Category Archives: History of Astrology

The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXXII

In the seventeenth century large parts of Europe were still Catholic; in 1616 the Catholic Church had placed De revolutionibus and all other texts promoting a heliocentric world-view on the Index of Forbidden Books and in 1632 they added Galileo’s Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems), so the question arises, how was knowledge of the heliocentric model disseminated? The answer is, somewhat surprisingly, that the dissemination of the heliocentric hypothesis was, even in Catholic countries, widespread and through diverse channels.

First off, although De revolutionibus was placed on the Index in 1616, it was only placed there until corrected. In fact, somewhat against the norm, it was actually corrected surprisingly quickly and, with a few rather minor changes, became freely available again for Catholic scholars by 1621. The astronomers within the Church had been able to convince the theologians of the importance of Copernicus’ work as an astronomy book even if one rejected the truth of the heliocentric hypothesis. The only changes were that any statements of the factual truth of the hypothesis were removed, so anybody with a censured copy could quite happily think those statements back into place for himself.

The Lutheran Protestant Church also rejected the heliocentric hypothesis but never formally banned it in anyway. In fact, from very early on, the astronomers and mathematicians at the Lutheran universities had begun teaching Copernicus’ work as a purely mathematical, instrumentalist thesis, whilst rejecting it as a true account of the cosmos. It was used, for example, by Erasmus Reinhold (1511–1553) using Copernicus’ data and mathematical models to calculate the Prutenicae Tabulae (1551), without however committing to heliocentricity. They maintained this instrumentalist approach throughout the seventeenth century utilising the most up to date books as they became available, without crediting the hypothesis with any truth. From about 1630 onwards, Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae (3 Vols. 1617–1621) and his Tabulae Rudolphinae (1627) became the leading textbooks for teaching the heliocentric hypothesis. The latter was used both sides of the religious divide because it was quite simply vastly superior in its accuracy to any other volume of planetary tables on the market.

However, the mainstream pro heliocentricity texts were not the only published sources spreading the information of the heliocentric hypothesis and making the information available across Europe. One, perhaps surprising, source was the yearly astrological almanacs.

gettyimages-578341726-1024x1024

These annual pamphlets or booklets contained the astronomical and astrological data for the coming year, phases of the moon, hours of sunlight, any eclipse or planetary conjunctions etc. They also included basic horoscopes for the year covering political developments, weather forecasts, health issues and whatever. These were immensely popular and printed on cheap paper and not bound were reasonably cheap, so they sold in comparatively vast numbers, having much larger editions than any printed books. The market was fiercely contested so to make sure that their product was preferred by the potential customers, who came from all levels of society, the authors and/or publishers included editorials covering a wide range of topic. These editorials often contained medical issues but in the seventeenth century they also often contained popular expositions of the heliocentric hypothesis. Given the widespread consume of these publications it meant that basic knowledge of heliocentricity reached a large audience.

Another important source for the dissemination of the heliocentric hypothesis was in the writings of some of those who, nominally at least, opposed it. I will now take a brief look at two of those authors the Italian, Jesuit astronomer, mathematician and physicist Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598–1671) and the French, priest, philosopher, astronomer and mathematician Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655) both of whom were highly influential and widely read scholars in the middle of the seventeenth century.

Pierre Gassendi is one of those figures in the history of science, who deserve to be better known than they are. Well known to historians of science and philosophy he remains largely unknown to those outside those disciplines. He was a central figure in the intellectual life of Europe in the middle of the seventeenth century part of the philosophical circle in Paris that included René Descartes, Marin Mersenne, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Baptiste Morin amongst others. He also travelled to Holland and made the acquaintance of Isaac Beeckman. Probably his most important contribution to the evolution of science was his attempt to reconcile Epicurean atomism with Christian theology.

PierreGassendi

Pierre Gassendi after Louis-Édouard Rioult. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Throughout his life he actively promoted the work of both Kepler and Galileo. He wrote and published a biography of Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc (1580–1637), his patron, an astronomer and another supporter of the works of Galileo.  Shortly before the end of his life he published a collective biography of Tycho Brahe, Nicolaus Copernicus, Georg von Peuerbach and Johannes Regiomontanus: Tychonis Brahei, equitis Dani, astronomorum Coryphaei, vita; accessit Nicolai Copernici; Georgii Peurbachii, et Joannis Regiomontani, astronomorum celebrium vita (1654).

bub_gb_SQAVAAAAQAAJ-2

In 1645 Gassendi was appointed professor of mathematics at the Collège Royal in Paris and during his time there he wrote and published an astronomy textbook presenting both the Tychonic and heliocentric astronomical systems, Institvtio astronomica, iuxta hypothesis tam vetervm, qvam Copernici, et Tychonis. Dictata à Petro Gassendo … Eivsdem oratio inauguralis iteratò edita (1647).

bub_gb_X1rDu4YlifAC-2

Although, as a Catholic priest, he presented the Tychonic system as the correct one his treatment of heliocentricity was detailed, thorough and very sympathetic. Perhaps somewhat too sympathetic, as it led to him being investigated by the Inquisition, who however gave him a clean bill of health. Because of his excellent reputation his book was read widely and acted as a major source for the dissemination of the heliocentric hypothesis.

