Patronage and the Production of De Revolutionibus

Westman Robert S. , “The astronomer's role in the 16th century: A preliminary study”, History of science, xviii (1980), 105–47; Westfall Richard S. , “Science and patronage: Galileo and the telescope”, Isis, lxxvi (1985), 11–30; idem, “Patronage and the publication of Galileo's ‘Dialogue’”, History and technology, iv (1987), 385–99; Biagioli M. , Galileo, courtier: The practice of science in the culture of absolutism (Chicago, 1993); Voelkel J. R. , The composition of Kepler's Astronomia nova (Princeton, 2001); and Jardine N. , “The places of astronomy in early-modern culture”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxix (1998), 49–62.

An exception is Robert S. Westman's study, “Proof, poetics, and patronage: Copernicus's preface to De revolutionibus”, in Reappraisals of the scientific revolution , ed. by Lindberg David C. and Westman Robert S. (Cambridge, 1990), 167–205, but this is concerned primarily with Copernicus's rhetoric and does not examine the Protestant context in which De revolutionibus was produced. For recent historiography of the scientific revolution, see Lindberg and Westman , op. cit., and Rethinking the scientific revolution, ed. by Osler Margaret J. (Cambridge, 2000).

Swerdlow Noel M. , “The derivation and first draft of Copernicus's planetary theory: A translation of the Commentariolus, with commentary”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cxvii (1973), 423–512. The date 1514 corresponds to a brief entry in a catalogue of the personal library of a physician in Cracow, Matthew of Miechow, dated 1 May 1514: “Item sexternus Theorice asserentis Terram moveri, Solem vero quiescere” (“Next a six [folio] Theorica maintaining that the Earth moves and the Sun is really at rest”). On the later availability of the work, see Dobrzycki Jerzy and Szczucki Lech , “On the transmission of Copernicus's Commentariolus in the sixteenth century”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xx (1989), 25–28.

Or Warmia , Throughout the paper we have adopted the German form of names where there is a choice between German and Polish forms.

For a translation of the Letter against Werner, see Rosen E. , Three Copernican treatises (New York, 1971), 93–106. The content of the tables proposed in 1535 is not known: See Biskup Marian , Regesta Copernicana (Calendar of Copernicus' papers) (Warsaw, 1973), Item 345 (subsequently referred to as Biskup followed by an item number, e.g. Biskup 345); see also Swerdlow Noel M. and Neugebauer O. , Mathematical astronomy in Copernicus's De revolutionibus (New York, 1984), 16–17.

Rheticus G. J. , Ad clarissimum virum D. Ioannem Schonerum, de libris revolutionum eruditissimi viri, et Mathematici excellentissimi, Reverendi D. Doctoris Nicolai Copernici Torunnaei, Canonici Varmiensis, per quendam luvenem, Mathematicae studiosum NARRATIO PRIMA (Danzig, 1540), fol. I [i] r. [Subsequently referred to as Narratio prima.] Cf. Georgii Joachimi Rhetici Narratio prima , ed. and tr. by Hugonnard-Roche H. Verdet J.-P. Lerner M.-P. , and Segonds A. (Wroclaw, 1982), 142–3 (French), 84 (Latin); Copernicus Nicholas , De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (Nuremberg, 1543), fol. iij r (Dedication to Pope Paul III).

Melanchthon Philip , Corpus Reformatorum, Philippi Melanchthonis opera, quae supersunt omnia , ed. by Bretschneider C. G. and Bindsell H. E. (28 vols, Halle, 1834–60), iii, 115–19. Subsequently referred to as CR.

Wrightsman Bruce , “Andreas Osiander's contribution to the Copernican achievement” in The Copernican achievement, ed. by Westman Robert S. (Berkeley, 1975), 213–43, esp. pp. 230–1.

Seebass G. , “Osiander, Andreas” in Oxford encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. by Hillerbrand H. J. (4 vols. New York, 1996), ii, 183–5, and Wrightsman , “Osiander's contribution” (ref. 8).

