Michael Maestlin and His Unpublished Treatise on the Nova of 1604

Maestlin M. , Demonstratio astronomica loci stellae novae, tum respectu centri mundi, tum respectu signiferi et aequinoctialis (Tübingen, 1573). See the reproduction and discussion by Tycho in his Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata, in Brahe Tycho , Opera omnia, ed. by Dreyer J. L. E. (Copenhagen, 1913–29 [in what follows we refer to this edition by the initials TBOO followed by the number of the volume]), iii, 58–62 (Maestlin's text) and 62–7 (Tycho's comments). On this discussion and Maestlin's Copernicanism, see M. A. Granada, “Tycho Brahe's anti-Copernican campaign: His criticism of Michael Maestlin and Thomas Digges in the Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata”, in Boner P. J. Tessicini D. (eds), Celestial novelties, science and politics on the eve of the Scientific Revolution (1540–1630) (Florence, 2013), 185–207. For a manuscript version of Maestlin's treatise and its significance, see Granada M. A. , “Michael Maestlin and the new star of 1572”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxviii (2007), 99–124.

Maestlin M. , Observatio et Demonstratio Cometae Aetherei, qui Anno 1577. et 1578. constitutus in sphaera Veneris, apparuit (Tübingen, 1578). On this treatise, see Hellman C. D. , The comet of 1577: Its place in the history of astronomy (New York, 1944), 137–59; Westman R. S. , “The comet and the cosmos: Kepler, Mæstlin and the Copernican hypothesis”, Studia Copernicana, v (1972), 7–30; idem, “Michael Mästlin's adoption of the Copernican theory”, Studia Copernicana, xiv (1975), 53–63.

Maestlin M. , Consideratio et Observatio Cometae Aetherei Astronomica, qui Anno MDLXXX mensibus Octobri, Novembri et Decembri, in alto Aethere apparuit (Heidelberg, 1581). The absolute absence of daily parallax in the comet implied, according to Maestlin, that it was placed above the Sun, in the sphere of one of the three superior planets. Maestlin, however, inclined towards placing it in the sphere of Saturn because of its colour and motion. On the location in the sphere of Saturn, see ibid., p. xxxiiii.

Betsch G. , “Parerga Maestlini”, in Betsch G. Hamel J. (eds), Zwischen Copernicus und Kepler — M. Michael Maestlinus Mathematicus Goeppingensis 1550–1631 (Acta Historica Astronomiae, xvii; Frankfurt, 2002), 141–56.

Ibid., 154.

Cf. below, Figure 1.

Jarrell Richard A. , “The life and scientific work of the Tübingen astronomer Michael Maestlin, 1550–1631”, doctoral thesis, University of Toronto, 1971, p. 127. According to note 1 on this page, “part of the manuscript is in the WLB: Cod. Math. 4° 15b nr. 11. The Ms. is badly scored and illegible”. The order of the manuscripts indicated by Betsch does not coincide with the one we saw in our inspection in July 2012. Our results coincide with those of Jarrell. The existence of this manuscript was also absent from the accurate list of manuscript sources given by Edward Rosen in his entry “Mästlin, Michael”, Dictionary of scientific biography, ix, 167–70.

Astronomischer discurs von dem Cometen, so in Anno 1618, in November zu erscheinen angefangen und bis in Februar dis 1619 Jars am himmel noch gesehen wirt. Cf. Betsch, “Parerga Maestlini” (ref. 4), 154, and Jarrell , “The life and scientific work of the Tübingen astronomer Michael Maestlin” (ref. 7), 127 seq.

On this, see Granada Miguel A. , “La théorie des comètes de Helisæus Roeslin”, in Nouveau ciel, nouvelle terre: La révolution copernicienne dans l'Allemagne de la Réforme (1530–1630) , ed. by Granada Miguel A. Mehl Édouard (Paris, 2009), 207–44, p. 240, note 84.

Cf. Kepler J. , Gesammelte Werke, ed. by Caspar M. (Munich, 1937–2010; henceforth JKGW, followed by the number of the volume), i, 82–5. In theses pages Maestlin, beyond defending the Copernican cosmology in the Keplerian foundation through the five regular polyhedra, criticizes vigorously the geo-heliocentric system proposed in 1588 by Tycho.

