The Tycho Myth

The last couple of days have seen two astronomical anniversaries associated with the great Danish observational astronomer Tycho Brahe. Tycho first observed the super nova of 1572 from Herrevad Abbey in Southern Sweden on 11th November and five years later he first observed the great comet of 1577 from his observatory of Uraniborg on the island of Hven on 13th November. These two events have entered the folklore of the history of astronomy and their supposed impact has defined Tycho’s position in the pantheon of the astronomers who ushered in the new astronomy. Unfortunately most of what is said about them is false or at best distorted.

In both cases it is claimed that through his observations of these events Tycho singlehandedly demolished the previously held belief in the incorruptibility of the heavens and with it geocentricity and thereby paved the way for the entrance of heliocentricity. Although there is a grain of truth hidden somewhere in this claim it is an oversimplified and largely incorrect version of what actually took place in the sixteenth century.

The oversimplified version ignores the fact that the standard mediaeval view of the heavens was an uneasy mix of Aristotelian cosmology and Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy. I say uneasy because the two theories were not necessarily conform and in the view of some contemporary experts even contradictory. The belief that the heavens were incorruptible was part of the Aristotelian cosmology and it was perfectly possible to hold and defend a geocentric view of astronomy without believing in it; in fact in the later part of antiquity a leading philosophical school, the Stoics, did just that. Observational evidence refuting the incorruptibility of the heavens by no means led to a heliocentric astronomy.

The story becomes even more complex when you realise that Tycho was by no means the first important astronomer in the sixteenth century to question Aristotelian cosmology on just this point. In the 1530s there had been a series of major comets in Europe, observation of which triggered a widespread debate on the nature of comets and whether they are sub- or supra-lunar. Independently of each other Fracastoro and Cardano in Italy as well as Gemma Frisius and Jean Pina in Northern Europe concluded that contrary to Aristotle’s teachings comets were corruptible supra-lunar phenomena simultaneously rejecting Aristotle’s dictum on the incorruptibility of the heavens and his strict division between the sub-lunar and supra-lunar spheres. This position was conform with the cosmological teachings of the Stoics, which were not coincidentally undergoing a renaissance in Europe at this time. Forty years before Tycho made his much celebrated observations leading European astronomers had driven a very large nail into the coffin of Aristotelian cosmology without even considering abandoning Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy.

In the case of the super nova of 1572 it was not Tycho’s influence that led to the general acceptance that this was a supra-lunar change in the heavens but that of Christoph Clavius a dyed in the wool defender of the Ptolemaic geocentric astronomy. Again Clavius, a Jesuit mathematician and the leading astronomical authority in Europe in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, was prepared to abandon a philosophical point of Aristotelian cosmology but did not consider this is anyway grounds to abandon the geocentric astronomy.

Of course in the long run these sixteenth century observations did play a role in the gradual disintegration of the mediaeval concept of the cosmos and the acceptance of the first stage of the one we hold today but Tycho’s role in the story was by no means so central or innovative as it is usually painted.


Filed under History of Astronomy, Myths of Science

10 responses to “The Tycho Myth

  1. Pingback: The Tycho Myth | Whewell's Ghost

  2. But the nose, that part of the Tycho myth is true. Right?

  3. Ron Van Wegen

    Love your sight (!)
    A minor grammatical suggestion:

    When you use an expression such as, “…because the two theories were not necessarily conform… ” you might like to use, “commensurate” although another synonym might be more appropriate.

    Also, when you write… “This position was conform with… ” you might like to use, “in accord with”.

    While examining this issue I found it difficult to find the appropriate expression or word to suggest as alternatives so I appreciate your own difficulties in these choices.

    I’m no expert in these matters but I’ve never seen the word “conform” used in these ways before. I apologize if I’m incorrect in this matter but I had a few minutes and thought you might appreciate another view.

  4. Peter Lund

    “…from Herrevad Abbey in Southern Sweden…”

    Surely you mean “…from Herrevad Abbey in Eastern Denmark…”?

  5. Thanks for this summary–I didn’t know about the debates surrounding the pre-Tychonic comets. I would add that there is a sense in which Tycho’s comet and nova paved the way for the *geocentric* rather than the heliocentric world system. The chief objection to Tycho’s geocentric model (at least in Copernicus’ mind, who toyed with a similar model) had been that on Tycho’s model the crystalline sphere of the sun would intersect the crystalline sphere of Mars. This objection fails if there is no such thing as crystalline spheres, as Tycho inferred from his observations of the nova and comet.

    Having said this, I’ve never understood why Copernicus was so worried about the crystalline sphere of Mars in particular. It looks to me that he should also have worried about the intersection of the sphere of the sun with those of Mercury and Venus as well (consider this representation of Tycho’s model, for example: Can anyone clear this up?

    • I should have pointed out that in the Stoic model of the cosmos, also in its pre-Tycho 16th century version, there are no crystalline spheres. SO in that sense also Tycho was expressing nothing new,

      On the question of Copernicus and the crystalline spheres there is a whole academic debate, at times incredibly heated, as to whether Copernicus believed in them or not. His own writings are very ambiguous on the subject. I think on the whole the consensus amongst the experts is that he did believe in them. Contrary to popular opinion Copernicus’ cosmology was very conservative and directed towards the past and not the future. His aim was to restore a cosmology conform with the axioms of Plato and not to create a new revolutionary cosmology so an acceptance of the crystalline spheres would be consistent with his other views.

      • I should have said that my reference for my remarks on Copernicus on the crystalline spheres is Swerdlow, “Astronomy in the Renaissance,” in Walker (ed.), Astronomy Before the Telescope (St. Martins’ Press, 1997). I guess Swerdlow’s is just one voice in a cacophonous debate.

        What about this business of the sun’s sphere intersecting that of Mars? Why the sphere of Mars and not also those of Mercury and Venus, which seem to intersect the sun’s sphere just as much as Mars’ does?

  6. Pingback: Comets and Heliocentricity: A Rough Guide | The Renaissance Mathematicus

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s