lie behind the criticisms of the
new doctrines even in cases where no real attempts at refutation are made.
In the year 1625, a teacher of philosophy in Upsala, Aeschillus Petraeus (1593-
1657), later Professor of Theology and bishop of Turku, presented a Collegium phy-
sicum in a series of dissertations. In one of them 24 he enters upon the question of the
motion of the earth, the possibility of which he denies. His polemics are mainly di-
rected against the Pythagoreans but also against Copernicus and William Gilbert,
who deduces evidence of the rotation of the earth out of his pioneering research
concerning terrestrial magnetism 2s • Petraeus refers to biblical passages: in general,
that occurred very rarely during this early phase of the Swedish discussion of Coper-
nicus. He also cites one of the astronomical arguments formerly encountered in
Martinus Gestrinius. These are only passing objections, however, and the author
adds that strictly astronomically the motion of the earth is possible as a hypothesis
to explain the phenomena, but from a physical point of view it cannot be treated
as real. We have met this opinion already, though without any further indication
of the physical arguments. They are given here, however, and to Petraeus himself
the physical arguments are vital in repudiating the Copernican system. He thoroughly
relates the Aristotelian doctrine of elements and mechanics, according to which the
motion natural to the elements is rectilinear; of necessity, that makes the earth
immobile in the centre of the universe. Along with this natural motion a motus vio-
lentus can occur, too, but since such a motion lately decreases, that could not be
the one in question either.
These Aristotelian mechanics are the basis of the most thorough settlements of
account with the Copernican system occurring in Swedish scientific literature during
this period. Not unexpectedly, these contributions come from the representatives
of philosophy in Upsala. Thus, a dissertation De terra was ventilated in 1632 under
the presidency of the professor of logic Laurentius Stigzelius (1598-1676), one of
the most skilful and devoted representatives of Aristotelianism in Sweden. There,
the question of the position of the earth and the questions of its alleged motions are
24 De aqua et terra.
2S De magnete, magneticisque corporibus, et de magno magnete tellure, Physi%gia noua, Lon-
dini. 1600, lib. VI.
252 Henrik Sandblad
exhaustively treated, with reference to various Aristotelian authorities, mainly the

famous Aristoteles commentary complied by the Jesuit College of Coimbra26 •
The author's opinion that the earth owing to its nature is immobile in the centre
of the universe, can be confirmed, he says, by several biblical passages but above
all physically proved. Making the concepts and definitions of Aristotelian mechanics
his starting-point, he maintains that if the earth is not immobile its motion must be
either natural or violent or possibly praeternaturalis. If it is natural, it has to be
either rectilinear or circular. In the same way as Petraeus, but more exhaustively,
he shows, strictly logically, that a terrestrial motion can not be natural in either
way. Nor can it be violent, because such a motion can not be permanent. Finally,
one can not think it praeternaturalis either, because then the earth would depend
on another body, which can not be proved. Thus, from these and other "firmissimis
argumentis" it can be concluded that the earth is immobile in the centre of the uni-
verse. Therefore, no other cause is recognized here than that referring to the nature
of the earth, inspired by God at the beginning of the world. Besides, it is said, much
that is obviously false is used in astronomical hypotheses to explain phenomena
more conveniently; but it simply can not be accepted as physically real, which even
the famous astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus seems to want to allege as an excuse
in his preface. Thus, here as so often before, Osiander's anonymous preface of De
revolutionibus is used as an argument against Copernicus.
None of this detailed confutation of the fundamental thoughts of the Coperni-
can system is in the least original. On the contrary, it is highly typical of the criticism
emanating from traditional Aristotelian philosophy. It is precisely because of that,
that its arguments out of traditional physics are of such great interest: they are iden-
tical with the arguments that were repeated again and again all over Europe at this
time, and for a long time yet preserved the dominance of the geocentric picture of
the universe.
Stigzelius soon became a Professor of Theology, and finally archbishop of Upsa-
la. His successor in the professorship of logic, Olaus Unonius (1602-66), was not
as prominent; however, he was also a firm Aristotelian of a battling spirit. Among
his unusually numerous dissertations from the 1640's, several are of interest in this
context. The reason for that is the vehement polemics they direct, mainly with the
same physical arguments, against the doctrine that the earth is moving, a doctrine
espoused by ancient philosophers and roused out of its ashes by Nicolaus Copernicus
of Torun, giving him many echoers "conjurati in verba Magistri". In a dissertation
from 1663 27 , passages of the Holy Scripture are quoted along with the old, perpetually
repeated physical arguments and to some extent the astronomical ones. With greater
reliability than any mathematical evidence, says the author, these passages maintain
that the sun and the other stars are moving, while the earth is immobile. The author
26 Commentarii Col/egii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in IV. libros de coelo Aristotelis Stagi
ritae, Lugduni, 1594, especially lib. II, cap. XIV (pp. 363 et seq.)
27 Novem themata philosophica, esp. them. VIII and IX.
also strongly emphasizes that in these matters as well as others, the Bible must be
interpreted literally.
This ardent defence of the authority of the Bible in cosmological matters merits
the greatest interest: for from the whole nature and wording of the argumentation
it seems obvious that it is directed against the Cartesian philosophy, which at this
time had started to gain ground in different quarters of Europe and through which
the Copernican notions rapidly established themselves. Since the foundation of the
scholastic conception of nature has started tottering before the Cartesian attack,
biblical arguments, as we shall soon see, were more than ever used against the helio-
centric conception; they remained as the last resource of the traditional picture of
the universe. Thus, at the same time, and mainly, the battle of Copernicus' system
became a battle of the jurisdiction of the letter of the Bible in natural science.
We have seen what stand the repesentatives of philosophy in Upsala adopted
towards the Copernican system. Nor is any positive attitude to be seen in those of
the mathematical sciences even in the 1660's. As late as 1669 a dissertation on Theoria
Maris was ventilated before the Professor of Astronomy, Jonas Fornelius; there,
an account of the three great world systems is given; in doing so the author does
not explicitly take a stand for either of them, but the whole exposition starts from
the geocentric principle. It can also be noted that Kepler is mentioned among the
followers of Copernicus, but this dissertation in no way touches upon has investi-
gation of the motion of Mars which formed the basis of his first two laws and which
was indeed published a full 60 years earlier.
Consequently, it can be established that not one true follower of Copernicus had
appeared in academic Upsala, the scientific centre of Sweden, as late as the end of
the 1660's; on the contrary, from certain quarters Copernicus' doctrines were now
as vehemently attacked as ever. But during the following decade new, refreshing
winds finally began to force their way into the lecture-rooms of scholasticism.
Before we take a look at that process, the conditions at the other Swedish seats
of learning will be somewhat touched upon. Mter Upsala, the University of Finnish
Turku was the most important; it was highly active soon after its foundation in 1640.
In the disserations from its first decades one finds several contributions to cosmolo-
gical matters of principle. Constantly a geocentric conception is maintained, though
supported mainly by the traditional arguments from Aristotelian physics and the
biblical passages that were generally used against Copernicus. An astronomical
text-book is of greater interest. It was written by Andreas Thuronius (1632-65),
Professor of Philosophy and later of Physics as well, during the early 1660's28.
Thuronius cannot accept Copernicus' doctrine of the annual motion, because it is
incompatible with the Bible, but he does accept the diurnal motion and unequiv-
ocally adopts the semi-Tychonic system. In doing so, Thuronius took a very ad-
vanced position in contemporary Swedish learning.
28 MS No. A 301, Upsala University Library (in Swedish, untitled).

254 Henrik Sandblad
Under the presidency of the first Professor of Mathematical sciences in Turku,

the already mentioned Simon Kexlerus, a dissertation was ventilated in 1661; this
is the most important Swedish contribution to the criticism of Copernicanism so far.
The author is Petrus Laurbecchius (1628-1705), a teacher of philosophy and later
a professor and bishop. It is entitled De circuli quadratura et vero mundi systemate,
adversus Copernicum Redivivum and is especially directed against the famous learned
German Daniel Lipstorpius, who had appeared as a devoted follower of Descar-
tes' natural philosophy; in his work Copernicus Redivivus, seu de vero mundo syste-
mate, 1653, he zealously advocated the Copernican system in its Cartesian form.
Laurbecchius's dissertation is the first sign that the Swedish university world obser-
ved the threat of Cartesian philosophy, under the cloak of which Copernicanism
sought to intrude. Laurbecchius himself espouses Tycho Brahe's system, asserting
its superiority to the Copernican one with both astronomical and physical argu-
ments in a very penetrating criticism of Lipstorpius, evincing both erudition and dia-
lectical keenness. The details must be passed over here; it can hardly be said, however,
that the Aristotelianly trained laurbecchius does justice to the argumentation of
his adversary in his polemics. It is not possible for him to understand the Cartesian
physics on which Lipstorpius bases his lines of thought; these two men speak totally
different languages.
How strong was the position of the geocentric system in Turku even in the 1670's
mad be seen from the astronomical dissertations they presented: they are all entirely
traditional as regards cosmological matters of principle. Accordingly, as late as that
decade the Copernican system had secured no follower in Turku, anyhow none ap-
pearing publicly.
The University of Lund came into being in 1668, to meet the neads of the Southern
provinces of Sweden, captured from Denmark ten years earlier. In its first, rather
miscellaneous collection of teachers the holder of the Professorship of Astronomy,
Anders Spole (1630-99), was one of the best, and probably the most skilful astro-
nomer Sweden had so far. He took his chair immediately after a long stay ab-
road, during which he studied in Holland, England and Italy, but above all for many
years in Paris. There he could not avoid getting close contact with the current vivid
discussion of Cartesian natural philosophy, which did not, however, leave any de-
eper impress on his output. Instead, his great astronomical authority was the Jesuit
anti-Copernican Giovanni Battista Riccoli whom he met in Bologna; in his exten-
sive work Almagestum novum 29 Riccoli presented his own system which was a sim-
plification of Tycho Brahe's. This dependence is clearly displayed in the only dis-
sertation by Spole in Lund worth mentioning in this connection - i. e., De terra
in 1674, which as a matter of fact shows an insight into recent astronomical litera-
ture that is unusual for Swedish circumstances.
29 Almagestum novum astronomiam veterem novamque compiectens, Bononiae, 1651.

The activities at the University of Lund were soon interrupted by a new war
and a Danish invasion, and shortly afterwards Spole received a call to the astrono-
mical chair in Upsala. And immediately after his arrival there, he was drawn into
a dramatic process which marks the beginning of a new era in Swedish natural science
research.
3.
As is well known, Descartes himself visited Sweden, having received a summons

to the court of Queen Christina in Stockholm where he died in 1650. That visit
did not, however, leave any clear traces of his doctrines. The earliest definite in-
fluence of Cartesian natural philosophy appears in the beginning of the 1660's
when it turns out thait it has ganed a firm footing in the faculty of medicine in
Upsala. At this time, it consistedi of two brilliant and young men, Petrus Hoff'venius
(1630-82) and Olaus Rudbeck (1630-1702); the latter is the most famous, although
in this case he kept more in the background 30 • They were both eminent anatomists
and had been studying in Holland, the second home country of Descartes and his
doctrines, and there they were strongly impressed by the new way of thinking. Hof-
fvenius's public spread of Cartesian opinions soon caused violent conflicts with
orthodox theology, which regards this new-fashionedness as a threat to the true
faith 31 • At the end of the decade, the contentions temporarily ceased, but the Car-
tesian notions were still spread, mainly by Hoff'venius. In the 1760's, he taught Car-
tesian physics for a succession of years to students of all faculties, and during that
period he wrote a number of small dissertations meant for exercise concerning
various natural-philosophical problems, which he collected and published in 1678
under the title of Synopsis physica. It is a mystery that this work managed to escape
the theological censorship, because it is entirely a text-book of Cartesian physics,
though discreetly enough the name of Descartes is not mentioned.
This work, essentially based on works by the eminent German Cartesian Johann
Clauberg, became fundamental to education in the natural sciences in Upsala for
a long time to come. There, Hoff'venius briefly and very instructively presents the
new celestial mechanics, radically diff'erent from the Aristotelian one and to which Des-
cartes gave final shape in Principia philosophiae 32 , with its fundamental principles
30 That nevertheless Rudbeck was a convinced Copernican seems obvious from a remarkable
treatise on comets which he wrote in 1665 as a letter to Nicolaus Heinsius, the Dutch humanist.
It was sent by Heinsius to Stanislaus Lubienietzki, the learned Polish exile, and published in his
Theatrum cometicum, Tom. I, Amsterodami, 1668; see esp. pp. 355-359.
31 These and later conflicts about Cartesianism are related in detail by R. Lindborg, Descar-
tes i Uppsa/a, Upsala, 1965 (Lychnos-Bibliotek, 22); their special astronomic aspects by H. Sand-
blad, Det copernikanska viirldssystemet i Sverige, II. Cartesianismen och genombrottet, [in] "Lych-
nos" 1944/1945, pp. 79 et seq.
32 Principia philosophiae, Amsterodami, 1644, pars III.
256 Henrik Sandblad
of matter and motion and its strange vortex theory. The planetary doctrine based
on this theory of the motions of universal matter, Hoffvenius presents in a special
dissertation (No. X) among those included in the Synopsis, entitled De Planetis
eorumque Phenomenon causis. The planets all come into existence in the same way
and they constitute dark bodies which obtain their light from the sun, in the vortex
of which they are carried around. Among them only two kinds can be distinguished,
however: simplices seu primarii and compositii seu secundarii. Except for the mo-
tion around their own axis, the former kind have a single motion together with
the vortex into which they are drawn; they are Mercury, Venus, Tellus-i. e., our
earth-Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. The latter kind perform several whirling motions,
on one hand their own and on the other those related to the bigger vortex absorbing
them; this is true of the moon which was first drawn into the vortex of the earth
and then along with the earth into the big vortex of the sun. For that reason, it fol-
lows the earth in the diurnal motion of its axis, and at the same time it is brought
along around the sun in the annual motion. The same is true of the four Jupiter
satellites: first they were drawn into the vortex of Jupiter and then with Jupiter into
that of the sun. The single planetary motions in the vortex of the sun are faster or
slower the nearer or the farther they are from the sun. The distance of a planet is
not only due to its size but also to its solidity; the bigger and more solid the planet
is, the greater force it must possess to remove itself from the centre, according to
the law of nature. Accordingly, that is what decides the fixed relative order, which
of old it has been possible to observe within our heavens 33 •
Thus, in the greater vortex including our planetary system, the earth is carried
around the sun; and as it is always situated between the same parts of the celestial
matter it can in fact be considered immobile, "as a ship, which is not driven by wind
or oars and is not stopped by anchors, is at rest at sea, even if the body of water
carries it along in a current"34. The latter argumentation is based on the Cartesian
definition of motion: motion is the moving of a body from the vicinity of the bodies
being in its immediate proximity to the vicinity of other bodies 35 . In this way Des-
cartes, of course, was able formally to adhere to the biblical doctrine of the immobi-
lity of the earth, at the same time as he, in the main, accepts the principal idea of
Copernican cosmology, even though from natural-philosophical starting points
quite different from those of earlier Copernicanism. And in this form, through
Hoffvenius, Copernicus is taught for the first time in the academic education of
Upsala, forcing his way into Swedish scientific literature.
One of the students taking part in the exercise, in which was discussed the above-
-mentioned dissertation by Hoffvenius on the planetary system, was Nils Celsius
(1658-1724), not yet 20 years old and the son of the Professor of Mathematics,
33 cr. ibidem, p. 147 et seq.

34 Ibidem, p. 26.
35 Principia philosophiae, pars II, p. 25.
Magnus Celsius 36 • That young man would soon make an important and sensatio-
nal contribution to the history of Swedish Copernicanism.
Having moved to the astronomical chair in Upsala in 1679, Anders Spole was
shortly afterwards approached by young Celsius who wanted to defend a disserta-
tion De principiis astronomis propriis under his presidency. With his customary
cautiousness, Spole consented, after making Celsius modify some excessively bold
expressions. But his cautiousness did not suffice. As soon as the dissertation was
published, it turned out that it contained several statements that were intolerable
from an orthodox point of view. The faculty of theology immediately sounded
the alarm, and thus, in the cathedral itself, was started one of the fortunately few
heresy trials in the Swedish history of learning. Celsius escaped with serious admo-
nitions from his theological guardians, but the public discussion had to be cancelled
and further distribution of the dissertation was forbidden 37 •
No doubt, the Copernican sympathies clearly shown by Celsius in his disserta-
tion are mainly a result of his participation in Hoffvenius's education in natural-
philosophy. But another influence also, is traceable - i. e., that of his father, Magnus
Celsius, who died earlier the same year and who obviously approved of the disser-
tation, intending to preside over it himself. Magnus appears to have been strongly
attracted by the Copernican system, although he did not find it possible to declare
his opinion publicly.
The anger of the theologians at Nils Celsius's dissertation was not caused prin-
cipally l:y the special question of the motion of the earth, but by the fact that it
vindicated certain leading natural science questions of the greatest consequence.
Celsius starts by pointing out that it is the experience obtained through observa-
tions that must be the foundation of a science devoted to exploring celestial pheno-
mena. Without observations, nothing of value can be performed in astronomy.
In its efforts to acquire true knowledge of nature, astronomy is hampered by various
kinds of prejudices: on the one hand the preconceived opinions of the masses, often
based on habitual ways of thinking without regard to the experience to be obtained
from the evidence of the senses - and even that evidence can be deceptive, unless
verified by careful experiments. Another kind of prejudice to be fought by the na-
tural scientist are those wrongly understood and cunningly adjusted passages of the
Holy Scripture, which "spread a cloak of alleged piety over the truth".
The latter question, the validity of the word of Scripture in natural science, Cel-
sius discusses thoroughly, obviously in order to forestall objections anticipated as
regards his cosmological conception. In doing so he uses statements by great teachers
of the Church, mainly Augustine, who sharply denounces those who allow matters
36 The Celsius family is one of the most prominent dynasties in the Swedish history of science.
Nils Celsius became the father of Anders Celsius (1701-44), the constructor of the centograde
thermometer, Professor of Astronomy in Upsala.
37 This incident is related in detail by Sandblad, op. cit., pp. 84-91, with complementary
additions by Lindborg, op. cit., pp. 183-187.

258 Henrik Sandblad
of nature and things celestial to be decided by faith, contrary to reason and expe-
rience. When deciding matters of natural science, Celsius continues, one should use
the biblical texts with discretion. Because it is obvious, as can be pointed out by
ecclesiastical authorities, Jerome in particular, that in matters not concerning sal-
vation itself, the sacred writers use expressions adapted to the view generally held by
the Jewish people at the time when the biblical scriptures came into being; they were
not meant to express the exact natural reality. Therefore, correctly understood and
interpreted, the Bible by no means necessarily comes into collision with natural
science.
These Celsian arguments against the biblical letter-worship were no new in them-
selves: earlier, often with a reference to the same ecclesiastical authorities, they had
been used by Galileo and many subsequent supporters of the new, empirical science.
They had been used especially by the Cartesians, when they wanted to prove to their
adversaries the compatibility of their way of thinking with the Bible. Thus for in-
stance, Daniel Lipstorpius in his Copernicus Redivivus referred to above. But in
Sweden these views are openly presented here for the first time in the dissertation
of the young Celsius.
A Cartesian strain is also discernible in Celsius' statement that we must not quite
literally believe the evidence of our senses; only a well-conceived and well-per-
formed experiment can give the corret answer to the questions we ask nature. Fur-
thermore, he points out the importance of technical means, simpler or more compli-
cated, and the laborious work required in their handling if the results of experiments,
are to be reliable. By way of examples of this he mentions the rich instrumental,
experiences obtained recently by practical astronomy through Johannes Revelius
the selenographer, G. D. Cassini, Robert Rooke and others.
In his very skilfully and logically composed exposition, Celsius from this point
enters on those hypotheses of the celestial processes that can be proposed on the
basis of phenomena observed by the means of instruments. On these hypotheses
are based those general theories of the structure of the universe, of which mainly
three have been modelled in the course of the ages. As the first of these Celsius men-
tions the "Philolaic", and discreetly he altogether avoids mentioning the name of
Copernicus. Thus he links himself with the above-mentioned, old conception estab-
lished and mainly spread by the French Copernican Ismael Boulliau's large work
Astronomia Philolaica38 , that Philolaus - and the Pythagoreans on the whole -
espoused a heliocentric system. Thus it could be maintained that this system - i. e.
in reality the Copernican - had in fact the oldest tradition, the authority of anti-
quity, on its side. - The ·three systems have, says Celsius, many common features
and each of them has a great deal in its favour. But they cannot all be valid; one of
them must be nearer the truth, although indeed several can be usable and possess
Ismai:I Bullialdus, Astronomia Phi/olaica. Opus novum, in quo motus Planetarum per nouam
38
ac Hypothesim demonstrantur, Parisiis, 1645. Earlier though anonymously, BouIliau had pre-
v~ram
sented his opinion in Philolai sive Dissertationum de vero systemate mundi, Amstelodami, 1639.
a truth which may by hypothetical though not absolute. The actual astronomical
content of the different systems and the differences between them are not touched
upon by Celsius; consequently, the motion of the earth is not discussed or even
explicitly mentioned.
In the final point of the dissertation, Celsius finally declares his position in the
most cautious words imaginable. It should be allowable, he says, to use any system
that can present a calculation corresponding in any way to observations and pheno-
mena. Astronomers believe that system should be accepted as the best, however,
which proves best adapted to the carrying out of the calculations - i. e., that which
by the brevity of its wording is more advantageous than the others - which has
a disposition that makes it simpler and easier to learn and use, which more accura-
tely presents the phenomena and indicates their causes and, finally, that which is
based on more reliable evidence. In these respects, the Philolaic system seems to
take priority over other systems hitherto put forward. Consequently, all the most
renowned and prominent contemporary astronomers espouse that system; they
may not consider it an absolutely true system but they do consider it the most advan-
tageous, the most convenient and that which in practice is the most applicable, while
being at least hypothetically true.
Such modest statements, then, were not allowed to be delivered and discussed
in Upsala 136 years after De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. So far, theologians
could restrain the new opinions through their external means of enforcing their
will, by suppressing the printing of the dissertation. What they wanted to defend
was above all, as the hearing in the cathedral shows, not only the jurisdiction of the
Bible in natural science, but also their own exclusive right to interpret the Bible.
Naturally enough, the special question of the validity of the heliocentric system was
overshadowed by this principal controversy, which had to be solved before a new
conception of nature could come through in astronomy as well as in other fields.
It should be sufficiently clear from the foregoing that Nils Celsius' attack is linked
with the emergent Cartesianism and this whole episode shows how greatly the fate
of Copernicanism is associated with the general development of the history of ideas.
The triumph of the Copernican system could not become possible without a defeat
for the allied forces constituted by scholastic physics and orthodox Bible faith.
It would soon be evident that the opinions represented by Celsius, and Carte-
sian philosophy as a whole, could not, once they gained a footing at the university
and in the intellectual life of Sweden, be prevented from further circulation by any
censorship. From the material extant it cannot be established in detail how the new
thoughts were spread, but it is certain that it happened very rapidly. Because when
the struggle of Cartesianism blazed up afresh in the middle of the 1680's, it turned
out that, as the faculty of medicine had done earlier, almost the whole faculty of
arts and science in Upsala took sides with the new way of thinking. By now Aristo-
telian philosophy outlived itself, and on the whole the theologians had to restrict
260 Henrik Sandblad
themselves to trying to vindicate the traditional supremacy of the biblical word in

science. But even that was more and more difficult for them, and in its Cartesian
form the Copernican world system now rapidly entered the different fields of learning.
Leading Cartesians during this period were 10han Bilberg (1646-1717), a Pro-
fessor of Mathematics and also a learned philosopher and theologian, and Andreas
Drossander (1648-96), successor of Hoffvenius in a medical chair and a pioneer
in experimental physics in Upsala; both were very prominent teachers and skilful
in polemics. Both also had been studying for many years abroad. Bilberg is the most
renowned of them; he became the foremost apostle of Cartesianism in Sweden,
and through a fighting spirit and a talented presence he incurred the genius hatred
of his adversaries.
The work that can be considered the principal document of Swedish Copernica-
nism comes from the circle of Bilberg and Drossander. It is written in Swedish in
a rather popular, unacademic style, entitled En diskurs mel/an de opponerande Pto-
lemaei och de responderande Cartesii adhaerenter angdende Systema Mundi. It was
printed for the first time as a kind of serial story in Nils Celsius's almanacs 1722-24,
but it was obviously written in the 1680's and preserved in a great number of hand-
written copies showing that at an early date it was widely spread, without being
hampered by the censure which hung over printed publications. No doubt, it is
in this very form, in which the heliocentric system is presented here, and with the
arguments used here, that Copernicanism - if that term may be used - definitely
broke through in Upsala towards the end of the 17th century and after that else-
where in Sweden as well. The question of the authorship of the Discourse is somewhat
uncertain. At any rate it is obvious that it came into being among leading Cartesians,
and it was probably prepared in some kind of co-operation, with Bilberg as the real
author 39 •
The work has the form of a kind of dialogue, where the supporters of the geocen-
tric world picture direct their objections against the heliocentric system and are
answered point by point, mainly with Cartesian arguments. All this exchange of
opinions is very clearly and instructively presented, giving an excellent insight into
the cosmological discussion at that time, demonstrating the arguments used and the
grounds on which it was held.
At first, Bilberg - if we may regard him as the author - touches upon the dif-
ferent obstacles, apart the poor reasoning power of man, raised against man's cor-
rect investigation of nature: on the one hand the prejudice ingrained since child-
hood; on the other, a proneness to remember false opinions early acquired better
than any later knowledge; furthermore, the false names and terms that are used but
which do not agree with the matter itself (this apparently refers to scholastic science);
and finally that some people do not take sufficient trouble to examine nature but
rest content with what the external sences indicate to begin with. Thus, many dis-
39 Extant manuscript copies in various libraries are recorded by Sandblad, op. cit., p. 93,
where the problem of the authorship is also examined.

putes have arisen among scientists, the dispute concerning the motion or orbit of
the sun not being the smallest. In fact, Nils Celsius had introduced his thesis in 1679
with similar views, and they were not uncommon in those representing a modern
natural science. And the model is the introduction of Principia philosophiae, where
Descartes gives an account of the epistemological foundations of his way of thinking,
a presentation re-appearing in Hoffvenius's Synopsis40.
In the Discourse itself, Bilberg first of all brings up the biblically based criticism
of the heliocentric system, and he does that from the principal standpoint already
declared by Celsius. Starting from a number of special examples, he shows the unten-
ability of the practice of following the Bible word for word in matters not concern-
ing Christian faith itself, and especially in matters of natural science. In doing so,
he points out that in certain cases the Bible demonstrably cannot mean anything
but approximate information, and furthermore it is obvious that in the Holy Scrip-
ture God uses expressions adapted to the weak and insufficient intelligence of man,
which demands a certain concretion; that does not mean that they correspond to
the actual state of things. Next, Bilberg discusses some of the biblical passages,
preferably those used against Copernicus by supporters of the old picture of the
world, showing the obvious absurdities resulting from a word for word interpretation.
For instance the story in the Book of Joshua 10: 12-13 that is perpetually used
in anti-Copernican polemics; furthermore, the word "absurdity" applies to passages
likewise frequently used where it is said that the Lord fixed the earth so that she nei-
ther totters, nor moves; here Bilberg, along with the Cartesian motion concept,
can maintain that the earth is not moving when it is carried in its vortex around the
sun, since it is never moved from those bodies in the ether that are most near to it.
Having thus met the biblically based criticism, Bilberg brings up some objec-
tions of an astronomical character made by the Ptolemaics, refuting them by means
of Cartesian mechanics. Then he examines Tycho Brahe's system, finding it even
more untenable than the Ptolemaic from the standpoint of vortex mechanics. He
goes on to give reasons which, in his opinion, are those especially favourable to the
third, heliocentric system - which he calls the Cartesian - emphasizing that it
is an improvement on Copernicus' system. Having stressed that in worldly matters
one should not assume anything contrary to divinely inspired reason, he points
out that even with superior instruments it is impossible to estimate the distance of
the fixed stars; from the parallax of Saturn, which is small or non-existent, one can
conclude, however, that this distance is extremely great. For that reason, the uni-
verse has a circumference so immensely great that the fixed star heavens, performing
the kind of circular motion supposed in the geocentric system, would move with
a velocity so enormous that it is incompatible with our reason, which demands a plau-
sible relation between the time and the distance covered41 • Furthermore one can in-
40 Principia philosophiae, I: 1 ff.; Synopsis physica, I.
41 This argument was not unusual in Copernican literature: see e. g. Lipstorpius, Coperni-
cus Redivivus, Lugduni Batavorum 1653, p. 85.
262 Henrik Sandblad
deed, despite the fact that the fixed stars are so enormously distant, observe that
they have a gleaming light which is more vivid than that of the less distant planets
and never darkened. From that Bilberg maintains, it can be assumed, still in accord-
ance with Cartesian physics, that they have their own light and like the sun consist
of a "fire-flowing" matter, which could not possibly retain its round shape if it mo-
ved with the fantastic velocity that the old system would imply.
Bilberg also points out that the Cartesian system gives a simple explanation of
the irregularities of the velocity of the planets, which forced Ptolemy to take refuge
in his complicated epicycle and deferent theory. He maintains that those irregulari-
ties are only apparent, illustrating his very popular argumentation with a typically
Cartesian image. When you travel by boat, seeing another boat right in front of you,
it appears not to move; if your own boat is going twice or three times as fast, so that
you not only overtake it but even pass it, it appears to be going backwards, because
you are looking more at the boat that is not able to keep the pace than at your own
boat; but if you meet another boat, it appears to go fast even if it is going slower
than your own, because you do not so much consider what your own is doing as
the fact that the other one is getting out of sight. In a similar way do the motions
of the other planets appear from the earth. "This is so clear that nobody following
this reason can have doubts about it".
The last part of the Discourse deals with certain physical questions. The usual
Ptolemaic objection is quoted: if the earth is revolving, man will come under her,
and large houses and towers must fall and be destroyed. Bilberg replies that it is
known that the earth is fixed in its atmosphere, which holds everything together with
its pressio, so that if this pressure did not exist, the animals could not live either;
as a proof of that he refers to air-pump experiments with animals. Finally, in Bil-
berg's account, the traditional argument re-appears that if the earth is moving,
a ball thrown up vertically would not fall down at the same spot, which in fact
it does, but some distance from the thrower. Bilberg refutes this by emphasizing
once again that according to Descartes the earth does not move but is at rest in its
heaven, as when you shake an apple and do not hear the pip rattle, you say that
the pip is immobile although the apple itself is shaken. During the motion of the
heavens with the earth, its atmosphere by means of its pressure holds everything
together towards the centre, so that the earth and the atmosphere should be re-
garded as one simple body, and accordingly the ball must fall back to the point
from which it was thrown. To be sure, this explanation closely agrees with that given
to the same phenomenon by Copernicus, from other physical starting-points: the
inner part of the air element is so mixed with water and earth that it has the same
nature as the earth, and accordingly follows the earth in its orbit without resistance.
When the Discourse was written, it was still unknown in Upsala, as in most quar-
ters, that a few years earlier Newton had proposed the hypothesis that a body thrown
up vertically in fact does not return to the same point, but must deviate somewhat
in the motional direction of the earth, the centrifugal force making it move faster
than the earth; this, however, is a theory that was not experimentally proved until
much later (J. F. Benzenberg). Thus, by contrast with previous argumentators,
the old Aristotelian experiment provided direct proof of the rotation of the earth.
In his final words, Bilberg brings up an objection that he had probably heard
only too often: you should not give offence - but the heliocentric doctrine does
give offence to many. Using their reason to some extent, many of those opposing
this opinion, he says, clearly confess that the opinion is founded on good reasons.
Yet they do not want to follow it so that they may not offend any simple man. But
is it more offensive to give offence with false doctrines than to be offended by the
truth? God has given us reason; if we do not use it properly, it is a sin, and we
are not worthy of the gift of God. "Thus without any doubt the greatest offence is
to know the truth and still not confess it".
4.
Thus, in this form and with arguments of the kind which is found in the Discour-
se, the heliocentric system now rapidly met with support in Upsala, and soon also
in those wider circles to which the relatively popular character of the argumenta-
tion was adapted. Copernicanism, in its Cartesian shape, now took over outside
the theological quarter, one point of support of the classical world picture after an
other.
The rapidity of its success in scientific life can be read in the dissertation litera-
ture. That it is shown in the astronomical theses ventilated for Bilberg is less
remarkable. But in the other dissertations also, from the 1690's and the first years
of the 18th century, the new situation is clearly seen: the validity of the heliocen-
tric system often enough being regarded as rather obvious, any real refutation of the
old cosmology is hardly considered necessary42.
But, naturally, the change could not come everywhere at once. That is particu-
larly true about the aging Spole who held the astronomical chair in Upsala till 1699,
still adhering to a cautiously conservative view, at least publicly. Many of the nu-
merous dissertations ventilated under his presidency bear witness to that. In some
of them it is said apropos of the different planetary systems that philosophical rea-
sons and a certain experience speak for the Copernican system, but the Ptolemaic
is better in keeping with the Holy Scripture, and therefore it is safer to adhere to
it43 . It is interesting to see that the Copernican system is assigned superiority from
a philosophical point of view: consequently, the author does not accept the argu-
ments of traditional Aristotelian physics. Surely this is due to the influence of Car-
42 A detailed investigation of the Swedish dissertations in question during the following pe
riod is made by Sandblad, op. cit., pp. 101-125.

43 De so/e, 1685, and Contemp/atio planetarum, 1691. The question is also discussed in Soli!
contemplatio, 1692, where the Tychonic system receives a certain preference.

264 Henrik Sandblad
tesianism. Spole's attitude to that is rather vague in his printed works, and it seems
that he tried to avoid expressing a definite opinion, but he certainly was not unin-
fluenced.
The most important dissertation by Spole, however, are those two which con-
stitute the first two parts of the astronomical text-book which he never completed44 .
Here, time after time, the religious argument re-appears as decisive concerning the
world system, and writing about the planets Spole in the main follows traditional
astronomy - remember that the work in question is a text-book, the character of
which is usually rather conservative - although on many individual points Spole
inserts the latest scientific results. Thus, on one point he refers to Newton; that is
one .of the very first times Newton is even quoted in Sweden4s. Against the heliocen-
tric system and Copernicus he directs a number of objections. Those he was able
to find in ample quantity in his great master Riccoli, who in Almagestum novum
gives what is probably the most extensive criticism of Copernicanism ever to see
the Iight46 . Spole quotes the concluding judgement in which Riccoli summarizes
his settlement of accounts with Copernicus: the view of the earth and the sun which
is opposed to the Ptolemaic conception is also opposed to physics and to the letter
of the Bible and is thereby condemned heretical by the holy cardinal congregation,
chosen by Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII (i. e. those popes under whom De
revolutionibus was put on the Index and GaIiIeo's trial was conducted). Undoubtedly,
it is strange to see this truly papistical argument, altogether based on the authority
of the Roman church power, cited in an academic thesis in the Sweden of Lutheran
orthodoxy. Nor does Spole find that, against the biblical evidence of the immobility
of the earth, he is able to accept "effugium Renati des Cartes" that the earth is at
rest in its atmosphere, which in its tum is moving and in doing so carries the earth
with it. That does not prevent him from adducing Cartesian authorities in other
contexts, as in the final chapter on the theory of the sun and its motions. Choosing
between the different systems, however, he ends by recommending the Ptolemaic
one, because one should rather pay reverence to the Holy Scripture than vindicate
another opinion, so that one does not give offence to others, and the common man
in particular, since the astronomers have not yet presented arguments supported
by reliable observations. Here one may recall those final words of Bilberg's Dis-
course, quoted above, as to what should be regarded as offence.
So much for Spole's text-book, and so much for Spole in his printed publica-
tions. But among his unprinted and extant ones, which were lectures, there are
passages somewhat changing the picture of his opinions, especially a rather exten-
sive manuscript entitled Prooemium Cosmographiae47 • There, Spole gives space
44 Published in 1694 and 1695 with different, very circumstantial titles.