JKGW, i, 132–45. This appendix has been translated into English and commented in Grafton A. , “Michael Maestlin's account of Copernican planetary theory”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cxvii/6 (1973), 523–50. For the decisive contribution by Maestlin to Kepler's Mysterium, see now the significant essay by Gerd Grasshoff, “Michael Maestlin's mystery: Theory building with diagrams”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xliii (2012), 57–73.

On this, see now Hamel J. , “Die Rolle Maestlins in der Polemik um die Kalenderreform”, in Zwischen Copernicus und Kepler (ref. 4), 33–63.

Maestlin M. , Epitome astronomiae (Heidelberg, 1582). On this work, see Rex F. , “Keplers Lehrer Maestlin und sein Lehrbuch der Astronomie”, in Zwischen Copernicus und Kepler (ref. 4), 11–32; Pantin I. , “L' Epitome Astronomiae de Maestlin ou comment enseigner aux débutants les bons principes”, in Nouveau ciel, nouvelle terre (ref. 9), 245–67.

See Methuen C. , “Maestlin's teaching of Copernicus: The evidence of his university textbook and disputations”, Isis, lxxxvii (1996), 230–47.

Their extant correspondence amounts to 45 letters between November 1594 and Oktober 1600, 26 by Kepler and 19 by Maestlin. By contrast, between February 1601 and June 1606 we only have 8 letters, 7 by Kepler and only one by Maestlin (that of 28 January 1605). On this, see the tables in Grasshoff G. , “Maestlin's Beitrag zu Kepler's Astronomia nova”, in Zwischen Copernicus und Kepler (ref. 4), 72–109, pp. 74 seq. See also the essay by F. Seck cited in ref. 16.

See Rosen E. , Three imperial mathematicians: Kepler trapped between Tycho Brahe and Ursus (New York, 1986), 284, where Maestlin's letter to Kepler of 9/19 October 1600 (= JKGW, xiv, no. 178) is quoted: “With regard to what you recently wrote about publishing my letters, I ask you not to do so. For I wrote them as a friend to a friend…. But if the thought had ever crossed my mind that they would be published some day, I would have written much more carefully…. I disapprove of the intention of those who are so quick to publish the letters of personal friends writing about personal matters” (Rosen's translation). The same reason has been advanced by F. Seck in his important article “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kepler und Maestlin”, in Zwischen Copernicus und Kepler (ref. 4), 110–21, see pp. 111, 119. Maestlin's attitude in this respect is confirmed by Helisaeus Roeslin. Roeslin wrote to Herwart von Hohenburg on 2/12 November 1597 about his own intention to publish the letters Maestlin had addressed to him in 1588–89 about Ursus and Brahe, and warned Herwart not to reveal his intention to Maestlin since he would be opposed to it. Cf. Granada M. A. , “Helisaeus Röslin contre Raymarus Ursus après la publication du De astronomicis hypothesibus: Ses lettres à Herwart von Hohenburg de 1597”, in Omnia in uno: Hommage à Alain-Philippe Segonds , ed. by Noirot C. Ordine N. (Paris, 2012), 425–51, pp. 437, 448. At any rate, Kepler vigorously denied in his response letter of December 1600 having said or intended anything of the kind; see JKGW, xiv, letter no. 180, lines 13–17. Concerning Herwart von Hohenburg, see Patrick J. Boner, “Statesman and scholar: Herwart von Hohenburg as patron and author in the Republic of Letters”, History of science, lii (2014), in press.

Seck , “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kepler und Maestlin” (ref. 16), 117–20.

JKGW, xiv, letter no. 305, lines 1–4.

Ibid., lines 8–13. In order to persuade Maestlin, Kepler added that one tract by their common friend Helisaeus Roeslin had already reached the Emperor, “defying” then Maestlin to write. On this work by Roeslin and the ensuing criticism by Kepler, see Granada M. A. , “Kepler v. Roeslin on the interpretation of Kepler's nova: (1) 1604–1606”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxvi (2005), 299–319.