After Melanchthon's reform, mathematics teaching at Wittenberg was divided between lower mathematics (with a concentration on arithmetic and the initial astronomy course corresponding to a text called sphaera) and higher mathematics (geometry and the course corresponding to the astronomical text called theorica). In practice teachers of lower and higher mathematics had expertise in both of them. On the division of responsibility see, for example, Leges Academiae Witebergensis de Studiis et Moribus Auditorum (Wittenberg, 1562), A 3 v ff. Sennert Andreas Although , Athenae: Itemque inscriptiones Wittebergenses (Wittenberg, 1655), 92–93, gives the dates for the appointments of Reinhold and Rheticus as respectively 1540 and 1541, it is clear that they took up initial appointments in 1536. Beginning in 1536 Reinhold taught Euclid and the theorica ( Kusukawa S. , The transformation of natural philosophy: The case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge, 1995), 180). Burmeister K. H. , Georg Joachim Rhetikus (3 vols, Wiesbaden, 1968), i, 30, describes a set of student notes preserved in Paris showing that Rheticus lectured on Proclus, and various other subjects, between 1536 and 1538. Also, Melanchthon refers to Rheticus as “Professor Mathematum” in his 1538 letter of introduction to Camerarius (CR (ref. 7), iii, 597).

In a letter dated 1542 Rheticus says ambiguously that he heard of Copernicus during his teaching career at Wittenberg, a post he held from 1536 until 1542: See Rheticus to Heinrich Widnauer, 13 August 1542, in Burmeister , Rhetikus (ref. 10), iii, 49–51. The letter to Widnauer formed the dedication to Rheticus's Orationes duae, prima de astronomia et geographia, altera de physica, published by Petreius at Nuremberg in 1542, and dated “the ides of August 1542”. The critical sentence is (p. 50): “Cum denique in septentrionalibus partibus, D. Nicolai Copernici fama tantam esse audirem, etsi tum academia Vittebergensis me publicum professarum istarum artium [= astronomia] constituisset, tamen non mihi putavi acquiescendum, donec etiam illius institutione addiscerem aliquid.” Hugonnard-Roche (op. cit. (ref. 6), 214–15) translate this as: “Lorqu'enfin j'eus entendu parler de la reputation considérable du docteur Nicolas Copernic dans les régions septentrionales, bien qu'à ce moment-là l'université de Wittenberg m'eut nommé professeur public dans ces disciplines, …”, which would mean that Rheticus heard about Copernicus before he left Wittenberg in 1538. However, the Latin text of the letter suggests otherwise: The reference to Copernicus occurs at the end of a chronology suggesting that Rheticus heard about Copernicus while travelling in 1538–39 and, despite the fact that he had teaching responsibilities in Wittenberg, he spared no expense or trouble to find out about Copernicus's doctrines (even if it meant neglecting some of his official duties). In context the verb “constituo” refers to his obligations, not just to the date of the appointment. The other piece of evidence sometimes offered to date Rheticus's knowledge of Copernicus to the period before his travels is an oration marking the death of Wittenberg professor Caspar Cruciger with whom Rheticus collaborated on astronomical projects before becoming professor of mathematics in 1536 ( Melanchthon , CR (ref. 7), xi, 838). Significantly, the oration does not mention heliocentrism, and it dates from 1548, reflecting knowledge of Copernicus current in Wittenberg after the publication of the Narratio prima, De revolutionibus, and other works mentioning Copernicus. As we will see below, there is little reason to think that information about Copernicus reached Wittenberg before 1539; hence Rheticus appears to have heard about Copernicus somewhere on his travels during 1538–39. We thank Owen Gingerich for drawing our attention to: Kraai Jesse , “Rheticus' heliocentric providence”, doctoral dissertation, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, 2003, a version of which is available at: www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/3254. Kraai, pp. 76–86, also discusses the question of where Rheticus heard about Copernicus, although he considers only the places visited by Rheticus in 1538–39 as possible repositories of information. We are pleased to note that Kraai agrees with our own conclusion that Rheticus heard about Copernicus in Nuremberg, although we are not persuaded that the information came from Schöner or Georg Hartmann, and specifically Copernicus's Letter against Werner, as Krai suggests. The Letter contains no information on Copernicus's heliocentrism, little is known about its circulation in the sixteenth century, and there is no evidence that anyone in Nuremberg was familiar with it. On Hartmann, see ref. 15, below.