4S It concerns the irregularities of lunar motions, Principia mathematica, lib. III, prop. XXII
et seq.
46 Lib. IX, sect. IV.
47 Included in MS. No. A 504, Upsala University Library; undated.
to the different opinions of the Planetary system without himself adopting the bib-
lical standpoint. He has also inserted a detailed account of Descartes' cosmology
according to Principia philosophiae, and apparently he values it highly. Furthermore:
his presentation of general physics is essentially based on Descartes, and he presents
Cartesian celestial mechanics as the almost self-evidently valid: thus, the earth
is only one planet among the others in the vortex of the sun. Of course the difference
between Spole's printed publications and this manuscript may to some extent be
due to the fact that he changed his opinion. But the essential explanation must
be that out of caution, in order not to give "offence" he avoided making his
real standpoint publicly clear. By his restraint he thus assisted in maintaining the
traditional picture of the world, but in his teaching, which did not get much pub-
licity, he simultaneously contributed to furthercoming among his students helio-
centric cosmology in its Cartesian form. And indeed, such a double game is far from
usual in the history of Copernicanism.
Spole's successor, Petrus Elvius Sr. (1660-1718), was not an important man
and did not quite have the qualifications to utilize the extremely rapid development
of astronomical science towards the end of the 17th century and during the beginning
of the new century, above all characterized by the name of Newton. Elvius, fundamen-
tally a Cartesian, in many respects represented a decidedly more modern outlook
than Spole, however. In the astronomical dissertations during his time as professor
(till 1718), the tone is quite different from what it was previously; when the question
of the different world systems is mentioned, Copernicus and his successors, starting
with Kepler, are often richly used and mentioned with unmistakable respect, even
when the Ptolemaic view is simultaneously referred to. A Historia astronomiae
ellipticae in 1703 is typical of the new situation; entirely basing itself on Copernican
astronomy, it deals with Kepler's laws and their development through newer ex-
periences in celestial mechanis. In that context, Newton's Principia is also mentio-
ned and the theory of gravitation is briefly referred to, but for his part the author
prefers the explanation of planetary motions given by the Cartesian vortex theory.
Accordingly, in this thesis we are already far from the classical picture of the world,
and the geocentric principle is here totally dismissed. The same typical features are
found in, for instance, the theses De causis motuum coelestium in 1716 and De planeta
Venere in 1717. Ideed, in the latter an account of the Tychonic system is initially
given along with the Copernican, but the presentation itself starts from Copernican
astronomy, mainly Kepler and Boulliau, which appears to be self-evident to the
author.
Thus it is clear that it was during Elvius's time that the geocentric picture of the
world was finally abandoned in Upsalian astronomy, even though it was less due
to the scientific ability of the official representative at the university than the power
of the general Cartesian tide of the time. Another man supporting it, more influen-
tial than Elvius as a scientist, was Bilberg's successor in the mathematical chair,
Harald Vallerius (1676-1716). He was a marked Cartesian, a disciple of Bilberg
266 Henrik Sandblad
and Drossander, and by largely devoting himself to astronomy as well, he also

considerably contributed to the strengthening of heliocentric cosmology in its Car-
tesian form, as is shown by his dissertations around the turn of the century48. As
a matter of fact, so far as is known it is in one of those that Newton and his Principia
are mentioned for the first time in the scientific literature of Sweden49 . And not
until this time - in conjunction with Newton - are the results of Kepler's research
really used in Swedish science.
Even if Elvius and his contemporaries and disciples lacked the qualifications to
understand Newton, dismissing his theory of gravitation in a causal way - which
indeed they were not alone in doing in the learned world of Europe at that time -
it still means a step forward that Newton and his successors received attention and
were brought into the discussion at all.
As regards the question of the different world systems, it is conspicuous how it
slips out of the field of interest more and more at the beginning of the 18th century.
When Cartesian philosophy has conquered the area of natural sciences, and the
biblical and theological authority has been broken there, new problems of lesser
principal consequence come to the fore. The conflict between a geocentric and he-
liocentric system is no longer able to attract the main interest; they can even be
said to be as they were in a dissertation in 1710, about "dominium exigui puncti"so.
At this time the dominion of Cartesianism is so strongly fortified that for a time,
another couple of decades to come, it raises insurmountable obstacles to the pene-
tration of the new Newtonian celestial mechanics. In that respect, the conditions in
Upsala in Sweden do not differ from those in many quarters of continental Europe.
Upsala was still the intellectual and scientific centre of the realm of Sweden,
and the development there tends to be well reflected at the other seats of learning. But
the special conditions of the latter deserve to be mentioned briefly for this period
also. It should, then, be pointed out that during the period dealt with here, the
activities and output of any note in Swedish natural science were almost entirely
connected with the universities; at any rate that is true of the disciplines discussed
here.
The university of Turku, also visited by many students from the Swedish mother
country, was still very lively. It had the closest contact with Upsala and was the
university that was most sensitive to the singals from there; it also obtained many
of its teachers from there. In Turku Cartesian ism started to assert itself more in the
scientific discussions from the middle of the 1680's especially in a number of disser-
tations under the presidency of the Professor of Physics, Petrus Hahn (1650-
1718), in which opinions both pro and contra were presented. Though giving his
disciples great freedom in their dissertations, Hahn was not himself a convinced
48 Most emphatically in Parallelismus microcosmi et macrocosmi, 1711.
49 De centro terrae, 1693.
~o De praecessione aequinoctiorum Copernicana (praes. Elvius).
Cartesian; that was clear from his standpoint in 1697 when the new ideas finally
caused an open conflict in Turku. The vice Chancellor of the university, Bishop
Johan Gezelius Sr., then appeared as the main adversary of Cartesianism, supported
by the faculty of theology, but it was defended by almost the whole faculty of arts and
science. The conflict was soon settled, and in the end the theologians here were not
more successful than in Upsala in their endeavour to suppress the academic fre-
edom of teaching.
It seems that the cosmological matters of principle were not directly brought
up during the conflict. But it is significant that just at the time of the Cartesian break-
through in Turku, they start to teach the Copernican system openly there. That
is done by Magnus Steen (d. 1697), Professor of the Mathematical Sciences. In a thesis
De placitis astronomorum praecipuis in 1694, ventilated under his presidency, the
Ptolemaic, Copernican, Tychonic and semi-Tychonic systems are discussed, and
in particular the Copernican and Tychonic ones are weighed against each other.
The traditional objections from the followers of the geocentric principle are cited
and met with the usual Copernican counter-arguments; the biblically based objec-
tions to Copernicus are also refuted in terms in which one seems to discern an echo
of Bilberg's Discourse. Finally, it is conciliatorily pointed out that everyone may
consider the earth immobile or mobile without risking his salvation, and that from
and astronomical point of view it is, insignificant whether a hypothesis is physically
true or false, so long as it is astronomically true - i. e., suitable for determining
phenomena. The question is brought up again in a thesis De hypothesibus astrono-
micis Copernici & Ptolemaei in the spring of 1697, when the Cartesianism conflict
was in full swing. The author here shows that he is very familiar with Cartosian
celestial mechanics, and evidently, although not saying so, under that influence he
makes his choice between the two systems mentioned in the title. The author concludes
by cautiously saying that although he does not want to insist that Copernicus'
hypothesis is physically true, it is no doubt preferable because of its infallible truth
in astronomical argumentation and its remarkable consistency with "nature and
phenomena". The biblical counter-arguments are altogether left aside here; the author
cleverly limits himself to treating the problem from an astronomical point of view;
nevertheless, he leaves no room for doubt about the strenght of his Copernican
conviction.
Thus, at this time, the heliocentric system has apparently gained a firm footing
in Turku and should be rather generally spread outside the circle of theologians.
A strange relapse into old ways of thinking manifests itself, however, under Steen's
successor Lars Tammelin (1669-1733). Immediately before the turn of the century
he went abroad for purposes of study, during which, in Leiden, he came in contact
with the extremely lively Cartesianly inspired natural research, obviously without
imbibing any of its spirit, however. He had a strong inclination for theology, later
turned a clergyman and ended as bishop in Turku. In several cases, the astrono-
mical theses over which he presided are on a surprisingly low level. In part, they might
268 Henrik Sandblad
as well have been written a century earlier Sl • The idea that the earth moves around
the sun is mainly contested with biblical arguments, and moreover those arguments
out of Aristotelian mechanics are cited that were repeatedly used against Copernicus
during the preceding century; even in a dissertation in 1712 the Copernican system
is repudiated as still being insufficiently proved, and Riccoli is cited. None of these
dissertations is further removed from the classical picture of the world than Tycho
Brahe's system. Yet they can hardly be considered representative of the Turku
faculty at this time.
When the last-mentioned thesis was published, the Great Scandinavian War
had long been raging near the gates of the university, hampering education. Soon
the activity had to be cancelled altogether. The reorganization at the beginning
of the 1720's was made in the field of natural sciences under the sign of a new era.
These ways of thinking, the languishing of which can be seen in Tammelin's disserta-
tions, were forever gone. For decades to come, the mathematical chair was held
by Nils Hasselbom (1690-1764), under whom the new scientific research - in which
the most prominent names are Huygens and Newton - had its real introduction
in Turku.
A university even worse struck by the war was that of Dorpat (now Tartu) in
the Baltic province of Livonia (today Esthonia). It was founded as early as 1632,
but the activity during the following century was frequently interrupted for longer
periods by the wars and the Russian invasions, and hence the scientific standard
was rather low at times or at least uneven. Little is known of the penetration of the
new natural research and Cartesianism in Dorpat; the material extant seems to give
no closer information. As in Turku, the general development there mainly followed
that of Upsala, but in certain respects direct contact with Germany also played its
part. Only one concrete circumstance, of the greatest interest in this connection,
will be touched upon here. It concerns Sven Dimberg (d. 1731), a disciple of Bilberg
and Drossander, who held the professorship of mathematics in Dorpat 1690-98,
no doubt one of the most prominent teachers during the whole Swedish period of
this university, active in the modem spirit in mathematics, astronomy and physics.
His position in relation to his Swedish contemporaries is apparent from the fact
that in 1695-96 he lectured on mathematics according to Newton, and for his last
year in Dorpat he announces "an even deeper penetration into the analysis of New-
ton's Principia and into his higher mathematics" 5 2 • This is undoubtedly a fascinating
inside picture: in that poor little village on Livonian soil, while there is a Russian
threat of war, Dimberg is in the chair, explaining to a few students, who no doubt
had inferior previous knowledge, scientific lines of thought by far not reached at
the much better equipped seats of learning in the Swedish mother country.
For a closer account, see Sandblad, op. cit., p. 120 et seq.

51
G. von Rauch, Die Universitiit Dorpat und das Eindringen der friihen Au/kliirung in Livland
52
1690-1710, Essen, 1943. pp. 384 et seq.; cf. Sandblad, op. cit., .p. 122 et seq.
In Lund, the dependence on Upsala was generally less noticeable, partly because
of the close relations with Germany, and from the very start many of the profes-
sorships of the university were filled with Germans. One of them became the most
skilful representative of Cartesianism in Lund, when it first reached there at the be-
ginning of the 1670's - namely, Christian Papke, (1634-94), who at first taught
physics and philosophy, later theology, and finally became a bishop in Lund. With
such a man among the theologians, the resistance of conservative theology was na-
turally considerably weakened. On the whole, the development in Lund in the field
of natural sciences seems to have come about rather quietly but also very slowly,
the personal forces being rather insignificant since Spole had left for Upsala. No
obvious trace of Copernican ways of thinking are to be found in the meagre Lundian
literature of astronomical nature until some time after the beginning of the 18th
century. Then there was a vital change, when the chair of astronomy was taken
over by Conrad Quensel (1676-1732), an exceptionally eminent teacher. He repre-
sented the Copernican system in its Cartesian form, as he shows in a polemic in
1720, where he answers an anonymous anti-Copernican pamphlet 53 • His argumenta-
tion is of the same nature as that of Bilberg's Discourse, and several of his examples
appear to be taken from there 54 • On the whole, it appears as if Quensel's youthful
impressions from Upsala of the 1680's, where he became a student very early, for-
med the basis of his way of viewing science as revealed by him in this polemical
pamphlet and, to be sure, passed on by him to his numerous disciples in Lund.
Thus, in the end one finds that at long last, around the year of 1720, the helio-
centric idea of the universe has gained a firm footing at all the Swedish seats of le-
arning, although it would be some considerable time before it was generally accep-
ted even in the learned world outside the rank and file of the scientists themselves.
And, as already mentioned, at the same time Nils Celsius, once the youthfully bold
pioneer of Copernican ism in Upsala, starts printing in his almanacs Bilberg's Dis-
course on the world systems. Copernicanism beeing deeply rooted in the scientific
world, its dissemination in wider circles follows accordingly, and then one of the
most widely spread pUblications is skilfully used: the almanac. The subsequent
gradual penetration into the broader strata of society of Copernicus's doctrine of
the relation between the sun and the earth is a complex process, difficult for histori-
cal research to grasp; and moreover, even today that process is hardly completed.
BffiLIOGRAPHY
A detailed examination of the penetration of the Copernican system into Sweden, mainly based
on the academical dissertation literature and thoroughly documented, is made by H. Sandblad,
Det copernikanska viirldssystemet i Sverige, I. Aristotelismens tidevarv; II. Cartesianismen och
genombrottet, [in] "Lychnos", Annual of the Swedish History of Science Society, resp. 1943 and
33 About these polemics, see Sandblad, op. cit., p. 125.

54 Above, p. 260.
270 Henrik Sandblad
1944-1945 (English summary: The Copernican System of the Universe in Sweden, I. The Aristote-
lian Era; II. Cartesianism and the Triumph of Copernicanism). Important completions have been made
on one particular point by N. V. E. N ordenmark, Laurentius Paulinus Gothus /Oreliisningar vid
Uppsala universitet 1599 over Copernicus hypotes, [in] "Arkiv fOr astronomi", ed. by the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences, vol. 1, No. 24, Stockholm, 1951, and concerning the Cartesian
period by R. Lindborg, Descartes i Uppsala, Striderna om 'nya filosofien' 1663-1689, Upsala,
1965 (Lychnos-Bibliotek, 22; English summary: The Contentions about Cartesianism in Uppsala
1663-1689). One special aspect of the development is treated by H. Sandblad, Galilei i Sveriges
liirda litteratur till Magnus Celsius, [in] "Lychnos" 1942 (French summary: Galilee dans la littera-
ture scientifique Suedoise jusque vers 1680), completed by O. Walde, Nicolaus Granius, Galilei och
Kepler, in the same volume.
Several of the persons mentioned in this essay, and their cosmological views, have been treated
in monographs: Johannes Bureus and S. A. Forsius by S. Lindroth, Paracelsismen i Sverige till
1600-talets mitt, Upsala, 1943 (Lychnos-Bibliotek, 7), chaps. II & IV; Georg Stiernhielm by J.
N ords trom in his introduction to Stiernhielm, Filosofiska fragment, I, St~ckholm, 1924, and
also by Lindroth, op. cit., chap. VII; further N. V. E. Nordenmark, Anders Spole, in the "An-
nual of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences", Stockholm, 1931, and the same author, Svensk
astronomi ochsvenska astronomer 1700-1730, [in] "Arkiv for matematik, astronorni och fysik",
ed. by the same Academy, vol. 24, A, No.2, Stockholm, 1933. The two latter works are, however,
not altogether reliable in details.
The general history of astronomy in Sweden (and Finland) during the period in question is
treated by N. V. E. Nordenmark, Astronomiens historia i Sverige intill ar 1800, Upsala, 1959,
with two bibliographical supplements by J. Nordstrom, Upsala, 1960 & 1965 (Lychnos-Bib-
liotek, 17: 2), and in a more concentrated form in English by P. Collinder, Swedish Astronomers
1477-1900, Skrifter ror. Uppsala universitet. Ser, C, No. 19, Upsala & Stockholm, 1970. The ear-
lier Swedish astronomy, before Copemicanism, is also treated by H. Sandblad in his introduction
to Olof Luth's astronomical text-book (see above note 1). Various conditions, treated in the present
essay, concerning the position of astronomy at the universities, are treated in the histories of C. An-
nerstedt, Upsala universitets histaria, I-II: 2, Upsala, 1877-1909; K. F. Slotte, Matematikens
och fysikens studium vid Abo universitet, Helsinki, 1898 (Abo universitets liirdomhistoria, 7), and
M. Weibull & E. Tegner, Lunds universitets historia, II, Lund, 1868; these older works are all
minutely documented.
About Copernicus himself there is only one monograph in Swedish: H. Sandblad, Nicolaus
Copernicus, Stockholm, 1962, a book that is popular and that also gives a stUvey of the gradual
acceptance in Europe of the Copernican system. Copernicus's library and manuscripts, brought
to Sweden in 1626 and kept in different libraries there, mainly in Upsala, have been treated by
scholars from various countries in different connections. Among accounts made by Swedish schol-
ars P. Hogberg, Copernicus-minnen i Uppsala, in the journal "Popular astronomisk tidskrift",
1943, may be mentioned.
JUAN VERNET
University of Barcelona
COPERNICUS IN SPAIN
The introduction of Copernican ideas into Spain, has, until now, been the subject
of a brief article by Father Antonio Romafia Pujo S. J.1 (noted in the Bibliografia
Kopernikowska 1509-19552 ) in which the author follows Ernst Zinner 3 in his basic
ideas. Previously, Jose Gavira4 and A. Frederico Gredilla in their Biografia de
Jose Celestino Mutis con relaci6n de su viaje y estudios practicados en el Nuevo Reino
de Granada s had dealt with this topic fairly extensively - not to mention the con-
tinuous allusions, rather more rhetorical than scientific, to be found throughout all
polemics on the subject of Spanish science 6 • Subsequently, after the date of the com-
pletion of the Bibliografia Kopernikowska, Vicente Peset Llorca 7 has published a first-
-class document which basically contains the study in Latin carried out by Gregorio
de Mayans y Siscar (1699-1781)8 in 1773 at the request of the Polish Samuel Luther
Geret, of Torun. This monograph, now two hundred years old, is based on the re-
mains of the expurgatory Indices of the Inquisition. It will be duly appreciated in
the lines to follow. Complementary materials can be found in the different works
of J. M. Lopez Pifier0 9 , which will be referred to at the appropriate place.
1 La difusion del sistema de Copernico, "Euclides" 4, 35-6 (Madrid 1944), 23 pages.

2 H. Baranowski, Bibliograjia Kopernikowska, Warszawa, 1958, p. 237, number 1775.
3 Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Coppernicanischen Lehre, Erlangen, 1943.
4 Aportaciones para la geograjia espanola del siglo XVIII, Madrid, 1932.
~ Madrid, 1911.
1\ One may consult the excellent anthology of texts on this matter which has just been published
by Emesto and Enrique Garcia Camarero in "El Libro de BolsiIlo", number 260 (Madrid. 1970)
of the AIianza Editorial.
7 Acerca de la difusion del sistema copernicano en Espana, "Aetas del II Congress de Historia
de la Medicina Espanola" 1 (Salamanca, 1965), 309-324.
8 A great Spanish scholar who became librarian at the Royal Palace and maintained corres-
pondence with Voltaire, Muratori and other learned men of the age.
9 In passing, we point out his little book La introduccion de la ciencia moderna en Espana
(Barcelona, 1969) which contains a good description of the cultural atmosphere of late seventeenth
century Spain.
272 Juan Vernet
Obviously, in Copernicus' work, one must distinguish between two aspects

which were the subject of very different treatment by erudite Spaniards. First, the
parts susceptible to mathematical application for the calculation of ephemerides
were appreciated from an early date through the Prutenic tables, by the astronomers
and astrologers of the peninsula, since the acceptance of their numerical values did
not imply the admittance of their heliocentric concept of the universe. This helio-
centric concept of the universe, which is the basic subject for discussion here, is,
even nowadays attacked by some eccentric authors. We believe that in the introduc-
tion of Copernican theory into Spain, two periods can be sharply distinguished:
the first (1543-1633) lasts until the definitive condemnation of Galileo by the Roman
Inquisition, the second is from this date (1633) until the middle of the eighteenth
century; as the inquisition lost its power and its penalties became inconveniences
rather from mortal, enlightened members of society gradually admitted the new
concept of the universe. It is logical, as we shall see, that both periods should lack
monolithic consistency, and that in both, strong characters can be found who "be-
lieve" in Copernicus, but who, in the second period and for many decades, spin
elaborate hypocritical tales (the taqiyya of the Moslems, or the mental restriction
of the Christians) so as not to betray themselves in front of others but still remain
loyal to the dictates of conscience. Many of the fundamental texts of this polemic
can only be appreciated in the original tongue in which they were written, and they
lose force in translation. From the nineteenth century, which, for obvious reasons,
we will dispense with here - the acceptance of the heliocentric system is absolute
and can be openly admitted without reproach.
For us to be able to understand the attitude of the Spanish authorities in the two
periods alluded to, we must bear in mind the dominating position achieved by the
Iberian peninsula in the sixteenth century, the uninterrupted decadence throughout
the seventeenth century, and the abandoning of all dreams of power in world poli-
tics of the eighteenth century. Although on the appearance o(printing (1480) the
Catholic Monarchs did, to the best of their ability, motivate and facilitate freedom
of expression, they soon changed their tune as can be seen from the texts of the royal
edict promulgated on July 8th, 1502. They had realised the full importance for pro-
paganda of the new invention and they decided to prevent any such activity by po-
tential rebels (The Moors, converted Arabs etc.). Among the pages of this decree
(which does not seem to have been rigourously applied) the following paragraphs
stand out lO :
Don Fernando and dona Isabel... because we have been informed that you, the said publishers
and printers at the said presses, and merchants and their agents have been, and are accustomed to
printing and bringing for sale to these our kingdoms many printed books on all subjects both in
Latin and in Romance, and that many of them contain errors in the content therein, and others
are immoral and others apocryphal and fictitious, and others recently made up of vain superstitious
10 See Antonio Sierra Corella, lA censura en Espana. Indices)l catti/ogos de Iibros prohibi-
dos (Madrid, 1947), pp. 79-84.
Copernicus in Spain 273
things which have given rise to some harm and certain disturbances in our kingdoms [... J. We
command and prohibit - that henceforward you will not dare, directly or indirectly to make nor
print from type, any book of any faculty, or reading, or work, be it short or long, in Latin or in
Romance without first seeking our permission and special license to do so. Be not so daring as to
sell in our kingdoms any books you might bring from abroad - whatever their quality or subject -
without first submitting them for examination by those said persons 11, or whosoever should be
appointed to see and examine them by special license [...J under penalty of losing all such books
and works which should be burnt publicly in the square of that city or town or place where you
had them made or printed or where you sold them or had them sold. You will also forfeit all the
income that you would have received or gained. And in further penalty you will also pay a fine
equal to the value of the books burned on your account. And furthermore, for the same offence
you will not be allowed to continue your office. And we decree that henceforth no one shalI dare
to selI any book nor any reading matter - lengthy or brief - whether it be from within our king-
doms or without, before first submitting it for examinations and approval.
It is such circumstances that Sebastian Kurz 12 wrote (21 March 1543) to

Charles V of Germany (Charles I of Spain):
Nicolas Copernicus, the Mathematician, has written six books on Revolutionibus orbium
caelestium which have been printed these past few days. And as the subject matter is no less marvel-
lous than it is novel; and as it has never been seen, heard nor thought that (the) sun is the centre
of everything and does not have the motion of its own, contrarily to what has been thought until
now by alI writers; and that the world has its motion through the Zodiac in the same manner as
we believed the sun to have its motion. I have been so bald as to send this to your Majesty, as I
know that your Majesty is a keen mathematician, and that you wilI be pleased to see and hear
the opinion and fantasy of this author, so praised and approved by many mathematicians, for
according to his theory, all the motions of the heavens can be discovered much more easily than
was previously done by the belief in the motions of the Sun. I humbly beseech Your Majesty
to receive this as a small service.
The eventual fortune of this copy of the De revolutionibus is unknown to us.

Philip II in his decree of September 7th 1558 strengthened and reinforced the pre-
vious censorship implemented by the Catholic Monarchs.
And whosoever should print or submit for printing a work or book, in an unauthorised manner,
without first having submitted the text to undergo the said examination for approval and license
in the said form, is liable to suffer the death penalty; and to lose all his possessions. And such books
and works should be publicly burned l3 •
This decree was followed by that of 1559:

We decree the henceforward: none of our subjects and inhabitants, of whatsoever civil status,
condition or order, ecclesiastic or secular, friars, clerics or any other should leave these Kingdoms
to go and study or teach or learn, or go and reside in universities, centres of learning or colleges
outside these Kingdoms; and that those who up to the present time should reside or find themsel-
ves in universities, centres of learning or colleges should leave such places, and no longer be found
11 The decree goes on to enumerate the royal commissioners for the task of censorship; they
are all Bishops of Castille and Andalusia. In A. Corella, op. cit., pp. 274-275, one may see an
example of the means adopted to prevent the smuggling in of books.
12 Cf. M. Bataillon, Charles Quint et Copernic B. H. 22 (1923), pp. 256-258.
13 A. Sierra Corella, La censura ... , p. 97.

274 Juan Vernet
there within four months of the publication of this decree; and that the persons who against the
content of our decree travel and depart to study and learn, read, reside or remain in those univer-
sities, centres of learning or colleges, outside these kingdoms; or those that already being in them
and not leave, travel and depart within the said time, without returning or revisiting them, be they
ecclesiastics, friars or clerics, of whatever estate, dignity and condition, let them be held for foreign
ers and aliens of these Kingdoms, and let them lose and be deprived of all their titles that they
had in these lands, and let these laws relate and apply to them, on penalty of loss of all their posses-
sions, and perpetual exile from these kingdoms14.
We do not know 1S of any case where the death penalty was in fact carried out;
possibly, as in modern times, self-discipline was sufficient to avoid greater offences'
However, we are aware that the decree of 1559 did produce ominous results in the
development of Spanish science since Philip II forbade even the Jesuits to leave
Spain to study abroad; also that the Professors of mathematics and astronomy at
the Imperial College (founded in 1603, transformed into a Royal centre of studies
in 1625 16 , and as such, in competition with the universities) were nearly always
foreigners, or sometimes of foreign descent. Foreigners were the only people with
access - not to a liberal education (for nowhere in the Europe of this period did
academic freedom exist as it does today) but to the teachings of different schools
of thought.
Neither was the activity of the individuals, mostly Spaniards, grouped round
the Academy of Mathematics 17 (1582-1634) founded by Philip II, particularly
brilliant.
Despite these coercive circumstances, one must recognise that the Copernican
doctrines were not essentially affected. It could be that Philip II did not see any
danger in them or that he remembered his father's inclinations and hobbies, or that
he wished to retain his Royal perquisites in the face of the clerical powers 18 • As
a result, Copernicus' doctrine did not meet with resistence 19 , and very soon his
name appeared in books with Spanish authors: Pedro Nunez Salaciense and Pablo
de Alea mention him; the tabular part of his work is made use of in so early a year
as 1582 by Vasco de Pina 20 ; Juan de Herrera, director of the above-mentioned
Academy of Mathematics, wrote in 1584 to Cristobal de Salazar, the provisional
ambassador in Venice, asking for the following books, which give a good idea of
what was considered as suitable reading in the Academy:
14 Text from C. Sanchez-Albornoz, Espana, un enigma hist6rico (Buenos Aires, 1962)
n.553-4.
15 A. Sierra Corella, La censura ...• p. 99.
16 Cf. Jose Simon Diaz, Historia del colegio Imperial en Madrid. 1 (Madrid. 1952), p. 85
and 121.
17 Cf. J. Simon Diaz. Historia ...• p. 47-52.
18 Cf. A. Sierra Corella, La censura ...• p. 113, 153 and 212 in which one may see how the
King could authorise the circulation of books banned by the Church.

19 Cf. A. Romafia, La di/usi6n ...• p. 6-8.
20 Cf. Acisc10 Fernandez Vallin, Cultura cientifica de Espana en el siglo XVI (Inaugural
speech for his admission to the Royal Academy of Science, Madrid 1893), p. 63 and 64.
Proc1us, on the first books of Euclid, in Latin; Pedro Montanno (sic) on the tenth book of Eu-
clid; the Spheres by Theodosius, in Juan Penna's translation; the Sphere of Father Clavius, recently
compiled; the two books of Heron on Spiritualibus, rendered by Comandino; all the books which
were printed by Guido Baldo Marchinoni, Marquis del Monte, on mathematics; and among them
one of the Mechanics in Italian; the Mechanics of Aristotle (sic) in Italian by Picolomini; all the
works that exist in Italian by Mercurius Trismegistus; if there are any translations of theoretical
works on the planets - besides the one by Picolomini, and the introduction to them - for they
can be found here; if Copernicus has been translated into vulgar Italian send me a copy; if the Ma-
chines are in translation, they can be sene 1 •
From the account we think one may infer that:
1. Herrera, a good Lullist, and as such, acquainted with Latin, was trying to
get hold of two kinds of books: a) for his pupils, in the vernacular ; b) for himself
or other professors, in Latin.
2. Herrera held in his possession a De revolutionibus and that what he wanted
was to make the book accessible to the students.
That this could well have been so is proved by the text of the influential Consti-
tutions of Salamanca University22:
"Title XVIII. Concerning the Chair of Astrology ... in the second year, six
books on Euclides and Arithmetic up to square and cubic roots; and the Almagest
by Ptolemy, or his Epitome by Regiomontanus, or Geber or Copernicus, by the
vote of the auditors on the substitution of the Sphere"23.
In view of these precedents, there is no cause for amazement at the fact that
Andres Garcia de Cespedes (d. 1611) wrote a commentary on the Theorica of planets
by Peurbach which "consists of three parts ... in the first, the theories, according to
the doctrine of Copernicus; in the second - according to our observations, the cau-
ses for the inequalities in the movements of the sun and the moon both in Copernicus
and in King Alfonso are revealed; and in the third, the stations of the planets are
dealt with in a treaty on parallaxes 24 •
But the most interesting case of all is that of the Augustinian Monk, Diego de
Zuniga (1536-1597), who in his early years, used his father's name, Arias 25 •
In 1573, he held the Chair at Osuna University and in 1584 he published his
Commentary on JOb 26 in Toledo, the preparation for which went back at least to
21 Cf. Felipe Picatoste y Rodriguez, Apuntes para una biblioteca cientifica espanola del siglo
XVI (Madrid, 1891), p. 148.

22 Constituciones (Salamanca, 1584). The copy we have used also contains, with its own little
page, Estatutos hechos por fa muy insigne Universidad de Salamanca (Diego Cusio, 1595) and the
text we transcribe is placed under the rubric of the year 1561.
23 That is to say that Salamanca evaded the traditional text of the epoch - the one by John
Holywood or Sacrobosco, in the most democratic way possible - through the vote of the pupils.
24 J. A. Sanchez Perez, La matematica (in "Estudios sobre la ciencia espanola del siglo
XVII", Madrid, 1953), p. 607. According to this author, it is kept in manuscript 26, 1st on the right
No. 20 in the Real Academia de la Historia.
25 Biographies in Picatoste, Apuntes, p. 339-344; Marcial Solana, Historia de la Filo-
sofia espanola, vol. III (Madrid, 1941), p. 221-266 and bibliography quoted in this work.
26 Didaci a Stunica... in Job Commentaria.
276 Juan Vernet
1579, as this is the date given for the royal license to print. On page 205 (article
9, 5) - later expurgated by the Inquisition - and which was largely crossed out
by the pious readers who posse sed editions produced before the prohibition, we have
the following passage, preserved for by Mayans 27 :
You wish to know, magnificent, illustrious and most learned Sir, what has been the progress
of the Copernican system in Spain. So that I may most briefly and clearly indicate everything per-
taining to this matter, to omit mention of the ancient philosophers to whom it was agreeable for
the sun to be the centre of the World, and the earth moving round it; there was also your most
celebrated colleague Nicolaus Copernicus, the outstanding astronomer and author of six books
on the revolutions of the heavenly orbs, who in a short time gained distinguished adherents to his
new-and-old doctrines. Among these latter, to answer your inquiry, I should mention the most
learned Spanish theologican Diego de Stunica, and Augustinian Eremite; he followed the Coperni-
can system in his most erudite commentary on Job, Chapter 9, Verse 5; page 205 of the edition
published at Toledo in 1584 with four plates, by the press of Joannis Rodericus. The testimony
of Stufiica is worth discussing, it runs thus:
«He lays down an additional power belonging to God in order to show his supreme power
oined to his infinite wisdom. [For those to whom this particular passage seems difficult, it might
be illustrated by the Pythagorean doctrine imagining the earth to move by its own nature; by no
other means can we explain the motion of the planets so greatly differing in speed and slowness.
This opinion was held by Philolaos and Heraclitus Ponticus, as relates Plutarch in his book de
Placitis Philosophorum. Also in agreement was Numas Pompilius, and more important, the Divine
Plato in his later years. For he said that any other opinion was most absurd, as Plutarch in his
Numa narrates; and Hippocrates in his book on currents of air T-fJ~ yijl; 0XTJ/U1. (sic), he said the earth
to be a vehicle.
In our time, Copernicus announced a motion of the planets, in accordance with this ancient
opinion. Nor is there any doubt, that from this doctrine are derived far better places of the planets
than from the Almagest and other writings. For it is certain that Ptolemy could not explain the
motion of the equinoctial points, nor to establish a definite, stable initial point for the year. He
himself said so in The Almagest, Book 3, Chapter 2 and left the discovery of these things to those
later astrologers (sic) who could compare observations over an interval greater than that available
to him. And although both the Alphonsines and Thabit Ben Core tried to explain these, still they
achieved little. For as Ricius proves, the positions according to the Alfonsines are mutually incon-
sistent. The theory of Thabit is, I grant, better and from it can be established a stable initial
point for the year, as Ptolemy desired. However, the equinoctial points appear to have progressed
further than his theory could allow for. And finally the sun is now recognised as closer to us by
at least forty thousand stades, than it was previously, and neither Philolaos nor the other astro-
logers knew of this motion.
In summary, the reasons of all these things are by Copernicus most expertly described and de-
monstrated in terms of the motions of the earth; while all the others fit better.
This doctrine of his is not at all contradicted by the saying of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, "But
the earth is fixed for eternity" (Terra autem in aeternum stat) [in the margin: Ecclesiast]. For
this means only that however various may be the succession of epochs and the works of man on
the earth, still that earth is one and the same and maintains itself unchanged. For the passage
itself shows this; in full it reads:
"Generation passes-away and generation comes-to-be, but the earth is fixed in eternity" (Ge-
neratio praeterit, et generatio advenit: terra autem in aeternum stat). [In the margin: "The motion
of earth is not against Scripture".] Therefore it does not fit with the context of the passage, if it is
explained (as the philosophers generally do) in terms of the immobility of the earth.
27 Peset's edition: Acerca de la di/usi6n ... , p. 316-317.

As for the argument that this chapter of Ecclesiastes, and many others in sacred scripture men-
tion the motion of the sun, which Copernicus wished to fix in the centre of the universe; this is not
at all contrary to his doctrine ast he motion of the earth is commonly attributed ot the sun in ordi-
nary speech, even by Copernicus himself and those who follow him; they will frequently refer to
the earth's course as the sun's course. Indeed, there is no passage in the sacrosanct writings which
speaks so clearly of the immobility of the earth, as he proves it moves. Along these lines that the
passage we are discussing is easily explained to show the marvellous power and wisdom of God,
who can put and maintain in motion the earth, since that earth is so heavy by nature.
It says "and its pillars tremble" so as to show from a positive assertion the earth moved
from its foundations. Those who do not regard this opinion of ancient and modem philosophers
as established - although not altogether convincingly - may be won over by the fact that it tallies
with the earthquakes by which the earth is sometimes shaken».
Thus far was the writing of Diego do StUiiiga, who put in his margin "The motion of the earth
is not contrary to Scripture", and since he was an outstanding theologian, he aroused no distur-
bances, and a deep silence ensued on this matter.
This passage must be placed in relation to what Zuniga himself says in his Phy-
sics, Book four, Chapter five: "De totius mundi constitutione" which appears in
his work Philosophiae prima pars28. It is important to see that Zuniga shows that
there is no contradiction between Copernican doctrine and the Holy Scriptures,
and as Lopez Piner029 notes, its great merit lies in knowing how to interpret those
passages of the Bible which are not theological, in the light of scientific knowledge
of the time.
But the application of the telescope to astronomy, realised by Galileo, and, more
than anything, his joyous manifestations on behalf of the irrefutable proof which
his observations brought to the heliocentric system (which were soon suppressed
by the Roman Inquisition), produced a much more drastic attitude in the governors
of Spanish scientific policy. They did not stop publications of the ephemerides, de-
spite the fact that Copernicus, is mentioned in these Suarez Argiiello, 1608; Freyre
de Sylva, 1638; Lazaro Flores 1663; Father Zaragoza, or the Argentinian Buena-
ventura Suarez (1706-1739) in his Lunario 30 , etc.). However, they did apply the
prohibition made by the Sacred Congregation of the Index on 5th March 1616,
which Mayans 31 transcribes as follows:
Ex eo tempore conciliari coeperunt maximi tumultus: nam, ut videri potest in Riccioli Alma-
gesto, !ibro 9, sect. 4, cap. 40, nurn. 2, pag. 496, ibi legitur Extractus Decreti Congregationis Emi-
nentissimorum S. R. E. Cardinalium sub Paulo V. editi V. Martii 1616. qui sic se habet.
Et quia etiam ad notitiam praefatae Congregationis prevenit, falsam illam doctrinam Pytha-
goricorum, Divinae Scriptura omnino adversantem de mobilitate Terrae, et immobilitate Solis,
quam Nicolaus Copernicus De Revolutionibus Orbium coelestium, et Didacus Astunica in Job etiam
docent; jam divulgari, et a multis recipi, sicut videre est ex Epistola quadam impressa cujusdam
28 Ed. Toledo, 1597.