JKGW, xiv, letter no. 305, lines 12–13: “communis haec Mathematicorum est materia, quam non attingere, desertionis crimen repraesentat”.

JKGW, xiv, letter no. 322 of 28 Jan. 1605 (O.S.), lines 44–45: “pro prognostico et Descriptione Stellae Novae, summas tibi ago gratias”.

Ibid., lines 51–3: “Vereor tamen ne nimium mihi tribuas. Utinam is essem, quem me praedicas. Ego vero meam curtam suppellectilem scio”.

Cf. Kepler's letter of 10/20 January 1604, in JKGW, xiv, letter no. 278, lines 26–8: “Add in a few words what you mean about the unknown star in the Swan, which has already crept into the globes.”.

JKGW, xiv, letter no. 322, lines 56–74 (the citation corresponds to lines 71–3).

Ibid., lines 75–91. Maestlin accepts from Kepler's short German treatise 30 September (O.S.) as the date of the nova's first appearance.

Ibid., lines 92–101. As will be shown, Maestlin's description anticipates the one in his unpublished treatise.

JKGW, xiv, letter no. 335, lines 54–247. A more complete presentation of the principles of his celestial physics was to appear in the letter to Herwart von Hohenburg of 28 March.

Ibid., lines 30–9 (nova in Cygnus) and 40–53 (nova in Serpentarius).

JKGW, xiv, letter no. 376.

Maestlin , Consideratio astronomica, 4.

Ibid., 9: “intra hos sex completos menses”.

Ibid., 2. Cf. Krabbe Johannes , Cometa, so anno 1604. den 3. Tag Octobris am Himmel erschienen sampt desselben Lauff, Höhe, Gröβe und Effect (Erffordt, 1604, and Magdeburg, 1605). Krabbe's treatise is dated 24 November 1604 in the Preface to the Reader (sig. Aiii v). As the title indicates, Krabbe interpreted the nova as a comet in the heavens, precisely between the spheres of Saturn and the fixed stars (sig. Ei r), due to the total absence of parallax (sig. Biv v). He explains the comet as a product of the conjunction of Mars and Jupiter the last 26 December [sic; erratum for September] and pretends to have observed a proper motion of 30 minutes in the first 36 days since its appearance (Biv r). This permits Krabbe to concede the comet an “orb or circle” in the heavens completed “in 70 years, 11 months and 23 days” (ibid.). The reference to Krabbe's treatise appears at the foot of p. 2 in a smaller handwriting, clearly indicating that it is a later insertion.

Kepler J. , Gründtlicher Bericht Von einem ungewohnlichen Newen Stern, welcher im October ditz 1604. Jahrs erstmahlen erschienen (Prague, 1604), reproduced in JKGW, i, 394–9.

Roeslin H. , Iudicium, oder Bedencken Vom Newen Stern, welchen den zweiten Octobris erschinen und zum erstenmal gesehen worden (Strasbourg, 1605), reproduced in JKGW, i, 483–5.

Full title: Astronomische und Historische Erklerung des Newen Sterns oder ungeschwänzten Cometen/ so Anno 1604. im ende des Septembris, und folgendem Octobri, auch Novembri erschienen/ und der anfenglich im himlischen Serpentario oder Schlangentreger (wie ihn die Astronomi nennen) sich hat sehen lassen (Stettin, n. d.). Besides taking notice of Kepler's dating the nova to 30 September, Herlicius reports that the nova had been observed on the same day by Albinus Möller. Cf. ibid., sig. B r-v.

Full title: Himmels Zeichen. Grosse Conjunctiones Planetarum superiorum, und newer Wunderstern/ so Anno 1604. den 29. Septembris erschienen: Was sie bedeuten/ und wie wunderbar es in der Welt/ vor dem Tage des grossen Richters Jesu Christi/ die zeit uber wird zugehen/beschrieben (Halle, 1605). Nagel claims to have seen the new star on 30 September.