On Wittenberg astronomy see Barker Peter , “Astronomy, Providence and the Lutheran contribution to science”, in Science and vocation , ed. by Menuge A. (St Louis, in press), and idem, “The role of religion in the Lutheran response to Copernicus”, in Rethinking the scientific revolution , ed. by Osler (ref. 2), 59–88. Owen Gingerich has drawn our attention to recent work by Cindy Lammens in which she discusses a 1541 letter from Gemma Frisius to Dantiscus that suggests awareness of Copernicus's ideas before 1532, the date at which Dantiscus left Brussels ( Lammens C. , “Sic patet iter ad astra: A critical examination of Gemma Frisius' annotations in Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and his qualified appraisal of the Copernican theory”, doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Ghent, 2002, 3 vols, i, 60). Gemma's letter was edited in: van Otroy F. , “Bio-bibliographie de Gemma Frisius …”, Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences … de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, IIe série, xi (Brussels, 1920), 408–10. However, there is no evidence that either Gemma Frisius or Dantiscus possessed detailed knowledge of Copernicus's ideas before the appearance of the Narratio prima in 1540, nor is there any evidence that they communicated whatever they knew in 1532 to anyone else, for example the Nuremberg group or their Wittenberg correspondents. Lammens argues persuasively that Gemma's main source of information about Copernicus was the Narratio prima, and that Dantiscus was not the source of Gemma's copy (i, 60–64). Rather, it originated with the Danzig merchant Jacobus à Barthen, and passed through the hands of another intermediary, de Schepper, before reaching Gemma. An interesting conclusion we draw from her evidence is that as early as July 1540 the success of the Narratio prima had created a situation in which members of Dantiscus's own patronage network began calling on him to support Copernicus's work. This must have added to the influence exerted by the Duke of Prussia, discussed below, in mitigating Dantiscus's treatment of Copernicus.

“… terramque moveri … insensibiliter …”, Wapowski to Herberstein, 15 October 1535, Biskup 345; a facsimile of the letter is reproduced as Plate 16.

Rose P. L. , The Italian renaissance of mathematics (Geneva, 1975), 131.

On the influence of Guarico's astrology see Zambelli Paola , “Many ends for the world: Luca Guarico instigator of the debate in Italy and in Germany”, in ‘Astrologi hallucinati’: Stars and the end of the world in Luther's time , ed. by Zambelli P. (New York, 1986), 239–63. Another possibility we have considered and rejected is that information about Copernicus was brought to Nuremberg by Georg Hartmann, who had known Copernicus's brother Andreas in Rome, perhaps in 1518. Rheticus mentions their acquaintance in the dedication to De lateribus et angulis triangulorum (Wittenberg, 1542), A ii r. Kraai , “Rheticus' heliocentric providence” (ref. 11), 80, has recently suggested that this was one route by which Rheticus heard of Copernicus. However, Andreas died no later than 1519 ( Hugonnard-Roche , Narratio prima (ref. 6), 213, n. 1 and n. 11). Hence, if Hartmann had any astronomical information from that source, it could only have been based on the earliest version of Copernicus's work (the Commentariolus), which, as we have already indicated, had not been circulated, had attracted no public attention, and was nearly twenty years out-of-date by the time Rheticus arrived in Nuremberg. In contrast, the presentation of Copernicus's ideas to the Pope in 1533 was a public occasion. It led to the request from Cardinal Schönberg, and, we suggest, could well have been known to Gaurico and hence to Petreius. Kraai (op. cit. (ref. 17)) notes the importance of Gaurico to Wittenbergers interested in astrology, but does not consider his possible role as an intermediary to the Nuremberg group. As for Rheticus's remark on the acquaintance between Hartmann and Copernicus's brother, this would have been an obvious connection to mention after Rheticus made Copernicus a celebrity by publishing the Narratio prima, but may mean no more than that the two men had met.

On the extension to St Peter's basilica, see Thorndike L. , A history of magic and experimental science (8 vols, New York, 1923–58), v, 256ff. Gaurico's astronomical works include: Alphonsi Hispaniarum Regis tabule , ed. by Gaurico L. (Venice, 1524); Zacutus Abrahamus , Almanach perpetuum sive tacuinus, ephemerides et diarium Abraami zacuti. Theoremata aut. Joannis Michaelis. Cum L. Gaurici castigationibus et plerisque tabellis nuper adiectis (Venice, 1525); Gaurico L. , Tabule Joa. Bianchini Bononiensis cum plerisque additionibus ac nouis tabellis nup impresse (Venice, 1526); and Gaurico L. , Paraphrases et annotationes in Claudii Ptolomaei libro 2. Apotelesmatum super luminum eclypsibus, in Gaurico L. , Ad … Alfonsum Davolos de Aquino … Praedictiones super omnibus futuris luminarium deliquiis, … anno … 1533 examinata (Rome, 1539).

