Michael Maestlin and the Fate of the Narratio Prima

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 Iuvenem, Mathematicae studiosum NARRATIO PRIMA (Danzig, 1540; hereafter Narratio prima (1540)).

Rheticus G. J. , Narratio prima, 2nd edn (Basel, 1541).

Barker Peter and Goldstein Bernard R. , “Patronage and the production of De revolutionibus”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxiv (2003), 345–68.

Copernicus Nicolaus , De revolutionum orbium coelestium (Basel, 1566), fol. 196v–213r.

Kepler Johannes , Prodromus dissertationvm cosmographicarvm, continens Mysterium cosmographicvm…. Addita est erudita Narratio M. Georgii Ioachimi Rhetici, de Libris revolutionum… (Tübingen, 1596; hereafter Mysterium (1596)), 85–160; Kepler , Prodromus dissertationvm cosmographicarvm, continens Mysterium cosmographicvm… (Frankfurt, 1621–22; hereafter Mysterium (1621)), 88–149. For modern editions see Johannes Kepler Gesammelte Werke (Munich, 1937—; hereafter KGW). For the 1596 edition of the Narratio see KGW, i, 81–131. For changes and additions to the 1621 edition of the Narratio see KGW, i, 435–40.

Rosen Edward , Three Copernican treatises (New York, 1971), 10.

E.g., Armitage Angus , Sun, stand thou still (New York, 1947), 124. Hall Boas Marie , The Scientific Renaissance: 1450–1630 (New York, 1966), 71–72, offers a similar rationale for the writing and initial publication of the Narratio, but draws a very different conclusion about its ultimate fate.

E.g., Dreyer J. L. E. , A history of astronomy from Thales to Kepler (New York, 1953), and Stimson Dorothy , The gradual acceptance of the Copernican theory of the universe (New York, 1917).

Kuhn Thomas S. , The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge, 1957), 186, points out that the Narratio “remained the best brief technical description of the new astronomical methods for many years”.

Rheticus , Narratio prima (1540), fol. I [iij] r — I [iv+1] r.

The standard biography of Gasser is Burmeister K. H. , Achilles Pirmin Gasser, 1505–1577: Arzt und Naturforscher, Historiker und Humanist (Wiesbaden, 1970–75).

Barker Peter has pointed out to me that the suggestion, in the concluding paragraph of Barker and Goldstein , “Patronage and the production of De revolutionibus” (ref. 3), 361–2, that owners of the 1566 Basel edition of De revolutionibus would understand Copernicus's connection to the Duke of Prussia, requires qualification. Readers of the 1566 Basel edition might have connected Copernicus to the Duke of Prussia indirectly through the references to Rheticus and Schöner at the beginning of the Narratio, but they would not have seen the more direct connection suggested by the (absent) “Encomium”. There would have been no such difficulty for readers of later editions of the Narratio.

For examples of De revolutionibus with the Narratio prima removed, see Gingerich Owen , An annotated census of Copernicus' De revolutionibus (Leiden, 2002), 114, 119–20, 125, 131, 157–8, 165, 169, 188, 200–1, 331, 341, 346.

For a description of this copy see Gingerich , Census, 343–4.

Grafton Anthony , “Michael Maestlin's account of Copernican planetary theory”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cxvii (1973), 523–50.

Kepler Johannes , Astronomia nova (Heidelberg, 1609); Brahe Tycho , Progymnasmata , in Tychonis Brahe Dani opera omnia, ed. by Dreyer J. L. E. (Copenhagen, 1913–29; hereafter TBOO), ii.

“Quod forsan fieri posset, si praemitteret (scriptum enim ipsum est <for>) narratiuè expositionem pleniorum Hypothesium Copernici: Si recitet sphaerarum ordinem et dimensionem atque indicet loca, quibus earum dimensio à Copernico traditur, adhibito simul schemate et numeris, quia sine schemate res profectò obscurissima est”, Maestlin , KGW , xiii, 85. An overview of the decisionmaking process surrounding the publication of the Mysterium can be found in Aiton E. J. , “Introduction”, in Kepler , Mysterium cosmographicum: The secret of the universe, transl. by Duncan A. M. (Norwalk, 1981), 18–22. My discussion is limited to the inclusion of the Narratio and its immediate consequences.