Like Gassendi, Riccioli was an important and influential figure in seventeenth century science. From 1636 he was professor in Bologna where did much important work in astronomy and physics as well as being the teacher of Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625–1712), who we will meet later in this series.

Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli_from_DoppelMayr

Riccioli as portrayed in the 1742 Atlas Coelestis (plate 3) of Johann Gabriel Doppelmayer. Source: Wikimedia Commons

He is perhaps best known for his pioneering selenology together with his former student, Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618–1663), which provided the nomenclature system for the moons geological features still in use today.  As stated earlier it was Riccioli, who provided the necessary empirical proof of Galileo’s laws of fall. He also hypothesised the existence of, what later became known as the Coriolis effect, if the Earth did in fact rotate.

If a ball is fired along a Meridian toward the pole (rather than toward the East or West), diurnal motion will cause the ball to be carried off [that is, the trajectory of the ball will be deflected], all things being equal: for on parallels of latitude nearer the poles, the ground moves more slowly, whereas on parallels nearer the equator, the ground moves more rapidly.

Having failed to detect it, it does exist but is too small to be measured using the methods available to Riccioli, he concluded that the Earth does not in fact rotate.

This was just one of many arguments pro and contra the heliocentric hypothesis that Riccioli presented in his Almagestum novum astronomiam veterem novamque complectens observationibus aliorum et propriis novisque theorematibus, problematibus ac tabulis promotam (Vol. I–III, 1651), a vast astronomical encyclopaedia that became a standard astronomical textbook throughout Europe. Although Riccioli rejected the heliocentric hypothesis his very detailed and thorough analysis of it with all its strengths and weaknesses meant that his book became a major source for those wishing to learn about it.

800px-almagestumnovumfrontispiece

Frontispiece of Riccioli’s 1651 New Almagest. Source: Wikimedia Commons

This famous frontispiece shows a semi-Tychonic system being weighed against a heliocentric system and being found more substantial. Ptolemaeus lies on the ground under the scales obviously defeated but he is saying “I will rise again”.

As we have seen, although not provable at that stage and nominally banned by the Catholic Church, information on and details of the heliocentric hypothesis were widespread and easily accessible throughout the seventeenth century from multiple sources and thus knowledge of it and interest in it continued to spread throughout the century.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Comments

Filed under Early Scientific Publishing, History of Astrology, History of Astronomy, History of science, Renaissance Science

Christmas Trilogy Part 3: The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XXVI

 

In popular presentations of the so-called scientific or astronomical revolutions Galileo Galilei is almost always presented as the great champion of heliocentricity in the first third of the seventeenth century. In fact, as we shall see, his contribution was considerably smaller than is usually claimed and mostly had a negative rather than a positive influence. The real champion of heliocentricity in this period was Johannes Kepler, who in the decade between 1617 and 1627 published four major works that laid the foundations for the eventual triumph of heliocentricity over its rivals. I have already dealt with one of these in the previous post in this series, the De cometis libelli tres I. astronomicus, theoremata continens de motu cometarum … II. physicus, continens physiologiam cometarum novam … III. astrologicus, de significationibus cometarum annorum 1607 et 1618 / autore Iohanne Keplero …, which was published in 1619 and as I’ve already said became the most important reference text on comets in the 1680’s during a period of high comet activity that we will deal with in a later post.

272392

Source: ETH Library Zurich

Chronologically the first of Kepler’s influential books from this decade was Volume I (books I–III) of his Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae published in 1617, Volume II (book IV) followed in 1620 and Volume III (books V–VII) in 1621. This was a text book on heliocentric astronomy written in question and answer dialogue form between a teacher and a student spelling out the whole of heliocentric astronomy and cosmology in comparatively straight forward and simple terms, the first such textbook. There was a second edition containing all three volumes in 1635.

2008_NYR_02059_0119_000()

Second edition 1635 Source

This book was highly influential in the decades following its publication and although it claims to be a digest of Copernican astronomy, it in fact presents Kepler’s own elliptical astronomy. For the first time his, now legendary, three laws of planetary motion are presented as such together. As we saw earlier the first two laws–I. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse and the Sun is at one of the focal points of that ellipse II: A line connecting the Sun and the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times–were published in his Astronomia Nova in 1609. The third law was new first appearing in, what he considered to be his opus magnum, Ioannis Keppleri Harmonices mundi libri V (The Five Books of Johannes Kepler’s The Harmony of the World) published in 1619 and to which we now turn our attention.