29 Galileo en la Espana del siglo XVII - "Revista de Occidente" 40 (July 1966), 99-108.
30 cr. Guillermo Furlong, Matemtiticos argentinos durante la dominacion hispdnica (Buenos
Aires, 1945), p. 58.
31 Text apud Peset: Acerca de la difusiOn ... , p. 318. Summary by Pierre Aubanez, Le genie
sous fa tiare. Urbain VIII et Galilee (paris, 1929), p. 38.

278 Juan Vernet
Patris Carmelitae: Lettera del R. P. Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelitano, sopra I'opi-
nione de i Pittagorici e dell Copemico della mobilita della Terra e stabilita dell Sole, e il nuovo
Pittagorico Sistema del Mondo: in Neapoli per Lazzaro Scorrigio, 1615; in qua dictus Pater osten,
der conatur, praefatam doctrinam de inunobilitate Solis in centro Mundi, et mobilitate Terrae,
conconam esse veritati, et non adversari Sacrae Scriprurae. Ideo ne ulterius hujusmodi opinio in
pemiciem Catholicae veritatis serpat; censuit dictum Nicolaum Copemicum De Revolurionibus
Orbium et Didacum Astunica in Job suspendendos esse, donec corrigantur, librum vero P. Pauli
Antonii Foscarini Carmelitae omnino prohibendum, prout praesenti Decreto omnes respective
prohibet, damnat, atque suspendit. In quorum fidem praesens Decretum manu et sigillo illustrissi-
mi, et Reverendissimi D. Cardinalis S. Caeciliae Episcopi Albanensis signatum et munitum fuit
die 5. Martii 1616. Romae ex Typographia Cam. Agost. anno 1616.
This resistance to accept the Copernican system is already sketched out by the
cosmographer Rodrigo Zamorano (1542-1620), who in the prologue of his Arte
de navegar shows his acquaintance with Copernicus, whom he must have followed
in the tabular part but not in the theoretical part32. The condemnation of 1616,
with the prohibition of these passages by Zuniga relative to the heliocentric system 33 ,
appears in the l1v/ex published in Seville in 163234 and in those of 1640, 1707 and
1747. The final stroke to these incidents was made with the condemnation of the
whole system by Urban VIII (22nd June, 1633).
From this date, the heliocentric system would not be publicly defended again
until well into the eighteenth century. And this panorama remained unchanged,
in spite of the fact that from the reign of Charles II onwards, there appeared such
erudite men as Crisostomo Martinez (1687) who went abroad, subsidised by the
Sovereign himself (a tacit derogation of the 1559 decree 35 ) to study; and in spite
of the fact that in Zaragoza and Madrid, round Juan Jose of Austria, the bastard
brother of the King and universal minister, a group was formed of scientific inno-
vators who read all that was published in the rest of Europe (a tacit derogation
of the 1558 decree), and despite the establishing in Barcelona of the embryo of one
of the first academies of science in the country, the Academy of the "Desconfiados"
(i. e. Distrusting) (1700), which later (1754) was to be transformed into the Royal
Academy of "Buenas Letras". But these innovations, as we have said, must have
caused sufficiently great upheavals to their instigators. We know that the chief sail-
ing master of the Casa de Contratacion in Seville, Juan Cruzado (d. 1692) travelled
through Holland, Germany and England in the company of the Cardinal Infante
don Fernando, between 1633 and 1644. There is no doubt that he knew of the scien-
tific progress of the countries he visited, since in 1679 he relates in a piece of informa-
tion how he had spent a lot of money in "having mathematical books and instru-
ments which have been produced in Europe, brought to Spain to be shown to and
32 J. Pulido, El piloro mayor. Pi/oros mayores, catedraticos de cosmografia y cosmogra/os de
la Cosa de Contratacion de Sevilla (SewilIa, 1950).
33 The part of the above passage which appears in brackets was supressed.
34 cr. Peset, Acerca de la diffusion ... , p. 319; A. Sierra Corella, La censura ... , p. 267 onwards.
35 cr. Lopez Pi fiero, La introduccion de la ciencia moderna en Espana, "Revista de Occidente"
35 (February, 1966), 133-156.
discussed with the sailing masters who come to be examined; and not failing in my
watchfulness to notice anything which may be of use, I have gone so far as to ex-
change letters ... with the Academy in London on matters concerning navigation,
and other subjects which I profess. It seems that they approved, for they replied to
me, and printed my letters in books which come out every year 36 which have come
into my possession; and continuously, I am studying books produced in the six lan-
guages that I understand and speak". This individual (who, in some of the reports,
is alleged to be of French nationality) was seized by the Inquisition in 1691 and
we do not know for sure on what grounds, although one suspects that his relation
with foreign countries would count against him 37 •
In this respect, Admiral Antonio de Gaztaneta y de Iturribalzaga (1656-1728)
was more fortunate. He was able to introduce the latest discoveries made in nautical
matters in France and England into his works.
The Copernican system, therefore, remained, throughout this period, subject
to the opinion expressed by Jose Vicente del Olm0 38 , secretary to the Holy Office,
who, in his Nueva descripcion del orbe de fa tierra (Valencia, 1681) refers to Manilius
and Ovid to demonstrate the central position of the Earth; makes comments on the
Psalm quoted by Zuniga (without quoting Zuniga) and assures us that such a mo-
vement refers to earthquakes. But in Chapter V we read:
This opinion, besides the fact that it was not necessary to introduce it to save the appearances
of the haevenly bodies, is condemned by the congregation of the most Eminent Cardinals for-
med by his Holiness Paul V for the disposition of the Index of forbidden books, on March 5th
1616; and afterwards, on June 22nd 1633, by the decree of his Holiness Urban VIII of the same
Congregation, it was declared to be erroneous in belief, abswd and false in Philosophy.
The condemnation of 1633 gave rise to three different attitudes among Spanish
thinkers:
1. Absolute subjection, with or without refutation in principle of the heliocen-
tric system;
2. Acceptance of the systems of Tycho or Descartes;
3. Presentation of the Copernican system under a hypothetical form. This last
current, as we shall see was to gather moment from the early eighteenth century,
to triumph in the end as the word hypothesis became theory.
1. Subjection to the condemnation

Jose Gavira 39 has quite clearly established the ideological line of this school
of thought: Ferrer, who makes an apology of the ptolemaic system, maintains
that the crystalline ring that separates the primum mobile of the sky from the
stars, is formed by a mass of the purest waters - "so that the blessed can enjoy
36 I think he is referring to the Philosophical Transactions.
37 Cf. J. Pulido, El piloto ... , p. 869-905.
38 cr. J. Ga vira, Aportaciones ... , p. 45.
39 Aportaciones ... , passim.
280 Juan Vernet
themselves in these seas of crystal, SQ as not to miss a mode of diversion". Hurtado

de Mendoza, who reproaches Copernicus for "resurrecting the dead and forgotten opi-
nion of Philolaos", and although realising that the heliocentric doctrine fits in well with
his own observations, adds: "it is absurd, devoid of philo sophy, and erroneous in faith
[... ] notwithstanding the efforts made by Galileo, Bullialdus, Hevelius and other
Copernicans to try and prove the contrary". Gonzalez de Urueiia and Cansino defend
similar positions; Fr. Murillo admits that as there is no rational proof to establish
which of the two systems - Ptolemaic or Copernican - is the true one - one
must submit oneself to the indications of biblical texts: the immobility of the Earth;
Hualde tries to prove it with the following examples: (1) a stone thrown from the
top of a tower always comes to rest at the foot of the tower; (2) when two cannons
are fired in opposite directions, the cannon ball fired to the East does not travel
further than the other one. The Cordovan astrologer Serrano says in the verse pro-
logue of his Tablas Philippicas:
Then was born that illustrious man Copernicus Torinense (sic), the promoter of that elegant
system dreamt up in ancient times by Aristarchus of Samos and Philolaus; the one to which the name
of hypothesis is allocated - an imaginary supposition - for it says the immobile sun is the
centre and that the Earth is mobile in circulation.
This same Serrano elucidates his opinion in his Astronomla Universal:
This system ingeniously explains all that we can see in the sky and observe in the stars, but
since this idea of the movement of the earth and immobility of the sun has been condemned by the
Congregation of Cardinals it is expressly permitted merely as a hypothesis or supposition; that
is, it must be held as false that the Earth really does have the disposition of the Copernican system;
but if it did have it, one would easily be able to explain the celestial movements and appearances
of the heavenly bodies; and so for this purpose we consider it and deal with it only as a hypothesis.
And Father Rodriguez is of the same opinion in his EI Philoteo en conversaciones

el tiempo (p. 316):
"The calculations with which one attempts to adjust its movements and anomalies (i. e. of the
Newtonian system) by a magnetic action or central-attraction are morally impossible, (although
one may suppose they are sound mathematically) even though they may occur in this fashion phy-
sically".
And of Newton he holds the opinion that:
"Even if he did discourse on many physical theorems and discover many things in light and in
colours, despite all this, as to the causes and order of movement by his beloved magnetism, no
one remaining unprejudiced and disinterested will swear by his words".
And Fr. Jose Cassani (1673-1750), the author of an excellent Tratado de
los Cometas4° finds himself in a similar position.
It is curious to note that within this retrograde line, one finds the two most
40 Cf. Armando Cotarelo Valledor, EI "Tratado de los cometas" del P. Cassani (1703), in:
"Anales para el Progreso de la Ciencias" 1 (Madrid, 1934), 485-520; and Constantino Eguia,
EIP. Jose, Cassani, cofundodor de IaAcademia Espaiiola, in: "Boletin de la Academia Espanola"
22(1935),7-30.
traditional universities: (I) Salamanca, which in 1770 refused to allow the study
of Newton, Gassendi and Descartes, because their principles "do not accord so
well with the revealed truths as do those of Aristotle"41, forgetting that Salamanca
was the first university to inaugurate the study of Copernican theory and which
had among its staff in the sixteenth century Jeronimo Munoz, one of the greatest
antiaristotelians of the century as seen from his study of comets of 157242 . And
(II) Alcala hardly went much further: in 1772 the Sphere of Sacrobosco; the Use
of the Astrolabe by Gemma Frisius, the Theorica of Peurbach and The Alfonsine
Tables, were all taught, and one reads that the 'theories' of Peurbach will each be
interpreted 'by Ptolemy'.
2. Acceptance or invention of other systems
Among the most peculiar authors to be cited are the Franciscan Francisco An-
geleres (c. 1680) who made a picturesque synthesis of Copernican doctrines with
astrology and physiognomy43, and Jose Santiago de Casas, who published his hypo-
thesis in Madrid (1758) with the title Relox universal de pendola y en tfl nueva idea
del sistema del universo. The work is retrograde for the date when it appeared, and
on account of the puerility of the author - a puerility shared by the long list of cen-
sors and references connected with the work - which tries to explain the celestial
appearances whilst keeping the Earth in the centre of the universe, and giving it
a simple oscillatory movement along the meridians to explain the variation of the
solar declination throughout the year. He denies the movement of terrestrial ro-
tation because "such a violent revolution of such an extremely heavy body as is
the earthly globe on its imagined axis, whilst maintaining its centre immobile, just
cannot be conceived; it would be against nature which is characterised by tranqui-
lity in the works of the Author of all things [... ] Let us see what would happen if
the earth rotated as the Copernicans maintain. Are the wild or hurricane winds the
inner part of the atmosphere or outside the atmosphere? If I am to be told that the
atmosphere runs together with the globe, it is essential to believe then that they
originate within; and if the atmosphere is unchanging, from whence does the calm
come when hurricanes cease?"
Worthy of more serious consideration are those who, abandoning fantasies,
tried to reconcile faith and science in the adoption of some acceptable system.
In this vein, Carlos de Sigiienza y Gongora (1645-1700) adopted the Cartesian
system of the vortices or "tourbiIlons"; Juan Bautista Coracban (1715) in his Trac-
tatu de Cosmographia follows Tycho's system modified by Riccioli "Whom I find
41 cr. J. Sarrailh, La Espana ilustrada de la segunda mitad del siglo XVIII (Madrid, 1957),
p. 484 and 101.

42 Libro del nuevo cometa y lugar donde se hacen y como se vera por ·la paralaje cutin lejos estan
de la tierra (Valencia, 1572).

43 cr. J. Ma. Lopez Pinero, La introduccion ... , p. 142.
282 Juan Vernet
more up to date and in line with experience"44, as do the majority of Spanish astro-
nomers of his time. The doctor and philosopher, Andres Piquer 45 tells us in his
Logica (p. 166):
Copernicus says that each day the earth gives a complete turn on its axis, and that in one year,
it turns around the sun, which we assume to be in the centre of the universe. And when human un-
derstanding tries to grasp that this idea of Copernicus does not conform itself to the truths of Sa-
cred Scripture nor to the truths we acquire with experience; when, on the contrary, Tycho Brahe
says that the Earth is in the center of the world, that the Sun and all the planets revolve
every day around the Earth, and that Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Mercury and Venus in their
yearly movement circle around the Sun; realizing that all this concurs with experience and
the reason, it adopts the system of Tycho Brahe as the likely one.
Gonzalez Cafiaveras, in his treatise, describes four astronomical systems: Ptole-

my, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Martianus Capella, and he adds one more of his
own invention, calling it "Physical-Astronomical-Solar" which is nothing else,
in fact, than Copernicus - although adapted (so he says) only to facilitate calcula-
tions 46 .
These discussions on the systems of the world were already published by the mid
eighteenth century and they appear in the programme of normal academic activities
with or writhout an indication as to which system should be defended. For example,
in Conclusiones Matematicas, Seminario Real de Nobles (Madrid, 1748) we read:
They will explain that the system of Philolaus, Pythagoras and Aristarchus of Samos, renewed
by Nicolas Copernicus, as well as the censorship which it earned from the Congregation of Cardi-
nals, the Inquisitors of Rome against the person of Galileo de Galileo and in which way it can
be used47 •
In the contest which the Imperial Royal Seminary of Nobles of Barcelona cele-
brated around 1760, we read exclusively specified: "Description of the systems of
Claudius Ptolemy, Tycho Brahe, Nicolas Copernicus and Rene Descartes; critical
opinion and judgement of any of the said systems"48, and in the Programa de ejer-
cicios de exam en para los caballeros seminaristas del Real Seminario de Nobles de
Madrid (1775)49 we read: "About the system of Copernicus (which we admit as
a hypothesis and not as a thesis)".
These dissertations occur as a result of the scientific and critical spirit which
came to birth with the rise to the throne of Ferdmand VI. Likewise, Francisco Gius-
44 Peset, Acerca, p. 313 and 322. One may see the opposite case expressed in Gavira, Apor-
taciones, p. 45, and J. Sarrailh, La Espana ilustrada, p. 493.

45 Cf. Alejandro Sanvisens Marfull, Un medico-filosofo espanol del siglo XVIII: el doctor
Andres Piquer (Barcelona, 1953).

46 Cf. Gavira, Aportaciones ... , p. 48.
47 Cf. Sarrailh, La Espana ilustrada, p. 497.
48 cr. the text in the Central Library of Catalonia, Folletos Bonsoms, Cat. 4, No. 4743.
49 Cf. Gavira, Aportaciones ... , p. 50; Sarrailh, La Espana ... , p. 497.

triniani published an Atlas Universal in Lyons (1755) in which he says with reference
to Copernicus 50 .
Unfortunately his book came out at a time when all new opinions were regarded with suspicion.
Everywhere people spoke only of Reformation: under the pretext of reforming customs of the clergy
there was a swarm of people who attacked the faith of the Catholic Church; and those who still
defended it were frightened by that host of particular opinions which were being advanced in the
place of the Church's Dogmas, themselves threatened with suppression ...
And much more symptomatic, on account of its apparent lack of coherence-

- et pourcause - are two of the Cartas Eruditas which Father Benito Feij60 dedi-
cated to the theme under the title Sobre el sistema copernicano (Vol III letter 20)
and Progresos del sistema filos6fico de Newton en que es incluido el astronomico de
Copernico (Vol IV, letter 21). As a priest, he found himself obliged to defend-or
at least not to challenge directly - the decrees of 1633, and his reaction, as Ga-
vira summarises it (p. 52), consists in establishing a heretical syllogism: "the only
hindrance to the acceptance of the admirable Copernican system is its opposition
to the Sacred Scriptures; the persistence of the ptolemaic system among our astro-
nomers can only be explained by our scientific backwardness, ergo our excessive res-
pect for the sacred scriptures was the cause of scientific backwardness". And to lessen
the impious consequence, Feij60 adopts to Tycho's system.
3. The hypothesis-theory of the heliocentric system
One may deduce, from all that has been explained so far that the adopting of
the Copernican system in Spain was accomplished by the way of hypothesis and with
much precaution. It seems that one of its first partisans was father Jose Zaragoza
S. J. in his Esfera en comun celeste y terrciquea (Madrid, 1674), who affirms as Mayans
indicates 5 \ in his book 2, 1, 8, that "this belief, although ingenious, is condemned
by the Cardinals, the Inquisitors, as contrary to the divine writings, although in the
guise of a hypothesis or a supposition, everyone may make use of it in calculations
of the planets: thus only the actual reality of this composition is condemned, but
not the possibility of it being so [... J The belief of Copernicus has two parts: firstly
that the sun does not move; secondly that the earth has an actual and daily move-
ment and is not a centre. The first was censored on the grounds of formaliter haere-
fica, as being expressly in opposition to the Divine Writings: the second on the grounds
of theological teaching, for it is at least erroneous in fide. Consult Ricciolo. Vol 2.
p. 496".
Let us continue: one cannot deduce decisive consequences from this affirmation
with regard to his real opinion, for Zaragoza is also the author of an Astronomia
nova methodo iuxta Lansbergii hypothesim ad meridianum Matritensem accomo-
so Cf. Gavira, Aportaciones ... , p. 49.

Sl Cf. Peset, Acerca ... , p. 321-322.
284 Juan Vernet
data (1670)52 which permits one to suppose that he tacitly admitted the heliocentric
system from the moment he followed Lansberg, a disciple of the new system.
Armando Cotarelo y Valledor, the author of an excellent monograph on Zara-
goza 53 , has gleaned the ideas which have come forth - sometimes involuntarily -
on the theme from the writings of our author; the fact that "Venus and Mercury
can be mutually eclipsed, because either can be inferior to the other" (Es/era, p. 161)
indicates that he was inclined towards the theory of Tycho modified by RiccioIi54.
When he analyzes the immobility of the Earth (Es/era, p. 196) he says that despite
the fact of it being evident to the senses, "one may reply that a sense is deceived be-
cause the immensity of the heavens is such that the distance of the Earth and Centre
is like a point in comparison with the immensity of the heavens, and therefore sight
cannot distinguish the differences of stars, days, etc." He is also acquainted with the
ellipticity of the planetary orbits (p. 78) which gives a good result in the calculation
of the ephemerides, but he prefers to admit a spiral movement. This polemic on the
shape of the orbits of the celestial bodies was then in vogue and father Juan de Ulloa
S. J. (1722) admitted that the planetary orbits were oval shaped 55 as Azarquiel and
Alfonso the Wise had thought of Mercury as well as Kepler, initially, in his Astrono-
mia Nova on Mars; and Vicente Mut (d. 1687) in his observation on the course of
the comets, of 1664, had asserted that the former followed a curvilinear orbit 56 ,
similar to a parabola.
The Cistercian Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz (1606-1682)57 also concerned
himself with these questions in his Mathesis Biceps. Vetus et Nova (Campania, 1670).
He shows himself to be a partisan of Tycho, but he adds "that God omnipotent
can bring about, this nigh, that the Moon, or Mercury, or Venus, or the Sun, or
Mars, or Jupiter, or Saturn, or any of the immobile stars should rest in the centre
of the world without an astronomer being able to notice, tomorrow, that anything
has been moved by God"58.
One step further on stands Father Tomas Vicente Tosca (1651-1723)59. He
alludes to our problem in different places of his works. In the Compendio Mathema-
tics he closely follows the work of Father Milliet Deschales. He devotes volume VII
S2 cr. A. Cotarelo, EI P. Jose de Zaragoza y la Astronomia de su tiempo, in: "Estudios sobre

la ciencia espanola del siglo XVIII" (Madrid, 1953), p. 218.
53 cr. A. Cotarelo, EI. P. Jose de Zaragoza ... , p. 65-223.
S4 The modification consists in supposing that Mercury and Venus rotate round the sun -
according to the Egyptians, and also that Mars does likewise - according to Tycho; but leaving
the Moon, Sun, Jupiter and Saturn concentric to the Earth.
ss A. Romana, La di/usion ... , p. 15.
56 A. Cotarelo, EI. P. Jose de Zaragoza ... , p. 103.
57 cr. Ram6n Cenal S. J.; Juan Caramuel. Su epistolario con Atanasio Kircher S. J. "Revista
de Filosofia" 12, 44 (1953), 101-147.

58 cr. A. Romana, La di/usion ... , p. 19.
S9 Upon which you should consult Roberto Marco Cuellar, EI "Compendio Mathematieo"
del padre Tosea y la introduecion de la Ciencia moderna en Espana. "Aetas del 2° Congreso de
Historia de la Medicina Espanola 1 (Salamanca, 1965), 325-57; Peset, Acerea ... , p.322-24.
and part of volume VIII to astronomy. Tosca makes Mercury and Venus and Mars
revolve around the Sun, and speaking of the movement of the Sun he adds:
All that we have said about the solar ellipse, according to the common hypothesis that gives
the Earth stability and the Sun movement, is verified also in Copernicus' hypothesis which attri-
butes stability to the sun and movement to the Earth; for the only difference between these two the-
ories is that in the latter - according to the Copernicans the Earth moves around the periphery
of the ellipse, and the sun is in that focus or centre of the real movements, where common hypothe-
sis would place the Earth.
When speaking of the superior planets-Mars, Jupiter and Saturn-he claims
that the hypothesis of Copernicus explains with such simplicity its second inequality
that "it seems impossible to improve on it". When in the twenty fourth thesis of
De la Geografia (book 1, chapter 2) he faces up to the problem we are interested in he
notes that "Copernicus and his followers attributed two movements to the Earth;
the first that the Earth, as though it were one of the seven planets, travels through
the annual orb or ecliptic; ... the other movement is daily and it moves around
its centre ... making a complete circle in twenty four hours. It is not neces-
sary for us to pause here on this subject, since, in different texts on Astronomy,
these have been explained extensively, where the facility with which the celestial
phenomena or appearances are explained with these two movements is evident.
This system may be considered in two ways: the first is as a hypothesis, and the se-
cond as a real fact: as a hypothesis, there is no doubt that it is one of the best that
have been debated ... "60.
Evidently he realises that if he does not recognise the rotation movement, the
heavenly bodies-given the distance at which they lie from our globe-would ha-
ve to travel at a fantastic velocity to complete their circuit in twenty four hours,
but "there is no doubt that the creator could, for his high purposes, put this movement
in the stars and not in the Earth"; although he also confesses that "the philosophical
arguments with which the movement of the Earth is defended are not conclusive eit-
her, arguments which consist in the experiments of throwing a ball in an easterly direc-
tion, and another to the west (the distances covered should be different), and in
dropping a stone from the top of a tower it should deviate from the vertical position
of its fall. All this to conclude: "since there is no evident reason, nor experiment
that concludes such a movement, it is necessary to say that the Earth is immobile
and movement is in the Sun, according to several texts of Holy Scripture".
Tosca expresses similar ideas in his Compendio Philosophico (Valencia, 1721)
which were copied by Mayans and transmitted to Geret 61 •
The Triumph of Copermcus
The heliocentric system can be considered as definitively accepted by the Spanish

astronomers from the moment the Inquisitor Francisco Perez de Prado gave the
60 Text in Peset, Acerca ... , p. 323-24.

286 Juan Vernet
imprimatur without reticence to the works which exposed Copernicanism by way

of hypothesis, as shown in the letter which Mayans 62 wrote to him on April 29th,
1747.
Sir: although I now have great peace of mind, and I live with good faith, I am retaining the
prohibited books which I showed your Excellency in virtue of the license which has been verbally
conceded to me; however, desiring to secure this favour in a written form (if you have no objection
to this) I beg your Excellency to concede this.
At the same time, I am explaining to your Excellency the enjoyment I have at knowing that
we have a General Inquisitor who examines the evidence personally, and who carries out Justice,
leaving the reputation of the writers quite unharmed as far as possible. I say this on account of the
controversy of previous times, concerning the manner in which don Jorge Juan should explain
himself and his ideas on the system of the world which, after many ancient philosophers, Copernicus
followed and strengthened.
He goes on with the history of the problem and adds:

If we enter into a consideration of the causes of one or another condemnation, we will find that
they were not founded on absolutely sound philosophical reasoning, as Fr. Tosca has proved very
well [... ] I am of the opinion that Copernicus' system is reproved by Sacred Scripture (leaving
aside other texts), especially in v. 5 Ps. 103 which says "Qui fundasti terram super stabilitatem
suam: non inclinabitur in seculum seculi". But this and other authorities can have an explana-
tion which is not necessarily absurd and which can fit in well with the opinion of Copernicus; and
great theologians of Christianity attribute this explanation to it, fitting in with the Hebrew text
and the version by St Jerome; from this arises the argument that it is absolutely unnecessary to
consider the statement of Copernicus as heretical, as many writers have affirmed. And that it should
not be held as heretical, besides what is argued in an erudite way, by my friend Luis Antonio Mura-
tori, in his most learned work De ingeniarum maderatiane, it can be said that in the present case
this condemnation is not a theological conclusion, stricly speaking, because it is not derived from
theological premises; and we have even seen, following Fr. Tosca, that these are not even sound
premises.
Following on from what has been said, we arrive at the conclusion that if what I say has any
probability, what Fr. Zaragoza says is sound at least, (bk 2 of The Sphere, prop. I n. 8) and
according to Fr. Tosca (bk 2 ch. 20) there is no danger in following this system hypothetically.
And even though don Jorge Juan does not approve it, he may refer to it and use it as a hypothe-
sis. And I rejoice very much that Your Excellency should have resolved the matter in this manner,
as I have been told - so that everyone may know that Your Excellency does not remove all
freedom that may be useful to Science, from those inspired with ideas, in your capacity as
promoter of Science.
This state of opinion permitted Jorge Juan y Santacilia (1713-1773) to publish

his Observaciones astronomicas y fisicas (Madrid, 1748) although he had to admit
in the prologue that the Copernican system was a hypothesis. This accounts for
the fact that Vaquette d'HermiIIy translated Juan into French saying "The author
of this work does not speak as a mathematician when supposing the opinion of those
who affirm the earth revolves round itself to be false, but as a man who writes in
Spain, that is to say, where the Inquisition exists,,63.

63 cr. Sarrailh, La Espana ... , p. 497.
The victory - and I stress that I mean the victory among scientists of the
Copernican system, was achieved some time between the episode we have just related
(1747) and the publication of the last work by Jorge Juan: Estado de fa astronomia
en Europa (1774). In a passage quoted by Juan Sempere Guarinos 64 he says:
To wish to establish that the earth is immobile is the same as wishing to overthrow all the prin-
ciples of mechanics, physics and even astronomy, without leaving help nor strength in the human
sphere to be able to satisfy us.
These reflections have already been made throughout almost the whole of Europe. There is
no kingdom that is not "Newtonian" and as a result, Copernican; but, not even in imagination
there is any attempt of offend the Holy Scriptures which we should venerate so much. The spirit in
which the Scriptures spoke is quite clear, and they did not aim to teach astronomy, but only to make it
understood by the people. Even those who sentenced Galileo are nowadays known to have repented
of having done so, and nothing accredits it so much as the conduct of Italy itself. Throughout
Italy, the Copernican and Newtonian system is taught publicly; there is no Religion that refuses
to see it published. Fathers Leseur, Jacquier and Boscowick - and even the Academy of Bologna
- do not wish otherwise. Can there be more obvious proof than that they do not show the sligh-
test suspicion of heresy (which was the condemnation), and that one the contrary they accept the
Copernican system as uniquely true?
Will it be honest - in view of this - to oblige our nation, after explaining the systems and
Newtonian philosophy, - to add to each phenomenon dependent on the movement of the earth:
but we are not to believe - it as it is against Holy Scripture? Is it not an outrage to Holy Scrip-
ture to try and prove that it is opposed to the most delicate demonstrations of Geometry and
Mechanics? Will any learned Catholic be able to understand this without being scandalised? And
if there should not be in the whole Kingdom sufficient enlightened persons to understand it, should
it be allowed to make so visible a nation that maintains such blindness?
It is not possible that its sovereign, full of wisdom and love, should consent to it. It is neces-
sary that the honour of his subjects should return and it is absolutely necessary that the astrono-
mical systems should be able to be explained without the necessity of refuting them; for as there
is no doubt in the exposition, neither should there by any in allowing science to be written without
such restrictions.
What has happened between the two key dates (1747 and 1774) in the develop-
ment of Spanish culture? It was the reign of Ferdinand VI (1746-59), the man who
set down the bases for the colossal development of science in Spain in the second
half of the eighteenth century. In the first place, his own confessor (he was also
an Inquisitor) Fr. Francisco Ravago S. J. (1685-1763)65 suggested to him the
setting up of an astronomical observatory (1752) which was dependent on a large
subsidy (paid irregularly, to be sure) and which furnished itself with many pieces
of equipment imported from England 66 . This example spread, and we know of se-
veral importations of eye glasses, micrometers, etc. and of special note among them
was a Herschell telescope brought in by Jose Mendoza y Rios in 1796.
64 Ensayo de una biblioteca espanola de los mejores escritores del reinado de Carlos III - 6
tomos, Madrid, 1785-1789, vol. III, 152-153.
65 Cf. C. Sommervogel, etc.: Bibliotheque de la compagnie de Jesus VI (Brussel, etc., 1890-
1930), vol. VI, p. 1496-7.

66 Cf. J. Simon Diaz, Historia del Colegio, p. 122.
288 Juan Vernet
The decreed imposition of the teaching of the Newtonian system can be consi-
dered as the final point of the whole polemic. This was very well publicised by
Remis y Panduro in his Viaje estatico al mundo planetario (Madrid, 1775), p. 114-117.
The arguments founded on some texts of Sacred Scripture are satisfied.
All these arguments are satisfied with the following considerations:
It would be a rash person who would try to exclude from holy books all metaphors, all com-
parisons, all the figures of speech accepted among men. Astronomers also say that the sun rises
and sets, and they will always say this, without this meaning that they do not know the true state
of Nature. If God could speak to men, he would say the same, and Joshua could not do differently.
It would be very strange to claim that a general in the army, as was Joshua, should entertain himself
giving astronomy lessons while trying to show his army the power and glory of God with a victory;
and abandoning the language th~t his soldiers could understand, should order the earth to stop mo-
ving. It would be necessary to explain the reason for such a strange way or speaking and to attempt
a very ill-timed or irrelevant dissertation. Thus, even if Joshua had known by divine inspiration so-
mething unknown in those days, he would still need to express himself in the manner given in
Scripture.
We will say the same of other biblical texts in which the holy authors could only speak as
one spoke in those days, and just as we speak when we say the rising, setting, movement and inequa-
lity of the Sun.
The texts of Holy Scripture which seem to be opposed to the movement of the earth should
not be understood in their specific, literal sense, but in a general sense as understood by men of
that time. There are many texts of Scripture, besides those which are quoted against Copernicus,
which speak of Astronomy and Physics, and which are obviously not to be taken literally, as when
God says: "Tellus fundata super maria" Psalm 23 or when Ecclesiastes says: "Terra in aeternum
stat". In the Scriptural texts which mention the movement of the sun, one does not and cannot
suspect that the holy writers had the intention to make decisions on questions of Physics, and to
express or disprove opinions on this matter.
We have no obligation to believe that through the gift of prophecy, the sacred authors knew
of profane matters totally unrelated to the subjects they were writing about, or which did not affect
their essence; neither the sacred authors nor the Holy Fathers whose authority one may dispute
upon these matters, were acquainted with astronomy. Such a person was St Augustine, one of the
great lights of the Church, who denied the antipodes; De Civit. Dei. bk 16 ch. 9.
There is no formal decision of the Church against the Copernican system. It is true that the
Congregation of the inquisitional Cardinals made a Decree dated March 5th 1616 against Coper-
nicus' works and the works of ZUiiiga, Foscarini and another against Galileo, dated July 22nd
1633, condemning him to abjure the error of the Copernican system. But this statement is not classi-
fied as a heresy; it is only declared as worthy of suspicion and this does not forbid its justification.
It was considered convenient to forbid it, in order to intercept the disadvantages which in those days
could result from giving too much freedom to discoverers. But it has always been licit, even in Rome,
to admit it as a hypothesis and all those who think this a safer way can do the same.
The works of Jorge Juan and de Bails gave the coup de grace to the last defenders
of the geocentric system, and were the open door through which the Copernican
system was introduced into the Viceroyalty of la Plata by Pedro A. Cervin0 67 (d.
1816) and into New Granada by Jose Celestino Mutis 68 • The extraordinary contri-
67cr. G. Furlong, Matemiiticos argentinas ... , p. 157-9.
68Cf. A. Federico Gredilla, Biografia de Jose Celestino Mutis can relaci6n de su viaje y es/u-
dios practicados en el Nuevo Reina de Granada (Madrid, 1911).
bution of the latter to the scientific development of Hispano-America is reflected in

the field of Copernicanism in the defence that was made of this system in 1774
against the Dominican Fathers who denounced it to the Inquisition; and in the re-
port of June 20th 1801 on the pretensions of the Augustinians to go on teaching the
geocentric system. From this we extract the following passages:
We will confine ourselves to just what is sufficient to form a true idea not only of the valued and
superior reputation which the Copernican System enjoys nowadays among learned men, but also
of the Christian liberty with which they teach it and treat it in decrees all the civilised nations of
Europe without the exception of Rome itself, theatre of its glories and disgraces according to the
fortunes of the times.
Our America is also taking part in these events: it was applauded when introduced into our
schools and theatres: and today it is in decay.
So it seems that the novelty of the day is reduced to the examination of whether one may permit
in the schools and lecture-theatres of this Capital the teaching and discussion of a system that one
had been forbidden to defend positively (because as a hypothesis it has always been allowed), and
even with the previous glory of having been used by chosen astronomers for the reform of the Ca-
lendar. The solid arguments brought to its defence as a thesis in the year '74 in the Colegio del Ro-
sario, were sufficient to undeceive impartial observers besides that neither the Holy Tribunal of the
Faith nor the enlightened superior Government tried to contain this famous philosophical heresy.
Before and after that brilliant act in the presence of Viceroyalty, the system was defended as a hy-
pothesis; while the University teachers felt undaunted before the weakness of the spirits startled
by an opinion, to them incomprehensible; and it was an intolerable novelty to the people who were
in the dark as to what was actually happening in the republic of letters and even less aware of what
has happened in literary efforts to obtain the prohibition of the system ...
He relates the story of the condemnation initially brought about by the intrigues
of the Jesuit Scheiner (1575-1650), Galileo's enemy, and he continues:
As time wipes everything out, and personal complaints are forgotten, we are arriving at the
time when, as we said before, the weakest portion of Scholastic philosophers, who want to reach
everything through the telescope of their abstract ideas, sustains its party through these means.
Without instruments and the continuous watchfulness of observations, one cannot penetrate the
organized movements of the true system of the world, which will now and always be the only one
which, among wise men, corresponds to the laws of the mechanism of the universe.
[ .•. J from then onwards, the ecclesiastic party was weakened, whilst the freedom to teach the
system throughout Italy has prevailed, and within Rome itself the wise Jesuits at the forefront of
whom stands the distinguished astronomer Boscowick, the most famous Mathematician the Society
has nurtured in its bosom. In his philosophy, in all his separate memoirs, and especially in the com-
mentaries on the charming Latin poem on the Newtonian system by the Benedictine Stay he has
poured the most valuable facts for the understanding of Newtonian philosophy, agreeing physically
with all the astronomical system of Copernicus. Thus, already it is positively defended by ever-
yone. Thus the innumerable books on these sciences circulate throughout our Spain and America;
thus it was tacitly ordered that these doctrines should be taught, with the Supreme Council of the
Nation introducing and expressly pointing out the works of Gassendi, Newton, Descartes and
Wolff, all Copernican authors; without making exception on this point as would seem normal if
the notorious prohibition was in practice.
Whatever may be the progress made by these teachings, we will come across them in some do-
cuments which will not admit the least answer. With the motive of the appearance of a harebrained
lay Carmelite brother who set about reforming the Calendar and vomited up in his writings as many

