The Post-Copernican Reception of Ptolemy: Erasmus Reinhold's Commented Edition of the Almagest,Book One (Wittenberg,1549)

See Gingerich Owen , “Erasmus Reinhold and the dissemination of Copernican theory”, in idem, The eye of heaven: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler (New York, 1993), 221–51.

Gingerich Owen , “Reinhold, Erasmus”, Dictionary of scientific biography, xi (1975), 365–7. Gingerich cites some other editions that we have not been able to check. The 1549 and 1560 editions are freely accessible on the web thanks to the Bibliotheksverbund Bayern. Omodeo was able to inspect the 1556 Paris edition preserved at the Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology at the Smithsonian Institution Libraries.

Ibid., 365. Gingerich adds to this: “in computational ability he surpassed Copernicus himself”.

Cf. Savoie D. , “La diffusion du copernicanisme au XVI^e siècle: Les Tables Pruténique”, L'Astronomie , cxi (1997), 45–50. For the controversial reception of Reinhold's tables and its employment during the Renaissance along with the Alfonsine Tables, see Kremer R. L. , “Kepler and the Graz calendar makers: Computational foundations for astrological prognostication”, in Johannes Kepler: From Tübingen to Żagań, ed. by Kremer R. Włodarczyk J. (Warsaw, 2009), 77–100; and idem, “Mathematical astronomy and calendar making in Gdańsk from 1540 to 1700”, in Astronomie — Literatur — Volksaufklärung: Der Schreibkalender der Frühen Neuzeit mit seinen Text- und Bildbeigaben, ed. by Herbst K. D. (Bremen, 2012), 477–92.

For instance, Reinhold's emphasis on the accordance of Copernicus's geometrical models to the axioma astronomicum (that is, the assumption that circular celestial motions shall be uniform around their centres) influenced many German scholars. See Gingerich O. , An annotated census of Copernicus' De revolutionibus (Nuremberg, 1543 and Basel, 1566) (Leiden and Boston, 2002), 97–8 and 105. For Copernicus's claim that his theory respected this principle see also Swerdlow N. M. Neugebauer O. , Mathematical astronomy in Copernicus's De revolutionibus (New York, 1984), 290.

Westman R. S. , “The Melanchthon circle, Rheticus and the Wittenberg interpretation of the Copernican theory”, Isis, lxvi (1975), 163–93.

Barker P. Goldstein B. R. , “Realism and instrumentalism in sixteenth century astronomy: A reappraisal”, Perspectives on science, vi (1998), 232–58. Cf. ref. 5.

Barker P. , “The Hypotyposes orbium coelestium (Strasbourg, 1568)”, in Nouveau ciel nouvelle terre: La révolution copernicienne dans l'Allemagne de la Réforme (1530–1630), ed. by Granada M. A. Mehl E. (Paris, 2009), 85–108.

Brahe Tycho , Opera omnia , ed. by Dreyer J. L. E. (Copenhagen, 1913–29, repr. Amsterdam, 1972), vi, 156–7, our translation. Cf. Omodeo P. D. , Copernicus in the cultural debates of the Renaissance: Reception, legacy, transformation, Preprint of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science no. 429 (2012), 157–61. On Tycho and Rothmann, see Granada M. A. , “Astronomy and cosmology in Kassel: The contribution of Christoph Rothmann and his relationship to Tycho Brahe and Jean Pena”, in Science in contact at the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, ed. by Zamrzlová J. (Prague, 2004), 237–48, and idem, “Did Tycho eliminate the celestial spheres before 1586?”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxvii (2006), 125–45.

Birkenmajer A. , “Le Commentaire inédit d'Erasme Reinhold sur le De revolutionibus de Nicolas Copernic”, in La science au seizième siècle (Paris, 1960), 171–7, repr. in Études d'histoire des sciences en Pologne (Wroclaw, 1972), 761–6.

Copernicus N. , Gesamtausgabe, viii/1: Receptio Copernicana (Berlin, 2002), 189–358.

Reinhold redraws the diagram from Copernicus N. , De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (Nuremberg, 1543), f. 154v.

[Reinhold], Commentarius in opus Revolutionum Copernici (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, collocation Ms. lat. fol. 391), f. 233r: “S [sit] locus terrae Copernico, nobis vero locus <solis>. ([Corrected on the margin:] Iuxta n[ost]ras hypotheses novas locus <solis> esset ex opposito S per E centrum universi).” This important passage and Reinhold's correction are incompletely transcribed in N. Copernicus, Gesamtausgabe, viii/1 (ref. 11), 295.