800px-Harmonices_Mundi_0001-lg

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Kepler’s first book was his Mysterium Cosmographicum published in 1597 with its, to our way of thinking, somewhat bizarre hypothesis that there are only six planets because the spaces between their orbits are defined by the five regular Platonic solids.

Kepler-solar-system-1

Kepler’s Platonic solid model of the Solar System from Mysterium Cosmographicum Source: Wikimedia Commons

Although his calculation in 1597 showed a fairly good geometrical fit for his theory, it was to Kepler’s mind not good enough and this was his motivation for acquiring Tycho Brahe’s newly won more accurate data for the planetary orbits. He believed he could quite literally fine tune his model using the Pythagorean theory of the harmony of the spheres, that is that the ratio of the planetary orbits build a musical scale that is only discernable to the enlightened Pythagorean astronomer. The Harmonices Mundi was that fine tuning.

The first two books of the Harmonices Mundi layout Kepler’s geometrical theory of music, which geometrical constructions produced harmonious musical intervals and which disharmonious ones, based on which are constructible with straight edge and compass, harmonious, and which are not, disharmonious. The third book is Kepler’s contribution to the contemporary debate on the correct division of the intervals of the musical scale, in which Vincenzo Galilei (1520–1591), Galileo’s father, had played a leading role. The fourth book is the application of the whole to astrology and the fifth its application to astronomy and it is here that we find the third law.

In the fifth Kepler compare all possible ratios of planetary speeds and distances constructing musical scales for planets and musical intervals for the relationship between planets. It is here that he, one could say, stumbles upon his third law, which is known as the harmony law. Kepler was very much aware of the importance of his discovery as he tells us in his own words:

“After I had discovered true intervals of the orbits by ceaseless labour over a very long time and with the help of Brahe’s observations, finally the true proportion of the orbits showed itself to me. On the 8th of March of this year 1618, if exact information about the time is desired, it appeared in my head. But I was unlucky when I inserted it into the calculation, and rejected it as false. Finally, on May 15, it came again and with a new onset conquered the darkness of my mind, whereat there followed such an excellent agreement between my seventeen years of work at the Tychonic observations and my present deliberation that I at first believed that I had dreamed and assumed the sought for in the supporting proofs. But it is entirely certain and exact that the proportion between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely one and a half times the proportion of the mean distances.”

Translated into modern notation the third law is P12/P22=R13/R23, where P is the period of a planet and R is the mean radius of its orbit. It can be argues that this was Kepler’s greatest contribution to the history of the emergence of heliocentricity but rather strangely nobody really noticed its true significance until Newton came along at the end of the seventeenth century.

However they should have done because the third law gives us is a direct mathematical relationship between the size of the orbits of the planets and their duration, which only works in a heliocentric system. There is nothing comparable for either a full geocentric system or for a geo-heliocentric Tychonic or semi-Tychonic system. It should have hit the early seventeenth-century astronomical community like a bomb but it didn’t, which raises the question why it didn’t. The answer is because it is buried in an enormous pile of irrelevance in the Harmonices Mundi and when Kepler repeated it in the Epitome he gave it no real emphasis, so it remained relatively ignored.

On a side note, it is often thought that Kepler had abandoned his comparatively baroque Platonic solids concepts from the Mysterium Cosmographicum but now that he had, in his opinion, ratified it in the Harmonices Mundi he published a second edition of the book in 1621.

002603_01

Second Edition 1621 Source

Ironically the book of Kepler’s that really carried the day for heliocentricity against the geocentric and geo-heliocentric systems was his book of planetary tables based on Tycho Brahe’s data the Tabulae Rudolphinae (Rudolphine Tables) published in 1627, twenty-eight years after he first began working on them. Kepler had in fact been appointed directly by Rudolph II in Prague to produce these tables at the suggestion of Tycho in 1601. Turning Tycho’s vast collection of data into accurately calculated tables was a horrendous and tedious task and over the years Kepler complained often and bitterly about this burden.

12366369511

Tabulae Rudolphinae The frontispiece presents in graphic form a potted history of Western astronomy Source

However, he persevered and towards the end of the 1620s he was so far. Because he was the Imperial Mathematicus and had prepared the tables under the orders of the Emperor he tried to get the funds to cover the printing costs from the imperial treasury. This proved to be very difficult and after major struggles he managed to acquire 2000 florins of the more than 6000 that the Emperor owed him, enough to pay for the paper. He began printing in Linz but in the turmoil of the Thirty Years War the printing workshop got burnt down and he lost the already printed pages. Kepler decamped to Ulm, where with more difficulties he succeeded in finishing the first edition of 1000 copies. Although these were theoretically the property of the Emperor, Kepler took them to the Frankfurt book fair where he sold the entire edition to recoup his costs.