“Jubet itaque vt secundum admonitiones Maestlinj et Copernicj hypotheses et corporum Regularium dimensiones, quasi praefationis loco praemittas, et alibi quibuscunque locis opus fuerit, pro posse, omnem obscuritatem tollas”, Hafenreffer , KGW, xiii, 86.

“Tertiò de hypothesibus Copernicj possum vel ipsius Copernicj vel Rheticj verba, unâ cum luculento schemate Notis inserere”, Kepler , KGW, xiii, 89–90.

Kepler , Mysterium (1596), 61; KGW, i, 9.

“Collatis Sententijs, placet posterius tuum consilium, ita tamen, ut pro Rheticj Narratione (quae et prolixior est, et quaedam ab hoc tuo Prodromo aliena habet, et in quibusdam deficit) breuissimam Expositionem et proportionem Corporum, cum Schemate generalj, post praefationem ad Lectorem interseras: Quae tanquam clauis erunt ad Mysterium Prodromj”, Hafenreffer , KGW, xiii, 90.

“Addidi te quidem inscio et inconsulto Narrationem Rhetici, à me reuisam, et schematis auctam, vna cum mea praefatione, ea nunc sub praelum ire incipit, cum postremis tuis pagellis. Spero autem eam tibi non dedecori futuram”, Maestlin , KGW xiii, 95. Kepler had proposed attaching the “little pages”, given to him previously by Maestlin , in his letter of 11 June; KGW xiii, 90.

“Illud etiam me gravat, quo minus 200 ego emere possim; quot Rhetici narratio precium augebit”, Kepler , KGW xiii, 100.

KGW xiii, 102, 109.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 89; KGW i, 85.

Copernicus Nicolaus , De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (Nuremberg, 1543), fol. 5v–6r; Kepler , Mysterium (1596), 18; KGW i, 22.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 88; KGW i, 84. On al-Battani's and al-Farghani's estimates for the size of the eighth sphere see Van Helden Albert , Measuring the universe (Chicago, 1985), 29–32. The problem of absurd swiftness could be circumvented by supposing that the Earth, while remaining at the centre of the world, turns daily about its axis, creating the appearance of daily motion in the heavens. However, Maestlin does not address this possibility, which does not appear in the standard forms of either Ptolemaic or Tychonic systems.

For instance, “De motibus stellarum fixarum”, Narratio prima (1540), fol. A [ij] v, becomes “De motu Stellarum fixarum”, Mysterium (1596), 95; KGW i, 89; “De eccentricitate & motu Apogij Solis”, Narratio prima (1540), fol. B [i] r, becomes two notes: “De mutatione eccentricitatis Solis” and “De motu Apogij Solis”, Mysterium (1596), 99; KGW i, 92.

“Id quod sit fortasse partim, quia iam demum rectiùs me intellegere animum induco, suauissimum illud, quod Platoni ob grauitatem ac veritatem tribuitur, <for>”, Rheticus , Mysterium (1596), 136; KGW i, 116.

“Quid Rheticus facturus fuisset, si illa[m] Dei Geometriam secundùm 5. Corpora regularia, de quibus M. Keplerus disserit, animaduertisset?”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 136; KGW i, 116.

Mysterium (1596), 143; KGW i, 121. Cf. Narratio (1540), fol. D iii r, where Rheticus gives the values of 9 months for Venus and 80 days for Mercury. These values are used by Copernicus in his heliocentric diagram but not elsewhere in De revolutionibus.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 94; KGW i, 89. Maestlin contrasts the birth date he gives (4:48 p.m., 19 February 1473) to an erroneous birth date given by Francesco Giuntini (29 January 1472). However, the edition of Giuntini I consulted gave a date and time nearly identical to Maestlin's (4:38 p.m., 19 February 1473); Giuntini , Specvlvm astrologiae, vniversam mathematicam scientiam (Antwerp, 1582), i, 550.

“Schema Anomaliae praecessionis Aequinoctiorum, & inaequalis magnitudinis anni Tropici”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 106; KGW, i, 96–97. For a modern explanation of the Copernican theory of the Earth's motion, see Swerdlow Noel M. and Neugebauer O. , Mathematical astronomy in Copernicus's De revolutionibus (New York, 1984), i, 129–72.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 116–17; KGW, i, 103–4. For the description of Aristarchus's system in Archimedes see Heath Thomas , Aristarchus of Samos (Oxford, 1913), 302.