Gingerich , “Erasmus Reinhold and the dissemination of Copernican theory” (ref. 1), 224.

See Gingerich , An annotated census (ref. 5), no. I, 217, 268–78.

For Grynaeus's and Camerarius's 1538 edition, based on a manuscript previously owned by Regiomontanus, see Manitius K. , Einleitung to Ptolemäus, Handbuch der Astronomie, transl. and annotated by Manitius K. (Leipzig, 1963), i, p. xxi, and Zinner E. , Leben und Wirken des Joh. Müller von Königsberg genannt Regiomontanus (Osnabrück, 1968), 333 and 245–74.

Theoricae novae planetarum Georgii Purbachii Germani ab Erasmo Reinholdo Salveldiensi pluribus figuris auctae, et illustratae scholiis, quibus studiosi praeparentur, ac invitentur ad lectiones ipsius Ptolemaei (Wittenberg, 1542 and later editions).

Ptolemaeus Cl , De praedicationibus astronomicis, cui titulum fecerunt Quadripartitum…, libri III Philippo Melanchthone interprete (Basel, 1553), 8.

Cf. Copernicus , Gesamtausgabe, viii/1 (ref. 11), 589–90.

Cl. Ptolemaeus , Mathematicae constructionis Liberprimus graece et latine editus. Additae explications aliquot locorum ab Erasmo Rheinholt Salveldensi (Wittebergae: Ex Officina Iohannis Lufft, 1549) (hereafter: Reinhold, Commentary), f. A8r—v: “Itaque quod faustum et felix sit studiis publicis, incohavi editionem optimi operis Ptolemaei, in quo doctrina de motibus coelestibus universa ex primis fundamentis extructa est. Ac nunc edidi primum librum, ut haec initia fiant familiaria discentibus, quae aditum ad reliquos libros faciunt. Utilissimum autem esse deduci iuventutem ad hos doctrinae fontes, non dubium est. Et quia iuniores nondum adsuefacti sunt ad graecam lectionem, addidi et latinam interpreationem qualemcunque, de qua veniam ab eruditis peto; ac opto, ut aliqui publice utilitatis causa integram aliquando et luculentam interpretationem Ptolemaei edant. Illustravi et scholiis aliquot obscura membra, ut discentes adiuvarem. Totum hunc laborem spero et Deo gratum esse, et probaturos esse omnes sapientes. Nam hanc ob causam praecipue susceptus est, ut iuventus non inanem doctrinae umbram tantum appetat, sed ad mathemata et ad hanc doctrinam vitae hominum utilem et pacis nutricem adsuefiat.” Here and in the following quotations from Latin, we have standardized the expressions and revised the punctuation and capital letters only where we deemed it useful for an easier reading of the passages.

It corresponds, in the 1528 Trebizon's edition, to Chapter One, Prohemium and to Theon's 1538 commented edition (without chapter numbering) .

The first Latin edition (= versio princeps) is Ptolemaeus Cl , Almagestum (Venetiis: Petrus Lichtenstein.

Jan. 1515). Trebizon's edition is Cl. Ptolemaeus , Almagestum seu Magne Constructionis Mathematicae… Latina donatum lingua ab Georgio Trapezuntio (In Urbe Veneta: Calcographica Luceantonii Iunta officina … excussa, 1 Feb. 1528).

Cf. Ptolemäus , Handbuch der Astronomie , i (ref. 16), and Ptolemy, Almagest, translated and annotated by Toomer G. J. (London, 1983).

Ptolémée , Composition mathematique, transl. by Halma N. B. and annotated by Delambre J. B. J. (2 vols, Paris, 1813 and 1816; repr. Paris, 1927).

Cl. Ptolemaeus , Magnae constructionis liber primus cum Theonis Alexandrini Commentariis. Io. Baptista Porta Neap. interprete (Naples, 1605). In the edition by de Vivo R. della Porta G. B. , Claudii Ptolemaei Magne Constructionis Liber Primus (Naples, 2000), the numbering has been normalized in accordance with Ptolemy's versio princeps.

In fact, Ptolemy erroneously uses the word ‘polygon’ instead of ‘polyhedron’, but his statement is clear and the word ‘polygon’ was substituted by ‘polyhedron’ in most translations.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), f. 51v: “Vult Ptolemaeus non solum hoc demonstrare, quod terra sit globosa, verumetiam quod haec duo elementa, aqua et terra, pariter in unum eundemque globum coeant”.

