The proceedings are independently available (with German contributions untranslated) as Johannes Kepler: Werk und Leistung, Wissenschaftliche Beiträge (Kepler-Kommission der Hochschule, Linz, 1971).
2.
The full proceedings of these two conferences are published (in their original languages) respectively as Kepler Festschrift 1971. Zur Erinnerung an seinen Geburstag vor 400 Jahren, ed. PreussE. (Naturwiss. Verein, Regensburg, 1971 = Acta Albertina Ratisbonensia, xxxii) and as Internationales Kepler-Symposium Weil der Stadt 1971. Referate und Diskussionen, ed. KrafftF.MeyerK. and StickerB. (Gerstenberg Verlag, Hildesheim, 1973). See also my essay review of the latter volume in Studies in history and philosophy of science, iv (1973), 387–92.
3.
Bibliographia Kepleriana. Ein Führer durch das gedruckte Schrifttum von Johannes Kepler (2nd edn, Beck, Munich, 1968).
4.
Internationales Kepler-Symposium … 1971 (ref. 2 above), 141–67 and 187–214 respectively. Buchdahl's paper on “Methodological Aspects of Kepler's Theory of Refraction” is also printed in Studies in history and philosophy of science, iii (1972), 265–98.
5.
I have to say, however, that months after first reading it I remain taken aback by Costabel's confident assertion (p. 637) that Kepler “has no general conception of what a function is …”. Whoever convinces me of that erit mihi magnus Apollonius—and let Costabel think on the passage in the Astronomia nova (Cap. LX) where Kepler first uttered these words. Out of other deficiencies in Belyi's article on his development, let me repair that (p. 656) where, following an erroneous Nachbericht by Franz Hammer in Kepler: Gesammelte Werke, ix (1960), 469–72 on “die Neperschen und die Keplerschen Logarithmen”, he avers that “Despite a widespread misapprehension, Keplerian and Napierian logarithms are not identical” (and passes to misprint the ‘true’ equation which Hammer derives to connect the two systems). In fact they are indeed, to within a ‘floating’ decimal point, identical. Not here to elaborate on this point, but let me swiftly add that Hammer departs from a faulty general thesis by Mautz (Basel, 1919) regarding the structure of Napier's numeri artificiales, and compounds the confusion by adducing at a critical stage in his computation on p. 472 the mistaken value 46051684·68 for the Napierian logarithm of 105 (that is, 107).
6.
Notably that delivered as the 1971 George Darwin Lecture at the Royal Astronomical Society in London, and printed in its Quarterly journal, xiii (1972), 346–73.
7.
Die Rudolphinischen Tafeln von Johannes Kepler: Mathematische und astronomische Grundlagen = Nova Kepleriana, ii (Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 1969). See also his more particular study of Eine doppelte Iterationsrechnung von Johannes Kepler und ihre Programmierung = Nova Kepleriana, iii (1970).
8.
“The Historical Development of Solar Theories in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries”, Vistas in astronomy, xvi (1974), 35–60.
9.
“The Curved and the Straight: Cometary Theory from Kepler to Hevelius”, Journal for the history of astronomy, ii (1971), 178–94.