Melanchthon , CR (ref. 7), ii, 570–1; Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, ed. by Ghisalberti A. M. (59 vols, Rome, 1960), lii, 701; and Kraai , “Rheticus' heliocentric providence” (ref. 11), 55–56.

Gaurico L. , Laurentii Bonincontri … Rerum naturalium & diuinarum, siue De rebus cœlestibus libri tres … Ab L. Gaurico … recogniti, inq; lucem editi. Adiecimus … Gaurico L. , Eclipsium solis & lunœ … ad postrema huius anni MDXXXX. descriptiones per Philippum Melanchthonem & alios (Basel, 1540); originally Laurentii Bonincontri … De Rebus cœlestibus, aureum opusculum, ab L. Gaurico Neapolitano Prothonotario recognitum (Venice, 1526).

Gaurico L. , Tractatus astrologiae iudiciariae de nativitatibus virorum et mulierum (Petreius, Nuremberg, 1540); originally Trattato d'astrologia iudiciaria sopra le nativita degli huomini e donne (Rome, 1539).

Prognosticum astrologicum ad annum Christi 1544 per Achilles Pirminius Gasser, … Adjecta sunt iudicum D. L. Gauricus in eundem annum (Petreius, Nuremberg, 1543). In 1545 Petreius also published a prognostication by Gasser alone.

Gasser was a medical practitioner with strong interests in natural science who, in the mould of the classic Renaissance Humanist, also produced notable works in history and chronology. The standard biography is Burmeister K. H. , Achilles Pirmin Gasser, 1505–1577: Arzt und Naturforscher, Historiker und Humanist (Wiesbaden, 1970–75). His works include Gasser A. P. , Historiarum et chronicorum mundi epitome, velut index usque ad annum 1533. Accessit brevis catalogus omnium cum imperatorum tum pontificum Rom. usque ad Carolum V. & Clementem VII. (Antwerp, 1533), which was republished in 1536, 1538 and 1540, and an edition of Petrus Peregrinus's work on magnetism, P. Peregrini … de magnete, seu rota perpetui motus libellus … per A. P. Gasserum … nunc primum promulgatus (Augsburg, 1558).

See the preface to the 2nd edn (1541) in Hugonnard-Roche H. , op. cit. (ref. 6), 197–9.

Zinner E. , Regiomontanus, his life and work , transl. by Brown E. (New York, 1990), 104. Regiomontanus was aware of various difficulties in Ptolemaic astronomy as he noted in a letter to Bianchini in 1464 (translated in Swerdlow N. M. , “Regiomontanus on the critical problems in astronomy”, in Nature, experiment and the sciences, ed. by Levere T. H. and Shea W. R. (Dordrecht, 1990), 165–95), but his plans for the reform of astronomical models were not known to his immediate successors. In fact, the relevant works have only recently begun to be appreciated: See Shank M. H. , “Regiomontanus and homocentric astronomy”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxix (1998), 157–66; and Swerdlow N. M. , “Regiomontanus's concentric-sphere models for the Sun and the Moon”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxx (1999), 1–23.

Curtze M. , “Der Briefwechsel Regiomontan's mit Giovanni Bianchini, Jacob von Speier und Christian Roder”, Urkunden zur Geschichte der Mathematik im Mittelalter und der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1902; repr. New York, 1968), 185–336, p. 327: “Quod autem ex te nunc desidero, ab aliis quoque celi spectatoribus ac generalibus studiis omnibus, quantum fieri potest, exposcam, ut congestis variis ac certis observationibus numeri tabulares meliusculi reddantur. Quo facto, si deus aspirabit, planetarum ephemerides, vocant almanach, ad triginta vel plures annos charactere pressili pro amicis universis componam.” We thank Alan C. Bowen and Darcy A. LeFevre for advice on aspects of this translation.

Melanchthon Philip , “On Johannes Regiomontanus (1549)”, in Orations on philosophy and education, ed. by Kusukawa Sachiko , transl. by Salazar Christine F. (Cambridge, 1999), 236–47.

Reinhold Erasmus , Theoricae novae planetarum (Wittenberg, 1542; 2nd edn, 1553); Peucer Caspar , Elementa doctrinae de circulis coelestibus (Wittenberg, 1551); Grynaeus Simon , Claudii Ptolemaei Magnae Constructionis, perfectae coelestium motuum pertractationis lib. XIII. Theonis Alexandrini in eosdem commentariorum (Basel, 1538).