See the letter by Fabricius to Kepler at the end of December 1604 (O.S.), in JKGW, xiv, no. 315, p. 98. On the discussion between Fabricius and Kepler on this nova, see Granada Miguel A. , “Johannes Kepler and David Fabricius: Their discussion on the nova of 1604”, in Change and continuity in early modern cosmology , ed. by Boner P. J. (Archimedes, 27; Dordrecht, 2010), 67–92, pp. 68 seq. Fabricius saw the nova for the first time on 3 October (O.S.), as he reported to Kepler in his letter of 27 October (ibid., 70).

In a short Stuttgart manuscript (WLB Ms. Cod. Math. 4° 15b, n° 55), Maestlin declines to draw up a horoscope in the following terms: “The astrological opinion that is asked of me I am unable to write, nor do I have the skill, because both publicly and privately I have often protested [against it]…. I have neven undertaken astrology”, as translated by Jarrell , op. cit. (ref. 7), 139.

Maestlin , Consideratio astronomica, 1: “Ita et ego meum, quo trahor, desiderium sequendo, iis me adiungo, <qui> iam quidem non adeo, quid Nova haec Stella portendat, disquirere, sed quis eius sit in caelo status, locus et motus, et quid certitudo Astronomica in ea animadvertat atque iudicet, pervestigare intendunt”; p. 2: “ego, qui, quae de stellae huius effectibus methodo astrologica (cui alioqui mea studia hactenus non adeo dedicavi) praedicerem, non habeo, ad alterum, videlicet ad contemplationem eius Astronomicam me converto, eius locum, statum, regionem, nec non quae admiranda accidentia vel passiones aliae in ea hactenus apparuerunt, indagaturus”.

Ibid., 4–5: “cuius [of God] illa [the new star] opus est, sive immediate, sive cooperante Natura mediatè eam produxerit”.

See ibid., 4–5, on the long exposition of the theory of trigons in connexion with the appearance of the nova. However, unlike most authors who used the motive of the fiery trigon to present a complete scheme of historical development from the creation of the world to announce the complete renewal of Christian society or even the second coming of Christ, Maestlin used the birth of the new star “near the ecliptic” (p. 5) at the moment of the much attended great conjunction of the three superior planets as an occasion for admiring intellectually the wisdom and power of God, who had created a star that would receive in a few months the reverence of all the planets.

Ibid., 1: “de significationibus huiusmodi portentorum difficile sit iudicare, nisi quis sibi omnia arcana Dei nota ac perspecta esse gloriali ausit”.

Ibid.: “tamen huiusmodi repentè ortarum Stellarum tam generales, quam speciales significationes non aliter, quam ex consimilium aliarum apparitionum, et subsecutorum eventuum collatione coniecturando potius, non sciendo, aliquo modo cognosci possunt, tales autem apparitiones valde infrequentes sunt: Nemo non videt quod ex antiquorum seculorum historiis de futuris huius stellae eventibus aliquid certi pronunciare velle, non modò sit perquam difficile, sed etiam (nisi quis verè prophetico afflatur spiritu) prorsus impossibile”.

Ibid., 2.

Ibid., 3.

Ibid., 4.

Ibid., 3–4.

See ref. 41 above.

Maestlin , Consideratio astronomica, 5: “Locum summus Rerum Moderator huic stellae attribuit non a communi planetarum regia via, velut aliis nonnullis Cometis aut Stellae anni 1572. remotum, sed sub ipso Zodiaco, prope Eclipticam”.

Ibid., 4, 6.

Ibid., 6: “qui eam primo apparitionis die advenientem quasi expectantes, mox amice salutarunt, locumque in Sagittario, domicilio Iovis, concesserunt”.

Ibid., 6–7. Cf. p. 7: “Dein rarum et hoc est, quod omnes Planetae his suis cum hac Stella congressibus motu veloces fuerunt, mediocris nullus, multo minus tardus, stationarius aut retrogradus”.

Ibid., 7: “Et ne quid reverentiae hac honorifica salutatione deesset: omnes planetas quasi de industria latitudinibus suis, ne quis proficiens eam attingeret, industriam atque observationem hanc in apibus ipsis didicisse diceres, quae, ut fertur, Regem suum ex alveario evolantem certatim circumvolando cingunt, deducunt et comitantur, attingere volantem autem pro piaculo non nisi morte delinquentis expiando, habent”.

