On Establishing the Text of “De Revolutionibus”

The reception of the Copernican theory is being most thoroughly investigated by Westman R. S. in a number of articles; see particularly his “Three responses to the Copernican theory: Johannes Praetorius, Tycho Brahe, and Michael Maestlin”, The Copernican achievement, ed. by Westman R. S. (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1975), 285–345. In “The astronomer's role in the sixteenth century: A preliminary study”, History of science, xviii (1980), 105–47, p. 106, Westman writes: “Between 1543 and 1600, I can find no more than ten thinkers who chose to adopt the main claims of the heliocentric theory”, a remark representing a good deal of searching and sure to be often quoted. On Maestlin in particular see Grafton A. , “Michael Maestlin's account of Copernican planetary theory”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cxvii (1973), 523–50. That Rheticus's Narratio prima was more effective in promoting Copernican theory than De revolutionibus seems beyond doubt. For example, at the time he wrote the Mysterium cosmographicum Kepler knew the Narratio far better than De revolutionibus. Perhaps reflecting his own experience, he writes in the first chapter of the Mysterium, on the evidence for the Copernican theory ( Kepler , Gesammelte Werke, i (1938), 15: 1–4), “Nunquam id facilius docuero Lectorem, quam si ad Narrationem Rhetici legendam illi author et persuasor existam. Nam ipsos Copernici libros Revolutionum legere non omnibus vacat.”

The most extensive investigation of this subject is Moesgaard K. P. , “Success and failure in Copernicus' planetary theories”, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, xxiv (1974), 73–111, 243–318. On the particular case of Mercury, which happens to have received the most attention, see Gingerich O. , “The theory of Mercury from antiquity to Kepler”, Actes du XII congrès internationale d'histoire des sciences, iii A (Paris, 1971), 57–64; Wilson C. , “The inner planets and the Keplerian Revolution”, Centaurus, xvii (1972), 205–48; Hartner W. , “Ptolemy, Azarquiel, Ibn al-Shātir, and Copernicus on Mercury: A study of parameters”, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, xxiv (1974), 5–25.

See for example Swerdlow N. , “On Copernicus' theory of precession”, and J. Henderson, “Erasmus Reinhold's determination of the distance of the Sun from the Earth”, both in The Copernican achievement, 49–98, 108–29. Henderson's complete dissertation On the distances between the Sun, Moon, and Earth according to Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Reinhold (Yale dissertation, 1973) should be consulted for a detailed examination of the kinds of alterations made by Copernicus in attempting to correct parts of his work.

An edition of the Commentary by Henderson J. and Swerdlow N. has been in progress for some time. On Reinhold's work in the Commentary and the Prutenic tables see Gingerich O. , “The role of Erasmus Reinhold and the Prutenic Tables in the dissemination of the Copernican theory”, Studia Copernicana, vi (1973), 43–62; see also Gingerich O. , “Early Copernican ephemerides”, Studia Copernicana, xvi (1978), 403–17.

Reproduced in facsimile in the Cimelia Bohemica series, Prague, 1971.

The holograph has twice been reproduced in facsimile, first in Nikolaus Kopernikus Gesamtausgabe, i (Munich-Berlin, 1944) with a preface best forgotten, and most recently and faithfully in Nicolai Copernici Opera omnia, i (Warsaw-Cracow, 1973) which is available in various forms with the introductory material in Latin, Polish, English, French, German.

Several reproductions have been made of the 1543 Nuremberg edition, namely, Paris, 1927; Turin-Amsterdam, 1943; Leipzig, New York-London, 1965; Brussels, 1966. The 1965 reprint, the editorial introduction to which should be ignored, is a facsimile of a copy belonging to the University Library of Leipzig that contains the hand-written corrections discussed below.

The errata sheet is reproduced in the 1943 reprint of N and in the appendix to this paper.

The chronology of the holograph is discussed in Swerdlow N. , “The holograph of De revolutionibus and the chronology of its composition”, Journal for the history of astronomy, v (1974), 186–98. This in turn was criticized in Rosen E. , “When did Copernicus write the ‘Revolutions’?”, Sudhoffs Archiv, lxi (1977), 144–55, following the chronology of Birkenmajer L. A. presented by Zathey J. in Nicolai Copernici Opera omnia, i (1973), Prolegomena, although Zathey's presentation is more closely reasoned. The controversy concerns when Copernicus began to write the surviving holograph, either as early as 1515 or not until after 1525, perhaps even several years after.

Academia Scientiarum Polona , Nicolai Copernici Opera omnia, ii: Nicolai Copernici De revolutionibus libri sex (Varsoviae-Cracoviae, 1975). What follows is based upon Gansiniec's R. Prolegomena (1953), Domański's J. In retractam editionem praefatio (1971), and Zathey's J. Prolegomena in Nicolae Copernici Opera omnia, i (1973).

Nicolai Copernici Opera omnia, i (1973), Prolegomena, 19–33; a few additions in Rheticus's hand are described at p. 32. The Prolegomena by Zathey J. should be read in the Polish or Latin versions since the translations into other languages have been abridged and insert erroneous material.

The line numbers are a linear measure including empty lines but not the running title, and there are typographical errors in the page and line numbers. The two hiatus I have identified are: For: 55:16 pro 12 ¼ lege 327 ½ 1./6 read: 55:16 pro 12 ¼ lege 13 1./4 58.18 pro 327 ½ 1/9 lege 327 ½ 1./6 for: 84.29 lege Homocentricus ABC. read: 84.29 pro 44 lege 45. 85.33 pro homocentri ABCD lege homocentricus ABCD. If E was intended to contain all the corrections marked in the copies of N described in the following article, the number of omissions must be as large as the number of inclusions.

The new edition prints III, 7 in the unrevised version of M and N, adding (pp. 404–5) a note defending this choice and, not considering the possibility that Copernicus himself could have made late revisions, concluding that the alterations in E were “non a Rhetico, sed ab alio quodam mathematicae doctrinae imperito Revolutionum editore, ut a Ioanne Petreio, in indicem erratorum inductus esse”. With this judgement I must politely but adamantly differ. The corrections to III, 7 in E appear to me altogether sensible, and I cannot imagine, and the annotation does not explain, why someone “ignorant of mathematics” would have any interest in making extensive revisions in just this particular chapter out of the whole book.