The Master of the 1550 Radices: Jofrancus Offusius

Gingerich Owen , An annotated census of Copernicus' De revolutionibus (Nuremberg, 1543 and Basel, 1566) (forthcoming, Leiden, 1994).

Swerdlow N. M. and Neugebauer O. , Mathematical astronomy in Copernicus's De revolutionibus (New York, 1984), 269, remark that the analysis of this passage “is of interest for a number of reasons, not the least of them being its complexity”.

Reinhold Erasmus , Ephemerides duorum annorum 50. el 51. (Wittenberg, 1550), and Rheticus G. J. , Ephemerides novae (Leipzig, 1550); see Gingerich Owen , “Early Copernican ephemerides”, Studia Copernicana, xvi (1978), 403–17.a.

Offusius's name is omitted from all the standard biographical reference works. His two books are duly described together with a few incidental references to him by Thorndike Lynn , A history of magic and experimental science, vi (New York, 1941), 22–24 and 108–11. Offusius's astrological writings are discussed in dissertations by Bowden Ellen Mary , “The scientific revolution in astrology: The English reformers, 1558–1686”, Yale University, 1974, and Sanders Philip M. , “The regular polyhedra in Renaissance science and philosophy”, University of London, 1990. We thank Dr Sanders for sharing the relevant chapter of his dissertation.

At that time we were still unaware that the Norman copy also belonged to the group, because it did not have the characteristic 1550 radices although it contains most of the other annotations.

f. 58: Circa hec sydera notandum quod anno 1550 currente demensus sum Hispali que sequuntur ….

Dee John , General and Rare Memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation (London, 1577), f. ε iij. This preface has been reprinted in “Autobiographical tracts of Dr. John Dee”, ed. by Crossley James , in vol. xxiv of the Chetham Society series (Manchester, 1851).

Dee wrote in his copy of Ficino's De triplici vita, “Similem ego lapidem vidi et eiusdem qualitatis. anno 1552 vel 1553. Aderant Cardanus Mediolanensis, Joannes Franciscus et Monsier Beaudulphius Legatus Regis Gallici in ædibus Legati in Sowthwerk.” The connection with Offusius was pointed out by Philip M. Sanders, and is recorded in Roberts Julian and Watson Andrew G. (eds), John Dee's library catalogue (Bibliographical Society; London, 1990), 85, note 256. The book itself is in the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington.

Mentioned in passing on p. 162 in Mendelsohn Charles J. , “Cardan on cryptography”, Scripta mathematica, vi (1939), 157–68. Cardano received a privilege for his book from Henry II in June 1556, and was possibly in Paris at this time; his reference to Offusius is on p. 459 of the folio edition.

de Tyard Pontus , Mantrice ou discours de la verité de divination par astrologie (Lyons, 1558), cited in Thorndike, A history of magic, vi (ref. 4), 108.

We are grateful to James Walsh of the Houghton Library for this information.

In caput 5. An terrae competat motus circularis. Aliqui disputarunt moveri terram. Et Copernicus statuit nec octavam spheram nec Solem moveri, cum quidem caeteris coelestibus orbibus motum tribuit. Nonnulli etiam terram inter sydera collocant. Extat adhuc liber Archimedis de numeratione arenae, in quo narrat Aristarchum Samium hoc paradoxum tradidisse Solem stare immotum, et terram circumferri circa Solem. Etsi autem artifices acuti et perspicaces multa exercendorum ingeniorum causa querunt, tamen possumus iudicare non velie eos talia pro certis asseverare. Et huius nostri authoris Coper[nici] consilium et sententia in sua praefatione satis exponitur his verbis: Inde igitur occasionem nactus coepi et ego de terrae mobilitate cogitare. Et quamvis absurda opinio videbatur tamen quia sciebam aliis ante me hanc concessam libertatem, ut quoslibet fingerent circulos ad demonstrandum phaenomena astrorum: Existimavi mihi quoque facile permitti, ut experirem, an posito terrae aliquo motu, firmiores demonstrationes, quam illorum essent, inveniri in revolutione orbium coelestium possent. [De revolutionibus f. iv] Non igitur omnino affirmat Copern[icus] terrae mobilitatem (quemadmodum multis imperitis videtur) sed ex hypothesi mobilis terrae, et ex aliis suppositionibus concludit et demonstrat ea quae observantur in astris eorumque orbibus. Et dat ordinem certamque regulam mathematicis rationibus, modumque de phenomenis sive apparentiis iudicandi ac corporum coelestium motus supputandi. Veteres per alias hypotheses processerunt, et ut aliquo modo constarent et comprehendi possent motus planetarum. Doctissimi homines geometrae, quasi fabricantes automata, plures orbes quasi domiciliis singulorum planetarum incluserunt, ut erudite motuum ratio reddi posset, quemadmodum discitur ex variis authorum theoriis, Fracastorii et Purbachi, aliorumque. Et quidem Archimedes dicitur <image> motuum coelestium, videlicet integros orbes, fabricasse, et oculis hos motus subiecisse. Nostri per eccentricos et concentricos orbes, per epicyclos et varios circulos motuum regulas demonstrare conati sunt. Et licet re ipsa tales quales fingunt in coelo machinae esse non putantur, tamen non ob id ferenda est inter doctos Averroīs sententia, multorumque aliorum petulantia, qui hanc theoriarum doctrinam omnino derident qua [sic] et magna arte extructa est, et leges motuum concinnas docuit, ex quibus computatio institui vera aut certe proxima vero potuit. Sic geometrae tales nolunt in coelo esse picturas quales supponunt, sed erudite causas motuum ostendunt. Ita iudicandum est de positionibus huius authoris, ex quibus computationes longe concinniores instituuntur, motuumque ratio certius et exactius deprehenditur quam ex authomatis aut suppositionibus veterum geometrarum, qui de his ad haec usque tempore [sic] tractaverunt. Non dubitamus autem ex testimoniis divinae scripturae, quando argumenta geometrica et physica deficerent, terram ipsam esse immobilem at solem moveri. Nam psalmus clarissime affirmat moveri solem: Soli posuit tabernaculum in ipsis: Et ipse tamquam sponsus procedens de thalamo suo, exultat ut gigas ad currendum viam suam. Ab extremo caelorum egressus eius, et revolutio eius ad extremum eorum. De terra alius psalmus inquit: Qui fundavit terram super stabilitatem suam, non movebitur in eternum et semper. Et Ecclesiastes in primo cap[ite] inquit: Terra autem in aeternum stat. Oritur Sol et occidit, et ad locum suum tendens ibi oritur. Ptolemaeus autem libro primo Magnae Compos[itionis] demonstrat physicis et geometricis rationibus Terram non moveri motu locali sed tantum mutatione loci: Et in medio coeli situm centrum universi. Quibus contrariae sunt positiones huius authoris, cuius rationes et demonstrationes dignae sunt, quas quantumvis magnum atque excellens ingenium contempletur atque admiretur.