Chorus is employed twice. See ref. 55.

Ibid., 7: “Non minus admirandum et de nulla repentina stella unquam auditum fuit, quod haec stella tali et hoc caeli loco fuerit conspecta, quo intra breve tempus, nempe paulo plus quadrante Anni, omnis Planetarum chorus ad eam confluxit, tanquam novum Hospitem summa cum observantia reverenter excipiendi…. Eam omnes et singulos planetas quasi prae gaudio alacriter exultasse et cum tripudio congratulantes, hunc hospitem salutasse atque excepisse dixere potuisses…. Haec commemorata accidentia quibus planetarum chorus Stellae huius adventum excepit et his quasi praeconiis coelitus concelebravit, quia rara et insolita sunt et idcirco prodigiosis et portentosis aliis ostentis non immerito adaequari possunt et debent”. Some years later, in 1612, the Silesian physician Johannes Dobricius expressed with less enthusiastic overtones the same idea. See Dobricius J. , Xρονομηνυτωρ das ist/ Zeiterinner/ In welchen durch anleitung einer Astrologischen der nechst vollnbrachten siebenfächtigen grossen Conjunction der oberen zweien Planeten/ und des darauff erfolgten neuen Sternes zugleich … kürzlichen erkleret und angezeiget wird/ In was vor einer zeit wir jetzo sein/ und was nun mehr unfehlbar der Welt und uns schierkünfftig zugewarten (Lignitz, 1612), 4: “Und zwar/ weil die bedeutung des Sternes groß und wichtig sein sollen/ so ist nicht genung gewesen/ das die oberen drey Planeten mit diesem Sterne congrediret/ und neben ihme gestanden sein/ sondern es haben auch die anderen vier/ Sol, Venus, Mercurius und Luna gleicher weise solchen besuchen/ und ihme ihre assistenz und hülffe anbitten/ und leisten mussen.”.

Maestlin , Consideratio astronomica, 7: “Quare quinque ex Planetis cum Stella hac coniuncti, australiores incesserunt, et duo borealiores. Veruntamen illorum pluralitatem una Luna menstruo suo recursu compensare videtur”.

Ibid.: “etiam me, quam primum Stellam immobilem esse cognovi (ea [accidentia] enim hoc modo, ordine et tempore, sicut recensui, eventura esse, quilibet qui Tabularum numeros novit, aut Ephemerides ad manus habet, tum statim praevidere potuit) obstupescere fecerunt”.

Ibid., 7–8: “An autem ulli extraordinariae stellae horum quid unquam contigerit, tantoque honore ab omnibus et singulis Planetis affecta fuerit, haud facile credidero. Stella anni 1572. integros 16. menses, vid. ab initio circiter Novembris anni 1572. ad initium Martii Anni 1574, coelo spectata fuit in 7. gr. Tauri. Sed propter latitudinem borealem 54. gr. nullus Planetarum ei appropinquare, nedum simili eam observantia colere potuit”. Kepler had also expressed in his German treatise, already known to Maestlin, his greater admiration for the present nova. See Granada , op. cit. (ref. 19), 308. Nevertheless, in his German treatise Kepler did not reach the enthusiasm his teacher showed when singing the ‘dance’ of the planets around the nova.

Maestlin , Consideratio astronomica, 8–12.

Ibid., 8. This passage shows that, as far as cosmological conclusions are concerned, the present tract strongly opposes the Aristotelian doctrine of celestial immutability — And, as a consequence, the necessary location of comets (and novas) below the Moon — Through the common consideration of the place of the new stars and recent comets. It thus considers more than the issue of the motion of the Earth, to which allusion will be made at the end. The present tract therefore follows the line of discussion of the earlier cometary treatises from 1578 and 1581 (cf. Methuen, “Maestlin's teaching of Copernicus” (ref. 14), 233–4, and more extensively eadem, Kepler's Tübingen: Stimulus to a theological mathematics (Aldershot, 1998), 173–85) and anticipates the (also unpublished) treatise on the comet of 1618, where the criticism of Aristotelian cometary theory is presented in full, complemented with the results obtained in the years immediately preceding about the sunspots. This will enable Maestlin to argue for the celestial origin of the matter of comets, excluding the Aristotelian tenet of terrestrial exhalations, and serves as a strong argument for a careful study and even edition of this latter cometary treatise by Maestlin, which has not been addressed by Methuen.