290 Juan Verne!
injuries as his own fury and his protectors dictated to him against the Copernican system, it was
ordered that the blundering project be recognised by the Doctors of Mathematics at Salamanca
University. As a consequence of such misinformed absurdities, those mathematicians pointed out
the error of the project, refuting with welI founded argument and wittiness alI that the brother had
spewed up against the Copernican system. We will transcribe the necessary and apt quotation:
"As to the fourth treatise of his project which he wrongly calls "proofs resulting from what has
been said against the Copernican System", you could have left it out, for to tell the truth, not even
your Reverence will understand it [...]. I am in favour of the Copernican System, because my Mother
the Catholic Church does not hinder my belief considering it as a hypothesis, because through the
constitution I am obliged to explain it in my lectures and because the arguments refuting it - most
of them the offspring of misunderstanding of what they oppose - lack all strength [...]". The Roman
Inquisition made Galileo abjure the view held by the Copernican System and ordered that no one
should follow it: and today even in Rome the public teaching of it is allowed in the view of that
venerable Senate, of the Pope, the Apostolic College and many other illustrious and devout ecclesiastics
who reside in that metropolis of Christianity. Now, not as a hypothesis - for that was never for-
bidden - it is taught, discussed and written about in an assertive tone [.•.]. But here the Father will
speak of God and of the Inquisition. What is this? Have patience and listen. The Roman Inqui-
sition did not forbid absolutely to folIow the Copernican system: there was a prior exception
for the case where one might succeed in making evidence of its truth! And it is certain that the pro-
hibition is conceived in these terms. It so happened that this system became so dominant outside
Spain (where already it is beginning to be followed) that almost all modem physicists are Coperni-
cans. And is it not a very rational and wise judgement that, when such learned judges of different in-
terests, nations and religions (of whom the majority respects the authority of Scripture, in which lies the
only hindrance to the Copernican system) concurred to admit it unanimously, they were undoubtedly
motivated by so many strong reasons that for the effect of persuasion one can assess their unanimity
as equivalent in some manner, to a complete proof. Cardinal Polignac, in his most learned poem
Anti Lucretius, defends the Copernican system as really existing, and this work is dedicated to Be-
nedict XIV, of eternal memory, one of the most illustrious and virtuous Pontiffs that every occupied
the Chair of St Peter and who knew (there is no comparison) much more than your Reverence,
what schould be known concerning the condemnation of this system". With all this Christian fre-
edom and frankness a little work also dedicated to a Prince of the Church, the most emminent
Cardinal de Solis was written and published with the necessary licences, in 1766.
In the year '90, the Presbyter, Don Pedro del Rio brought out his book on ancient and modem
ecclesiastical compotus, in which he advocates the necessity of instructing the Ecclesiastics in those
sciences, and, as a result, in the knowledge of the five principal systems of the world; and he gives
preference to the one «most well-founded and accredited among learned men, to the one most
advocated in civilised nations, and to the one which with greatest facility can explain the phenomena
or appearances which we discern in the skies, which without, doubt is the Copernican System».
Likewise, the philosophy course entitled Lugdunense has just been reprinted in Madrid, with the
idea of propagating it throughout the Colleges and Seminaries, so as to gradually improve upon
the teaching of our youth, and at the same time to make up for the lack of national courses ordered
to be set up in the universities, according to the directions of the Supreme Council which was little or
not at alI satisfied with the Gaudin, as the time limit imposed on them suggests. The above-men-
tioned course, Lugdunense which admits the Copernican system as a hypothesis, resolving it with
arguments of reason and the authority of Scriptures, has been prefered to alI those previously
introduced.
With the reprinting of the mathematical compendium of Don Benito Bails, the preface to the
first edition has been included, which has passed, unhindered, the scrutiny and careful analysis of
the supreme tribunals of the government and of the faith. There the author speaks with complete
frankness: "we cannot omit to warn you that this volume (the 3rd) includes a novelty which would
perhaps rouse comment among many, and it is that in the principles of astronomy we demonstrate
the system of Copernicus, or the opinion of the movement of the earth. Once we hold this as the
true theory and it becomes a point of natural philosophy, it does not fit our frankness, to conceal
this; and once we can demonstrate it we have the right to ask that before anyone condemns this sy-
stem, the motives on which we base it should be carefully considered. We know that in other times
this opinion was seen as a dangerous novelty, and it was forbidden to follow it; but even in Rome
itself nowadays the ban on it is considered so misguided that it is no longer included in the Index
of the Expurgatory, and in Spain a posthumous paper was brought out by Jorge-Juan, the thesis
of which is to prove the movement of the Earth as admitted by the Copernicans ... "
These words allow us to see the degree of freedom which had been attained
in Spanish America towards the end of the eighteenth century. And the same occur-
red within the Peninsula. What importance was held by the Inquisition or censorship
- which did exist formally - when in the Diario de Barcelona of 1792 the follow-
ing announcement was published?
If anyone has the works which we name below and wishes to sell them, please send a note -
with prices - to the Head Office of this daily paper, whereupon the works will be bought if the prices
are not exorbitant. The works are those of John and Daniel Bernouilli, of d'Alembert, of Newton,
several works by Euler, the award winning works of the Royal Academy of Science in Paris, tha
treatise on the shape of the Earth by Clairaut, and other works of this kind 69 •
Copernicus had triumphed.
611 Cf. A. GaIi, Ralel d'Amat ide Cortada, baro de Maida (Barcelona, 1954), p. 254.
HARRY WOOLF
The John Hopkins University,
Baltimore
SCIENCE FOR THE PEOPLE: COPERNICANISM AND NEWTONIANISM

IN THE ALMANACS OF EARLY AMERICA
No learning can long flourish in an inhospitable climate of public opmlOn,

and in the sciences, as in any other branch of intellectual activity, the measure of
support which a people give to the learned is often a result of the contact and ex-
change between the two. The general acceptance of new ideas may well depend upon
the frequency and clarity with which they enter the marketplace, whatever else
their virtues. In the first two centuries of American life, the ordinary, literate Amer-
ican, for the annual expenditure of a few pennies, could acquire an insight into the
practice of contemporary science, and a general understanding of the physical
universe in which he lived. Bound up though it was with the factual miscellanea
of everyday life, timetables, the weather, the meetings of local courts or religious
societies and a varied assortment of calendrical information, the publication which
brought him all these things frequently found space for an essay on popular scien-
ce. In this role and at a time when the printed word was not yet an overwhelming
flood but still cherished and savored, the humble almanac takes on special signifi-
cance.
In 1639, only some two years after the founding of Harvard College, a printing
press was installed in the home of its first president, there to strike off as the earliest
North American printed matter a broadside called The Freeman's Oath and Wil-
liam Pierce's Almanack calculatedfor New England l . It was the beginning of a stream
which gradually broadened to include psalm books, these of Harvard graduates,
the assorted printing needs of a nascent culture and, of course, the regular issue of
almanacs.
In their earliest efforts, almanac authors took up the arguments of the new science,
particularly in the field of astronomy. Harvard College had come into existence
a little less than a century after the death of Copernicus, and only a few years after
1 Isaiah Thomas, The History of Printing in America, with a Biography of Printers, and an
Account of Newspapers (Albany, 1847), p. 46.

294 Harry Vool!
the Inquisition had publicized the work of Galileo, yet from 1653 to 1717, the Quaes-
tiones or theses of Harvard students still disputed the "science" of astrology 2. This
should come as no surprise, for the spread of the heliocentric hypothesis was ex-
tremely slow, and Protestants no less than Catholics persevered in a picture of reality
which they had acquired from the Aristotelian and Thomistic explanations of the
cosmos. In the middle years of the seventeenth century, for example, the astrono-
mical collections at Oxford were for all practical purposes either Ptolemaic or Scho-
lastic, and it was unhealthy to either praise or defend Copernican ideas at the Uni-
versity of Paris before 16863 • That aspects of astronomy thus appear to have been
almost a politically dangerous, an underground subject even at so late a date is rein-
forced by the well-know fact that it was not until 1835 that the Church first omitted
the works of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo from the Index of Prohibited Books 4 •
"About 1670 Copernican astronomy ... was getting a little foothold in Harvard"s,
writes one historian, but actually the Copernican system was well established there
before Zechariah Brigdon compiled the New England Almanack of the Coelestial
Motionsfor this Present Year of the Christian A era 16596 • Brigdon began his almanac
with a direct challenge to believers in the old astronomy. Speaking of eclipses for
the year, he writes: "Twice shall this Planet whereon we live, and its concomitant the
Moon, widdow each other of their Sun-derived luster"7. Finally, he concluded his,
almanac with a concise but vigorous explanation of the Copernican system, which
is the earliest extant essay in popular science published in the English colonies.
Whereas in almost every country the new astronomy had to fight Church and
priest, in New England the clergy was its primary propagator, and together with
the students and faculty at Harvard (who were for the most part ministers or stu-
dents preparing for the ministry) they were responsible for most of the better al-
manacs of the period. Thus, the advance of popular science or at least popular astro-
nomy in America came under the aegis of a "clerical Harvard Corporation, with
a clerical President, watched over by clerical Overseers" 8 • Even at this early stage,
however, American astronomers did more than write popular essays on the new
astronomy, for one of them provided Newton with observations on the path of
a comet, that were extremely useful for the Principia 9 •
Quite often, however, almanac compilers were more eager to demonstrate their
poetic abilities or the essential soundness of their general philosophy, than to write
2 S. E. Morison, Harvard College in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, 1936), p. 214.

3 Ibid., p. 215.
4 P. Smith, A History of Modern Culture (New York, 1930), Vol. I, p. 58.
5 T. J. Wertenbaker, The First Americans (New York, 1927), p. 124.
6 S. E. Morison, The Harvard School of Astronomy in the Seventeenth Century, "New England
Quarterly", Vol. VII (March, 1934), p. 8.

7 Ibid., p. 9.

9 Ibid., p. 220.
Copernicanism and Newtonianism in Early America 295
scientific essays, but the good work which Brigdon had initiated in convincing the
American farmer that the earth he plowed was a revolving planet was carried on
in appreciable quantities. Samuel Cheever added "A breif Discourse of the Rise
and Progress of Astronomy" to his almanac for 1661, and Nathaniel Channcey,
in the almanac for 1662, attempted to prove that the planets dance "illipticall Sal-
lyes, Ebbs and flowes" as a result of "Magneticall Charmes" which emanate from the
Sun 10 . In the second of his two famous voyages to New England, John Josselyn
makes note of an essay in popular astronomy whose title is prescient of the political
pamphlets of the later constitutional debates between Britain and the Colonies on
the eve of the Revolution. Affixed to the almanac for 1665 and written by Alexander
Nowel, "a young studient at Harvard-College in the Massachusetts Colony" 11 ,
"The Sun's Prerogative Vindicated" is a fine essay in scientific popularization.
"Mathematicians", writes Nowel, "have that privilage, above other Philosophers,
that their foundations are so founded upon, and proved by demonstration, that
reason volens nolens must approve them, when they are once viewed by the eye of
the intellect..."12 A statement in support of the heliocentric hypothesis, the essay
is outstanding also in its insistence on proof by demonstration and the test of reason.
In this sense it represents an important milestone in the gradual, popular acceptance
of scientific method in America for Nowel's paper bears all the earmarks of proper
procedure: proofs are based on his own observations of stars through "Optick Tubes"
and compared with the results of other astronomers such as the "Noble Ticho
[Brahe]"13.
The last three decades of the 17th century bore witness to an ever-increasing
number of essays on popular science in the New England almanacs. The impact
of all this can be more fully understood perhaps, when we realize that almanacs
were the most widely diffused literary form and the only periodical literature in the
Colonies during this period. The emphasis throughout was on the physical sciences
with items relating to astronom in particular all-prevalent and all-popular. An
enumeration of subjects presented and analyzed in these essays reveals the aims and
inclinations of writer and readers of the time. For the history of science in early
America, it is one of the few available measures of the age and of the limits of its
scientific thought.
The almanac for 1674, "compiled by J. S.", contained a note on planetary orbits,
indicating that "from Kepler that vigilant and ingenious Mathematician, later Astro-
nomers have received, and are of [the] opinion, that the Planets move in an Ellipsis".
John Foster's almanac for 1681 contained remarks "Of Comets, Their Motion,
10 Ibid., p. 217.
11 J. Josselyn, An Account of Two Voyages to New England, Made during the years 1638,1663
(Boston, 1865), p. 40.
12 Ibid., pp. 40-41.
13 Ibid., pp. 42-44.

296 Harry Woolf
Distance and Magnitude", and as an accompanying essay, Thomas Brattle's14

Observations of a Comet seen this last Winter 1680, and how it appeared at Boston.
Cotton Mather's Boston Ephemeris for 1683 contained "A Description of the Last
Years Comet", N oadiah Russell's Cambridge Ephemeris for 1684 dealt with lightning
and thunder, and the 1685 edition contained an article, "Concerning a Rainbow"
by William Williams. Based on the works of Hooke and Huygens, the Boston Ephe-
meris for 1685 and 1686 presented "A short view of the Discoveries that have been
made in the Heavens with, and since the invention of the Telescope", as well as
a special discourse specifically designed to awaken an interest in the subject. Written
by Nathaniel Mather, this account contained a discussion of sun spots, the craters
in the moon and the rings of Saturn. Henry Newman's Harvard Ephemeris, or Almanack
for 1690 quoted "the exquisite observations of the industrious Monsieur Azout", in an
essay entitled "A Postscript Exhibiting somewhat Touching the Earth's Motion",
and also added a lecture on the tides by John Wallis. Newman's Newsfrom the Stars,
An Almanack for 1691 also contained a history of discoveries entitled "Of Telesco-
pes", which was similar to the work of Nathaniel Mather mentioned above 1S .
Thus, at the very beginning of the "Newtonian epoch in the American colonies" 16,
the popularization of the new astronomy was well under way. Yet at times these
young and eager compilers of almanacs wrote in a style that was not too conducive
to easy comprehension, for their essays were replete with Latin quotations and a host
of allusions designed to demonstrate the learning of the writer rather than facilitate
the understanding of the reader. But time was to remedy this fault, and 18th-century
almanacs were to be free of much of this academic posturing. Nevertheless, the
17th-century essays were genuine popularizations of a high order and the fact that
they were sponsored by the clergy as well as the educated, non-clerical members
of society gave them the double sanction of learning and Holy Writ, a factor of
major importance in Puritan New England at least.
By the 18th century the American almanac had become the primary medium
of communication between ordinary people and the specially educated in the subject
matter of science. More than that, its authors were scientifically trained or at least
educated enough in the literature of their subject to qualify and criticize, and fre-
quently some of the motivation in producing an almanac, other than economic gain,
was the desire to take issue with or support some particular theory. But of course
the almanac was more than a magazine of popular science, and no discussion of
its role could be considered balanced if it omitted at least some reference to the
other vital elements which gave it importance and kept it alive for so long.
14 Thomas Brattle was the American astronomer whose observations were used by Newton
in calculations for the Principia. F. E. Brasch, The Newtonian Epoch in the American Colonies
(1680-1783), "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society", N. S., Vol. XLIX (1939), p. 317.
Morison discusses these essays in general terms between pages 216 and 220.
16 Brasch, op. cit., note 14.
No one who would penetrate to the core of early American literature, and would read in it
the secret history of the people in whose minds it grew, may by any means turn away, in lofty litera-
ry scorn, from the almanac, most despised, most prolific, most indispensable of books, which every
man uses, and no man praises; the very quack, clown, pack-horse, and pariah of modem litera-
ture; yet the one universal book of modem literature; the supreme and only literary necessity even
in households where the Bible and the newspaper are still undesired or unattainable luxuries17.
Others have also testified to the universal circulation of the almanac, and the list
of appreciative commentary is long and respectable. For example, the memoirs of
Joseph T. Buckingham, one of the best of early American newspaper editors, con-
tain the following;
We had on our book-shelf a regular file of Almanacks, for near ... fifty years ... These periodicals
I read often, and with never-relaxing interest ... [A] long poetical account of Braddock's Defeat ...
accounts of events which led to the Revolutionary War... The Articles of Confederation between
the colonies, Petitions to the King, the Declaration of Independence, and many other papers connec-
ted with the history and politics of the country, were preserved in these useful annuals, and affor-
ded me ample food for study. But what excited my especial wonder was the calculations of the eclip-
ses, and prognostications concerning the weather l8 •
The most important aspects of the legitimate science that continued to be pop-
ularized in the pages of the 18th-century almanac were those that dealt with the
physical sciences 19 ., On occasion there would appear an article discussing a problem
in animal husbandry or agriculture, but these were matter-of-fact statements that
were more or less common knowledge in an agrarian world. Old wives remedies
and a common-sense pharmacopea for everything from colds to epilepsy also ap-
peared frequently, the information being used, like modem newspaper filler to oc-
cupy blank spaces on almanac pages. The recommended pharmacopea is quaint
and the language of prescription somewhat interesting, but "six Grains of salt of
Wormwood" to prevent vomiting, a "Teaspoonful of Pioney Root" to "cure the
falling sickness"20 (epilepsy), do not represent a genuine popularization of science,
nor is their subject matter relevant here.
Indeed, in abstracting scientific material from the almanac the unity of thought,
the blend of science and superstition so to speak, is destroyed. In minimizing dis-
cussion of all essays, save those that deal with the physical sciences, the image of
the almanac as it appeared to its contemporaries is further distorted. But history
is an artificial memory; as such it foreshortens some events and lengthens others,
choosing to emphasize in one age what another has minimized or taken for granted.
If the physical sciences interest us here, our concentration upon them is neither
rigid nor dogmatic, for the countries of the mind still lay close to one another in the
17 M. C. Tyler, A History 01 American Literature (N. Y., 1879), Vol. II, p. 120.
18 J. T. Buckingham, Personal Memoirs and Recollections 01 Editorial Lile (Boston, 1852),
Vol. I, p. 20.
19 J. Tobler, The Pennsylvania Town and Country-mon's Almanack,lor the Year 01 Our Lord,
1771, Being the Third alter Leap-Year (Wilmington, 1771).
20 Ibid., 1772.
298 Harry Woolf
18th century, and concern for astronomy could still be based on its alleged impor-
tance (via astrology) in the political affairs of men. From another viewpoint entirely,
there is Nathaniel Ames' fine substantiation, in the almanac for 1736, of the good
scientific doctrine of ex nihilo, nihil fit, yet surely not to be limited to the physical
sciences.
In the early years of the 18th century, almanacs still bore the inscription "Li-
censed by Authority" on their title pages 21 , but the importance of scientific training
in the background of the author had begun to outweigh official sanction, to become
a major factor in their saleability. Authors now noted that they were either "Phi-
lomaths", "Lovers of the mathematicks", or simply "Students in Physick and Astro-
nomy".
Popular demand for discussion of the weather in the almanacs was enormous
and sincere students of science could not resist its pressure, much as astronomers
were to maintain a filiation with astrology through a considerable portion of the
history of science. But some were sceptical of folk meteorology. Samuel Clough's
approach to the "science" of weather prediction is a questioning one. Though he
was forced to include such material, he did so reluctantly. "Reader", he writes,
As for the Weather, I desire a very favorable construction; it is against my mind to put any such
thing, in but considering the People have been used to it in the Almanacks of late, I have set it down
to gratify those that desire it. I would not have any be so Rul'd by it as to expect such weather al-
ways on the days against which it is set ... for the very Rules that the foretelling of the weather is
ounded upon are not to be trusted ... or depended upon ... 22
Yet, by contrast, John Tulley, in an almanac for the same year, gives straight-
forward weather predictions and adds an essay on "Natural Prognosticks for the
judgement of the Weather". A mixture of sense and nonsense, his flowery hand
portrays "the resounding of the sea upon the shore, and the murmurs of the Winds
in Woods" as sings of an oncoming windstorm, and "the obscuring of the smaller
stars ... a sign of [a] Tempest"23.
The prediction of the weather and the explanations of its origins were to occupy
major portions of the almanac throughout the century. In their separate approaches
to the problem, Clough and Tulley represent, more or less, the main characteristics
of 18th-century meteorology, the sceptical, common-sense attitude of Clough on the
one hand, and the naive, self-deceived, outlook of Tulley on the other. Experience
and local history ruled wherever accuracy obtained, though this can hardly be ver-
ified; generalizations were the order of the day, with comments usually reflecting
the season of the year. "A Frozen World yields a cold Comfort", wrote Nathan
Bowen for December 16 and 17, 1727, after an earlier warning that the weather for
21 S. Clough, The New England Almanac for the Year of Our Lord, MDCC (Boston, 17(0);
Trea t, R., An Almanack of the Coelestial Motions, Aspects, Eclipses, etc., For the Year ... 1723 (New
London, 1723). Treat's almanac bore the particular notice, "Licensed by his Honour the Governour".
21 Ibid.
23 J. Tulley, An Almanac for the Year of Our Lord 1700 (Boston, 17(0).
February 19 would be "Fickle and Onsteady like the Times"24. In 1735, Nathaniel
Ames, Jr., evidently foresaw the quality of the coming winter and optimistically
wrote for January 27:
The Winter's milder than last year
Your Hay will last, What need you fear?
Moreover the prescience acquired for the winter did not fail him in the summer
and for 6 through 9 July he predicted "very unsettled weather with some strange
Phaenomenon, and many Remarkable Accidents of both Foreign and Domestick"25.
And so they went through the cycle of the seasons and down the corridors of
time, forecasting the year's weather for the gullible, sometimes with tongue in cheek
and at other times with sincere conviction. Many found opportunity in discussing
the ever-popular subject to compose poetry or display their wit, frequently combi-
ning the two. By and large, however, the roots of weather observation and predic-
tion were grounded in astrology and, to a lesser extent, in the experience of years
gone by. In the almanac for 1727, Nathanel Ames could rationalize his forecasts
thusly:
... [W]hat I have predicted of the Weather ... is from the Motions & Configurations of the he-
avenly Bodies, which belongs to Astrology: Long Experience testifies that the Sun, Moon and Stars
have their Influence on our Atmosphere, for it hath been observed for Seventy Years past, That
the Quartile & Opposition of Saturn & Jupiter produce Wet Seasons; and none will deny that the
Sun affordeth us his benign Rays & kind influence and by his regular Motion causeth Spring, Sum-
mer, Autumn & Winter; and if the Moon can cause the daily Ebbing and Flowing of the Tide.
and has the vast Ocean subject to ther government, she can certainly change the air which is Thin.
and Tenuious 26 •
Curiously, in describing the nature of weather analysis, or at least his own sche-
me for it, Ames' explanation of the four seasons remains ambiguous, being pro-
Copernican only if the motion of the sun is taken as apparent. However, the mo-
vement of the tides is directly related to the action of the moon. But safely in har-
mony with New England theology in its accpetance of the new astronomy at large,
Ames reminds his readers that "the Stars of Heaven give us such a Noble Idea of
the Infinite Power, Wisdom & Glory of God, that they Invite our Thoughts to Soar
among the heavenly Glories"27.
In the 17th century the new astronomy invoked by the groundwork of Coper-
nicus, Kepler and the great synthesis of Newton's Principia occupied the minds of
scientific scholars everywhere. Attempts at popularization through almanac lite-
24 N. Bowan, The New-England Diary, or, Almanac, for the Year of Our Lord Christ, 1727
(Boston, 1727).
25 N. Ames, Jr., An Astronomical Diary, or an Almanack for the Year of Our Lord Christ,
1733 (Boston, 1733).
26 N. Ames, An Astronomical Diary, or, an Almanack for the Year of Our Lord Christ, 1727
(Boston, 1727).
27 Ibid.
300 Harry Woolf
rature had already begun in the closing decades of that century, as we have seen,
but it was the eighteenth century which was to witness this full flowering. Scarcely
an almanac was published, from Massachusetts to Maryland, that failed to attempt
an account of some astronomical phenomena. In this category, the prediction of
eclipses and the discussion of their significance, a mixture of science and supersti-
tion, stands as a major element in popularization28 •
As was usual with the versifying almanacs, techniques "to bring the cause of...
Eclipses to ... Remembrance", frequently took the following form:
Th' Opacous Moon by day obscures the light
Of Splendent Sol from men on Earth: by night
The Sun opposeth her, and o're his face
Doth cast a Sable Mantle for a space 29 •
But Nathaniel Ames' approach to an eclipse is at one and the same time more
scientific and more superstitious, for in speaking "Of the Eclipses This Year, 1728"
he locates the event among the constellations, but subjects that information to an
astrological interpretation:
The first of these Eclipses (moon) is Celebrated in 6 degrees of Virgo, the Second sign of the
earthy Triplicity, which (authors say) portends the scarcity of Fruit and Com.
The second of these Eclipses, viz: That of the Sun on the 28th of February happens in 20 de-
grees of Pisces, the House of Jupiter, and Exhaltation of Venus: learned Authors affirm, when Ju-
piter bears Rule, and is Lord of an Eclipse ... [that] he signifys Glory, Fertility ... Peace and Plenty;
and ... especially Ecclesiastical Persons do flourish and live in great Estimation. The Laws are well
Executed, and Good; new Customs ... Privilages ... Honours ... are now ... conferr'd upon People
in general; ... these are the Natural Portends of Jupiter when he bears Rule in an Eclipse 30 •
That the good Doctor Ames held favorable views of astrology for all his actual
ability at astronomy proper is obvious, yet in the same almanac he expresses his
appreciation of the immensity of the universe in an address to the "Kind Reader".
"In My last Years Almanack", he writes,
I gave you a brief hint of the motions & Diameter of the Planets (sic] & their distance from the
Sun: but above or beyond all these Planetary Globes is the Firmament or the Region of the Fixed
Stars, which are of such Immense Distance from the Sun & this Earth ... that a Learned Astronomer
writes, "That if a musquet had been shot up at the Mosaick Creation to the nearest fixed star, and
continued its swiftest course all the way, it would hardly have arrived there by this time, after the
long interval of above Five Thousand Years". These Immensly numerous great & amazing Systems
of Globes or Worlds so much surpass this ... Earth ... that it degenerates into but little more than
a point, when ... compared with the Regions above, and [the] prodigoius magnitude of the heavenly
Space & the Bodies Therein contained ... 31
Here then is good popular science, picturing the size of the universe by means
of analogy, in conceptual terms that the layman can grasp. Somewhat unfortunate
28 S. Clough, The New England Almanack for the Year of our Lord, MDCC (Boston, 17(0).
29 Ibid.
3C1 N. Ames, Ibid., 1728.
31 Ibid.
is Ames' failure to identify the "Learned Astronomer" from whom he is quoting.

We do know, however, from entries in his diary, that Ames was in communication
with Benjamin Franklin 32 and "John Winthrop, Esq., Professor of Harvard Col.
F. R. S."33, men from whom he could certainly have received soun~ scientific advice.
Like so many of his contemporaries, Ames did his own calculations for the
various e~lipses, lunations and tables of the planet's positions. Evidently he compa-
red his results with the work of others, and with enough confidence in his own ef-
forts, would enter into heated arguments whenever he found another in error. He
found several such, and in an address "To the Legitimate Sons of Urania" warned
that:
All the Ephemeries now Extant among us, and the Tables of that nature containing the Eclip-
ses, Lunations, Planets places, and aspects calculated for the meridien of London, are notoriously
false for the first four Months of this Year, and differ from the Truth as far as light from darkness ...
And to' my Brethren Almanack makers may be reckoned among that Number ... [that have]
built upon Colson's34 Calendar (a rotton foundation) ... [and thus] filled the first four months of
their Almanacks as full of Errors as there are Day in the same, I am far from laying a foundation
for a long Controversy with those of my own fraternity, but ... I would [only] have them Re-calculate
their Eclipses ... They shall find ... that they are mistaken: two of 'em make their first Eclipse to be
on the 24th Day of February tho' by their own Almanacks the Moon is at her first Quarter at that
time, and as for their Eclipse of the Sun ... to be on the 19th day of March, it is as far from the
Truth ai the other, for the Sun at that time is above forty degrees distance from the Dragon's head,
which carries the shade of the moon to the north more than three times the Diameter of the Earth,
and therefore it is impossible in nature that the Earth should suffer an Eclipse at that time ... 35
Having thus demonstrated his superiority in the world of figures, for he was
correct in his calculations, and berated his London contemporary for improper re-
asoning and false deductions, Ames turns about, and somewhat left-handedly ex-
presses his sympathy for his colleagues and their misfortune in blindly accepting
the univerified calculations of the London astronomers.
The explanation and calculation of eclipses were the most extensive parts of
astronomy that made their way into the almanacs, but there were other aspects
of the subject which, if not as frequently given, were at least as valid. Attempting
to give "some Brief Account of the Ebbing and Flowing of the Tides, at the Change
and Full of the Moon", Robert Treat, in his almanac for 1723, wrote that,
... this Ebbing & Flowing ... Proceeds from the Attractive Influence of the Sun and Moon,
which together with the Earth and all the heavenly Bodies, have a Power of Gravitation or attrac-
tion to their own Centers; whence it follows, that if the Earth were not [so] Disturbed ... the Water
of the Seas would cleave down continually towards the Center of the Earth without any Tides;
But the Sun & Moon having this power of Attraction, do draw and lift up the Water of the Seas to-
wards themselves, and the Moon ... being near the Earth, constantly lifts up the Water of the Sea sinto
32 N. Ames, Diary of Dr. Nathaniel Ames, "The Dedham Historical Register" (Dedham:
Published by the Dedham Historical Society, 1890), Vol. II, p. 26.
33 Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 11, 49, 52, 144; Vol. II, p. 97.
34 Probably Nathaniel Colson, a noted London almanac maker.
35 N. Ames, An Astronomical Diary ... for... 1729 (Boston, 1729).
302 Harry Woolf
a circular heap right illlder it Self... and ... [itl moves along continually Round from East to West
with the Moon, and this is called the Moon Tide, and is the greatest; The other ... is called a Natural...
Tide, being only that position or height the Waters would ... abide in if not Disturbed, and this is
much less: The Abounding of the Tide at the Change, is because both Sun and Moon with united
force attract together. The Tide at the Full, is less than at the Change, because then the Sun and the
Moon are separate; and yet bigger at the Quarters, because the Sun is about a Quadrant distant
from the Moon and attracts from the place of height to the place of low Water. This is a brief and
plain solution 36 •
In his almanac for 1731, Ames wrote of "the prodigious Effects of Nature",
that year, in "producing terrible Thunder & Lightning ... tremendous Earthquakes,
great Eclipses of the Luminaries ... and strange Phaenomena in the Heavens"37.
The "strange Phaenomena" that caught his attention was the Aurora Borealis,
which had been unseen in New England until but eleven years previously. He sought
to explain the Northern Lights, and he described their emergence from a "conca-
tination of Causes", from "hot and moist Vapours, exhaled from the Earth, and
kindled in the Air by Agitation"38. Such a striking phenomenon could not be obser-
ved without some comment on its meaning for human affairs; and Ames spoke
of how the "great God of Nature forewarns a sinful World of approaching Cala-
mities, not only by Prophets, Apostles and Teachers, but ... by the Elements and
extraordinary Signs in the Heavens"39. As was his custom Ames, and others of his
school, saw a host of human misfortunes in the wonderful Borealis. Wars, famine,
deluge, revolutions in kingdoms and states, alterations of laws and customs, and
the mUltiplication of sects and seditions in the Church were but a few of the calami-
ties for man that were read out of the play of light across the darkened skies.
In the almanac for 1732, Ames begged his "Ingenious Reader" to take note of
the fact that the consideration of the "Distances ... Motions ... and Magnetism of
the Heavenly Bodies" and the manner in which they "obey the Laws of some Omnis-
cient Contriver" led one to admire the "all disposing Providence", who "not only
guides the Rolling Worlds as they Plough the Liquid Aether", but keeps the "Thou-
sand of Atoms that wander up and down ... a Sun-Beam ... under his cognizance"4o.
In a period when matters of religion were so very widely the subject for debate and
conversation, Ames reaffirmed the work of the "Architect of the Universe" and the
sublimity of the heavens (and therefore the study of them) as the work of His hands.
In this, of course, he demonstrated how much a part of the eighteenth-century mind
he was. Yet he foresaw the future destruction of the solar system, saying that "an
the Phaenomena of Nature... as with one Voice declare the great catastrophe of
36 R. Treat, An Almanack of the Coelestial Motions, Aspects, Eclipses, etc. for the Year ...
1723 (New London, 1723).

37 N. Ames, An Astronomical Diary ... for ... 1731 (Boston, 1731).
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 N. Ames, ibid., 1732.

our System"41. The light and heat ofthe sun would run out some day, and moreover,
the eccentric orbit of the earth brought it closer to the sun every year, to result even-
tually in the scorching of the earth and the end of all life. Comets were also a danger,
and the possibility that one of the many which passed through the earth's atmosphere
might someday strike the earth was not to be discounted. In this connection, he
discussed the "most eminent and remarkable comet that ever appeared to the
world"42, the great comet of 1680. At first, he writes, "this comet in its Aphelion
past through so much Cold and Darkness, that its Atmosphere derived a vast Trail
of Vapours, and meeting with this Earth at the beginnings of Noah's Flood was
the cause of the same". But more importantly he cites Cotton Mather's reference
to Isaac Newton's computation of the heat of the 1680 comet.
Its Heat in its Perihelion was near 2000 times greater than that of red hot Iron. A Globe of red hot
Iron of the Dimensions of our Earth ... would scarce be cool in 50,000 years. If then this Comet
cooled a 100 times as fast as red hot Iron, yet since his heat was 2000 times greater than that of this
Earth he will not be cool in a Million of years43 •
Though once removed, Ames has drawn upon Newton to support his popular
discourse, but with his penchant for astrology and an inclination to read the divine
will into cosmic events, he could not help but wonder at "what Horror & Conster-
nation this Wicked World [will] be in, when they shall behold this vast Comet like
a baneful torch, blaze & roll along the unmeasurable Aether, bending its course
directly to this Earth with a Commission from Heaven to burn it Up"44.
The almanacs of Nathaniel Ames, father and son, were issued regularly from
1726 to 1775, were widely circulated (as far south as South Carolina) and at their
peak had an annual circulation of about 60,000 45 . They were not, of course, the only
almanacs to popularize science. In Philadelphia, until 1733, when Benjamin Frank-
lin entered the field with Poor Richard, Titan Leeds' The American Almanac was
the most prominent. As almanacs generally went, Poor Richard was one of the best,
as an average annual sale of 10,000 copies, from 1733 to 1759 testifies 46 , but stran-
gely enough, in the light of Franklin's own interest in science, Richard Saunders
never wrote much about the new astronomy, or the tides or even the new field of
electricity in which he was so very interested. But this is not to say that Poor Richard
was altogether devoid of scientific material. Although the first fifteen issues show
few references to scientific or rationalistic systems of thought, later numbers demon-
strate Franklin's scientific deism and his concern for the popularization of science.
In the issue for 1748 he notes that "on the 21st of this month, 1727, died the prince
41 Ibid., 1733.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
45 S. Briggs, The Essays, Humor, and Poems of Nathaniel Ames, Father and Son, of Dedham.
Massachusetts, from Their Almanacs (Cleveland, 1891), p. 20.
46 J. Bigelow, (ed.), Facsimile of Poor Richard's Almanack for 1733 (N. Y., 1894), p. 100.
304 Harry Woolf
of astronomers and philosophers, Sir Isaac Newton ... who ... Traced the boundless
works of God, from laws sublimely simple"47. The same issue also noted the death
of John Locke, to whom Franklin referred as "the Newton of the Microcosm".
In the 1749 almanac he paid honor to Francis Bacon as "the father of modem ex-
perimental philosophy", and in 1751 he wrote an essay on the microscope, an in-
strument with whose aid it could be seen that "the countless Numbers of... living
Creatures, the Profusion of Life every where to be observed is above Measure asto-
nishing, and shews the Maker to be an infinite Being"48.
One of the best illustrations of Franklin's deism occurs in the almanac for 1753,
when he uses the fifty-fourth Psalm as a springboard for discussion of that perpetual
question, the conflict between science and religion. He would not permit the Bible
to enervate scientific deductions, and wrote that:
[A]s to the Objections taken... [by] Scripture ... which seem to contradict the Theory of the
Earth's Motion, it is plain ... that Revelation was not given to Mankind to make them Philosophers
or deep Reasoners, but to improve them in Virtue and Piety; and ... it was therefore proper it should
be expressed in a Manner accomodated to common Capacities and popular Opinions in all Points
merely speculative ... The Truth of the Matter is, that the Demonstrations given by the incompara-
ble Sir Isaac Newton, have established the Doctrine of the Motions of the Earth and other Planets,
and the Comets round the Sun, and of the secondary Planets or Satellites round their Prima-
ries, in such a Manner, as leaves no Room for any, but such as do not understand'them, to hesitate
about it49 •
Thus, like Ames, Franklin saw the hand of God in a system of immutable laws,
and the apprehension of His grace through the exaltation of reason. Rather than
a series of essays in science as such, he presented to the American colonists a run-
ning commentary on the philosophy associated with the new science. The age of
enlightenment had opined that the Bible was less important than Nature, and the
pages of Poor Richard showed that religion could and would flourish without sacred
books or traditional authority.
Incredibly curious, Franklin had asked more questions than his friends and his
generation could answer. Inquisitive and extremely ingenious, his name is associated
with electrical theory, the lightning rod, the open stove, bifocals, navigation, street
cleaning and paving, ventilators, preventive medicine, public libraries, fire-fighting
and education so . But except for a few occasions, Poor Richard spoke rather infre-
quently (in comparison with Nathaniel Ames) of the known Franklin interests in
science, and the fame of his almanacs rests primarily on their philosophic content,
humor and literary qualities.
47 Quoted by C. E. Jorgenson, The New Science in Almanacs of Ames and Franklin, "The
New England Quarterly", Vol. VIII (Dec., 1935), p. 559.