Gingerich , “Did Copernicus owe a debt to Aristarchus?” in The eye of heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler (New York, 1993), 185–92.

E.g. Peucer Caspar , Elementa Doctrinae de Circvlis Coelestibvs, et Primo Motv, Recognita et Correcta (Wittenberg, 1569), 73, 100.

Swerdlow N. M. , “Pseudodoxia Copernicana, or, Enquiries into very many received tenets and commonly presumed truths, mostly concerning spheres”, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, xxvi (1976), 108–58.

See Digges Leonard , Prognostication euerlastinge of righte good effecte…. Lately corrected and augmented by Thomas Digges his sonne (London, 1576). For a discussion and modern edition of Thomas Digges's translation, see Johnson Francis R. and Larkey Sanford V. , “Thomas Digges, the Copernican system, and the idea of the infinity of the universe in 1576”, Huntington Library bulletin, v (1934), 69–117.

Barker Peter and Goldstein Bernard R. , “Theological foundations of Kepler's astronomy”, in Brooke Hedley John Osler Margaret J. , and van der Meer Jitse (eds), Science in theistic contexts: Cognitive dimensions (Osiris, xvi (2001)), 88–113, p. 94. The proposed location of the comet appeared in Maestlin Michael , Observatio & demonstratio cometae aetherei, qvi anno 1577. et 1578 … (Tübingen, 1578), 38–39.

Kepler , Mysterium (1596), between pp. 48 and 49; KGW (ref. 5), i, 49.

“Interstitium inter Saturnum & Stellas fixas, immensum, adeoque infinito simile”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 117; KGW, i, 103. Here and elsewhere I have diverged from the traditional translation of infinito simile (and related phrases) by the formal phrase “similar to the infinite”, as it is not clear that Rheticus, Maestlin, and other early modern authors have a particular infinite thing in mind when they use the phrase.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 125; KGW i, 109. See di Bono Mario , “Copernicus, Amico, Fracastoro and Tusi's device: Observations on the use and transmission of a model”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxvi (1995), 133–54, on Copernicus's use of the “Tusi couple” and the question of his dependence on Tusi's work.

“Schema vtriusque librationis, pro obliquitatis, & verae aequinoctialis cum eclipticae sectionis mutatione monstranda”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 129–30; KGW i, 111.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 131; KGW i, 113.

Ptolemy , Almagest, transl. by Toomer G. J. (Princeton, 1998), 141–53.

Copernicus , De revolutionibus (1543) (ref. 26), fol. 85r–86v.

Reinhold Erasmus , Theoricae novae planetarum … revisa et correcta. (Wittenberg, 1553), fol. 31r–32r. I have discussed this and other revisions to Reinhold's commentary in my thesis, “Reinhold's response to Copernicus: Copernican solar theory in Erasmus Reinhold's Commentary on Peurbach's Theoricae novae planetarum”, University of Oklahoma, 1999.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 137; KGW i, 117.

Rheticus , Mysterium (1596), 141. When Rheticus wrote the Narratio, he was concerned only with two competing cosmologies. By 1596, Tycho had proposed a third alternative capable of accommodating many of the effects associated with a Copernican system, including the close approach of Mars to the Earth at opposition. However, an observation compatible with either system would still tend to disqualify Ptolemy.

“Pro confirmatione huius, quae ex Copernici hypothesibus sequitur, longissimè contrariae vsitatis hypothesibus sententiae, lubet apponere, quae excellentissimus Nobilis Mathematicus Tycho Brahe, Danus, suis experimentis obseruauit, quibus tanquam à peritissimo Artifice habitis obseruationibus vtique fides derogari non potest. Is in Epistola ad D. Peucerum Anno 1588. data, sic scribit”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 141; KGW i, 119.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1596), 141–2; KGW , i, 119–20. The full text of a slightly different version of the letter is in TBOO (ref. 16), vii, 127–41.