Maestlin had used this method for observing the nova of 1572. Cf. Maestlin , Observatio et Demonstratio Cometae Aetherei, qui Anno 1577. et 1578. constitutus in sphaera Veneris, apparuit (ref. 2), 22, and chapter V (pp. 20–8) for the full presentation of this method. In the treatise on the nova of 1572, the accurate description of the observation of the nova did not mention the use of the thread. See Maestlin, Demonstratio astronomica loci stellae novae, tum respectu centri mundi, tum respectu signiferi et aequinoctialis, as reproduced by Tycho Brahe, Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata, TBOO, iii, 60–2 and the comment by Tycho on the method of observation with a thread, ibid., 66 seq. In contrast to the treatise of 1573, Maestlin drew no figure for this location of the nova of 1604. The fixed stars chosen for this lineal alignment were septentrional, doubtless because the nova was close to the horizon.

Maestlin , Observatio astronomica, 9: “Porrò hic novae stellae in his rectis positus, sicut et eiusdem ab illis distantia …, crebra observatione ne unico minutulo variari, augeri minuive deprehenditur, sed eadem, tum in maiori, quam minori eius altitudine supra horizontem, tam illic vesperi quam nunc mane, invenitur”. For his part, Kepler connected the nova with η Oph, the star in the shoulder of Sagittarius (σ Sag) and Antares or Cor Scorpii (α Sco). See De stella nova, JKGW, i, chaps. 12 and 13, where he also adduces observations by David Fabricius.

Ibid.: “Quod profectò invictissimum nullius sensibilis parallaxeos et nullius proprii motus argumentum est”.

Ibid.: “Infallibiliter concluditur, Stellam hanc non tantum non infra Lunam … sed nec quidem alibi, ubicunque terrae quantitas sensibilis manet, verum multò altiore in aethere loco suam sedem posuisse”.

Ibid., 9–10: “Si enim alius ei praeter quotidianum motus inesset, fieri non potuisset, ut ut quis aliquam eius quasi stationariam quietem imaginetur, quia is vel tandem intra hos sex completos menses, si non alio, attamen commutationis motu, se prodidisset, et à dictis rectis vel circulis magnis, secessisset simulatque permutaret ab aliis stellis fixis distantiam”. As was the case in his earlier treatise on the nova of 1572 (cf. TBOO, iii, 60), this reference to the apparent ‘motion of commutation’ is a clear indication of Copernicanism, as Tycho pointed out in his criticism of Maestlin's tract in the Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata (TBOO, iii, 63). On this, see Granada, “Tycho Brahe's anti-Copernican campaign” (ref. 1), 199 seq., and for the presence in the treatise of 1572 (where the reference to Copernicus is more explicit), see idem, “Michael Maestlin and the new star of 1572” (ref. 1), 103 seq.

Maestlin , Consideratio astronomica, 10: “… liquidò testatum facit, [novam] nullum sibi intra Planetarum territoria habitandi domicilium assignatum esse, sed se eorum sphaeris et orbibus arcem longe excelsiorem, sphaeram nimirum stellarum fixarum, ad ipsas inerrantes stellas non minus quam dictam Stellam Anni 1572. exaltatam esse. Idipsum lumen eius scintillans abunde confirmat”.

See Granada , “Michael Maestlin and the new star of 1572” (ref. 1), 104, and idem, “Tycho Brahe's anti-Copernican campaign” (ref. 1), 200.

For the first two letters, see refs 26 and 28. The third letter (no. 383, 10 June 1606) is rather short and unrelated to our topic.

Cf. JKGW, xiv, no. 417, lines 1–13.