48 Ibid., p. 560.
49 Ibid., pp. 560-561.
so Cf. N. G. Goodman, (ed.), The Ingenious Dr. Franklin: Selected Scientific Letters of Ben-
jamin Franklin (Philadelphia, 1931), pp. 1-13.
Moreover, Franklin seems to have geared his almanacs to the squirrel virtues
and the early-to-bed, early-to-rise philosophy of a pioneer generation on the make.
And as is well known, the pages of Poor Richard abound in homely proverbs and
wise old saws that articulate the cult of success. Comparing Franklin's Almanacs
with those produced by Ames, shows up their deficiencies. Where Ames discussed
the significance of the new science and wrote of the latest astronomical achievements,
Franklin merely listed forthcoming eclipses or enumerated a series of old wives'
remedies for various illnesses. Where Franklin instructed his generation on the best
road to wealth, Ames brought them some of the best in English literature, producing
for the colonial, perhaps for the first time, fragments from the works of Addison,
Pope, Dryden and Milton s1 . In thus comparing the two, it has not been my inten-
tion to detract from Franklin the man, but briefly to indicate that there were other
almanacs contemporary to Poor Richard that were superior in many ways, and that
it has been Franklin's great and deserved reputation which has given Poor Richard
a celebrity and fame beyond all others.
Though the almanacs of Ames and Franklin represent the best of the 18th-cen-
tury's efforts, there was beneath them a large class of substantial almanac com-
pilation. Among these lesser efforts, there is an extensive if somewhat spotty record
of scientific popularization. On occasion Nathan Bowen included such material in
his New England Diary, and in 1734, he added a history of the calendar. A gem of
organization, it divided the subject into eight groups, beginning with the Julian
Period, going through the Olympiads and "the Epock of Nabonnassar" to the time
of Pope Gregory XIII and the correction of the Julian calendar 52 • In an almanac
for 1734, Jacob Taylor briefly discussed stars and constellations from the Pleiades
to Sirius, and suggested that only the first part of the night be used for observations.
From Dryden's translation of Virgil, he quotes:
And now the latter Watch of wasting Night,
And setting Stars to kindly Rest invite.
In addition, he "scattered some fragments of astrology" through the almanac

but warned against its use by quoting from Pope's Essay on Criticisms 3 •
Such labour'd Nothings in so strange a Stile
Amaze th' Unlearn'd, and make the Learned smile.
In 1751, Great Britain reformed her calendar so as to bring it into harmony with
the continental system that had been in exi&tence since Pope Gregory's official chan-
ge (1582). This reformation corrected the eleven-day lag in the British calendar.
The alteration naturally affected the American colonies and of course, was of pri-
51M. C. Tyler, op cit., Vol. II, p. 123.

52N. Bowen, The New-England Diary, or, Almanack for the Year of Our Lord Christ 1734
(Boston, 1734).
53 J. Taylor, An Almanack or Ephemeris ... for the Year 1734 (Philadelphia, 1734).

306 Harry Woolf
mary concern to the makers of almanacs. One of the first to write an explanatory
essay on the shift from "Old Style" to "New Style" reckoning was Job Shepherd,
and in his almanac for 1752 he informed his readers "not to be alarmed at such a De-
duction of Days, nor regret ... the loss of so much Time, but take ... for Consolation
that... Expenses will ... appear lighter ... and for those who love their Pillows, [there
was now opportunity] to lie down ... on the 2nd of this month and not ... awake ...
<till the 14th in the morning"54. With the alteration of the calendar as a result of
Lord Chesterfield's bill, almanacs after 1751 advertised that they were made "ac-
cording to the New Calendar" and Parliament's sanction
Throughout the period under examination, a host of almanacs came and went,
to underscore the work of the typical few selected for discussion here. Lesser va-
riations on the theme developed in this paper, it is practically impossible to guess
their number or to measure their effectiveness, save to note that they were numerous,
that nearly every press in the country produced them, and that they were extensiv-
ely read for all their brief duration. Daniel Sewall's New Hampshire Almanacss ,
Nathan Lowe's The York, Cumberland & Lincoln Almanack for Maine 56 , James
Franklin's Poor Robin and Benjamin West's The New England Almanack for Rhode
IslandS 7, to name but a few, are examples of those that belong in this category,
being competent and of a moderate circulation.
To a large extent the almanac furnishes what is very likely the best index to the
tastes and thoughts, the mind so to speak, of the ordinary, eighteenth century Amer-
ican. By exhortations to frugality, temperance, industry, piety, and the "good life",
it must have played an effective part in molding his value judgements. In homely
phrases that pleased the ear and caught the memory, he acquired a series of pro-
verbs and epigrams to crystallize his thoughts and reduce his philosophy to a for-
mula. "God helps those that help themselves", wrote Poor Richard, and the genera-
tions to follow helped themselves to the riches of a continent in the name of the Lord
and the free individual. Echoing the agrarian philosophy of his days, Ames wrote
in 1765 that "the Farmer only independent lives, he asks but what indulgent Na-
ture gives". Or, what is more indicative of the colonial outlook than Ames' comment
that "the most egregious Folly that I can see, is a Man living in Luxury". Proverbs
existed to describe every fault and every virtue in the life of man, and it would be
quite possible to construct a complete Weltanschauung for the 18th-century American
from a careful listing of these old saws.
Another aspect of the 18th century almanac worth noting, if only in passing,
54J. Shepherd, PoorJob,1752: An Almanack/or the Year o/Our Lord 1752 (Newport, 1752).
55C. L. Nichols, Checklist 0/ Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont Almanacs, "Proceedings
of the American Antiquarian Society", N. S., Vol. XXXVIII April, 1928), pp. 87-96.
56 Ibid., p. 63-64.
57 H. M. Chapin, Checklist 0/ Rhode Island Almanacs 1643-1850, "Proceedings of the Ame-
rican Antiquarian Society", N. S., Vol. XXV (April, 1915), pp. 30-32.
is its direct role in the more familiar phases of colonial history. In his almanacs
for 1756, 1758, and 1763, Nathaniel Ames included short accounts of the history
and contemporary state of the colonies. Roger Sherman, in his almanac for 1760
gave an account of General Wolfe's reduction of Quebec. From 1759 to 1761 Fa-
ther Abraham's Almanack (Philadelphia) gave brief historical accounts of the military
campaigns in Canada, including woodcuts of the plans of various forts and towers S8 •
The Seven Years' War found New England rejoicing in the success of British arms,
and, as usual, Nathaniel Ames was there to record poetically that emotion.
Great Alexander, who the World had won,
Sat down and wept when all his Work was done.
Amherst with Glory triumphs o'er his Foes,
And rests for want of Countries to oppose.
Canada conquer'd! Can the News be true!
Inspir'd by Heav'n what cannot Britons do.
The News with Haste to listining Nations tell,
How Canada, like ancient Carthage fe1l 59 •
But by 1766, with the Stamp Act passed, the protests against it filed for posterity
by the New York meeting of delegates from nine colonies, and the Virginia Resol-
ves freshly in mind, no almanac-maker could keep silent, and in the issue of his al-
manac for that year, with his British sympathy fading rapidly, Ames repeats the
familiar maxim. "The sole end of government is the happiness of the people", and
adds the jingle:
If each blade, would mind his trade,
Each lass and lad in homespun clad,
Then we might cramp the growth of stamp 60.
Towards this growing colonial resentment against Britain, the American al-
manac was no small contributor. From 1766 to 1775 the almanacs were replete
with denunciations of British tyranny and abuses; moreover, suggestions for de-
finite anti-British policy, such as the use of homespun and locally manufactured
paper, were directly made 61 . By 1775, Ames had gone far enough in his opposition
to British policy to include "The Method of Making Gun-Powder", in his almanac
for that year62. This was popUlarization of technology with a vengeance! Yet he was
not alone, for fellow almanac-makers like Benjamin West, Abraham Weatherwise,
and Edes and Gill were all with him; to ask themselves and their readers, along
58 C. S. Brigham, An Account of American Almanacs and Their Value for Historical Study,
"Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society", N. S., Vol. XXXV (October, 1925), p. 204.
59 N. Ames, An Astronomical Diary ... for ... 1761 (Boston, 1760).
60 Ibid., 1766.
61 C. N. Greenough, New England Almanacs, 1766-1775, and the American Revolution,
"Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society", N. S., Vol. XLV (October, 1935), p. 299.
62 N. Ames, Ibid., 1775. These instructions were copied and repeated in other almanacs.
308 Harry Woolf
with Ames in 1769, as to: "Who would sell his Birth Right for a Mess of Soup,
or risque his Constitution for a Sip of Tea?"63
Finally, it is important to note that the faithful reader of New England alma-
nacs from 1766 to 1775, even if he read nothing else, would have been prepared
to act intelligently in the events before and after 1775. Almanacs for those years
would have given him a fairly accurate record of recent public events of great im-
portance. He would have possessed the texts of various charters and public docu-
ments, and been familiar with some of the verses of the better English poets, espe-
cially in praise of liberty. He would have been introduced to the idea of economic
resistence and shown several schemes for reducing his dependency on the mother
country. He would have been told who his best friends were in Britain - Wilkes,
Chatham, Mrs. Macaulay - and also known something about John Dickinson.
Finally, he would have been shown the possibility of armed resistance, and of course,
even how to manufacture his own gunpowder!
Seen thus the almanac was obviously more than a journal for popular exegesis
of science, but the latter remains one central and concluding theme. In a very real
sense, the scientific concerns of the 18th-century American encompassed and ex-
pressed a good part of the American mind. Believing in the ultimate triumph of
reason and sharing that faith of the Enlightenment with their European contempo-
raries, intellectual Americans very early found the study of nature and the pursuit
of the new science congenial to their tastes. To this interest their new environment
gave constant nourishment. By strange and wonderful flora and fauna, the discovery
of new resources, and the geographic exploration of unknown regions, the Amer-
ican imagination was stimulated and expanded. To plant a civilization successfully
on a new continent called for the maximum use of natural ingenuity and conditioned
a pragmatic approach to the problems of life. The physical world was immediate
and demanding, and it was thus no accident that early American science, striving
to meet new social and economic needs, should confine itself largely to astronomy,
navigation, botany, cartography and mechanics, although, as I have shown, the
almanac dealt primarily in only the first of the sciences.
In the last years of its history, those of the 18th century, the American almanac
gave popular expression to all of these scientific inclinations. That it was nurtured
in an environment highly favorable to its growth during this period goes without
saying, but in its own way it also contributed to the maintenance of that very am-
bience favorable to its continued existence. The question of the relationship between
science and society is often one of communication. A new theorem in mathematics
revolutionary as it may be, can be uttered without disturbing the calm of an uncom-
prehending public opinion. To a lesser extent in various other sciences new discov-
eries may clash with the armies of professionals among them but precipitate little
or no combat from an indifferent public. But the almanac brought home to the whole
63 Ibid., 1769.
of literate America the new world that emerged from the Copernican hypothesis
and the great Newtonian synthesis. This it managed to do broadly and effectively
without raising too much oppositional fever.
Yet heat there was as these new ideas came into contact with the world picture
created by the faith of the fathers. Because it sold in the marketplace, the tempera-
ture produced by the friction between the old and the new had to be reduced. Con-
sciously or not, the almanac authors made their compromises. Sometimes it was
astrology, sometimes it was deism, sometimes it was both that were blended together
in the final version of an almanac. Thus did Franklin's Poor Richard, Ames' Astron-
omical Diaries and all their contemporaries sell, and sell well, and in their modest
way help to narrow the gap between the spiritual, invisible world of the 17th cen-
tury and the allegedly comprehensible w.orld of the 18th.
JOLAN ZEMPLEN
Technical University of Budapest
THE RECEPTION OF COPERNICANISM IN HUNGARY

A contribution to the History of Natural Philosophy and Physics in the XVUth
and XVIU th centuries
INTRODUCTION
Intention. This study does not set out to discuss the historyforming importance
of the appearance of Copernicus's theory. It is well known to every historian of
science that the Copernician ideas constituted a serious blow to the Aristotelian-
Scholastic concept of the structure of the universe. At the same time, however,
it is also well known that the book De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, published
in 1543 by the already 70-year-old Copernicus became common knowledge only
much later. The objective reasons as well as the subjective motives of this fact are
more or less well known!; it may also be regarded as common knowledge that the
ecclesiastical-Aristotelian reaction took notice of the dangers involved in the new
doctrine only at about 1600 in the time of the burning of Giordano Bruno at the
stake, though it was essentially the work of Kepler and Galileo which initiated the
official campaign against the followers of Copernicus. Giordano Bruno's atomistic
panteism was considered at least as great a sin as his adherence to the Coperni-
can theory 2.
It is a special point of interest that first the Protestant churches- Melanchton,
Calvin and Luther-objected to the "lunatic throwing everything into confusion" 3 •
By way of introduction I should like to stress the point that I do not wish to
deal with the dissemination of the Copernican theory from the astronomical point
of view; it is rather my intention to discuss the problems as they present themselves
1 D. S timson, The gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe, Hanover -
New Hampshire, 1917.
2 L. Matrai, A Contribution to the Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe
(in Hungarian), Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Communications of the History and Social
Sciences Class, 1952, 233.
3 Stimson, op. cit., pp. 18 and 21.
312 Jolan Zempten
in connection with natural philosophy and physics in an area which from the scien-
tific-cultural point of view was rather remote not only in space but also by fun-
damentals from the focal points of European development, mainly represented
by the rapidly spreading bourgeoisie. Outstanding development places of were
Firenze, the Netherlands, England and later France and Germany.
The area discussed in this treatise is old Hungary which includes to-day's Slo-
vakia and smaller parts of Rumania (Transylvania) and Yugoslavia. The conclu-
sions drawn can, however, partly be applied to the old Austria (including Bohemia
of the XVI-XVIII centuries) which though nearer to the West European devel-
opment had little to contribute to the evolution of the history of physics.
Another question which may arise refers to the general conclusions which may
follow on investigation of the circumstances of the propagation of the Copernican
ideas within a single country.
As will be seen from the following investigation, the conclusions can be sum-
marized as follows:
1. First, of course one finds exactly the same conditions as everywhere else.
In other words, one can differentiate approximately theree groups: the adherents,
who belonged to the most progressive and courageous natural philosophers and
scientists; the antagonists, recruited mainly from the Jesuits, and who opposed
chiefly for religious reasons; and those who hesitated. This last-named group, led
by Descartes and Tycho Brahe, was the most numerous, influenced by religious,
psychological reasons or simply not daring to agree with Copernicus.
2. The Hungarian situation was precisely such, but the time shift was consid-
erable. This was partly due to the fact that the various phases of European develop-
ment reached this central European area afflicted by Turkish occupation and wars
of liberation against the Habsburg empire at a later period; this, however, does
not explain everything, since for instance Rheticus lived and died in Kassa (Kosice)
(although unfortunately no data on his influence there exist. It might be per-
haps stated that observation of the spread of Copernicus's teaching in Hungary
in the XVII-XVIII centuries reminds of a slow motion picture).
3. One must, however, consider that on a world scale developments connected
with teachings of Copernicus were quite different from those which became usual
concerning more recent theories. Planck writes one of his papers: "Some highly
important scientific theory does not develop by gradual conversion of its oppon-
ents [... ] but rather by those opponents dying off while the rising generation be-
comes from the outset accustomed to the new ideas"4.
Planck is certainly right as regards either quantum theory, relativity or the older
kinetic-atomistic theory of gases; but his statement does not apply to Copernicus's
theory. Copernicus's work was first published in 1543, GaliIeo's two most impor-
4 Max Planck, PhysikaIische Abhandlungen und Vor/rage. ill, Braunschweig, 1958, p. 208.
Copernicanism in Hungary 313
tant books in 1632 and 1638 and Newton's Principia in 1686. But when were the
works of Copernicus and Galileo expurged from the Index? In 1757. Look at it how
you will, more than two hundred years had to pass before Copernicus became offi-
cially acknowledged.
In the centuries between this last date and 1543, quite diverging situations are
found in the various European countries. Turn where one will one finds that in this
connection the Planck quotation does not apply, because the acceptance of Coper-
nicanism everywhere took longer than one generation.
Taking all this into consideration, one feels that the analogy comparing the
spread of Copernican ideas in Central Europe to a slow motion picture is justified.
Everything which can be observed in connection with our problem in Europe can
be found also in Central Europe, but the single historical phases may here be
considerably better observed.
4. Another consequence of this slowing down consists in that data referring
to the history of natural philosophy and physics are rather difficult to detect in the
universal history. Such by-product is, for instance, the spread in Hungary of Car-
thesianism, which is here inseparable from Copernicanism.
After these preliminary remarks, let us try to survey Hungarian scientific lit-
erature of the XVII century, and also in the XVIII century, since consequent on
the time lag already referred to Copernicanism constituted a problem in Hungary
still in the XVIII century, even in the second half of it.
Copernicus's theory and physics. Perhaps it is not superfluous to point out an
important circumstance. The acceptance of Copernicanism as an astronomical prob-
lem depended mainly upon the perfection of measurements and measuring instru-
ments. This explains why the work of Tycho Brahe - who by the way was an op-
ponent of Copernicus's ideas - played so important a role in the stabilization of
the new theory. However, full understanding of the Copernican cosmic system cal-
led for an entirely new physics. While this had to be realized by Kepler and Galilei,
Newton was able to build his celestial mechanics almost without difficulty on the
cosmic system constructed by Copernicus and Kepler. For this reason, the Coper-
nican theory does not mean simply the substitution of the heliocentric world sys-
tem into the Ptolemaic geocentric system, but also complete rejection of Aristote-
lian physics, replacing it by an entirely new conception of the world. Though with
Copernicus the celestial bodies retain the circular rotation postulated by Aristotle,
with the new theory the "heavy" earth is also a part of this rotation. Even the ki-
nematical view was new, but it really became convincing together with the new dy-
namics. The Galileo-Newton type of dynamics, however, was created only after
Copernicus. For the great majority of the scientists, educated on scholasticism and
inadequately, trained n mathematics, to comprehend such dynamics was far from
easy. This explains - as will be seen below - why one finds so frequently in var-
ious publications (still in the XVIII century) the statement that the problem of the
world system is a "private affair" of mathematicians. All this applies of course
314 Iolan Zemp!en
to a much higher degree to the Carpathian basin where the population lived at that
time in relative social-economic backwardness.
Hungary in the XVII and XVIII centuries. Though Copernicus's work was pub-
lished in 1543, it has already been shown in the introduction that its influence
began to make itself felt only later in the XVII century, by way of a dispute lasting
for approximately two hundred years. The author wishes to give an account of the
Hungarian development of these discussions. It seems to be the more reasonable
to begin this treatise with the XVII century, because relatively little is known of the
development of sciences in Hungary up to that time, selected as a starting points.
It is, however, unquestionable that though the Copernican discussions were by
far not concluded in Hungary in the XVII century, the character of the dispute
changed by shifting to a Newton versus Descartes controversy, while the Copernican
problem appeared to be only a function of this new main issue. On the other hand
anti-Copernican ideas still lived in part in some backward brains6 • This motivates
the arrangement of the material into two periods of which the first lasted from 1600
till 1750, and the second was the latter half of the XVIII century.
These two great time units, however, may be in essence divided into sub-periods
of approximately equal lenght. Prior to a more detailed discussion of these sub-
-periods it appears to be necessary to summarize briefly the economic, social and
cultural situation in which lived and worked those Hungarian scientists who were
in a position to join in the discussions on the Copernican problem.
After a flourishing economic and cultural life in the XV century under the rule
of King Mathias Hunyadi, the whole country was almost entirely destroyed during
the 150 years of Turkish occupation following the lost battle of Mohacs in 1526. The
central parts of the country were occupied by the Turks, the Western areas were ru-
led by the Habsburgs, while in the East was established a more or less independent
country - the principality of Transylvania. The ruling princes of Transylvania from
time to time conducted wars of independence against the Habsburg dynasty but only
with temporary success. The leader of the last war of independence was prince
Ferenc Rftk6czi II, but his war, too, was lost in 1711. After this time, nothing
stood in the way of the Habsburg policy of oppression and Germanization. None
of this, of course, favoured scientific progress. Let us add that parts of the feudal
ruling class were-in order to defend their privileges-in alliance with the Habs-
burgs, whereas a smaller part-mainly Protestants-constituted an opposition.
The well-to-do ruling class was exclusively interested in politics, and hence
scientists were not recruited from it. Great masses of the people lived in poverty
and ignorance. The burgesses, on the other hand, who were in considerable numbers
and whose counterparts in West Europe were pioneers of the up-to-date sciences,
could not develop.
5 Zemplen I, pp. 21- 29.

6 Zemplen II.
It follows logically from this distressing picture that the Hungarian intelligentsia
of the XVII - XVIII centuries were mainly recruited from among theologians, Ca-
tholics (primarily Jesuits) as well as Protestants (followers of Luther and Calvin,
and also Unitarians).
Before the battle of Mobacs, teaching was carried on in Hungary in monastic
and parochial schools, a large number of which were destroyed. To replace them new
schools were founded by Protestants, some of which later became flourishing in-
stitutions of higher learning (Sarospatak, Debrecen, Eperjes, Kesmark (Kezmarok),
Locse, Nagyenyed, Kolozsvar). The cream of the Hungarian intelligentsia came from
the students and professors of these schools.
The rapid spread of the Reformation, of course, had its reactions. Cardinal
Peter Pazmany (1570- 1673) wanted at all costs to recover the lost souls, mainly
by means of the Jesuits whose schools soon became considerable competitors of
the Protestant schools, and-as will be seen later-if not by the standard of edu-
cation, at least by advantages recurring to their pupils. The first University founded
by Pazm{my in 1635 in Nagyszombat (Trnava), was directed by the Jesuits until
the dissolution of their order in Hungary in 1773. The new professors of what be-
came a state university, however, were initially former members of the Jesuit Order,
and the University's first significant professor of physics Anyos Jedlik in the XIX
century when the university already worked in Pest, was still a Benedictine monk.
At the end of the XVII century also, the Piarists appeared and founded many
excellent schools in the country.
Towards the end of the XVIII century, beside the university, many royal aca-
demies were founded with professors who were also mainly churchmen.
Summing up, it may be said that in Hungary there were to be found no scient-
ists who were economically independent (as for instance Boyle) or who were suppor-
ted by rich patrons (as was e. g. GaliIeo). Only theologians could become profes-
sors of the university or of the royal academies. The famous physician of Debrecen,
Istvan Hatvani, was also a Protestant clergyman. In general, only an ecclesiastical
career could enable student of peasant or poorer gentry origin to continue their
studies if they wished to do so.
According to the educational policy of the Jesuits, every member of the Order
spent only from one to three years in teaching; thus Jesuits professors rarely had
the opportunity to devote themselves entirely to a single subject. On the other hand,
if a scholar obtained by his outstanding talents a professorship at any of the Pro-
testant colleges, his ambition was even so to obtain a living in a parish, which gave
him greater security: in those confused times, the salaries of college professors
quite frequently went unpaid for years.
From all this, two things follow. First, one seeks in vain among Hungarian
scientists working in the XVII and XVIII centuries for men comparable to GaIiIeo
or Newton, m~D who created anything original. What one finds is, having regard
to the prevailing conditions, a rich literature of natural philosophy, which yields
316 Jolan Zemp/en
ample opportunities to followt he Hungarian development of the Copernican prob-

lem 7 • Another consequence, however, is that in analyzing this literature it always
must be born in mind that its authors were, practically without exceptions, theolo-
gians and this, irrespective of their religious tenets determined from the onset their
attitude.
The division of the material. Within the framework of the time division indicated,
the grouping of the material follows from the facts examined. In the first period,
between 1600 and 1750 one may find each and all of the three types already mentio-
ned: violent anti-Copernicans, hesitant (dubious) teachers, and-this is only
a small number-Copernicans. The representatives of the three types belonged
to various religious groupings and were the adherents of the most manifold concepts
of natural-philosophyB. Perhaps the Jesuits constituted an exception: they were
unanimously devoted to the peripatetic scholastic philosophy and were anti-co-
pernicans.
However, this no longer applies to the second period-that is, for the second
half of the XVIII century-though general acceptance of Copernicanism was in
some instances, with Protestants as well as with Jesuits, still hindered by religious-
-theological considerations.
I. THE MAIN TRENDS OF HUNGARIAN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY AND THE

COPERNICAN PROBLEM
Approximately from 1600 to 1750 A. D.
1. Scholasticism and the Jesuits
A survey of Hungarian scientific literature, printed publications as well as manus-

cripts, reveals text books, commentaries, lecture notes and dissertations, all closely
connected with higher education. At the University of Nagyszombat (Trnava)
superintended by the Jesuits - only anti-Copernican attitudes can be found, though
the number of written documents is small and the standard rather low: at this uni-
versity, Aristotelian physics were taught, and the dissertations were prepared on
the basis of Aristotle's theories. Nevertheless one may venture to say that an open
anti-Copernican attitude is preferable to absolute ignorance.
The lectures of Cardinal Peter Pazmany, the counter-reformer already referred
to and founder of the University of Nagyszombat, delivered most interesting lectu-
res at the University of Graz. Though he never taught in Nagyszombat, it may sa-
fely be assumed that the manuscript lectures in philosophy from the years 1598/99
7 J. Zemplen, Kopernik i Wfgry [Copernicus and Hungary], "Kwartalnik Historii Nauki
Techniki", 1962, 7, p. 259-284.

8 J. Zemplen, Copernicus and the Development of Physics in Hungary, in: Acles du Xle Con-
gres International d'Histoire des Sciences, 3, Warszawa, 1968, pp. 60-67.

and 1599/600, left in full to posterity, served as a manual to the frequently changing
professors throughout the XVII century. These lectures were printed in the XIX
and XX centuries. Two rather comprehensixe chapters deal with Aristotle's phys-
ics and astronomy9.
As to their content, at first glance these chapters do not deviate too much from
the usual Aristotelian commentaries taught from the Middle Ages practically at
every University, and at the Jesuit universities still in the XVIII century.
Nevertheless, it seems to be worthwhile to discuss in some detail from the point
of view of our subject those lectures which cardinal Pazm{my wrote down in the form
of disputes as comments on Aristotle's book about the Heavens (De coelo). The
highly educated cardinal felt at the end of the XVI century that he had to deal with
the new concepts. Though Pazmany naturally rejects Copernicus's views, it is rather
interesting that he actually was acquainted with the Copernican literature of his age.
His knowledge of the material (of course up to the year 16(0) can be compared
with the best monographs of the XX century l0.
He reviews Copernicus's theory with remarkable knowledge of the subject,
discusses 'the arguments in favour of the new concept, treats of the Spaniard Dida-
cus de Sunica, Patritius, and Fracastaro, and refutes their arguments according
to Clavius.
Even so, the reader should not conclude that the author thinks or wishes to
assert that Pazmany agreed in the depth of his soul with Copernicus. This could be
inconceivable in a faithful Jesuit, leader of the Hungarian counter-reformation.
In his later years he showed no interest in these problems.
Undoubtedly, Pazmany's standard was not reached in the Jesuit dissertations l l
left over from the XVII century which dealt more or less with questions of physics;
what is more, Copernicus's theory made no appearance in these works.
One exception must be mentioned - the Jesuit polyhistor Marton Szentivanyi
(1633-1705). He is the only author who published a larger book entitled "Some
Interesting and Various Scientific Problems"12 (see fig. 1), which has been reprinted
several times.
Szentivanyi is an interesting though not too attractive figure in the history of
Hungarian Science. Of aristocratic birth he was an absolute and faithful adherent
9 Petri Cardinalis Pa:tmany Archiepiscopi Strigoniensis et Primatis Regni Hungariae Physica
quam codice propria auctoris manuscripto in Bibliotheca Universitatis Budapestiensis asservato; pre-
pared for the press by Istvan Bognar, Budapest, 1895; Tractatus in libros Aristotelis de Coelo,
de Generatione et Corruptione in Libros Aristotelorum, Budapest, 1907.
10 Cf. D. Stimson, op. cit., or Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, Cambridge,
1957.
11 Some of these are: Mikl6s Szekhelyi, Exercitatio Philosophica ... , Posoniensi, 1638
and Andras Mokchai. Triplex Philosophia ... , Tyrnaviae, 1640.
12 Marton Szentivanyi, Curiosiora et Selectiora variarum scientiarum miscellanea in tres
arIes divisa, Decadis Pars I-III, Tyrnaviae, 1689, RMK n, 1652. Further parts and editions ibidem
1691, 1697, 1702, 1709; RMK II, 1700, 1906, 2132, 2133, 2384.
318 Jolan Zempten
1. The title page of the book by Szentivanyi

of the counter-reformation and the Habsburg dynasty and as - among other

things - head of the censor's office a deadly enemy of progressive ideas.
In spite of this his works are not uninteresting, though from the point of view
of their value they may be regarded as mixed and contradictory. It is undoubtedly
to his credit that in his work, three comprehensive volumes, he practically summa-
rized encydopaedically the entire knowledge of his age. His book deals with scien-
ces - physics, astronomy, biology; it contains sections of history, literature, geogra-
phy, philosophy and so on. Its weakest part is the physics which is entirely treated
according to Aristotle. The astronomy is somewhat better. Szentivimyi was the
first in Hungary to undertake astronomical observations, at Nagyszombat (the
observatory was built only in the XVIII century), giving a correct description (con-
firming the Ptolemaic theory) of the firmament (celestial heavens), since quite ob-
viously one can carry out correct astronomical measurements and observations by
any of the world systems. In spite of his artificial conception of the universe, Tycho
de Brahe was correctly considered the greatest observing astronomer of his age.
Consequently, one need not be surprised that Szentivanyi - though a good
astronomer - not only rejected the Copernican concept of the universe, but assu-
med a somewhat anti-scientific point of view on this question, which he regarded
as purely fictive. In his chapter De rebus falsae et dubiae existentiae 13 , however,
he went as far as to repudiate some of Aristotle's propositions which also he consid-
ered outdated. Thus no primum mobile existed, the movement in continuous direc-
tions of the stars was also erroneous, perhaps there was even no "fire" below the
moon. Similarly, no movement of the earth as imagined by Copernicus and no pre-
cession of the earth's axis existed just as there was no Salamandre living in fire or
any fabulous bird called the Phoenix... (fig. 2).
From a study of the works of Jesuit authors of the XVII century one may
obviously deduce that the scientific standard was not very high, and perhaps it is
no exaggeration to suggest that the situation must have been quite similar in the
Austrian Hereditary Provinces.
The turn of the century brought no qualitative change at Nagyszombat. Quan-
titatively, the number and extent of the dissertations increased l 4, but-with the
exception of a few works-their standard approximately reflects the value of Szent-
ivanyi's publication. Perhaps one may observe this much change - that backward-
ness in knowledge of the new physics was already more apparent. The publications
entitled "Physics" are educational, mostly, with a single exception, chemical and
meteorological dissertations. This exception was a book on mechanics, printed after
the 40's of the century, in which the basic problem of this age, the Descartes-Newton
dispute, was already discussed 1s .
13 Szentivanyi, op. cit. Dec. Sec. Pars I, pp. 301-344, 1961 edition.
14 Zemplen II, pp. 145-158.
15 Mihaly Lipsicz, Statica ... , Cassaviae, 1740.
320 Jolan Zemp{(in
2. The picture of the World by Szentivanyi
A study of dissertations dealing definitively with astronomy only confirm our

opinion that the Copernican problem could not be solved without a thorough know-
ledge and acceptance of the new physics. One of these dissertations is Professor
Peter Mayr's (1709-1753) work of 203 pages prepared for the inauguration of
a young nobleman, Xaver Ferenc Klobusitzky 16.
The astronomy, written in the form of questions and answers, shows a marked
scholastic influence. The book consits of four chapters. The first deals with what
16 Peter Mayr, Systema Mundi Coelestis per quaesita et responsa synopsis propositum, Casso-
viae, 1726.
is common to every star and planet; the second especially with the planets; the
third with the starry heavens; and the fourth with the Earth.
A clear picture of the value of this work can be obtained from a consideration
of only a few parts: thus for instance, the world was created by God with the help
of angels, the stars made of water are moved by the angels. Otherwise the work is
based on Aristotelian physics, with many of Aristotle's astronomical views. This
indicates that in Jesuit schools of higher education science stood still not only betwe-
en 1600 and 1689 (pazmany's lectures and Szentivanyi's book), but even in 1726
and, what is more, neither in the XVI nor in the XVII century can be found such
a strange mixture of physics, supersit on and religion 17.
It appears that the students examined in Kassa in 1737 knew no more. On the
contrary, it seems that Mayr's book served as a model for later years, since the dis-
sertation of 536 pages entitled Cosmographia prepared in honour of Janos Gruber
by professor KristOf Akai (1706-1766) took over much from the Mayr's book
in arrangement as well as in its contents. Beside positively astronomical chapters,
it also contains the whole "physics"18 (fig. 3).
Also here a few citations seem to be quite sufficient to characterize the author's
knowledge of physics as well his attitude. The "folly of those philosphers" who
think that the world consists of atoms had already been disproved (by the Bible
and the fathers of the Church). God created the world on the 20 March. - The earth
was the ceptre of the world. - The ebb and flow was caused by the Moon since by
its increase it attracted more humidity. - The strength of the stars was in Hungary
greater because there were many metals there, and so on 19 . It should be added that
this book was still reprinted in 1739, 1741 and in 1749.
As already indicated, there were also other publications at this time (in 1740) at
Kassa (KoOice) and Nagyszombat, though the general impression of the Jesuit
scholasticism can in principle be summed up by stating that neither adherents
nor worthy opposers of Copernicus are found in this period till 1755 (see later).
17 One must remark that the Jesuit "dissertations" of Nagyszombat represented a special
literary form, which differed somewhat from the disputes prepared at the Dutch and German uni-
versities to be considered later, and in connection with which it is difficult to decide the authorship
between the "praesidents" and "respondents" participating in the dispute except when "author
responds" both occur on the title page. The Jesuit dissertations were written practically without
exception by professors and not by the candidate, and not necessarily by the president. Further
there was usually not only one doctorand, but a whole group, the name of the most distinguished
member of the group being printed in capital letters (one may assume that the dissertation was
printed at his expense). The author's name frequently does not occur at all. In these cases, the au-
thorship can usually but not always be established either by comparing biographical data, or other
printed works published or by contemporaneous quotations (as example see the title page of the
fig. 3. Here also the author's name appears, the names of other doctorands can be found on the
second title page).
18 Kristof Akai, Cosmographia seu Philosophica Mundi descriptio, Cassoviae, 1741.
19 Ibid., pp. 3, 5, 11, 64 and 124.