1/6, id est sextans 60 partium, sunt 10 m. Videtur autem hic error commissus, et loco sextantis unius, scribendum potius esse m 27. Nam sexag. 64 cum 10 m efficiunt a terra solis distantiam partium 1155. Author autem aliam ponit nempe partium 1160 quae constat ex partibus 64 et 27 m decies octies multiplicatis.

The allusion to Homer is lacking in the Debrecen and Oklahoma copies.

Notandum quod in subiecto videantur mihi multi contigisse errores. Primus est quod forte author non adeo attentus (cum nonnunquam bonus dormitat Homerus) posuit solem in suo medio motu plus aequo in scrupulis 10. Per consequens sequutus est verus solis motus ultra veritatem in totidem m[inuta]; et similiter verus motus lunae a sole in tantum proponi debuit et si sic esset in m.16 ultra g.3 Geminorum. Praeterea videtur quod author non adeo curiosus accepit pro fractione diei diem integrum et sic esset motus lunae ulterius in m.8 qua addita m.16 faciunt 24. Essetque iis rationibus luna in g.3 m.24 Geminorum, quam ego reperio in g.3 m.5. Aliud est argumentum quod me monet. Nam animadverti verum motum latitudinis lunae esse g.203 m.33 sed author ponit 8 m. plus, ergo diem integrum pro fractis numeravit aut discipulus aliquis ignarus eius mandato calculum subivit. Attamen hic locus (in quo de re maxima agitur) debebat merito purissimus esse.

This passage has been investigated in detail by Swerdlow and Neugebauer , op. cit. (ref. 2), 229–30, 266ff.

Tyard , Mantice (ref. 10); translation from Sanders's dissertation (ref. 4), 212.

Dee , “Autobiographical tracts” (ref. 7), 8.

See Poulle Emmanuel , “Fine, Oronce”, in Dictionary of scientific biography, xv (1978), 153–7.

The existence of the 1546 publication and the extraordinarily rare Ephemeris coelestis anni huius labentis 1555 (Paris, 1555) and the equally rare Ephemeris coelestis anni huius bisextilis 1556 (Paris, 1556) for 1556–57 led Houzeau and Lancaster to invent a ghost series from 1546 to 1557.

See Sédillot M. L. Am. , Les professeurs de mathématiques et de physique générale au Collége de France (extrait du Bullettino di Bibliografia e di Storia delle Scienze Matematiche e Fisiche, ii–iii, 1869–70) (Rome, 1869).

See Barker Peter , “Jean Pena (1528–58) and Stoic physics in the sixteenth century”, The southern journal of philosophy, xxiii (1985), 93–107.

See Gingerich Owen and Westman Robert S. , The Wittich connection: Conflict and priority in late sixteenth-century cosmology (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society , lxxviii, no. 7; Philadelphia, 1988).

Later Dee , in a more crotchety mood, after the posthumous publication of De divina astrorum facultate in 1570, cried plagiarism and “foule injury” (“Autobiographical tracts” (ref. 7), 58); more charitably, John Heilbron writes that Offusius “perhaps propounded a few of the three hundred astrological aphorisms that his host [Dee] then confided to a manuscript now unfortunately lost” (John Dee on astronomy: Pro-paedeumata aphoristica (1558 and 1568), Latin and English, ed. and transl. by Shumaker Wayne (Berkeley, 1978), 54).

Kolb Robert , Caspar Peucer's library: Portrait of a Wittenberg professor of the mid sixteenth century (Sixteenth Century Bibliography, 5; St Louis Center for Reformation Research, 1979).

The subsequent history via the Radcliffe Observatory in Oxford will be traced in more detail in the Copernican census.

Hagecius Taddaeus D. : A quodam recepi: (Paulo Witichio). Error Copern: Lib: IIII Cap. 27. Posuit solis motum, plus aequo in 10 scr. propter ita solem in 16′ ultra 3 gr 1/2. Videtur accepisse pro fractione diei integrum diem, idque arguitur quoque ex motu latit: Lunae qui ad integrum diem quadrat, si Copernicum sequemur. Item. lib. I, Cap 10. Solis intervallum contineri et illarum partium esse 1160. Item. Vult distantiam maximam lunae 64.10 sed 64.27. Item. Etenim inter absides Mercurii etc. Hic error est partium 8 cum dimidia.

See Gingerich and Westman , The Wittich connection (ref. 23), 39.