Cf. Swerdlow and Neugebauer , Mathematical astronomy (ref. 5), 429, 438.

Petreius to Rheticus, 1 August 1540, which forms Petreius's dedication to Antonius de Montulmo, De iudiciis nativitatum … (Nuremberg, 1540): “… Haec discendi aviditas te postea in ultimam Europae oram pertraxit ad virum excellentem, cuius rationem, qua motus coelestium corporum observavit, tu nobis luculenta descriptione exposuisiti. Is etsi rationem usitatam, qua in scholis artes docentur, non sequitur, tamen praeclarum thesaurum existimo, si observationes eius te instigande aliquando, ut futurum speramus, nobis communicentur.” Burmeister , Rhetikus (ref. 10), iii, 19–21, p. 20. See also Swerdlow N. M. , “Annals of scientific publishing: Johannes Petreius's letter to Rheticus”, Isis, lxxxiii (1992), 270–4.

Melanchthon to Camerarius, 15 October 1538, CR (ref. 7), iii, 597.

Rheticus probably also met other scholars such as Jerome Schreiber and Georg Hartmann. On Schreiber and Rheticus see Rosen E. “The authentic title of Copernicus's major work”, Journal of the history of ideas, iv (1943), 457–74, esp. p. 467. According to Gingerich O. , An annotated census of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus (Leiden, 2002), 76–78, Schreiber (b. 1515) matriculated at Wittenberg in the same year as Rheticus, later taught there briefly, and also studied with Schöner in Nuremberg, his home city. He received a copy of De revolutionibus as a gift from Petreius in 1543. He made extensive corrections and annotations, some closely parallel to Reinhold's, and like others ‘in the know’ deleted the last two words of the title. However, rather than striking out the Preface he wrote “Andreas Osiander” above the words “Ad lectorem”. He died in 1547, and his copy later passed into the hands of Kepler, who noted his attribution of the preface on the reverse of the title page in the Astronomia nova. On Hartmann, see ref. 15.

When Ferber died, Copernicus and Felix Reich acted as his executors, Biskup 366, 367.

Copernicus to Dantiscus, 11 April 1533, Biskup 335; Copernicus to Dantiscus, 8 June 1536, Biskup 355; for the candidate list see Biskup 371.

For the election, see Biskup 373. Giese refers to himself as bishop elect in a letter to Dantiscus, 7 April 1538, Biskup 389; Dantiscus refers to Giese as bishop in letters of 11 and 15 April 1538, Biskup 390, 391.

Dantiscus to Giese, 15 April 1538, Biskup 391.

Dantiscus's tour: Biskup 398; Reich and Copernicus, see: Reich to Dantiscus, 1 and 22 November 1538, Biskup 401, 402.

Copernicus to Dantiscus, 2 December 1538, Biskup 404.

Reich to Dantiscus, 2 December 1538, 11 January 1539, 23 January 1539, Biskup 403, 407, 408. Reich's funeral is reported in Copernicus to Dantiscus, 3 March 1539, Biskup 409.

Giese to Dantiscus, 4 April 1539, Biskup 415.

Dantiscus to Giese, 5 July 1539, and Giese to Dantiscus, 7 July 1539, Biskup 423 and 424.

Giese to Dantiscus, 12 September 1539, Biskup 426.

Biskup 446: 10 January 1541.

Swerdlow and Neugebauer , Mathematical astronomy (ref. 5), 13–14.

On currency reform, see Biskup 283, 307. In connection with these negotiations Copernicus prepared the treatise Monete cudende ratio. On Ferber's illness, see Biskup 320, 321, 323–6.

See Goldstein B. R. , “Science as a ‘neutral zone’ for interreligious cooperation”, Early science and medicine, vii (2002), 290–1, 302–5.

Burmeister , Rhetikus (ref. 10), ii, 45; Biskup 433; on Gasser's copy, Gingerich , Census (ref. 30), 110.

Rheticus G. J. , “Encomium Prussiae” in Narratio prima (ref. 6), fols [H iii r] — I ii v; Hugonnard-Roche (op. cit. (ref. 6)), 82–87 (Latin), 140–145 (French). Translated by Rosen , Three Copernican treatises (ref. 5), 188–96.

Rheticus , Narratio prima, fols [H iv v] — I ii r; Rosen , Three Copernican treatises (ref. 5), 192–5.