For a thorough discussion of this geographical and cosmological aspect of Renaissance science see Vogel K. , “Das Problem der relativen Lage von Erd- und Wassersphäre im Mittelalter und die kosmographische Revolution”, Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, xiii (1993), 103–43.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), f. 64r: “Quod antequam declaremus, ex Theone prius integra demonstratio recitanda est”.

Ibid., f. 64v. Cf. Theon of Alexandria, E (= XI) (Basel, 1538), 30.

Ibid., f. 69r.

Reinhold translates , in this context, at times as opinio, at times as situs terrae or as ratio positus terrae.

Cf. Ptolemy , Almagest (ref. 23), 41.

Ibid.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), f. 53v.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), f. 54r: “Deinde quod uterque polus aequaliter, aut extet supra horizontem, aut deprimatur infra. Ex quo rursus sequitur, quod in hoc situ terrae horizon secaret omnes parallelos perpetua mundi vertigine descriptos per inaequalia, eo quod totus axis secundum aequidistantiam, aut esset sublatus supra horizontem, aut infra demersus”.

Ibid., ff. 54v–55v.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), ff. 54v–55r: “Iam si Terra est extra axem aequaliter distans a polis, ut in F, ille tantum horizon, cui alter polus verticalis est, secabit sphaeram in duo aequalia, ita ut aequinoctialis circulus omnino cum eo congruat, ut in linea BFKD [sic. rectius: BFED].” The line BFED refers to the original diagram in Figure 4.

Ptolemy , Almagest (ref. 23), 42.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), f. 57r.

Ptolemy , Almagest (ref. 23), 42.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), f. 58r.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), f. 59v–60r.

Ptolemy , Almagest (ref. 23), 43. It should be remarked that, according to Ptolemy's own premises, his geometrical considerations are capable of removing the possibility of a displacement of the Earth only for the order of magnitude of the Earth's radius, which he deemed to be negligible.

On Aristarchus's system, cf. Archimedes , Arenarius , in idem, Opera omnia cum commentariis Eutocii, ed. by Heiberg J. L. (Stuttgart, 1913; reissued Stuttgart, 1972), 216–60, p. 218.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), f. 64r: “Universaliter sic condita est natura, ut proprio et nativo impetu, ea quae sunt cognatae naturae, appetant eundem locum”.

Cf. Knox D. , “Ficino, Copernicus and Bruno on the motion of the Earth”, Bruniana & Campanelliana , v (1999), 333–66, and idem, “Bruno's doctrine of gravity, levity and natural circular motion”, Physis, xxxviii (2001), 171–209.

Copernicus , De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (ref. 12), f. iiiir. The reference source is Cicero, Academicae quaestiones II.

Reinhold , Commentary (ref. 20), ff. 66v–67r.

Ibid., f. 67r.

See Thüringer W. , “Paul Eber (1511–1569): Melanchthons Physik und seine Stellung zu Copernicus”, in Melanchthon in seinen Schülern, ed. by Scheible H. (Wiesbaden, 1997), 285–321, especially pp. 316 and 319–20 (for the transcription of passages from the Nuremberg manuscript).

Wohlwill E. , “Melanchthon und Copernicus”, Mitteilungen zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaft , iii (1904), 260–7. For a recent assessment of Melachthon's opinions on Copernicus and an overview of the studies on this issue, cf. Thüringer , “Paul Eber” (ref. 51). See also Kusukawa S. , The transformation of natural philosophy: The case of Philip Melanchthon (Cambridge and New York, 1995), and Barker P. , “The role of religion in the Lutheran response to Copernicus”, in Rethinking the Scientific Revolution, ed. by Osler M. J. (Cambridge and New York, 2000), 59–88.

Melanchthon P. , Initia doctrinae physicae (Leipzig, 1563): F. 31v: “Etsi autem artifices acuti multa exercendorum ingeniorum caussa quaerunt, tamen sciant iuniores, non velle eos talia adseverare. Ament autem in prima institutione sententias receptas communi artificum consensu, quae minime sunt absurdae, et ubi intelligunt veritatem a Deo monstratam esse, reverenter eam amplectantur, acquiescant in ea”.

Cf. Thüringer , “Paul Eber” (ref. 51), 302, n. 113.