322 Jolan Zempten
D. O. M. A
Q.!J 0 D
BOA. UM F ~LIX FAlTSTlIM,
FORTlI~ TUMOU:P: IT
. HUi€ Alm~ Epifcopali fnivcrfitati
eiffo \"i '.!nii $oc;e a i' Jf...,U, Senacui rhilo ..
rOJ }i ~ o • tetiql1c Reipublic;Ie
Clnini.m~
SUB
A.IM{)(Jutn Rez,erendo, lite C/ariJJilno Plttre
I~ORGIO . RVAI
eSOCIETATE JEStl J
AA. LL. & Philo(ophire, ac S ..
Theol. Dettore, ejusdernque Profc ore
01 dinario. nec Ilon Inclyt<£ F.1CUlt. Philof.
DECA.. '-> SPEGTABILI.
PeriIII!Jlj'(,J:> Rcverendi, Pr,tlJobiles,
1Qbrj, f I1 C tl!m 7 l dute, 'Ju;m EJ'uditf.ne
Cu"jji"ui AA. LL. 6 · Philrfophilt
CANDIDATI
In Aula Univerfit. A. ~f. DeC.XLI. .
Mente Apiai, Die Hod 8. m.-uutin:'l.
Pr;rjJ~; A./1. LL.6" P/Ji!ojophilt Laf!rt'~
Cr mte or ht; fum.
PRO:MOTORE
R. P. (JI-IRISrrOPBORO AK i\I
C Soc. JESU, AJ. . LL. & Philof.
DO[U)fC , tju~dt.:IIJgue in l'hyfil i:. ProfcHure
On. mario.
3. The title page of the dissertation of Akai

2. General charakterization of the Hungarian natural philosophy
The appealing critisicm in the works of the Jesuit authors is far from implying
any denominational prejudice. After all, Copernicus, Galileo, Gassendi and such
were all faithful Catholics. The mainly denominational deviations in Hungary can
easily be deduced from the characteristic class structure of the country in the period
under investigation. The Jesuits represented the interests of the Roman church, and
thus the interests of the Habsburgs, of the high clergy and partly of the aristoctrats;
consequently, they opposed every innovation in the same way as the Pope and the
Inquisitors were antagonistic to the bourgeoisie. The consequences of this attitude
naturally became manifest also in the scientific field. The Protestant clergy and pro-
fessors - who formed practically the whole Protestant intelligentsia - were linked
with the lesser gentry and the petty bourgeoisie by close class relations. Consequently,
they were more qualified to accept the new science. Since, however, their class struc-
ture in politics became almost unanimously apparent in religion and religious dis-
putes, which were in the centuries under investigation the main field of ideological
controversy, a much more complicated situation is found within the sphere of science.
This follows partly from the fact that science is at the same time base and super-
structure, but also from the fact that Aristotle was a common source for both par-
ties. The science of the XVII century - disregarding the greatest, really revolution-
ary minds - could be regarded as a sudden revolutionary change only by an ana-
chronistic, narrow-minded historian. Enlightenments are not known even if the
new discovery occurred in a really revolutionary way, as for instance at the turn of
the XIX and XX centuries. The new and old ideas still co-existed simultaneously
even in such cases. The reason for this was that the prevailing ideology (world
outlook) was only one element of science, whereas the steadily increasing stock
of knowledge, which the scientist must first learn by long, onerous work enabling
him to criticize, select or develop it according to 'his ideology and class relations,
was as important as the first element. Protestants and Catholics, progressives and
conservatives could acquire in principle the same body of knowledge and could
select from it only by rejecting or retaining its individual teachings. Of course, it
is quite natural that the selection could have been more or less unanimous only
in the case of the conservatives.
With the Hungarian Protestant scientists the foreign university which taught
them was of decisive importance. The Lutherans came mainly from the upper north-
ern Hungarian territories (today parts of Slovakia), or from German language
areas in South-Transylvania (today Rumania). They studied in Wittenberg, more
rarely in Jena or Halle (mainly in the XVIII century). The Calvinists of Sarospatak
and Debrecen, and the Transylvanian Unitarians studied principally in Holland, but
they also frequented the Swiss Universities (Basel), and rather rarely the universi-
ties in England. As a result, the Lutherans were, apart from a few exceptions, anti-
Copernicans, or rank at most among those who abstained from any open expres-
324 Iolan Zempten
sion of opinion. The Calvinists brought home from Holland the most various the-
ological or ecclesiastical political ideas (cocceianism, presbyterianism, independen-
tism, the social manifestation of these two latter ternds of ideas being Puritanism).
It would be of no great interest from the standpoint of our subject to go into the
details of all these ideas, since in the XVII century (and at the beginning of the
XVIII) the Hungarian Calvinist scientists and physicists without exception accep-
ted the Carthesian philosophy and physics. In addition to the scholastic survival
from the past and the philosophically most up-to-date Cartesianism, also further
effects can be detected in the Hungarian literature of natural philosophy. Above
all, Johann Henrik Alsted (1558-1638) and Johannes Amos Comenius or Komen-
sky (1592-1670) exerted a considerable influence on Hungarian authors. Partly
because of their personal Hungarian connections, and partly because of their theolo-
gical attitude their ideas appealed to Hungarian Protestant philosophers.
Alsted was Professor of Philosophy at Herborn, and when in the course of Thirty
Years War this German town was devastated, the Prince of Transylvania, Gabor
Bethlen, invited him to Gyulafehervar to become head of the university college
founded by the Prince himself. Alsted spent there 9 years and maintained a lively
correspondence with numerous Hungarian scientists in many other parts of the
country.
Alsted's best known works were his Encyclopaedia published in two editions
in 27 and 7 volumes 20 , and his Physica Harmonica 2 1, less known, but having a very
great influence in Hungary.
Like Alsted, Comenius also fled to Hungary from the troubles of the Thirty
Years War. He spent four years from 1650 to 1654 in this country and reformed the
educational system of the College of Sarospatak. It is not intended here, however,
to discuss either Comenius the pedagogue or the important influence he exerted
in Hungary; instead, his relatively less known Physics 22 and its influence in Hungary
as regards the Copernicus question should be dealt with in some detail.
The trend of physical ideas represented by Alsted and Comenius can be charac-
terized by two important features. One of them is their clearly declared anti-Aristo-
telianism. It is interesting, however, to observe that with both this is rather an in-
tention than an actual reality. They could have considered themselves much more
deeply rooted in scholasticism. Nevertheless, and this appears to be important, both
reject Aristotle as an authority; in his place, however, another authority emerges:
Revelation - i. e., the Bible.
The only source of knowledge in Alsted's Physics is the Revelation. In this way
this author created, in principle, a Protestant scholasticism which is in many ways
20 J. H. AIsted, Cursus Philosophici Encyclopaedia Libris XXVII, Herbom, 1620, and J. H.
AIstedii Encyclopaedia Septem Tomis Distincta, Herbom, 1630.

21 J. H. AIsted, Physica Harmonica Quattuar Libellis Methodica Proponens, Herbom, 1616.
22 J. A. Comenius, Physica ad Lumen Divinum Re/ormota Synopsis, Lipsiae, 1633.
identical with the Aristotelian concept in so far as that is consistent with the Scrip-
ture.
Alsted exerted influence on the younger Comenius, who, however, went further
than his master, as was to be expected from the creator of up-to-date pedagogy.
Also according to Comenius, one source of knowledge is the holy (Scripture; but
according to his teaching commonsense (mens sana) and the experience also play
an important part in acquiring knowledge.
It is not for us to go into a deeper analysis of the works of Alsted and Comenius.
Nevertheless, from what it has been said, it is quite obvious that bO'h were anti-
Copernicans. It should be added that Comenius was in many respects a follower
of Francis Bacon, himself -as is well known-a keen anti-Copernican. Inciden-
tally, Bacon exerted a very great influence on Hungarian natural philosophy.
Perhaps one further characteristic of the two physical trends may be stressed.
Both arose out of a belief in the Revelation, closely linked with certain mystic
trends of the Renaissance.
Now, our statement that the Hungarian Protestant natural philosophy showed
more shades and more nuances perhaps sounds more convincing. The more so since
the many contradictory trends in which scholasticism, rationalism and mysticism
became mixed up with Bacon's empiricism created manifold possibilities of choice,
and manifold indeed were the choices.
It is of further interest that-as can be shown by a more detailed analysis-
all these natural philosophies are far from being unanimously anti-Copernican.
Among their adherents can be found hesitating scientists (in numbers by far the
largest) as well as (though smaller in number) followers of Copernicus.
The survey of Hungarian trends in natural philosophy is by far not exhausted by
the above discussion. Alongside scholasticism, Cartesianism, mention might be
made of Protestant scholasticism, Bacon's empiricism, mysticism and also atomism
(Sennert, Sperling) or other mixed trends. This, however, has been avoided since
only those ideas are discussed which seem to be important from the point of view
of the Copernican question. Only essentially pronounced anti-Copernican are dealt
with, and it is highly interesting to see that the results are not unanimous.
Study of the works of the various non-Jesuit scientists, however, clearly shows
that the influence of this or that teaching is properly reflected, and that in some
cases pupils accepted standpoints more or less independent from the idea developed
by the master. Consequently, it seems to be more purposeful to group the works to
be discussed according to the various philosophical ideas and not to the authors,
belief or disbelief in Copernicus.
3. Scholasticism and the Lutherans
One thing may be pointed out at once. The relation of the Protestants to scholas-
ticism seems to be profoundly different from that of the Jesuits. Alsted and Come-
326 Lolan Zempten
nius in principle adhere to the philosophy of Aristotle simply by their loyalty to the
Scripture, without any special religious semblance.
Since-as has already been pointed out-many Hungarians studied in Wit-
tenberg, the dissertations and books of the students learning in that famous German
university, best show this effect. Much decisive criticism of Aristotle can be found,
but similarly to the Jesuit works systems of the universe are either not considered
or the authors try to avoid expressing an opinion. Consequently, while they take
a decisive stand against Aristotle in the question of the substantiality of atoms, or
in general in the question of matter and form they can scarcely free themselves, when
the motion of the Earth is discussed, from the influence of Luther or Melanchton.
The works of many Hungarian scholars studying in Wittenberg in the XVII
century show considerable differences. One finds scholars who appear only as the
authors of dissertations on physics or astronomy, and neither their later scientific
work, nor their biography is known. In many instances the nationality of the author
is disclosed only by the title page of the dissertation. In other cases, the situation
is more favourable, not only the author's biography but his whole work is well known.
Thus for instance many details of the life and work of the Hungarian scientist
Jakab Schnitzler, are well known. Schnitzler (1634-1674) was one of those Hunga-
rian scientists (e. g. Janos Apaczai-Csere, Istvan Hatvani) who did not accept
a foreign university chair offered but came home to help to improve the backward
national cultural situation. Schnitzler was in a rather stormy period first Professor
of Philosophy and later chaplain in Nagyszeben. In Wittenberg, where he studied,
as well as in Nagyszeben, he wrote a considerable number of philosophical, theolo-
gical and geographical papers, and studies on architecture; he also presided several
times at sessions for the defence of inaugural dissertations. He was very active
in the field of astronomy, set up an astronomical telescope on the market, and taught
the elements of astronomy.
Even so, his studies in Wittenberg influenced his whole life, he never reconciled
his views with Copernicus, and added to the existing arguments against Copernicus's
teachings new arguments of his own.
Schnitzler was no mystic philosopher; on the contrary he was a sober and highly
practical man. Yet to explain phenomena he frequently turned to the supernatural.
A quite characteristic example of this is his book De Terra 23 , in which he rejected
Copernican notions as expounded mainly by Galilei and maintaining that the holy
Scripture is popular, its "vulgar" style addresses the common people and is conse-
quently easily intelligible; instead, Schnitzler affirms that the miracles as described
in the Bible are actually realistic. According to Schnitzler there exist both natural
(naturalis) and supernatural (supernaturalis) ones. Thus, for instance the comets
and the new stars. It is true - he says - that in philosophy one does not like to
turn to the supernatural, but "cum haec naturalibus nonnisi per naturam et causas
23 Jakob Schnitzler, Disputatio Physica de Terra, Wittenberg, 1658. RMK III 2045.
Copernican ism in Hungary 327
secundas agat, ubi tamen cessant naturae leges et nulla causarum secundarum in-
tercidit, id ipsum tutissime fieri potest".
Schnitzler's whole life work shows this duality: the curiosity of the scientist
goes hand in hand with the cautiousness of the devout theologian. Of course, to
go into a detailed discussion of his voluminous works, would lead us too far 24 .
So let us be stisfied with a few typical matters concerning the Copernican question,
which, however, are characteristic not only of Schnitzler but also of a considerable
number of scientists similar to him who lived in XVII century not only in Hungary,
but in Central Europe (and occasionally here and there also in West Europe).
For instance, not in a scientific work but in a sermon to his parishioners on earth-
quakes one reads the following sentences: "No one should believe that this (the earth-
quake) refers to the motion of the whole Earth - that is, this does not refer to the
idea which holds that the Earth revolves around its axis like a ball while the sun
and the other stars of the sky remain immobile, as was once taught by the scientist
Copernicus and with him (and through his work) many others in clear contradiction
to the holy Scripture and the express word of God"25.
This is a regularly recurrent thought in his arguments against Copernicus:
nothing is impossible for God. He answers Kepler's witty analogy that the cook
who revolves the kitchen fire around the spike ewer must be mad by saying: non
videndum esse, quid fieri possU, sed quid acta fiat in Natura 26 •
Nevertheless, as can be seen from his counterarguments, Schnitzler's erudition
must have been similar to Pazmany's though the standard of his scientific arguments
is not very high, and only rarely surpasses that of Melanchton's: the discharged
cannon ball would miss the target, always an east wind should blow, a stone fall-
ing from the peak of a tower could not fall to its foot, everything would fall off
the rapidly revolving earth, and so on. He invented also two new counter arguments:
as a result of the violent friction with the air the revolving Earth must catch fire;
it is well known from architecture that the base must be solid, yet the Earth is the
base of the world ... 27 According to this author, that Cartesian argument that our
senses easily cheat us does not hold, and in general the physics of Descartes-Re-
gius is thoroughly incorrect since it leads to atheism. For this reason, Aristotle is
not always right, even great men can fall into error. Following Sperling28, he makes
a few modest corrections in Aristotle's physics, though he opposes Maestlin.
24 Zemplen I, pp. 139-144.
25 J. Schnitzler, Bericht aus Gottes Wort und der Natur von der Erdbewegungen Ursprung und
Bedeutung, Szeben, 1681. RMK II 1495.
26 J. Schnitzler, De Terra and Tractatio Astronomica de Globo Coelesti, Wittenberg, 1661.
EMK III 2152.

27 Idem, and Tractatio Geographica de Globo Terrestri, Wittenberg, 1662. RMK. III 2180.
28 Johann Sperling, professor of philosophy in Wittenberg, pupil of the atomist physician
Daniel Sennert (1572-1637). Both were well known representatives of the antiperipatetic school
exerting a great influence also on Hungarian scientific life, though their criticism of Aristotle is
somewhat modest.
328 Jolan Zempten
Finally, he explains quite characteristically how the undoubtedly well educated

and excellent astronomer Copernicus (and together with him Galileo and Kepler
whose astronomical works he not only knew quite well, but frequently quoted them
and highly estimated their astronomical discoveries) could believe in such an er-
roneous theory:
"One can sincerely doubt whether Copernicus accepted physically the motion
of the earth, since he treated this question mathematically ... "29
This subterfuge one finds in the dissertations published in Wittenberg· quite
frequently, more so than the allusion to the supernatural, in which-by the way-
Schnitzler stands rather alone among the rationalistic thinkers.
Thus, for instance, Hmos Gyorgy Graff defended his thesis De Coelo in 1648
under the patronage of Sperling. In his dissertation, he disproves many Aristotelian
theses: the material of the sky is neither more noble than that of the Earth, there
is no fire below the Moon and so on. On the other hand: the distance between the
Earth and Sky is always the same and does not change with time, since the Earth
is exactly in the centre and is the starting point of every exact calculation 30 • This,
however, is mentioned only occasionally. For example, the statement that in the
work of Mihaly Unger the standpoint of the author can be ascertained only by his
occasional statement that the construction of the sky as given by him can be de-
duced only from the motion of the Sun 31 •
Somewhat earlier than De Coelo, another publication is to be found which is
decidedly anti-Copernican. In his disputation called "geographical", Gyorgy Se-
bastiani writes that the subject of geography is the shape, dimension, position and
immobility of the Earth 32 •
In connection with these two latter features, the author says that the Earth is
exactly in the centre of the Universe. Concerning the problem of mobility, a dis-
pute existed between the "physicists" and the "mathematicians" (though it does
not become clear which party is meant by the former). Today-he writes-many
scholars attack the thesis of the immobility of the Earth; though this question had
already been buried for centuries until Copernicus, an excellent astronomer, revi-
ved it two hundred years (!) ago, thereby achieving a great reputation. He had many
followers who thought that it was easier for the small Earth to revolve round its
axis in 24 hours than for the sun together with the whole firmament: "The author-
ity of the most famous and most ancient authors, however, is against this ... " Then
follow the well known arguments based on physics and on the Bible.
In a thesis 33 on earth-quakes written in 1674 by Kristof Mazar (d. 1709) the fol-
Schnitzler, De Terra.
29
Janos, Gyorgy Graff, Disputatio Physica de Coelo ... , Wittenberg, 1648.

30
31 Mihaly Unger, De Aequatore et Zodiaco ... , Wittenberg, 1662. RMK 2188.
32 Gyorgy Sebastiani, Disputatio Geographica de Affectionibus Terrae, Wittenberg, 1659.
RMK III 2100.

33 Krist6f Mazar, Disputatio meteor%gica de Terra Motu ... , Wittenberg. 1674.
lowing lines can be read: The earthquakes are caused according to Athanasius Kir-
cher by light effluvia spiriluosa buried in the depths of the earth because, according
to Aristotle, the "natural place" for the light bodies is the edge of the Universe which
they try to reach by uniform motion; motion is not the nature of the Earth "if only
one does not with Copernicus by a principle of his own want to assert that the earth-
globe has a universsal motion". This opinion, however, was already condemned by
the cardinals under Pope Paul V, and Galileo, an adherant of this theory, was for-
ced to renounce it on oath. The author adds, however, with the already eminent
caution, that this does not belong to the essence of the question.
Two dissertations on comets by Gyorgy Gastitzius are also characterized by
this cautiousness 34 .
It is characteristic of the XVII - XVIII century that various authors prefer to
discuss rare phenomena. The rarer a phenomenon the most likely was its discussion.
They wrote not only on earthquakes and volcanos, but on phenomena rarely obser-
vable on the sky, such as the halo, double sun, draco volcans and so on, and of course
also on the comets.
Though the comets are really rare phenomena, they have a double meaning for
the Copernican theory. Superstitious beliefs together with believing in astrology
regarded the appearance of a comet as a premonition of calamity, as an evil-wars,
famine, epidemies. Any opposition to this belief may be regarded as a progressive
step toward the up-to-date science, though it still can be made consistent with the
acceptance of the peripatetic-scholastic construction of the firmamentum.
If, however, one also knows that the comet cannot move "below the Moon",
but races in Aristotle's eternally unchangeable firmamentum over immeasurable
distances, this is already a new, though not final step in breaking the Aristotelian
world-system.
Two such works can be found in the Hungarian literature of natural philosophy,
which exemplify the fact that progressive thinking, anti-Aristotelian and not super-
stitious, does not necessarily mean the acceptance of Copernicus's system of the
universe. The author of one of these two works is the famous Hungarian humanist
and physician, Andras Dudith (1533-1589), whose dissertations on comets is his
only astronomical worP5. Dudith rejects every superstition, but he also confesses
34 Gyorgy Gassitzius, Hypothese de Cometis, quas Praeside ... Dn. Michaelo Waltero ...
propugnavit. G. G. Hungarus, Wittenberg, 1679. RMK III 3010, and Exercitatio Academica de
Comentarum Natura et loco, quam ... Praeses G. Hung ... , Wittenberg, 1679. RMK III 3011. The
thesis first quoted was defended by Gassitzius on 10 th September; three days later he alrealy presided
over an examen. Thus one may assume that in his dissertations his own ideas were developed though
he also quotes the opinion of the presiding Michael Walter.
35 Andreae Duditi viri clarissimi de Comentarum Significatione Commentariolus, in quo non
minus eleganter quam docte et vere mathematicarum quorundam in ea re vanitas relutatur, Basel,
1579. RMK III 679. For Dudith's biography and complete literary work, see e. g. Costil Pierre,
Andre Dudith Humanist Hongrois 1533-1589. Sa vie, son oeuvre et ses manuscrits grecs, Paris, 1935.
330 Jolan Zemplen
that physically as well as mathematically only little is known of the essence of comets.
It is of course quite understandable that such a statement could be made in 1579.
The influence of Dudith can be seen almost a hundred years later in Gy6rgy
Csipkes' (1628-1678) book published in 1665. Csipkes was physician and profes-
sor in Debrecen and wrote his book in Hungarian 36 , a very rare event in this period,
showing the author's educational and pedagogical intentions. In spite of the 100
years, however, Komaromi did not get further than his master. He too, would only
be happy to know more about the comets though he is sure that whichever of the
many contradictory theories about the comets proved to be right nothing can be
predicted from their appearance.
The progressive character of the viewpoints of Dudith and Komaromi are stres-
sed by the fact, for example, the already discussed Schnitzler used the comet which
appeared in 1680 to admonish his parishioners in a magnificent sermon designed
to convert. It is true that according to Tycho the comets are of physical origin, ne-
vertheless they are created by God to warn men of the punishment to be expected 37 •
After this interposition let us turn back to Wittenberg to see what was the
opinion of comets held by Gy6rgy Gassitzius in 1679.
He also complains of insufficient theories, because up to now - he says - nob-
ody could throw any light on this problem "nisi peripaticus fuerit", and he feels
he cannot accept this already outdated theory. Indeed he is-on the other hand-
no Cartesian, does not sympathize with the ideas of Kepler, Galileo and Gassendi.
The scientists are so modest that though "they bestowed on us many physical hy-
potheses, they are still presented as mathematical theories". Finally, on the basis
of the works of Sethus Vardus 38 and his chairman Michael Walter, he comes to the
conclusion that the comets rise to very great altitudes, which is why they can rarely
be seen, and move on elliptic orbits.
If, however, he accepts an elliptic orbit for the comet he necessarily must attri-
bute to the other heavenly bodies some other motion. Then in turn one has to face
the following "paradox": 1. The Earth moves. 2. A new world-system must be
constructed. 3. The Universe is infinite. The name of Copernicus is not mentioned.
The author only remarks thet these suppositions of more up to date authors (recen-
tiores) constitute no part of his subject, and is not sure whether the elliptical orbit
of the comet can be proved by deciding this problem only. Thus, highly character-
istically of the methods of Wittenberg, he does not decide at all.
These few examples from Wittenberg show clearly that the scholastic structure,
though already strongly shaken, still does not collapse, and the geocentric concept
at which the first was aimed already in 1543 still kept its ground even a hundred
years later.
36 Gyorgy (Komaroni) Csipkes, On the Judicaria Astrology and on the comets (in Hunga-
rian), Debrecen, 1665. RMK I 1023.

37 Jakab Schnitzler, Comet-Stern predigt ... , Szeben, 1681. RMK II 1494.
38 Vardus, Sethus or Seth Ward (1617-1689), professor of astronomy in Oxford.

4. The title page of the book of Bayer

332 Jolan Zemplen
It is true, that except for Schnitzler, whose work was rather extensive, the exam-
ples presented (and many others similar could have been quoted) are from authors
who did not remain scientists. Thus these works are somewhat characteristic of
Wittenberg thinking.
Nevertheless, Wittenberg did turn out scientists who carried out their scientific
work on a larger scale, thus proving that in addition to the more or less mediocre
professors, they not only knew others also, but were capable of reproducing their
ideas on natural philosophy in a synthesis which proved their independent manner
of thinking.
In this connection, only Janos Bayer of Eperjes is briefly mentioned for works
reflecting the influence of Comenius and Francis Bacon 39 (fig. 4).
However, Bayer's two natural philosophical, methodological works 40 are of
great interest for the history of Hungarian physics. His attitude in the Copernican
question can be seen in advance.
Though Bayer propagates quite vigorously the efficiency of the inductive method,
the importance of science, the indestructibility of matter, yet the Earth stands in
the centre of his universe, immobile and around this centre revolve the Ptolemaic
spheres. There is only one thing he admits when discussing the division and charac-
terization of sciences: he acknowledges that it is the task of astronomy to set up
"artificial system of the universe"41.
With Bayer the XVII century trend in which scholasticism and the Bible played
a decisive role was approximately exhausted; the new ideas present themselves only
in very pale contours. Let us pass over to another line of thought, to be summed
up as Cartesianism. The connections between the philosophy of Descartes and the
universe of Copernicus survived in Hungary into the XVII century and extended
deep into the XVIII century.
4. Cartesianism in Hungarian natural philosophy

and the Copernicanian question
The authors discussed in the previous section were without exception Lutherans.
The authors of the various treatises to be dealt with in this section, however, were
followers of Calvin, who - as already pointed out - went from the College of De-
39 Janos Bayer, Ostium vel atrium Naturae ... , Cassoviae, 1662. RMK II, and Filum Labi-
rinthi vel lux mentium universalis ... , Cassoviae, 1663, RMK II 984.
40 Thus e. g. Janos Kvacsala, writes in his paper - A Half-Century of the History of Phi-
losophy in Hungary, (Budapesti Szemle 175, 1891, p. 186) - that it is "the best product of Hunga-
rian XVII century natural philosophy"; Morhof (Danielis Georgi Morhofi in Tres Tomos Litera-
rium Philosophicum et Brassicum Opus Posthumatum ... , LUbeck, 1747, II 102) regards him as even
more zealous and diIligent than Comenius. According to J. F. Budde, (Introductio ad historiam
philosophiae hebraeorum, Halle, 1710,256) he was an original thinker who deviated from the accus-
tomed way of philosophy.
41 Bayer, Lux Mentium, p. 27.
brecen, Sarospatak and Transylvania (Gyulafehervar, Nagyenyed, Marosvas{uhely,

Kolozsvar) to complete their studies in Dutch and Swiss universities.
Also in this section brief disuptations as well as voluminous text books, discus-
sing and practically entirely accpeting physics of Descartes will be met with.
It appears to be superfluous to deal within the scope of this treatise with the phys-
ics of Descartes, his vortex theory as treated in these works, since it is well known
that he distinguishes three types of variously fine matter. Light is made of the finest
of these; less fine is the ether, consisting of extremely small spheres filling up the
entire universe, whereas the particles of the rougher material are everywhere cor-
nered and edged so that the ether can permeate everything. At the creation God
gave the ether a well determined mv impulse, which in the whole universe since its
creation is constant. The heavenly bodies move in the universe by friction with vor-
tices consisting of the closed ether chains. Also, the Earth drifts in such a vortex
that it stands unmoved in the centre of the vortex. It follows from Descartes'
concept of matter and the vortex theory that Carthesian physics can be made
to concur without any serious concessions with atomism as well as the Copernican
universe.
It will be of interest to see how the Hungarian authors receive the Copernicus
theory. We shall thus investigate the reactions in this case of the various Hungarian
scientists.
The first to write about and taught Cartesian philosophy and physics was Janos
Apaczai Csere, who had a tragic life and died young (1625-1659).
Apaczai studied as a Calvinist student in the College of Gyulafehervar (whose
first rector was Alsted), whence he went to Holland. He studied almost five years
in Utrecht and came home with a Dutch wife to Transylvania, where the young
philosopher infected with the philosophy of Descartes and Puritanism was received
with suspicion. He experienced many difficulties and for some time was even pro-
hibied to teach.
In spite of all his difficulties, Apaczai succeeded in finishing his great work which
he began still in his years in Utrecht. His aim was to write in Hungarian Encyclo-
paedia of sciences42 •
To write in the native tongue meant in the XVII century (Stevin, GaliIeo) a pro-
gressive attitude. By constrast with the already cited Gyorgy Komaromi Csipkes,
however, Apaczai did not want to write a popular book; he set out to show that
even the deepest scientific ideas can be treated in the Hungarian language.
Of course, it is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with, in addition to Apa-
czai's mathematics, physics and astronomy, the gramatical, logical or economical
chapters of his book; only two remarks need be made:
42 Janos Apaczai Csere, Hungarian Encyclopedia or a proper arrangement 0/ every true and
useful Wisdom ... (in Hungarian), Utrecht, 1653, RMK III 876. This publication is, however, mis-
sing, and the quotations are from a later publication published in 1655, RMK III 1941.
334 Copernicanism in Hungary
One refers to the quite natural fact that one of Apaczai's models was Alsted's
work, and the other, the work of Gisbert Voetius (1588-1676)43, a famous anti-
Cartesian philosopher, who always showed great goodwill towards Hungarian stu-
dents and thus also towards Apaczai. Even so, neither Alsted's religious mystycism
nor Voetius's pedantic orthodoxy are reflected in Apapczai's work which represents
the most up-to-date Dutch natural philosophy of that time, though with a certain
independence.
The second remark concerns the fact that Apaczai was not only the first Hun-
garian follower of the philosophy of Descartes, but also Copernicus's first disciple.
In his work Apaczai deals with the astronomy and the structure of the universe
in the Part VI, entitled On the haevenly things. Here he discusses the Carthesian vor-
tices and Descartes's three types of matter. With him the break with peripatetic
philosophy is complete, though according to his work the vortices are so construc-
ted that "the sun is in the very centre of our firmament where the sky with all the
animals in it revolves at a terrific speed".
The further Cartesian physical dissertations and book of this period are either
non-commital as to the Copernicanian question or their independence is of a lesser
degree. One may, however, state in general that - as has been already pointed
out - the vortices of Descartes can easily be reconciled with Copernican ideas,
though this is not always explicitly stated. Even so, one feels justified in thinking
that among the Hungarian trends in natural philosophy the most progressive was
undoubtedly Cartesianism.
In connection with Apaczai, the position of the Utrecht school of Cartesianism
has already been briefly mentioned. Let us now investigate two dissertations, both
from Leyden. The author of one of them is Janos Kopeczi44, who became professor
in Sarospatak and later physician in Transylvania, he presented his thesis in 1666.
Like the work of Gassitzius in Wittenberg, this work also deals with the comets,
though with a much more determined attitude: the author is in every question not
a disciple of Descartes but of Aristoteles. Matter and its motion is entirely suffi-
cient to explain the universe. In connection with the motion of the comets, the mo-
tion of the planets is also treated of course, but without mention of the Earth.
The situation is quite similar with the other Leyden dissertations dealing with
the system of the universe. One author is an interesting polyhistor, Samuel Kole-
43 G. Voetius succeeded in obtaining a decision passed by the senate in Utrecht forbidding
the teaching of Descartes', and what is more even his name was not allowed to be mentioned at
the university lectures (this explains why in the works of many Hungarian authors the name of
Descartes never appears). R. Descartes et Ie cartesianisme hollandais: Etudes et Documents, by se-
veral authors, Amsterdam 1960, including C. Louise Thijssen Schoute, Le cartesianisme aux
Pays-Bas (p. 183-260) and Vrijer, J. Henricus Regius Een "Cartesiansch" Hoogleeraar an de utrecht-
sche Hoogschool, Amsterdam, 1952.
44 Janos Kopeczi, Disputatio Philosophica de Cometis ... (president Jean de Raey, Cartesian
philosopher), Leyden, 1666, RMK III 2342. The dates of the birth and death of J. Kopeczi are
unknown. This is usually the case also with other authors where such dates are not mentioned.
seri (1663-1732)45 (fig. 5). Koleseri first studied philosophy and theology in Ley-
den; later, he became a certificated physician in Basle. As a municipal physician
he also dealt with mining, metallurgy and wrote much on these subjects. He was,
perhaps, the first Hungarian member of the Royal Society.
The dissertation in question is an inaugural thesis which the candidate defended
"sine praeslde", in those times considered a great distinction. Nevertheless, it is known
that Koleseri was a disciple of the great Burcher de VoIder, Cartesian professor, one
of the first to teach experimental physics, since in the same year he also defended,
this time under de VoIder, an optical work written in the Cartesian manner46 •
One interesting feature of his dissertation on the system of the universe is that
in this work he mentioned Descartes by name. He treats his subject in a faithful
Cartesian manner. Though he mentions Galileo as well as Copernicus, he can say
no more that everything which seems to be acceptable in their ideas is already in-
cluded in the theory of vortices.
Apaczai's imposing experiment had a more profound impact on only a few of his
fellow citizens, since both dissertations are characteristic mainly of the Dutch uni-
versities. However, in 1678 the first entirely Cartesian physics was published in De-
brecen (it will be seen later that something similar had already happened in Saros-
patak, though since that is not a purely Cartesian book it will be discussed later).
The author was Marton Szilagyi Tonko (in Latin Silvanus) (1642-1700) professor
in Debrecen47 •
From the standpoint of the history of Hungarian physics, this book indicates
that in one of the oldest and most important colleges of the country the Cartesian
teaching had become accepted. It is of interest to note, however, that also in this
book the name of Descartes is cited only one or twice.
What does this mean as regards the Copernican question? The answer is again
somewhat uncertain. As concerning the position of the Earth the author points out
the following "paradoxon". The Earth stands still - this must be so since the Holy
Scripture says so - in spite of this however, it may move per accidens with a hid-
den motion, which man does not observe, because he notices only the motion of the
other planets48 • Yet in describing in detail the motion of the planets he contradicts
this statement, since he says that the planets revolve round the sun, and the Earth
is a planet49 • Thus again we see that Cartesian physics is in general attractive, but
in 1678 Copernicus seems to be more highly valued. Galileo and Newton are still
not sufficiently known, though Silvanus sometimes quotes them.
As already indicated, Sylvanus's philosophy in Debrecen marked the beginning
4S Samuel KCileseri, Disputatio philosophica Inauguralis de systemate mundi ... , Leyden, 1681.
46 Samuel KCileseri, Dissertatio mathematico physica de /umine ... , Leyden, 1681.
47 Martini Sy/vani in Illustri Scho/a Debrecina Rectoris Philosophiaeque et L. Professoris Phi-
/osophiae ... , Heidelberg, 1678, RMK III 2899.

48 Ibid., pp. 168-169.
49 Ibid., p. 208.
336 !olan Zempten
5. Samuel Koleseri, a member of the Royal Society

of a more extensive Cartesian period. This is proved for example, by a thesis defen-
ded in Debrecen in 1702. The author and defender was Istvan Csap6 50 , the presi-
dent Mihaly Vari (d. 1723), probably successor to Sylvanus. (fig. 6). The thesis deals
with the planets in the manner of orthodox Cartesianism but without any conces-
sions to Copernicus such as his professor Sylvanus had made.
In the course of investigating the spread of Cartesian philosophy in Hungary,
we have thus reached the XVIII century. The evaluation must be somewhat diffe-
rent at this period, since not only are we after Copernicus and Galileo, but also New-
ton's Principia was already published. The new physics was created, the lack of which
might have been an acceptable excuse to anyone who contradicted the Copernican
ideas or was at least hesitating in their acceptance. Consequently, Cartesian philo-
sophy can no longer be regarded as progressive in the XVIII century, but repres-
ented a force which was rather pulling back and thus retrograde, together with the
scholasticism which still lived in Nagyszombat, though the contents of Cartesianism
were more up to date than the scholastic teaching.
Consequently, just as in the Jesuits colleges scholastic philosophy was still
taught, in the Calvinistic colleges Cartesianism within the frame of which the Co-
pernican question developed either in a positive or in a negative direction, became
inflexible.
The author of the first printed book of this period was Mihaly Szathmary (1681-
1744) professor first in Marosvasarhely (Transylvania) and later in Sarospatak 51 .
His text book on physics 52 was published in 1719.
The concept of Szathmary's book is purely Cartesian. The Copernican problem
is even more facilely solved that in the works of his predecessors. After reviewing
the systems of Ptolemy, Copernicus and Tycho Brahe, he states that while the
systems of Ptolemy and Ticho de Brahe result, because of their complexities, in ab-
surdity, "Descartes follows Copernicus's theory"53.
The change of time is perhaps best indicated by the fact that in the text books
of physics the various possibilities of describing the universe - by the systems of
50 Istvan Csap6. Dissertatio Physico-Astronomica de Planetis .... Debrecen. 1702. RMK II

2102.
51 The lot of the Protestant colleges in Hungary at the end of the XVII and the beginning of
the XVIII century was somewhat turbulent. Thus. e. g.• the famous college of Sarospatak was ex-
pelled from the town by the Jesuits in 1671. The students and professors had to take to the road.
Finally. the Prince of Transylvania settled them in Gyulafehervar. whence the school of Alsted and
Apaczai had to flee from the Tartar invaders to Nagyenyed. Expelled again. this time by the impe-
rial mercenaries. they finally established themselves in Marosvasarhely. Though the college was
later reopened in Sarospatak. the school in Marosvasarhely also remained as a flourishing educa-
tional centre of Transylvania. For these and similar reasons the biography and affiliation of the
professors presents a somewhat difficult problem.
52 Mihaly Szathmary (paksi), Physica contracta juxta Principia Neotericorum in usus ill.
coli. s. p. Maros-vdsdrhelyiensis .... Claudiopoli, 1719.

53 Ibid .• pp. 106. lOS' and 113.

338 Jolan Zempten
ISSERTATIO
'1 0-1\ ~rRO 10~lICA;
l)c Plat cti •:
(·)u.7n,
L111!pice VEb J
;
lib Prxfidio CELEUiRRIMI ac CLARISSIMI VIRT,

, .,
D. M I C H A ELI S V A R I,
A. L. M. & iJlliori Philo[ophix Do-
{loris . ('ju~dcm /lle ur &. Sacrorum Bibliorum jn
~choI J D r::.13!lf.CZE. 'IE 'Sl ProfeiToris:
STEPHANUS CSAPO
Nobdls J. . t..:· JE.' >!S. Auc10r defender,
.Ad {,'[rln oEfohri.r.
DEB 1l E(Z I N I,
Pet GE.ORGIiiM"VIN~za. ~m" 1"
6, The title page of the dissertation of Csap6

Copernican ism in Hungary 339
Ptolemy, Copernicus, or Tycho system - Cartesianism is described either as an

independent system or, as in Szathmary's book, as a system depending on some
other theory.
This line, which may be called orthodox Cartesianism, continues though because
of the more and more sparse material 54 it is increasingly difficult to trace it. The
handwritten lecture notes found in Debrecen and Kolozsvar, however, stress our
opinion that in the first half of the XVIII century mainly this Cartesian physics
was taught.
A more detailed discussion of these notes would lead the reader too far; thus
a few examples need be mentioned. In Debrecen several notes on physics were left
to posteriority, which contain the lectures of Marton Szilagyi, of whom only the
name is known 55 (fig. 7). In these Cartesian lectures, all the systems of the universe
are reviewed, and the conclusion arrived at that Copernicus's theory must be regar-
ded as correct.
There are also a few other data available from which it becomes quite clear that
in Debrecen Cartesian physics were in part taught till 1749, and on the other hand
that the professors teaching astronomy were undoubtedly Copernicans.
One of the professors who began the reform of teaching was Gyorgy Marothy
who died at an early age (1715-1744); the other was his successor Samuel Szilagyi.
According to the notes of one of their pupils both taught the most up to date astro-
nomy56.
Unfortunately, only very few written records of Gyorgy Marothy remained, but
his recently published correspondence 57 makes some interesting contributions to
the knowledge of European propagation' of Copernicanism. In the course of his
study trip abroad, Mar6thy reached the Dutch town of Groningen where he became
friendly with professor Daniel Gerdes. Mar6thy had no money to publish his thesis
and thus he undertook to defend Gerdes's thesis in a public dispute on condition
that he might complete them with his own 24 theses. In the first five of these theses
he defended Copernicus's theories. Marothy relates all this in one of his letters and
writes that in the course of the dispute lasting 7 hours he succeeded in routing his
conservatice opponents, the audience took his part nisi de terrae an solis motu age-
batur 58 •
These examples may be multiplied, however, without yielding any new data
54 For the reasons mentioned in note 51, the professors of the Hungarian Protestant colleges,
including also the professors of the Lutheran schools of North Hungary (Slovakia), were scarcely
able to publish books in the XVIII century.
55 Library in Debrecen, MS. R. 303, a volume of 710 pages.
56 Manuscript in Hungarian by the minister Ferenc Ujfalusi, in Library ofDebrecen No. 0.380.
His Debrecen studies were written in 1767 in the form of memoirs.