“… ut doctis et Mathematicae initiatis, philosophiae penetralia referantur …”, Rheticus , Narratio prima , fol. I [i] r; Hugonnard-Roche (op. cit. (ref. 6)), 85 (Latin), 143 (French); Rosen , Three Copernican treatises (ref. 5), 193.

“… quin optimae hae disciplinae quaeque propter se potissimum sunt expetendae, suam dignitatem sint obtenturae.” Rheticus , Narratio prima , fol. I ii r; Hugonnard-Roche , op. cit. (ref. 6), 87 (Latin), 145 (French); Rosen , Three Copernican treatises (ref. 5), 196.

Recently discovered evidence suggests that Rheticus returned to Wittenberg during the winter of 1540: See Kraai Jesse , “The newly-found Rheticus lectures”, Beiträge zur Astronomiegeschichte, i (1998), 32–40.

Copernicus to Osiander , 1 July 1540, Biskup 440.

Rheticus to Duke Albrecht, [undated] August 1541 and 28 August 1541, Burmeister , Rhetikus (ref. 10), iii, 28–30, 32–38.

Letters from ducal secretaries Hieronymus Schürstab (1 September 1541) and Balthasar Gans (20 September 1541), Burmeister , Rhetikus, iii, 40–42.

Biskup 446.

Biskup 447, 448: 6 April 1541, Letters to the Chapter and to Copernicus request his presence at Albrecht's court; Biskup 449: 8 April 1541, the Chapter replies to Albrecht that they approve; Biskup 450: 13 April 1541, Albrecht replies with thanks, and indicates that Copernicus's stay may be prolonged.

Biskup 456: 3 May 1541, Albrecht asks the Chapter to allow him to keep Copernicus yet longer; Biskup 457: 5 May 1541, the Chapter grants Albrecht's request, again.

Dantiscus to the Chapter, 8 June 1541, Biskup 460.

The Duke requested and received medical advice from Copernicus by letter throughout June 1541, Biskup 461–4.

Copernicus to Dantiscus, 27 June 1541, Biskup 465.

Copernicus Nicolaus , On the revolutions , ed. by Dobrzycki J. , transl. by Rosen E. (Baltimore, 1978), 338. Burmeister , Rhetikus (ref. 10), i, 77.

Burmeister , Rhetikus, i, 68.

“Datum Warmiae in Borussiae mense Junio anni 1542”, Gingerich , Census (ref. 30), 108. Gasser's copy was a gift from Petreius.

On Widnauer see ref. 11; for Rheticus's arrival in Leipzig see Burmeister , Rhetikus (ref. 10), i, 71.

On this date Rheticus, in Leipzig, signed a copy as a gift to Andreas Aurifaber. See Gingerich , Census (ref. 30), 135.

Gingerich , Census (ref. 30), 36, suggests another possibility. Rheticus may have intended to put a two-verse poem in Greek by Camerarius at the beginning of De revolutionibus. Several versions of this poem have survived, including a Latin translation by Kepler. For the text see Gingerich , Census, Appendix 1, 355–61.

We emphasize that such permission seeking was neither invariable nor obligatory, as the case of the Narratio prima itself probably shows. However, it is a possible explanation for the delay in the arrival of the front matter for De revolutionibus, and one that might be tested directly by searching for surviving correspondence in Rome.

In all the surviving copies sent by Rheticus as gifts, including one owned by Giese, Osiander's preface is defaced with large red crosses: See Gingerich , Census , 136. Several other copies also have notes indicating that the preface was added without Rheticus's consent: See Gingerich , Census, 83, 151–2.

Giese to Rheticus, 26 July 1543, Burmeister , Rhetikus (ref. 10), iii, 54–55.

Copernicus Compare , De revolutionibus (ref. 6), i v–ii r (Latin), and (ref. 60), XVI (English), with Osiander to Copernicus, 20 April 1541, in Jardine N. , The birth of history and philosophy of science: Kepler's ‘A defence of Tycho against Ursus’ with essays on its provenance and significance (Cambridge, 1984), 97 (Latin), 152 (English).

Tredwell Katherine A. , “Updating ancient science for the Renaissance”, presented at the annual meeting of the Renaissance Society of America, in 2002. Tredwell's analysis, which will appear in her dissertation, includes an examination of a first edition of De revolutionibus with Catholic corrections that was bound with the Narratio prima printed for the second edition. This combined work is held at the University of Oklahoma ( Gingerich , Census (ref. 30), 343–4).