For a discussion of this episode see Gingerich Owen and Voelkel James R. , “Tycho Brahe's Copernican campaign”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxix (1998), 1–34. For an attempted reconstruction of Brahe's method see Goldstein Bernard R. and Barker Peter , “The role of Rothmann in the dissolution of the celestial spheres”, The British journal for the history of science, xxviii (1995), 385–403.

“Gratulabar mihi vehementer, cum hanc Rhetici sententiam attestatione Tychonis confirmari viderem”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 136; KGW i, 439.

Although Kepler attributed the calculations to Tycho's assistants and not to Tycho himself, Dreyer discovered a manuscript in Tycho's hand and concluded that Kepler's explanation was in error; see Gingerich Owen , “Dreyer and Tycho's world system”, in The great Copernicus chase (Cambridge, 1992), 251–6. Alternative explanations for Tycho's acceptance of the parallax calculations have been proposed by Gingerich and Voelkel in “Tycho Brahe's Copernican campaign” (ref. 52) and by Goldstein and Barker in “Role of Rothmann” (ref. 52).

“Tu, candide Lector lege caput illud II. & examine”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 136; KGW i, 440. Compare Kepler , Astronomia nova (ref. 16). Kepler's explanation was incorrect, but what matters here is that Maestlin accepted it.

“… satis clarum est, orbem stellarum maxime infinito similem esse, quoniam quidem orbis magnus ad eum collatus euanescat, omniaque <for>, non aliter conspiciantur, ac si terra in medio vniuersi consedisset”, Rheticus , Mysterium (1621), 113; KGW i, 104.

“Inter mota, & non mota maximam oportebat esse differentiam”, in Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 113; KGW i, 436. The quote is from Copernicus , De revolutionibus (1543) (ref. 26), fol. 10r.

“Tichonem Brahe, alioqui excellentissimum Mathematicum, alterumque Ptolemaeum, hîc, quando hanc tam ingentem Orbis Stellarum fixarum à centro Mundi distantiam, ad quam Orbis Terrae magnus euanescat, ideoque infinito sit similis, sat acriter, pro saluandis antiquis et vsitatis, suis quoque de Terrae in Mundi medio situ, hypothesibus, impugnat, nequaquam audiendum arbitror”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 113; KGW i, 436.

This point was made by Copernicus , De revolutionibus (1543), fol. 5v–6r, but he stated that he would leave the matter to be decided by philosophers.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 113; KGW , i, 436–7. Compare Tycho Brahe, TBOO (ref. 16), ii.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 113–14; KGW, i, 437–8.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 114–15; KGW i, 438.

From Reinhold , Theoricae novae planetarvm (Wittenberg, 1542), fol. Q [v] r.

Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 91–92; KGW, i, 435–6.

“… non solum res est admirabilis, & incredibilis, sed etiam aliena à sensu, & ab his, quae eueniunt”, Cardano Girolamo , Opvs novvm de proportionibvs nvmerorvm, motvvm, pondervm, sonorvm, aliarvmqve rervm mensurandarum (Basel, 1590), 50.

Cardano , De proportionibvs, 248–9.

“Vtrum ergo, hisne, quae aptissimo ordine in dispositione & motu connexa sunt, an iis, quae nec harmonice concordant, nec in motu vel sibi, vel Naturae congrua praesupponunt, potiorem fidem habebis?”, Maestlin , Mysterium (1621), 119; KGW i, 439.

The original appendix appears in Maestlin Michael , Epitome astronomiae (Tübingen, 1597), 82–90. The new appendix appears in Maestlin , Epitome astronomiae (Tübingen, 1610), 82–95 (the new material begins on page 91). Another edition that appeared in 1598 may or may not have included the expanded appendix.

The values are identical to the values for al-Farghani in Van Helden , Measuring the universe (ref. 27), 30, with the exception of the inner surface of the sphere of the Moon, which is 32 ½ + 1/20° according to Van Helden but 33°30' according to Maestlin.

“Hic notandum est, quàm immensa & incomprehensibilis sit sphaerae Stellarum fixarum, seu Firmamenti, iuxta vsitatas hypotheses, in motu quotidiano celeritas”, Maestlin , Epitome (1610) (ref. 68), 93.

“Verum an non etiam haec velocitas aequè inaestimabilis sit, quilibet dijudicare poterit”, Maestlin , Epitome (16/0), 95.