57 Study tour abroad of Gyorgy Marothy by Imre Lengyel, and Bela T6th. Book and
Library VIII: 1, Debrecen 1970. 29.

58 Ibid., p. 106: Letter to Jacob Cristoph Beck (1711-1785), Swiss theologian.
340 Jolan Zemp/en
7. The title page of a notebook of M. Szilagyi

in this line. Neither were more documents Cartesian science mentioned, since in
them the Cartesian theory was mixed up with others. The authors of these papers
might be called eclectics.
5. Eclectic trends in natural philosophy and the Copernicus problem

in Hungary
Before beginning to review the principally Cartesian natural philosophy reference

must be made to Copernicus's first Hungarian disciple known to us, who stands
quite alone in the history of the Hungarian science, and cannot be ranged with
either of the various trends of thought.
David FrOlich (1600-1648) lived in North-Hungary (today Slovakia) in a small
town called Kesmark, in Szepesseg (Spis), where was a college which was an impor-
tant centre of the cultural life of the XVII and XVIII centuries. FrOlich is also uni-
que since he is the only one of the scientists so far mentioned who was no theolo-
gian and not even a professor. He differs from the others also in that he did not
select as places for studies abroad exclusively Wittenberg or one of the Dutch uni-
versities. He spent his longest period of study in Frankfurt-on-Oder, though during
his European study trip he travelled practically all over the continent. Coming
home, he lived in his native town as a private scientist.
Finally, another distinction: Frolich did not approach the Copernican problem
from physics. If one may use in the case of this polyhistor the word "profession"
in its good sense, Frolich expressed his opinion on this question from the point
of view of geography. His text book on geography59 published in 1639 attracted
attention even abroad 60 •
The geographical sciences already had a tradition in Hungary. Janos Honterus
of Brasso (Bra~ov) was in the XVI century well known throughout Europe for his
Cosmographia; with him, naturally, the Copernicus problem still did not arise 61 •
In addition to geography, David FrOlich spent a good deal of time in preparing
calendars. The calendar played an important role in the educational literature of
the XVI and XVII centuries. Beside the Calendar in the proper sense of the word
which also included a Prognosticon - i. e., astrological pro dictions for the coming
year-the calendar contained manifold historical, geographical, agronomical,
medical, and rather frequently also physical information. Thus the calendar partly
S9 David Frolich, Medulla Geographiae Practicae (the full title practically outlines the whole
contents of the book), Banta, 1639.

60 E. g. Antoine de Croilly French ambassador to Hungary Wlote in a copy that the book is
known also in France. L. Liptak, S., Geschichte des evang. District Lyceum A. B. in Kesmark, Kes-
mark, 1933, 46.
61 Johannes Honterus's books were published in several editions between 1542 and 1564
in Hungary as well as abroad. Some of the copies can be found in Hungary, mostly with the title
Rudimenta Cosmographiae; Brass6, 1542, RMK II 28; Brass6, 1570, RMK II 123; ZUrich, 1548,
RMK III 123 etc.
342 Jolan ZempMn
satisfied those needs which today are met by the daily journals, educational periodi-
cals, broadcasting and television.
David Frolich was a master of this genre. During thirty years of his short life
he published calendars with various titles in Hungarian, Latin and German, several
publications a year with various titles 62 . For this activity he obtained the title "im-
perial and royal mathematician" among other distinctions. He was rather proud
of this title, and like to use it.
Of course David Frolich was not the only editor of calendars in the XVII cen-
tury. Among many unknown authors (and translators), Jakab Schnitzler and Mar-
ton Szentivanyi published similar works, but Frolich was unparelled in this field,
because among other reasons, he used popular education to raise the Copernican
problem.
His interest in this field is quite clear also from the sentecne in his geography
"Copernicus the excellent mathematician was born in Thoronium on Vistula"63.
After a: great variety of historical, geographical, natural history, "physical"
and astronomical subject matter the treatment of which reflects a large scale between
real science and superstition (magicians, witches, astrology) he rather unexpectedly
raises the question: "Does the earth revolve with us every day in an immobile sky
which is always at rest"64.
This, says FrOlich, is a profound question requiring careful consideration. Many
scientists and untrained (ungelehrte) brains try to think it over. He himself answers
positively, but in order that the prejudiced heads (Einseitigen) should better under-
stand it, he is going to explain it more closely.
What follows are arguments and counterarguments which today may be regar-
ded as classical. If FrOlich had had contributed only this to the propagation of Co-
pernican ideas in Hungary, his achievement would in 1640 have been creditable,
for Galileo's Discorsi was scarcely known. He knew the Dialogue quite well, since
he also quoted from it.
FrOlich, however, did not mediate only on the empty pages of the calendar,
but already in 1632-that is before Galileo's trial, he wrote a book on the revo-
lution of the Earth 65 . This indicates that during his study trip abroad he must have
62 The full list of David Frolich's calendars would lead too far. Many of them listed in RMK
though not all of them can be found. See. J. Zemplen I, 154-155, which contains the most impor-
tant ones; the copies in question are indicated in this work.
63 Frolich, Medulla Geographiae ... , 400.
64 David Frolich, Schreibkalender, 1840.
65 Because of its importance the full title of the work is quoted: Anatome revolutionibus mundanae
non solum bissextilis post Christum natum MDCXXX/I, verum etiam annorum effluxorum et subse-
quentis saeculi ex in/allabilibus Astronomiae principiis ad vivum quasi representans. Huis annexum
est De antipodibus et Telluris Quotidiana circum versione edita Devide Frolicho Astron. Pract (at this
time the title "royal and imperial mathematician" did not exist) RMK II 478. It should be noted
that one reads that no copies exist any more and consequently the title is incorrect. However, the
author has found one copy in the Teleki Library in Marosvasarhely (today Tirgu Mures, Rumania).
become acquainted with the Copernican theory, and by contrast with many of the con-
temporaries did not allow either the burning of Giordano Bruno or the interdict
against Galileo to deter him from acceptance of this theory. Religious considera-
tions apparently did not much influence his works, since he expressed his opinion
quite openly even in 1640 after Galileo had been sentenced.
In spite of all this, the work in question does not unequivocally present Coper-
nicus's system. The first part deals with the preparation of calendars, the calcula-
tion of holidays. FrOlich's other works are also of this type. After this follow 16 un-
numbered pages discussing the theory on the revolution of the Earth. Reviewing
the various reasons for the lunar eclipse, he writes as follows: "It is by evidence of
divine providence that one sees the universe, which contains all bodies seen to re-
main in the same position, though the earth, our dwelling place, revolves with a rapid
and uniform motion from west to east (according to the reformed astronomy which
for the sake of practice I follow in this year) around his centre, its axes and poles
fixed, which generally causes the Earth to be regarded as a gyroscope fastened to
a nail. From this originate day and night. The motion itself, however, cannot be obse-
rved, only the lights surrounding the earth. We get the impression that they (the
lights) rise and set".
It is worth noticing that even Frolich was cautious enough to use the expression
"for the sake of practice". Even so, there is no doubt that he firmly believed in the
revolving of the earth around its axis. With regard to the revolving around the sun
he is somewhat uncertain: he speaks of the "Sun's road" or about Earth's revolv-
ing around the sun "according to Copernicus ... "
It seems to be of interest that Frolich mixes up all this with a mystic, mytholo-
gical philosophy: all is penetrated by a spirit of the Universe (mundi spiritus).
This is doubtless the influence of Alsted, who by the way was much respected by
Frolich. The spirit of the universe ensures, according to him, the harmonia univer-
salis. The motion of the Earth and the planets is inevitable because only so can they
fulfill their function. All this is rather confused; he becomes clear and specific only
when he writes about the revolving of the Earth. He says that the Earth's revolv-
ing which in the preceding century was detected by Copernicus and Kepler should
be sufficiently evident to all. Yet there are people in Pannonia who make fun of it,
and say with the English poet:
Stare negas terram, nobis miracula narras
Haec cum scribebas, in rate forsan eras.
Everything that is now old was once new and became outdated. It is also true
that the teaching of the Earth's revolving is not new (he enumerates the old adher-
ents of the heliocentric theory). After this follow 14 counter-arguments and their
refutation; for the most part these are discussed in the calendar quoted. The 14
counter-arguments are of a philosophical nature, and after those follow counter-
-arguments based on the Bible, though these are as easily disposed of as the previolls
344 Jolan Zempten
ones: the Bible was dictated by the holy Spirit so that it might be descriptive and easily
comprehensible by the common people (Galileo). If Joshuah had really stopped the
Earth, it would be a miracle as great as the miracle of stopping the Sun. In general,
to accept the Bible word for word may fall into grave mathematical as well as phy-
sical errors.
Thus the reader has so far encountered two lines of definitive acceptance of Co-
pernicanism, one of which was the philosophy of Descartes linked with a mystical
conception of natural philosophy. The works to be discussed also show strong
Cartesian influence though the first elements of dynamics already appear in them.
Even so, uncertainty still appears.
Like Fr6lich, J{mos P6sahazi (1628/32-1686), professor in Sarospatak, author
of the first Hungarian Philosophia Naturalis 66 (fig. 8) is also a contradictory perso-
nality. In his physics, which he calls "Physiology", he tries to comprise between the
mechanics of Galileo and Descartes - i.e., between the most up to date trends of
his age. Nevertheless, he was also influenced by the religiosity of Comenius and
by Bacon's empiricism67 . In his ecclesiastical views, on the other hand, after he
and his school had to flee to Transylvania, Posahazi was the upholder of the most
conservative opinions.
What is to be expected from him in the Copernicus problem? He was too great
a scientist to reject it, and too fanatical in religious questions to accept it definitively.
Thus there remained only the possibility of a cautious evasion.
In reviewing the motion of the planets, P6sahazi says that the Copernicans
believe that the Earth also is a planet revolving together with the moon in one day
and round the sun within one year: "I leave it to the judgement of the wise-writes
P6sahazi, whether this is true. I myself do not consider it as impossible"68. The
first part of this sentence can be found in Sperling's physics 69 (much quoted by
P6sahazi who himself studied in Utrecht and Franeker). The second part, however -
the cautious, hesitating approval - is the author's own. Posahazi is more "theolo-
gical" than Apaczai, but undoubtedly much more of a "physicist" than his contem-
poraries.
Some further parts of P6sahazi's work also show the cautiousness of the theolog-
ian coupled with the behavious of the physicist. Gravitation for example is (fol-
lowing Descartes) the result of the pressure of the ether; however, this holds even
if the Earth revolves around its axis in 24 hours. "Though this hypothesis is absurd,
there are still many who adhere to it"70.
66 Janos P6sahazi, Philosophia Naturalis Sive Introductio in theatrum naturae ... , Saros-
patak 1667.
67 Zemplen I, p. 275-287. With full literature.
68 P6sahazi, op. cit., p. 179.
69 Sperling, op. cit., p. 465.

70 P6sahazi, op. cit., p. 216.
Copemicanism in Hungary 345
Hl .L OSOPHIA
·N l\ T U ALI S.
1 N T J\ 0 D U C' T lOIN
T HEATltUM
,
NATURlE.
A u thor~JO H .P 0 S A H A Z 1.
A rr L. 1. In 1I1uIl:ri Schola
S i fOS-P tJkina publico
Profcffore.
Impcntis , J 0 H -\. •~ 1 R0 ,) N 1 10 1 ,
M. DC. LXI"'/' .
8. The title page of the Philosophia Naturalis by F. P6sahlizi

346 Jolan Zempten
In reviewing the various theories, he points out the difficulties and contradictions
which arise from accepting the views of either Ptolemy, Tycho or Descartes, while
the Copernicans easily refute every counter-argument. Otherwise, when discussing
the vortex theory and speaking of the centre he always adds that it is either the Earth
or the Sun. Thus, for example, the apparently no-uniform motion of the planets was
solved by Ptolemy by introducing the epicicles - with the ether theory this could
eventually be explained by supposing that the velocity of either changes along the
orbit of the planet", ... but if the hypothesis of the motion of the Earth is accepted,
these phenomena can apparently be explained"71.
Posahazi's book and his scientific attitude exerted a great influence on his con-
temporaries as well as on his successors. His political discussions have long been
forgotten, while in the teaching of physics in Transylvania and Sarospatak his basic
tenets can still be found. Of course, positive characteristics can also be found: the
beginning of the dynamical way of thinking, which with Newton's mechanics was
gradually completed by his successors. Now let us rather examine the survival of
the negative part of Posahazi's teaching concerning the Copernicus problem.
Mihaly Szathmary's book already reviewed in fact reflects Posahazi's influence.
Since, however, he follows in the copernicanian question rather the lines of Apaczai
and K6leseri, this author was ranked among the Cartesian philosophers.
Posahazi - as we already know - did not return to his school to Sarospatak,
but died in Transylvania. His successor in the school, working at that time u Gyu-
lafehervar, was Samuel Kaposi (1660-1713) who was also one of the characteristic
polyhistors of the time. His works are extant, unfortunately, only in manuscript,
including a complete physics entitled Physi%gia which follows Posahazi practically
word for word 72 . Expressing himself more briefly, he is of the same opinion as his
master in the Copernican question. This is proved by demonstrating the various
systems of the universe, side by side, as can be seen in fig. 9.
The connecting links between Gyulafehervar, Marosvasarhely and Sarospatak
have already been mentioned 73 . In this way was manifested in 1723 the Posahazi-
Kaposi influence in Sarospatak by way of the physicaF4 and geographical manu-
scripts of Csecsi Janos the younger (1689-1769)75. Csecsi was apparently a follower
of the Cartesian ine of thought, and was also a good experimental physicist; even
so, in his geographical manuscript appears the following sentence: "Either it (the
Earth) is the centre of the universe or somewhere else about which physicists still
71Ibid., p. 182-184.
72Samuel Kaposi, the exact title of the note is: De Physiologiae Natura et Partibus, 1708.
Bound together with other notes in the Bolyai Library, Marosvasarhely.
73 See note 51.
74 Janos Csecsi, junior, Compendium Physicum, copied by Andras Balogh, MS. 164, Library
of the Reformed College, Sarospatak.

75 Janos Csecsi, junior, lntroductio in universalem Geographiam ... , Sarospatak 1738.
348 Jolan Zempten
dispute; geography leaves it on its place; ... though it is also said that the Earth
revolves around its axis".
Still in the year 1738. such views can be found. In 1736 in Transylvania a most
interesting scientific experiment was carried out. Istvan Toke (dates of his birth and
death unknown) taught philosophy in Nagyenyed from 1725, and his book published
in 1736 shows that he tried to reconcile the Cartesian speculations with experimental
physics 76 • Of course, one knows in advance the result of this experiment, though
even so it is interesting. From our point of view it is interesting that this author
declares it as self evident that the sun is the centre of every turbulent motion of the
firmament and that the Earth revolves round the sun.
In discussing the eclectical physical trends from the point of view of Copernicus's
theory only one question remained untouched Among Hungarian trends in natural
philosophy up to the turn of the XVII-XVIII centuries, the influence of Christian
Wolf played an important role. Those who because of their education in Wittenberg
did not come in touch with Cartesianism learn through Wolf the new physics and
become followers of Newton. One finds, of course, here also various shades and
mixtures of thoughts. One thing, however, is quite obvious: the Copernicus problem
was really never a problem to the "Wolfians", since Wolf accepted the greater part
of Newton's mechanics, which automatically meant acceptance of Copernicus (the
elliptical orbit of the planets constitutes no major difference).
For this reason, we need mention only briefly that Wolf's only representative
in the first half of the XVIII century in Transylvania was Samuel Nadudvari (?-
1754), professor in Marosvasarhely, also a polyhistor. Many manuscripts of his
are extant including works dealing with physics and astronomy 77. His contemporan-
eous biographer stresses Nadudvari's great erudition but also disapproves of his
revolutionary ideas-e. g., that he taught astronomy entirely according to Co-
pernicus and Newton, and what is more he preached his revolutionary ideas even
from the pulpit1B.
Samuel Nadudvari, as a follower of Wolf was an exception in Cartesian Transyl-
vania. In upper Hungary, however, whence the Lutherans of the XVIII century
went mainly to Halle to study and took up the ideas of pietism, Descartes physics
had practically no followers.
After Bayer, no book was printed, though according to manuscripts and lecture
notes phYSICS was here taught according to Wolf. The Copernican problem already
appears only by reviewing the various systems of the universe.
76 Istvan Toke, Institutiones Philosophiae Naturalis Dogmatico-experimentalis, quibus veri-
tates physicae luculentis observationibus et experimentalis illustratae ac confirmatae nexu scientifico

methodice proponuntur ... , Cibini 1736.
77 A detailed enumeration in J. Koncz, History of the Lutheran and Calvinists college in Ma-
rosvtisarhely, 1889, p. 182 (in Hungarian).

78 Peter Bod, St. Policarpus of Smirna ... history of the Transylvanian bishops, Nagyenyed,
1766, pp. 175 imd 202 (in Hungarian).

Thus, for example, in Vilmos Frigyes Beer's (1691-1767) physics lectures deliv-
ered in 1720, one can observe that this professor revieved first the astronomical dis-
coveries of Galileo and Huyghens, and then explained the advantages of the Coper-
nican system as compared with the Descartes vortex theory 79. In further examples,
similar statements and teachings can be found.
* *
*
Our review covers approximately 200 years from the publication of De Revo-
/utionibus, and one may rightly say that the new concept of the universe and with
it the new physics was able only slowly to invade the economically and socially back-
ward Carpathian Basin.
One might perhaps think that there is not much more to be said, and that in the
second half of the XVIII century the question as to whether the earth revolves or
not simply could not arise. But this was not so: the problem was still alive and lived
until it had conquered also the brains of theologians and influenced what they had
to say.
II. THE QUESTION OF COPERNICANISM IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XVII

CENTURY IN HUNGARY
1. The Survival of Anti-Copernicanism
Though it occasionally occurred, outright anti-Copernicanism can be regarded

as a rather exceptional phenomenon in the second half of the XVIII century.
The author of the first geography written in Hungarian, Pal Bertalanffy (1706-
1763), a Jesuit professor, in 1767 firmly took the side of the geocentric theory, and
writes that the followers of Copernicus cannot properly explain the teachings of the
Scripture; "I should rather be ready to believe that Copernicus's brains revolved
than accept that the earth revolves round the sun like a planet" 80 •
There is still a later fact. Bernat Sartori (1735-1801), a Franciscan monk, pub-
lished in 1772 a complete scholastic philosophy81, in which he took over word by
word Bertalanffi's (mostly erroneous) data and opinion concerning Copernicus.
79 F. W. Beer, Theorema Physices ex Johanni Chr. Gottschedii Philosophia excerpta ..• (the
author has not succeeded establishing the identity of Gottsched). In the archives of the former Lu-
theran Lyceum in Kesmark, No. 17.
80 Pal Bertalanffy, A concise two-fold review of the world (in Hungarian), Tyrnaviae, 1767,
p.9.
81 Bernat Sartori, Philosophy in Hungarian ... (in Hungarian), Eger, 1772.
350 Jolan Zempten
2. Change in Nagyszombat (Trnava)
In 1757, also the Jesuit Bertalanffi may be considered as an exception. From the
fifties of the XVIII century new, voluminous text books on the new physics were
published almost suddenly in Nagyszombat. In connection with a few, characteristic
phenomena may be observed, which are outstanding in the history of sciences.
As already indicated, in 1737, and even later, books such as Akai's Cosmographia
were published. In 1753, Maria-Theresa issued an order in connection with the uni-
versity reform in Nagyszombat making it become compulsory for every professor
to write text· books and to cease the dictation of lecture notes which up to that
time was quite customary82. Following this order and beginning with 1755 volumi-
nous physics text books were published in quick succession: works by Andras
Adany (1715-1795)83, Andras Jaszlinszky (1715-1783)84 (fig. 10), Antal Reviczky
(1723-1781)85 and Mihaly Klaus (1719-1792)86.
This is certainly a surprising phenomenon. Practically without any antecedents,
serious university text books are found. This can only be explained by assuming
that the manuscripts must have been already prepared, and the authors only awaited
the royal order and a loosening of the rigid Jesuit Ratio Studio rum to come out
into open with their books 87 .
Much more surprising, however, is the contents of the books. After the publica-
tion of Newton's principia, Cartesianism was in principle out-dated, at most
a few years can be accepted. Yet these physics books were - though the authors
well knew the Newtonian physics - essentially Cartesian books. A rather curious
paradoxon of the history of physics here took place practically before our eyes.
The philosophy and physics of Descartes regarded by the churches as atheistic (or
at least as a danger leading to atheism) was first brought into the country and dis-
seminated by Calvinist theologians between the years 1653 (Apaczai) and 1736
(Istvan Toke). When, however, Newton's physics throughout the country were al-
ready accepted, the Cartesianism appears in the Jesuit Nagyszombat.
82 See e. g. E. Finaczy, History of Hungarian Public Education in the age of Maria Theresa;
Budapest, 1899, 1.308; Further J. Szentpetery, History of the Faculty of Philosophy 1635-1935,
Budapest, 1935, p. 76, and T. Pauler, History of the Hungarian Royal University Budapest, Budapest
1880, 171 (in Hungarian).
83 Philosophiae Naturalis Pars Prima physica generalis in usum discipulorum a R. P. Andrea
Adany ... anno 1755, Tyrnaviae, pp. 640.

84 Institutiones Physicae Pars Prima a R. P. Andrea Jaszlinszky ... Tyrnaviae 1756 et ...
pars altera 1756. A volwne of 782 pages.

85 Elementa Philosophiae Naturalis Pars Prima ab Antonio Reviczky ... Tyrnaviae 1757 et ..•
pars altera Anno 1758. A volume of 551 pages.

86 Naturalis Philosophiae seu Physicae Tractatio Prior... Viennae et Pragae 1756 ... et altera
Viennae 1756. A volume of 993 pages.

87 Csaba Csapodi, On the boundary of two worlds. A chapter on the past of the Hungarian
Enlightenment (in Hungarian), Szazadok, 1945-46, 85-137, and Zemplen II, 221-240.
. INSTITUTIONES .}: -
PHYSIClE
PAR S P RIM A~ .
J l II
· PHYSICA GENERALI
I NUS U M
DISCIPULORUM CONe! NATA
A R. f. ANDREA JASZLINSZKY
E SOCIETATE JESU
PIDLOSOPHllE DOCTORE,
'"
EJUSDEl"I IN UNIVE SI'TATE
2",. T Y RNA V lEN S~ I
PROFESSORE PUBLICO
o R DIN A RIO.
T Y R 1'1 A V I 1E,
•
T )" P .l sAc ./\ D E :.11 CIS SOC IE TAT 1 S J E S U,
ANN 0 .iU Dec LV).
10. The title page of the textbook by Jaszlinszky

352 Jolan Zemplen
One of the antecedents of this phenomena is that Ferenc B. Keri, professor

(1702-1768) who in Nagyszombat was engaged also in astronomy88, was Rector of
the university in 1753, at the time of the university reform. He himself wrote books
on mechanics in which he tried to reconcile the Carthesian and Newtonian theories 89 .
With Keri, as in general with physicists of the XVIII century, the Newtonian con-
cept of force and the problem of action in distance caused serious difficulties. Keri
did not succeed in finding a satisfactory solution. Nevertheless, he may be regarded
as the spiritual ancestor of the above text books of physics; he exerted a very great
influence, and is frequently quoted.
However, this "philosophical" explanation does not seem to solve the problem.
The late Cartesianism of the Jesuits in Nagyszombat (including Keri himself) had
deeper ideological roots. This is shown by Keri's standpoint on the Copernican
problem.
It has been respectedly said that the acceptance of Copernicanism is in close
relation with the dissemination of the new physics. Whoever accepts the Newtonian
dynamics and the law of general gravitation must necessarily be Copernican. Des-
cartes, Bacon or a follower of any other discipline of natural philosophy may still
disaprove of, accept, or even "correct" the Descartes vortex theory. An empiricist
may be a Copernican, though Bacon did not accept it, but with Newton's acceptance
there is no longer freedom of choice.
And precisely this was what the authors of the first text books wanted to avoid,
though in many instances they did not state it openly.
It is still characteristic of these books that they consider it important to review
the various systems of the universe, and that astronomy is treated in what was cal-
led "special" or "part;cular" physics and not within the framework of mechanics;
consequently, they still did not accept the new celestial mechanics.
In rewiewing the systems of the universe they go so far as to state that only Co-
pernicus's system is rational though they do not say it decidedly. We have stil not
come so far as that. Nevertheless the dispute lost its edge. The author knew thel con-
sequences for the reader should he get into trouble by any open statement90 •
3. Cartesianism disappears
As far as is ascertainable, and disregarding the short intermezzo discussed in

the previous section, Cartesianism had disappeared earlier in the other Hungarian
schools. It is known for instance that Istvan Hatvani (1718-1786), famous physi-
88 In a detailed review of Keri B. Ferenc's, Studies in physics and his biography, see Zemplen II,
214-221.
89 Keri B. Ferenc's wOlks, anonymous dissertations similar to those discussed in the 2 nd sec-
tion. These mechanical topics are treated in the following works: Dissertatio Physica de Corpore
generatim deque opposito eidem vacuo, Tyrnaviae, 1752.; Diss. Phys. De motu corporum, ibid. 1735;
Diss. Phys. De Causis motuum in corporibus, ibid., 1754.
90 M. Klaus op. cit., II, p. 32.
cian and professor of physics, certainly taught in Debrecen from 1749 Newton's
physics, though no book of his on this subject does exist. His book on philosophy
however, amply proves that he was y disciple of Newton and Copernicus 91 •
Mter Istvan Toke's book, only one printed work was published in Transylvania,
a translation from German to Latin in 177492 . Though the data (manuscript mate-
rial) are scarce it can be assumed with great probability that in Transylvania Cartes-
ianism was followed much earlier by Copernicanism and Newton's physics. Never-
theless, also in Nagyszombat Cartesianism soon disappeared.
Thus, for instance, one finds in Nagyszombat an anonymous thesis promising
astronomy according to its title but treating actually the mechanics 93 • The disserta-
tion consists of two parts: the first contains theses including physical ones. Thesis
no 37 reads as follows: "Copernicus's system is better than that of Tycho". In the
text itself the author fully and decidely accepts Newton's mechanics.
This latter fact is important over and above its already discussed significance,
because the authors in Nagyszombat still make a detour, though already a smaller
one, to react Newton. Pal Mak6 (1724-1793)94, Antal Radics (1726-1773)95
and finally Janos Horvath (1732 -1799)96, author of a text book on physics well
known also abroad, hurl themselves after Descartes into the most extreme New-
tonianism while they build up their physics based on interesting but rather idealistic
mechanics and forcecurve of Roger Boscovich (1711-1787)97. Though these authors
are still all Jesuits (the Jesuit order was dissolved in Hungary by the Emperor Jo-
seph II), they taught later as priests in the university, first transferred to Buda (1777)
and then to Pest (1780), Boscovich type dynamics which can in no way be reconciled
with any anti-Copernican attitude. This becomes apparent from the fact that the
authors referred to treat the motion of the planets and the Earth within the framework
91 Istvan Hatvani, Introductio ad Principia Philosophiae Solidioris ... , Debrecini, 1757.

92 The original book: Johann Gottlob Kriiger, Naturlehre, Halle, 1740-1749. Translated
by Istvan Kovats, professor in Nagyenyed. Title of ilie translation: Elementa Philosophiae Natu-
ralis ... , Kolozsvlir, 1744.
93 Full title: Astronomia physicae juxta Newtoni Principia Breviarium Methodo scholastica ad
usum juventus, Nagyszombat, 1760. This dissertation was prepared for Istvan Ranies' (student
in Pecs) doctorate, but the authorship of no professor lecturing in iliat time in Nagyszombat was
able to be established (as e. g. in the case of Keri, B. Ferenc).
94 Pal Mak6, Compendaria Physicae Institutio ... , Pars l. Phys. Experimentalis, Viennae, 1762;
Pars n, ibidem 1763.
95 Radica devoted three works to a review of Boscovich's theory: Introductio in Philosophiam
Naturalem P. Rogerii Boscovich accomodata ... , Buda (S. a.); Principia Boschovichii singulari tractata
i/lustrata, Buda, 1765, and Institutiones Physices ... Buda, 1766.
96 Bapt. Janos Horvath wrote more text books on physics, which were republished several
times; the Boscovich-theory is dealt with only in the first publications in some detail, e. g. Insti-
tutiones Physicae Generalis ... , Tymaviae, 1767, and Inst. Phys., ibidem 1770.
97 Boscovich's works attained several editions in his time. The most up to date critical edition
is a Latin-English bilingual work used also by the present author, Rogeris Boscovich: Theoria Phi-
losophiae Naturalis, Venice 1763, Chicago-London, 1922, introduced by J. M. Child.

354 Jolan ZempTen
of mechanics, and no further mention is made of the various systems of the universe;
at most they polemise with Descartes, but even with him on other questions.
In the later editions of Horvath Janos's text books, also the Boscovich curve
disappears together with Cartesianism, and gradually the most up to date physics
became developed at the university in Pest9 8.
Our review concerning the second half of the XVIII century, however, still can
not be concluded. There is a field in which one still meets with some hesitation
in relation to the Copernican theory - popular science literature.
4. The Copernican problem appears again in popular literature
In general, one encounters in popular literature only well developed, already pro-
ved subjects, and as a result this literature always shows a certain time lag as com-
pared with the actual state of science.
Moreover, in Hungary two further factors influenced disadvantageously the stan-
dard of the popular literature.
One of them is that this literature had to be written in Hungarian (Apaczai's
attempt to write in Hungarian had no followers for a long time); consequently, the
authors struggled to use proper scientific expressions and this - naturally - to some
degree influenced also the standard.
Another reason is that the authors - still clergymen - prefered to translate,
and to translate older, mainly religious books from English, German and French
literature.
In essence, the development of the 200 years of Hungarian scientific literature
written in Latin as so far followed, was repeated in concentrated form over 30 years,
so that all the typical attitudes concerning the Copernican problem can be found
again.
The open anti-Copernicanism in Bertalanffi's and Sartori's works has already
heen noted.
Let us now examine the work of a Jesuit author of much greater erudition. We
refer to Janos Molnar's book published in 177799 • Even the title of this book shows
that it was prepared according to Newton's physics. The author calls the Cartesian
ether a "poetic fiction" and yet he is extremely cautious when writing about the
Earth's motion. Thus for example, the Earth can be called only with a certain cau-
tion a planet, and " ... for the sake of simplicity, according to Copernicus and New-
ton the Earth is considered as a planet", "though - he says - there are philosophers
who think that this is not entirely certain"loo.
98 E. g. J. Horvath, Elementa physicae opus novis elaboratum curis et a prioribus editionibus
diversum, Buda, 1790.

99 Bapt. Janos Molnar, The first principles of Physics, on the nature according to Newtoll's
pupils (in Hungarian), Pozsony and Kassa, 1777.

100 Idem, pp. 117-120 and 127-128.
As in the XVII century, one finds hesitancies, also among the Protestants. It
is interesting to observe that Derham's extremely popular book, which was also
translated and served as a model to Protestant authors 101 , did not find any problem
in the Copernican theory: God's wisdom ensures that with the Earth rotating at
high speed gravitation should maintain equilibrium against centrifugal force 1 02.
Perhaps a few further typical examples: Benjamin Szonyi translated Charles
Rollin's religious natural history work and added some parts written by himself
in verse. In these, he uses alternatively the motion of the Sun and Earth, though
sometimes he speaks expressly of the Earth's revolving and orbit 103 •
The Calvinist minister Gyorgy Horvath, meditating in his "scientific prayer
book on the system of the universe acknowledges that the theories of Descartes and
Copernicus are more rational than Tychos's. Yet he prefers the latter because it
can be better reconciled with the Holy Scripture, but: "I do not dispute with any
of them ... leaving the Copernican system to the philosophers I take my stand with
Tycho in what is shown by the apparentia and taught by the Holy Scripture"104.
However, as one approaches the end of the century such examples become more
rare. Adam Pal6czi Horvath, son of the lastnamed author praises Newton, who
solved the problems concerning the Copernican theory, with eloquent distinction 1 05 •
Finally the best and the most complete popular book on physics, published in
1808 by Marton Varga, by finally accepting Newton closes not only the Copernican
question, but also the 100 years old dispute between Descartes and Newton 106 •
SUMMARY
Some 200 years of the history of the Hungarian natural philosophy and physics are reviewed.
To sum up once more the oft repeated conclusion can be drawn: in order to accpet Copernican
theory, it was not only necessary for the new physics to emerge but this new physics had to be
understood and become common knowledge. The Hungarian economic and social situation in
only a few instances up to the end of the XVIII century enabled the third step to be taken in the de-
velopment of the new physics. Nevertheless, Hungarian scientists, too, participated in the European
ideological and scientific disputes, and it is perhaps no overstatement to say that even their errors
contributed to put into motion the Earth which for so long stood still in Hungary.
101 The title of the work in question by William Derham (1657-1735) minister of Upmister
is: Physics-Theology or a demonstration of the being and attributes of his works creation, London,
1713. The Hungarian translation, which is quoted, was published in Vienna in 1793. The transla-
tor was G. Segesvari.
102 Idem, p. 48, 53.
103 Charles Rollin (1661-1741) was professor of theology of he College de France. The
title of B. Szonyi's translation is: Our Children's Physics (in Hungarian), Pozsony, 1774.
104 Gyorgy Horvath, The School of Nature and Grace, (in Hungarian), Gyor, 1775, p. 216.
lOS Adam Horva th, The shortest summer night ... (in Hungarian), Pozsony, 1791.
106 Marton Varga, The Science of Nature Beautiful, Nagyvarad, 1808 (in Hungarian).
356 Jolan Zempten
SOME ABBREVIATIONS
RMK - Regi Magyar Konyvtar (Old Hungarian Bibliotheque). This is an extensive Bibliography
in four volumes, which contains all works published from 1472 to 1711 in Hungarian (Vol. I.),
in Latin or any other language (Vol. II), or works written by Hungarians and published abroad
(Vol. III in two parts), ed. by Karoly Szab6, Budapest, 1896 and 1898. This work will be pub-
lished in a new edition. Up to now one volume (1473-1600) has been published, through
it was not possible to quote from this book.
Zemplen I - M. J. Zemplen, The History of Physics in Hungary up to 1711, Budapest, 1961 (in
Hungarian), 317 pp.
Zemplen II - M. J. Zemplen, The History of Physics in Hungary in the XVIll Century (in Hun-
garian), 495 pp.
MTA - Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
TABLE DES AUTEURS ET DES PERSONNAGES HlSTORIQUES
Aasheim A. N. 145 196, 199, 200, 201, 218, 233, 252, 275, 281,
Abkoude J. van 165 282, 317, 319, 321, 324, 326, 327, 329, 334
AbU Masar 20 Arndt J. 114, 115
Adams G. 165 Asaka G. 176
Adany A. 350 Aslaksen K. 121-124, 134, 146
Addison J. 305 Aubanez P. 277
Agerholm Chr. 145 Augustin S. 86
Akai Kr. 321, 322, 350 Azarquiel (Al-Zarquali) 129, 284
Albert Ie Grand 85
Albumasar voir AbU Masar Bacon F. 58, 215, 216, 304, 325, 332, 352
Alburgo-Danus N. N. 145 Baien M. 169, 170
Aldis H. G. 233 Bails B. 288, 290
Alea P. de 274 Bainbridge J. 218, 221
Alembert J. Ie Rond d' 291 Baldet F. 19
Alethophilus T. v. Gutfeld Balogh A. 346
Alexander A. 236 Bandet P. H. 163
Alexandre Ie Grand 307 Bang C. J. 122, 146
Allestree R. 213 Banri H. 169, 176
Alphonse X, roi de Castille (Ie Savant) 27, Banto Y. 169, 176
45, 211, 284 Baranowski H. 271
Alsted J. H. 324, 325, 334, 337, 343 Barclay J. 229
Amat y de Cortada R. de 291 Barclowe W. 210
Ames N. 298-308 Barnouw A. J. 158
Ames N. jr. 299, 303 Barocas V. 238
Anaximander 194 Barrow I. 221
Anderson P. J. 239 Bartas G. 199
Angeleres F. 281 Bartholin C. 31, 121-126, 134, 136, 137,
Anglus voir White Th. 139, 146, 151
Annerstedt C. 270 Bartholin C. Th. 139, 146
Apaczai-Csere J. 326, 333-335, 337, 344, 346, Bartholin R. 135, 136, 138, 146
350, 354 Barycz H. 116
Apian Ph. 9 Bataillon M. 273
Applebaum W. 236 Bayer H. 241
Arakielowicz G. 96 Bayer J. 331, 332, 348
Archimede 235 Beaune F. de 135
Aristarchus de Samos 70, 124, 136, 190, 198, Beck J. C. 339
218, 248, 280 Bednarski S. 99, 116
Aristote 9, 11, 12, 42, 43, 54, 60, 62, 70, 74, Beer V. 349
77, 81, 82, 88, 91, 105, 106, 122, 123, 135, Benoit XIV, pape 290
358
Benoist M. 158, 181 Briggs S. 303

Benzenberg J. F. 263 Brigham C. S. 307
Bernegger M. 108 Brochmand J. 138
Bernoulli D. 291 Brondlung L. 146
Bernoulli J. 291 BroZek J. 88, 116
Bertalanffy P. 349, 350, 354 Bruceus JH. 46, 243, 246
BertIefius M. 113 Brun V. 151
Berulle P. 90 Bruno Giordano 194, 200, 245, 246, 311, 343
Bessel F. W. 71, 140 Brunsmand J. 138, 146
Bethlen G. 324 Bruun Chr. 151
Bieilkowska B. 79, 116 Buchanan G. 38, 230, 239
Biernacki K. 100 Buckingham J. T. 297
Bigelow J. 303 Budde J. F. 332
Bilberg J. 260-264, 267-269 Bukowski J. 5
Bricherod J. J. 149, 150 Bullialdus voir Boulliau
Birkenmajer A. 87, 116 Bureus J. Th. 244-246, 270
Birkenmajer L. A. 66 Buridan J. 201
Blaeu J. 163 Burke J. G. 7
Blagrave J. 194, 195, 202, 237 Burton R. 225, 227
Bleau W. 163, 164, 224 Biit'hner F. 111
Bliss P. 200
Blumenberg H. 57 Calcagnini C. 64
Blundeville Th. 196, 198 Calvin J. 196, 311, 315, 332
Boas M. 11, 25 Campanella T. 238
Bod P. 348 Cansino 280
Bognar I. 317 Cant A. 235, 236
Bohm M. 81 Cappella Martianus 282
Bormann F. 81, 114 Caprinus A. 87
Boskovic R. J. 287, 289, 353, 354 Caramuel y Lobkowitz J. 284
Bostocke R. 196, 197, 202 Cardano J. 20
Boulliau I. 221, 223, 224, 258, 265, 280 Car0e K. 151
BovilIus C. 66 Carpentarius J. 88
Bowen E. J. 238 Carpenter N. 210, 211, 227, 230
Bowen N. 298, 299, 305 Caselius J. 228
Boxer C. R. 156 Caspar M. 7, 207
Boyle R. 219, 315 Cassani J. 280
Braddock, 297 Cassini G. D. 170, 209, 258
Bradley J. 97, 103 Celsius A. 257
Brahe Tycho 9, 10, 12, 18-20, 24, 25, 27-55, Celsius M. 257, 270
65,88-90,91,93,94,97,105,106,110,120- Celsius N. 250-261, 269
-123, 126-129, 131, 133, 134, 136, 141, Cenal R. 284
146, 163, 164, 170, 178, 179, 192, 193, 209, Cervino P. A. 288
213, 214, 219, 228-231, 235, 237, 243, 244, Chang Heng 181
249, 250, 254, 261, 268, 279, 281-284, 295, Chang Tsai 155
312, 313, 319, 330, 337, 339, 346, 353, 355 Channcey N. 295
Brasch F. E. 296 Chapin H. M. 206
Brattle Th. 296 Charles I, roi d'Angletterre 201
Bretnor Th. 213 Charles I, roi d'Espagne = Charles V empereur
Bricka C. F. 151 273
Brigdon Z. 294, 295 Charles II, roi d'Espagne 278
Briggs H. 202, 214, 216, 219, 221 Charles III, roi d'Espagne 287
359
Chatham 308 Cusanus N. voir Nicolas de Cusa

Chaucer G. 195 Cuzado J. 278
Cheever S. 295 CzartofYski A. K. 102
Cheke J. 191
Chesnecopherus N. 242 Dalrymple J. 231
Chesterfield Ph. 306 Danus N. voir Alburgo-Danus N.
Cheyne J. 229 Das R.l72, 173
Chiaramonti S. 133 Dasypodius C. 32
Child J. M. 353 Davies J. 202
Chmaj L. 104, 109, 116 Dee J. 191, 192, 197, 202, 221
Christian IV roi de Danemark 142 Democritus 69, 194
Christian, prince 33 Derham W. 355
Christine, duchesse de Toscane 86 Descartes R. 54, 81, 82, 112, 113, 135-137,
Christine, reine de Suede 255 139, 140, 221, 227, 231, 234, 237, 254-256,
Chu Hsi 155 261, 262, 264, 265, 270, 279, 281, 282, 289,
Cimber voir Morsing E. O. 312, 314, 327, 332-335, 344, 346, 349, 352,
Clagett M. 257 354, 355
Clairaut A. C. 291 Deschales C. F. 284
Clark A. 201 Detharding G. 139, 146
Clarke J. 221 Diaz J. S. 274, 287
Clarke S. 73, 75, 221 Dibvadius voir Dybvad
Claromontius S. voir Chiaramonti S. Dickinson J. 308
Clauberg J. 255 Dieterichsen T. 134, 147
Clausen J. C. 137, 149 Digby E. (Digbaeus) 201
Clavius Chr. 275, 317 Digges L. 192, 193, 198
Clough S. 298, 300 Digges Th. 43, 44, 63, 119, 192-194, 198,
Cockburn A. 235 202, 204, 225, 238
Coffin C. M. 237 Dimberg S. 268
Colet J. 189 Dobszewicz B. 95
Collinder P. 270 Dobrzycki J. 5
Colson N. 301 Donne J. 225-227, 237
Comenius voir Komensky J. A. Dounie J. 235
Commandino F. 275 Dreyer J. L. E. 33, 54, 126, 151, 193
Corachan J. B. 281 Drossander A. 260, 266, 268
Cortes M. 198 Druzbacki M. 94
Costello W. T. 237 DfYden J. 227, 305
Costil P. 329 Dudith A. 329, 330
Cotarelo y Valledor A. 280, 283, 284 Duhamel J. B. 231
Covard W. 97 DUrer A. 53
Crabtree W. 212 Dybvad E. C. 119, 146
Craig J. 42, 43, 228 Dybvad J. C. 117-119, 122, 146
Cramer D. 228
Craufurd Th. 234 Ecphantus 106, 190
CroiIIy A. 341 Eden R. 198
Crommelin A. C. D. 18 Edes 307
Csap6 I. 337, 338 Edouard VI, roi d'Angieterre 201
Csapodi C. 350 Eguia C. 280
Csecsi J. jr. 346 Eichstadt W. 108-110
Csipkes Komaromi G. 330, 333 Eilersen J. 127, 147
Cuellar R. M. 254 Elvius P. 265, 266
Cuningham W. 198 EngeIcke B. 107, 108
360
Entsii 173, 174, 179 Galilei GaIileo 54, 63-65, 68, 71, 74, 86, 88
Epicur 97 90, 92, 95, 98, 104, 107, 108, 112, 113, 123
Erasmus Desiderius 189 133, 138, 147, 154, 207, 209, 212, 214, 215
Euclides 235, 275 221-224, 229, 230, 237-239, 250, 258, 270
Euler L. 291 272, 277, 280, 282, 287-290, 294, 311-313
Everhart M. 34 315, 322, 326, 328-330, 333, 334, 337
342-344, 349
Fabricius D. 10 Galschiot J. 147
Fabricius J. 209 Gamauf G. 65
Favoro A. 207, 238 Garcia Camarero Enr. 271
Feij60 B. 283 Garcia Camarero Em. 271
Feild J. 191, 192 Garcia de Cespades A. 275
Ferdinand II Ie Catholique 272 Gassendi P. 96, 98, 104, 281, 289, 323, 330
Ferdinand VI, roi d'Espagne 282, 287 Gassitzius G. 329, 330, 334
Fernandez Vallin A. 274 Gavira J. 279, 282, 283
Fernando 278 Gaythorpe S. B. 328
Ferreira Chr. 159 Gaztafieta y de Iturribalzaga A. 279
Finaczy E. 350 Geber voir Gabir ibn Aflah
Fincke J. 136, 138, 147 Gedanensis Henricus voir Henri de Gdansk
Fincke Th. 119, 120, 123 Gellibrand H. 202, 217
Fine J. A. de 1'22, 147 Gemma Frisius C. 10, 281
Fischer J. 189 Genpaka S.I71
Flamsteed J. 192 George III, roi de Pays-Bas
Flores L. 277 Gerdes D. 339
Fontana W. 87 Geret S. L. 271, 285
Fontenelle B. 139, 147 Gerhard J. 106
Fornelius J. 253 Gestrinus M. E. 247-249, 251
Forsius S. A. 244, 245, 270 Gevaliensis J. L. 242
Forster R. 197, 202 Gezelius J. 267
Foscarini P. A. 108, 278, 288 Gilbert W. 54, 108, 124, 189, 202-211, 215.
Foster J. 295 221, 227, 237, 238, 251
Foster S. 202, 217 Gill 307
Fracastoro G. 317 Giustriniani F. 282
Fran~ois II Rak6czi 314 Glosemeyer J. 81
Franck J. 249 Goclenius R. 243
Franklin B. 301, 303-305, 309 Godwin Fr. 211, 238
Franklin J. 306 Gomez 158
Frederic II, roi de Danemark 119 Gonzalez de Uruefia 280
Freyre de Sylva L. 277 Gonzalez Cafiaveres J. A. 281
Frisch Chr. 28 Goodman N. G. 304
Frisius C. Gemma voir Gemma Frisius C. Googe B. 199
Frohlich D. 341-344 Goryu A. 169, 170
Fromm J. 133, 135, 147 Gothus L. Paulinus voir Paulinus Gothus L.
Fujiwaza N. 178 Gottschedus J. Chr. 349
Furlong G. 277, 288 Graff J. G. 328
Granius N. 270
Gabir ibn Aflah 119, 218, 275 Greaves J. 218
Gabir ibn Haijan 218 GrediIlo A. F. 271, 288
GaIenus Claudius 121 Greenough C. N. 307
GaIi A. 291 Gregoire XIII, pape 305
361
Gregory D. 231, 236 Hill Chr. 237

Gregory J. 231, 236, 239 Hill N. 208, 238
Gregory J., jeune 231, 235, 236 Hill Th. 198
Gresham E. 213 Hipparchus 34
Gresham Th. 202 Hippocrates 276
Griffiths J. 218 Haiata A. 177, 178
Grocyn W. 189 Hirose H. 159
Groddeck M. G. 81 Hisatada Y. 169, 180
Gruber J. 321 Hoffvenius P. 255-257, 260
Guarinos voir Sempere Guarinos J. Hofmann J. E. 151
Guillaume IV de Hesse 10, 37, 46 Hogberg P. 270
Gundestrup N. J. 144 Holberg L. 145
Gunther R. T. 237 Honterus J. 341
Gutfeld P. 145 Hood Th. 202
Gustave Adolphe, roi de Suede 246 Hooke R. 219, 258, 296
Hopton A. 213
Hagecius (Hajek) Th. 44, 53 Horatius 147
Hahn P. 266 Horky M. 239
Hakewill G. 214, 216 Horrebow A. 144
HaIdorsen T. 147 Horrebow Chr. 144, 147
Halley E. 12,18 Horrebow N. 144
Hannov J. 35 Horrebow P. 31, 136, 139-145, 148
Hanssen E. Spang voir Spang-Hanssen E. Horrox J. (Horrocks) 2n, 212, 221, 238
Hariot Th. 200, 202, 211, 212, 238 Horsley S. 72
Hartknoch Chr. 112 Hortensius M. 133
Hartley H. 238 Horvath A. 355
Hartner W. 20 Horvath G. 355
Harvey G. 201, 202 Horvath J. 353, 354
Harvey W. 189 Hoskin M. A. 237
Hasselborn N. 268 Hoszowski L. 97
Hatvani I. 315, 326, 352, 353 Houzeau J. C. 151
Hayward J. 225 Hualde 280
Hazama J. 170 Hube J. M. 102, 103
Hazama S. 170, 179 Hiibertz J. R. 151
Heinsius N. 255 Humius 133
Hellman C. D. 7, 10, 12 Hurtado de Mendoza D. 280
Henri vm, roi d'Angleterre 189 Huygens Chr. 141, 268, 296, 349
Henri de Gdansk 91
Henry 296 Ikutaro S.
Heracleides Ponticus 106, 124, 190 Imai I. 160
Heraclit 71, 276 Isabelle I la Catholique 272
Heron 275 Ishii K. 174
Herrera J. de 274, 275 Itazawa T. 163, 165
Herschel J. 181
Herschel W. F. 287 J. S. (crypt.) 295
Hemis y Panduro L. 288 Jacques I, roi d'Angleterre 227, 229
Hewelius J. 106-109, 258, 280 Jacques VI, roi d'Ecosse 227
Hicetas 190 Jacquier F. 287
Hilaire de Wislica 87 Jaenichen P. 81
Hilarius voir Eilersen J. Jaszlinszky A. 350, 351
362
Jean de Holywood 91, 229, 246, 275, 281 Kocher P. H. 237

Jedlik A. 315 Koda R. 177
Jeon Sang-woon 179 Koestler A. 7
Jerome St. 258, 286 Kokan S. 168, 169, 171, 172, 178, 180
Jinsai I. 175 K61eseri S. 334-336, 346
Joachimowicz L. 104 KoUlltaj H. 89
Johnson Fr. R. 191, 192, 197, 200-202, 211', Komaromi voir Csipkes Komaromi G.
212, 236-238 Komensky J. A. 85, 86, 324, 325, 332
Johnston W. 235, 236 Konarski J. 97
Johnstone J. F. 239 Konarski S. 82, 99, 100
Jokyo 157 Koncz J. 348
Jones R. F. 237 K6peczi 334
Jorgenson C. E. 304 Kovats I. 353
Joseph il, empereur 353 -Kraft J. 140, 148
Josselyn J. 295 Krag A. R. 119, 121, 148
Josue 287 Krieger C. C. 160
Juan Jose d'Autriche 278 Krogius N. 148
Juan y Santacilia J. 286-288, 291 KrUger J. G. 353
Judichaer O. 148 KrUger P. 106, 107, 108, 110, 112
Kuhn Th. 11, 317
Kagesuke S. 158, 171, 172, 179 Kuwaki A. 166
Kaiseki S. 174 Kurz S. 273
Kanchii 174 Kvacsala J. 332
Kan S. 175
Kant E. 168 Lactantius 214
Kaposi S. 346, 347 Lagus D. 109
Karasuke W. 166 Lalande J. J. de 19
Kauffmann N. 109, 136, 149 Lanaheer B. 158
Keckermann B. 104, 105, 106, 108, 123, 133 Lang H. 123, 148
Keill J. 158, 166, 180 Lange W. 135, 148
Keisho I. 176 Lancaster A. 151
Kelly S. 238 Lansbergen Ph. 133, 148, 212, 217, 221, 230
Kennedy H. 235 Laplace P. S. de 168
Kepler J. 7-10, 12, 16, 24, 26-29, 34, 37, Larkey S. V.
47, 54, 55, 73, 76, 77, 88, 95, 97, 98, 101, Larsen K. 27, 31
104, 126, 127, 136, 141, 164, 170, 179, 207, Lauchen G. J. 27, 119, 128, 191,247,312
209, 211, 212, 221, 223, 224, 229-231, 236, Laurbecchius P. 254
237, 249-253, 265-266, 270, 284, 294, 295, Lawton H. W. 211, 238
299, 311, 313, 327, 328, 330, 343 Leeds T. 303
Keri F. B. 352, 353 Leibniz G. W. 57, 73, 75, 136, 142
Kexlerus S. 247, 248, 254 Lengyel I. 339
Kierul P. B. 133, 134, 148 Leovitius C. 242
King W. 233 Leseur Th. 287
Kircher A. 112, 284, 329 Lesle C. N. 137, 138, 149
Kiyoshi Y. 154, 155 Lichtenberg G. Chr. 64, 65
Klaus M. 350, 352 Liddel D. 228, 235, 239
Klibansky R. 66 Linacre Th. 189
Klobusitzky F. X. 320 Lindborg R. 255, 257, 270
Knox J. 233 Lindroth S. 244, 245, 270
Kochanski A. 93 Lipko S. 116
363
Lipsicz M. 319 Meadows A. J. 237

Lipstorpius D. 254, 258 Meier J. 81, 111, 112, 113, 115
Liptak J. L. 341 Meisen V. 151
Li Shan-Ian 181 Melanchton Ph. 110, 311, 326, 327
List M. 9 Mendoza voir Hurtado de Mendoza D.
Lobkowitz voir Caramuel y Lobkowitz J. Mendoza y Rios J. 287
Locke J. 304 Mercator N. voir Kauffmann N.
Longomontanus Chr. voir Sorensen Chr. Mersenne M. 104
Lopez Pinero J. M. 271, 277, 278, 281 Middleton G. 236
Lossius P. 107 Milton J. 225, 227, 237, 305
Lous Chr. C. 149 Miyatake G. 174
Lovejoy A. 227 Moesgaard K. P. 31, 117, 151
Lowe N. 306 Mokchai A. 317
Lower W. 212 Molnar J. 354
Lubieniecka J. 102, 116 Monno 172, 173, 177
Lubieniecki S. 255 Montanus E. 151
Lucianus 225 Montanus P. 275
Lulofs J. 114, 166 Monte G. U. del 275
Luth O. J. 240 Moraeus o. 249
Luther M. 138, 143, 196, 311, 315, 236 More H. 222, 237
Lydiat Th. 214 More Th. 189
Luskina S. 95 Morhof D. G. 332
Morin J. B. 133, 149
Macaulay 308 Morison S. E. 294, 296
Mach E. 74 Morris W. F. 238
Maestlin M. 7-30, 37, 42, 43, 49, 51, 196,327 Morsing E. o. 34, 35, 47, 119, 146
Morsztyn F. 110
Magini J. A. 44 Motoki R. 160, 161, 164-166, 168-170.
Mahnke D. 66 178, 179
Mak6 P. 353 Mottelay F. P . 203
Manfredi E. 144, 149 Moxon J. 224
Manilius 279 Mrozowska K. 102
Marfull voir Sanvisens Marfull A. MUlIer J. 119, 275
Marhof D. G. 332 MUlIer N. 144, 149
Marie Therese, imperatrice 350 Mullinger J. B. 201, 220
Marthy G. 339 MunozJ.281
Martin B. 165 Muraoka T. 169, 177
Martinez C. 278 Muratori L. A. 95, 96, 98, 271, 286
Maskayoshi N. 160 Murillo D. 280
Mather C. 296, 303 Mut V. 284
Mather N. 296 Mutis J. Celestino 271, 288
Mathias Hunyady, roi de Hongrie 314
Matrai L. 311 Nabonassar 305
Maupertuis P. L. de 71 Nadolski B. 116
Mayans y Siscar G. de 271, 275, 277, 283, Nadudvari S. 348
285, 286 Naiden J. R. 239
Mayer P. 320, 321 Nakayama S. 153, 154, 162-164, 170, 175
Mazar K. 328 Neper J. 127
Mc Colley G. 2n, 238 Neugebauer o. 127, 151
Mc Murdo G. 234, 236 Newman H. 296
364
Newton I. 18, 54, 57, 69, 71-77, 82, 93, 95, Paulinus Gothus L. 2, 243, 245
97, 140, 227, 231, 234, 235, 264-266, 268, Pazmany P. 315-317, 320, 327
280-282, 289, 291, 294, 296, 299, 303, Pedersen O. 31
304, 313-315, 335, 337, 348, 352-355 Pena J. (penna) 275
Newton J. 224 Peper J.- C. 149
Nichols C. L. 306 Pepper J. V. 238
Nicholson M. 221, 237 Perez de Piado F. 285
Nicolai H. 109, 110, 111, 112, 147 Perez J. A. Sanchez voir Sanchez Perez J. A.
Nicolas de Cusa 59, 66-68, 192, 194, 245 Person D. 230
Niegowiecki J. 88, 89 Peset Llorca V. 271, 276, 278, 282-286
Nielsen A. V. 151 Peter P. 113
Nielsen L. 151 Peters C. A. F. 142, 151
Nielsen N. 123, 151 Petersen C. S. lSI
Niesiecki K. 94 Petraeus A. 251, 252
Nordenmark N. V. E. 243, 270 Petrejus Uppsaliensis J. 242
Nordstrom J. 244, 270 Peucer C. 32, 34, 44, 117
Norinaga H. 177 Peurbach G. 196, 243, 246, 275, 281
Nowel A. 295 Philippe II, roi d'Espagne 273, 274
Numa Pompilius 276 Philolaus 145, 149, 190, 250, 258, 276, 280, 282
Nunez P. 274 Picatoste y Rodriguez F. 275
Nycopensis M. O. 250 Picolomini E. S. voir Pie II, pape
Pie II, pape 275
Obaldia G. de 19 Pierce W. 293
Oekolampadius J. 196 Pihl M. 151,
Ogonowski Z. 104 Pina V. de 274
Olai G. 240, 250 Piquer A. 282
Olbers 169 Piscator J. 122
Olmo J. V. del 279 Planck M. 312, 313
Oresme N. 201 Plato 69, 110, 124, 276
Origanus D. 131, 134, 249 Plinius Caius Secundus 50
Orthophilus v. Riese Plummer H. C. 238
Orthuganus J. C. voir Clausen J. C. Plutarchus 276
Osaki S. 166 Polkowski I. 116
Osiander A. 58, 92, 110, 126, 252 Policarpe de Smirna 348
Otsuka Y. 159 Polignac M. 290
Otsuki N. 160 Poniatowski K. 90
Ou-yang Hsiu 154 Poniatowski S. A. voir Stanislas Auguste, roi
Ovidius 279 de Pologne
Pope A. 305
Palingenius M. 199 P6sahazi J. 344-346
Panduro L. Hemis voir Hervas y Panduro L. Price D. J. de Sola 24
Papke Chr. 269 Proclus 275
Paracelsus 121, 196, 249 Proctor M. 18
Parmenides 71 Przypkowski T. 94, 107, 109, 116
Parsons E. J. S. 238 Ptolemaeus 9, 16, 27, 29, 32, 35, 38, 45, 59,
Patrizzi F. 317 63, 69, 70, 88, 91, 105, 106, 119, 121, 124,
Patterson L. D. 238 125, 127, 192, 196, 197, 200, 210, 211, 218,
Paul Ill, pape 196 219, 235, 244, 262, 275, 276, 281, 282, 337,
PaulY, pape 264, 277, 279, 329 339, 346
Pauler T. 350, Pulido J. 278, 279
365
Purbachius G. voir Peurbach G. Rosen E. 25, 150, 239

Purchas S. 214 Rosenkrantz H. 34, 138, 228
Pythagoras 282 Ross A. 222, 225, 230, 238
Rossingius A. L. 150
Quensel C. 269
Rothmann C. 37, 42--44, 47-53
Quinn D. B. 238
Ruar M. 104
Radics A. 353 Rudbeck O. 255
Raeder H. 146 Rudolphe II, empereur 36
Raey J. de 334 Russell J. L. 189, 207
Ramee P. (Ramus) 55, 119, 132, 200, 201, 243 Russell N. 296
Ramus J. F. 150 Rybka E. 87, 116
Ranies I. 353 Ry5ei v. Motoki
Rantzow H. 44
Rasch ·P. 145 Sacrobosco J. voir Jean de Holywood
Rauch G. von 268 Sahn P. 81
Ravago F. 287 Saigusa H. 159, 160
Ravetz J. R. 5, 132, 151, 153 Salazar C. de 274
Raymo Ch. 7 Salusbury Th. 224
Recoerde R. 189-191, 198, 202, 238 Sanchez Albomoz C. 274
Regiomontanus voir Milller J. Sanchez perez J. A. 275
Regius J. H. voir Van Roy H. Sandblad H. 5, 139, 151, 241, 245, 247, 255,
Reid J. 233, 234 260, 263, 268-270
Reimerus Ursus N. 28, 50 Sanders W. 235, 236
Reinhold E. 35, 119, 191, 192, 196, 197. 242 Sanderson R. 220
Renard L. 161 Santiago de Casas J. 281
Resen H. P. 138, 143, 150 Sanvisens Marfull A. 282
Reviczky A. 350 SarraiIh J. 281, 283, 286
Reymers N. voir Reimerus Ursus N. Sartori B. 349
Rheticus voir Lauchen G. J. Sartorius J. 81
Riber Chr. H. 120, 121, 150 Sascerides G. 29, 49
Ricci M. (Ricius) 156, 157, 276 Sato N. 177, 178
Riccioli G. B. 92, 112, 143, 254, 264, 268, Saunders R. 220, 303
281, 283, 284 Savile H. 200, 217, 218
Ridley M. 209, 210, 221 Scaliger J. 37, 104
Riese O. C. 145, 150 Schaeve H. 81, Ill, 112
Rigaud S. P. 212 Schall von Be1l J. A. 156
Rimei H. 178, 179 Scheibler ehr. 220
Rio P. del. 290 Scheiner Chr. 289
Rios J. Mendoza voir Mendoza y Rios J. Schickard W. 133, 135
Ripensis voir Riber Chr. H. Schiller D. 113
Rodriguez 280 Schnitzler J. 326 -328, 330, 332, 342
Rodriguez F. Picatoste voir Picatoste y Rodri- Schoner J. (Schoenerus) 242
guez F. Schoute C. L. 334
Roeslin H. 10, 28 Schroderus J. voir Skytte J.
Rohault J. 221, 237 Scorrigio L. 278
Roller Duane H. D. 238 Sebastiani G. 328
Rollin Ch. 335 Segerus J. 249
Romana Pujo A. 271, 274, 284 Segesvari G. 255
R0mer O. 31, 74, 134, 136, 138, 140-143, Seggeth Th. 229, 239
150, 151 Seidelius J. 242
366
Sempere Guarinos J. 287 Stigzelius L. 251, 252

Semple (Sempilius) 229, 230 Stimson D. 311, 317
Sennert D. 325, 327 Stockholmensis I. S. 242
Sen'yo 174 StoefHer J. 195
Serrano G. A. 280 Stromgren B. 146
Sewall D. 306 Stromgren E. 146, 151
Shakerley J. 224 Streete Th. 224
Shapiro B. 238 Stunica D. de voir Zuniga D. de
Shepherd J. 306 Sturmius J. 242
Sherman R. 307 Suarez B. 277
Shigenobu T. 175 Suarez de ArgiielIo F. 277
Shinokaza Y. 174 Suchodolski B. 116
Shirley J. W. 238 Suigai M. 170
Sierra Corella A. 271-274, 278 Sung Chi 154
Sigenza y Gongora C. de 281 Sunica D. voir Zuniga D. de
Silvanus M. voir Szilagyi T6nko M. Svedsen K. 237
Sivin N. 157, 175 Swan J. 214
Skive L. Th. 150 Swilltkowski M. 89
Skytte J. 242 Sylvanus M. voir Szilagyi T6nk6 M.
Slotte K. F. 270 Sylvester J. 199
Slowakowic S. 88 Szab6 K. 356
Smith P. 294 Szadurski S. 95
Smith Th. 191 Szathmary M. 337, 339, 346
Smolenski W. 99, 116 Szekhelyi M. 317
Sniadecki J. 82, 89, 90 Szentivanyi M. 317-321, 342
S0eborg G. 150 Szentpetery J. 350
Solana M. 275 Szilagyi T6nk6 M. 335, 337, 339, 340
Solis de 290 Sronyi B. 355
Sommervogel C. 287
Sonnino L. A. 24
Sorai O. 175 Tadao S. 157, 158, 166-169, 178-181
Srarensen Chr. (Longomontanus) 31, 34, 110, Tadataka I. 174
121, 123, 126, 127, 130-135, 141, 149, Takahashi Y. 170, 171, 179
250 Takamichi A. 169
Srarensen P. 36 Tammelin L. 267, 268
Sosnowski M. T. 93 Tanner R. C. H. 238
Spang-Hanssen E. 145, 151 Taylor J. 305
Sperling J. 85, 138, 150, 325, 327, 344 Tegner E. 270
Spinoza B. 75 Temple W. 201
Spole A. 254, 255, 257, 263-265, 269 Teppoki 156
Stadius J. 242 Thabit ibn Qurra 276
Stanislas Auguste, roi de Pologne 102 Thales 70, 139
Starowolski Sz. 88 Thebith ben Cora voir Thabit ibn Qurra
Steen M. 267 Theodoricus S. 117
Stegmann J. 104 Theodosius 275
Stenbuch Chr. 133, 150 Theon 190
Steuben Chr. L. 150 Thomas d'Aquin 81, 85
Stevens H. 212, 238 Thomas I. 293
Stevenson E.L. 163 Thorlakson G. (Thorlacius) 137, 150
Stevin S. 333 Thorndike L. 197
Sticker B. 5 Thuronius A. 253
Stiernhielm G. 245, 246, 270 Tobler J. 296
367
Toke I. 348, 350, 352 West B. 306, 307

Toland J. 97 Westman R. S. 7
Torm E. O. 133, 150 Whatton A. B. 212, 238
Torporley N. 213 Whewell W. 7
Torre G. M. della 101 White Th. 222, 223
Tosca Th. V. 284, 286 Wic1if J. 196
Toscanelli P. 12 Wightman W. P. 228, 229
Toshiaki O. 165 Wilczek G. F. J. 150
Toth B. 339 Wilkes 308
Tozan K. 174 Wilkins J. 219, 222, 227, 230, 238
Treat R. 298, 301, 302 Williams W. 296
Tulley J. 298 Windefontanus voir Windekilde H. H.
Turnbull H. W. 239 Windekilde H. H. 138, 150
Turner P. 219 Wing V. 224
Tyler M. C. 297, 305 Winkler J. H. 165, 178
Winthrop J. 301
Wishart J. 234
Ujfalusi F. 339
Wisniewski A. 82, 99, 100
Ulloa J. de 284
Wittich P. 127, 228
Unger M. 328
Wodderburn J. voir Wedderburn J.
Unonius C. O. 252
Wohlwill E. 64
Urbain VIII pape 264, 277-279
Woit J. 115
Ursus voir Reimerus Ursus N.
Wolf Chr. 89, 95, 115, 140, 144, 150, 289, 348
Wolfe 307
Van Roy H. 327 Wolstedt F. 19
Vaquette d'Hermilly 286 Wolzogen J. L. 104
Vardus voir Ward Seth Wong G. H. C. 175
Varga M. 355 Wood A. 200, 208
Vari M. 337 Wood J. 234
Vellerius H. 215, 265 Woolf H. 293
Vergil 305 Worm O. 150, 151
Vernet J. 271 Wren Chr. 219
Vives L. 189 Wright E. 202, 208, 221, 238
Voetius G. 334 Wyrwicz K. 97
VoIder B. de 335
Voltaire 271 Yasui S. 176
Vrijer J. 334 Yates F. A. 200
Yoshimune S. 157, 158
Walde o. 270 Yoshio M. 173, 174
Wallis J. 212, 219, 221, 296 You 1. 160
Walter M. 329, 330 Young A. 233
Walther B. 34, 35 Yuan J. 178, 181
Ward J. 237
Ward Seth 202, 219, 221, 224, 231, 330 Zamorano R. 278
Watanabe K. 166 Zaragoza J. 277, 283, 284, 286
Watson F. 199 Zarkali Al voir Azarquiel
Weatherwise A. 307 Zemplen J. L. M. 311, 414, 316, 319, 327, 342.
Webster C. 237 344, 350, 352, 356
Wedderburn J. 229, 239 Zinner E. 151, 271
Weibull M. 270 Ziiniga D. de 275-279, 288, 317
Werner J. 35 Zwingli U. 196
Wertenbaker T. J. 294 Zytphen W. 150
TABLE DE MATIERES
Avant-propos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Robert S. Westman (Los Angeles), The Comet and the Cosmos: Kepler, Miistlin and the
Copernican Hypothesis. • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Kristian P. Moesgaard (Aarhus), Copernican Influence on Tycho Brahe . . . . . . . 31
Hans Blumenberg (MUnster), Die Kopernikanische Konsequenz fUr den Zeitbegriff 57
Barbara Bienkowska (Warszawa), From Negation to Acceptance (The Reception of the
Heliocentric Theory in Polish Schools in the 17th and 18th centuries) . . . . . . . 79
Kristian P. Moesgaard (Aarhus), How Copernicanism took root in Denmark and Norway 117
Shigeru Nakayama (Tokyo), Diffusion of Copernicanism in Japan . . . . . . . . 153
John L. Russell, The Copernican System in Great Britain. . . . . . . . . • . . 189
Henrik Sand blad (Goteborg), The Reception of the Copernican System in Sweden. 241
Juan Vernet (Barcelona), Copernicus in Spain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
Harry Woolf (Baltimore), Science for the People: Copernicanism and Newtonianism in the
Almanacs of Early America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
Jolan Zemplen (Budapest), The Reception of Copernicanism in Hungary (A Contribution to
the History of Natural Philosophy and Physics in the 17th and 18th centuries) 311
Table des auteurs et des personnages historiques. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357

The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory_ Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science Toruń, Poland 1973 ( PDFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory_ Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science Toruń, Poland 1973 ( PDFD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory_ Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science Toruń, Poland 1973 ( PDFD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE RECEPTION OF COPERNICUS' HELIOCENTRIC THEORY

PROCEEDINGS OF A SYMPOSIUM ORGANIZED BY THE

TORUN, POLAND 1973

Springer-Science+Business Media, B.Y.

Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1972

ISBN 978-90-481-8340-1 ISBN 978-94-015-7614-7 (eBook)

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-95980

Warsaw, January 1972 Jerzy Bukowski

THE COMET AND THE COSMOS: KEPLER, MASTLIN

Of all the initial factors involved in Kepler's decision to become an advocate

after cited as G. W.)

op. cit., 46 if.

May, 159, G. W. XIII, 84: 24 if.

12 Ibid., 54: 10 If.

supra-lunar position, see Hellman, Chapter 4.

19 Ibid., 245-288. Michael Miistlin, Observatio et demonstratio cometae aetherae qui

In a broad sense, I think, Kuhn's intuition is correct: the existence of an alter-

21 Meteorologica 344a 9-344b 18.

24 Kuhn, op. cit., 208.

calculated employing a simple trigonometric theorem 27 • In Table I, a summary of

MASTLIN'S OBSERVATIONS OF THE COMET OF 1577 WITH

Date Time Reference Stars Comet

angle C; then, sin b = tan a cot A.

of Nov. 12 and Dec. 15.

36 Reproduced from Mastlin, 37,

of motion be accomodated to the axiom of uniform, circular motion? Up to this

non cogniti, me inuenturum considerem ... (Ibid.)

2 - The reception ...

obstacles which confronted Mastlin. It is now believed that comets, as members of

ted by J. J. De Lalande in the eighteenth century 45 and evidently remained uncon-

4S J. J. De Lalande, Astronomie, ill (paris, 1771), 365.

of the orbit as required both by Copernicus' latitude usage and, apparently,

essent fallaces, omnia quae ex ilIis sequuntur, verificarentur proculdubio".

60 Cf. D. J. de Solla Price, Contra-Copernicus: A Critical Re-Estimation of the Mathematical

(Ibid., 197 ff).

Rhetoric (London, 1968), 69-71.

67 Mastlin, 38. Tycho wrote of MastIin: Postea e COPERNICI Hypothesibus inuestigat

Orbem quendam circa Sphaeram Veneris ... (Brahe, IV, 266).

71 G. W. I, 14: 29-35; 15: 15-19.

.;;,~ L"I!.."q,.2!~- I>'~-"i;y""~"/

Had he extended this argument to Tycho's hypothesis of the Comet, Kepler,

After this poke at his predecessors, Kepler continues:

aD G. W. VIII (1963), 41.

COPERNICAN INFLUENCE ON TYCHO BRAHE

The reception of Copernicanism in Denmark and Norway was dominated by

I. TYCHO THE COPERNICAN

Tycho's lecturing on 'Copernican' astronomy (1574-75)

lectures on astronomy at the University of Copenhagen. In his opening lecture

1 For Bibliography see pages 145-151.

Copernican parameters in Tycho

3 - The reception ...

Morsing's journey to Frombork (Frauenburg) (1584)

in the dedicatory preface of the Progymnasmata addressed to the Emperor Rudolph

Copernican geometry of planetary models in Tycho

As to the mathematical formulation of the astronomical models Copernicus

Figure 1. Tycho Brahe, Opera Omnia V, page 281.

'Inuerfio Hypothefis Copernian in 0-

II. TYCHO'S ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION

Tycho between the Ptolemaic Scylla and the Copernican Charybdis

Tycho's plan of composing an all-embracing Theatrum Astronomicum [19: VII.