The Tabulae Rudolphinae were pretty much an instant hit. The principle function of astronomy since its beginnings in Babylon had always been to produce accurate tables and ephemerides for use initially by astrologers and then with time also cartographers, navigators etc. Astronomical systems and the astronomers, who created them, were judged on the quality and accuracy of their tables. Kepler’s Tabulae Rudolphinae based on Tycho’s data were of a level of accuracy previous unknown and thus immediately won many supporters. Those who used the tables assumed that their accuracies was due to Kepler’s elliptical planetary models leading to a gradually increasing acceptance of heliocentricity but this was Kepler’s system and not Copernicus’. Supported by the Epitome with the three laws of planetary motion Kepler’s version of heliocentricity became the dominant astronomical/cosmological system over the next decades but it would be another thirty to forty years, long after Kepler’s death, before it became the fully accepted system amongst astronomers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 Comments

Filed under History of Astrology, History of Astronomy, History of science, Renaissance Science

The role of celestial influence in the complex structure of medieval knowledge.

My entire life has followed a rather strange and at time confusing path that bears no relationship to the normal career path of a typical, well educated, middle class Englishman. It has taken many twists and turns over the years but without doubt one of the most bizarre was how I got to know historian of astrology Darrel Rutkin. We met on a bus, when he a total stranger commented that he knew the author of the book that I was reading, Monica Azzolini’s excellent, The Duke and the Stars: Astrology and Politics in Renaissance Milan. You can read the story in full here. At the time Darrel was a fellow at the International Consortium for Research in the Humanities: Fate, Freedom and Prognostication. Strategies for Coping with the Future in East Asia and Europe in Erlangen, where he was working on his book on the history of European astrology. Darrel and I became friends, talking about Early Modern science and related topics over cups of coffee and he twice took part in my History of Astronomy tour of Nürnberg. Before he left Erlangen he asked me if I would be interested in reading and reviewing his book when he finished writing it. I, of course, said yes. Some weeks ago I received my review copy of H. Darrel Rutkin, Sapientia Astrologica: Astrology, Magic and Natural Knowledge, ca. 1250–1800: I.Medieval Structures (1250–1500): Conceptual, Institutional, Socio-Political, Theologico-Religious and Cultural and this is my review.

Rutkin001

As should be obvious from the impressive title this is not in anyway a popular or even semi-popular presentation but a very solid piece of hard-core academic research. What I have, and will discuss here, is just volume one of three, which weighs in at over six hundred pages. In his work Rutkin present two theses the first of which he explicates in Volume I of his epos and the second of which forms the backbone of the two future volumes. The central thesis of Volume I is summed up in the slightly intimidating twelve-word term “astrologizing Aristotelian natural philosophy with its geometrical-optical model of celestial influences.” A large part of the book is devoted to constructing this object and I will now attempt to produce a simplified description of what it means and how it operated in medieval Europe.

It is common in the history of astrology to treat it as a separate object, as if it had little or nothing to do with the rest of the contemporary knowledge complex. It is also very common to lump astrology together with magic and the other so-called occult sciences. For the High Middle Ages, the period that his book covers, Rutkin rejects both of these approaches and instead proposes that astrology was an integral and important part of the accepted scientific knowledge of the period. His book is divided into five sections each of which I will now outline.

The first section is an eighty-nine-page introduction, which contains a detailed road map of the author’s intentions including a brief summary of what he sees as the current situation in various aspects of the study of the subject under investigation. This also includes an excursion: Astrological Basics: Horoscopes and Practical Astrology. This section is not based on the author’s own work but on that of Roger Bacon, one of the central figures of the book, so if you want to know how a leading medieval astrologer set up and worked with a horoscope then this is the right place to come.

The first section of the book proper deals with the relationship between astrology and natural philosophy in the thirteenth century and it is this section that defines and explains our intimidating twelve-word term from above. Rutkin’s analysis is based on four primary sources; these are an anonymous astrological text the Speculum Astronomiae, written around 1260 and often attributed to Albertus Magnus, an attribution that Rutkin disputes, the writings of Albertus Magnus (before 1200–1280), those of Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and those of Roger Bacon (ca. 1220­–1292), as well as numerous other sources from antiquity, and both the Islamic and Christian Middle Ages. In this first section he first presents those writings of Aristotle that contain his thoughts on celestial influence, which form the philosophical foundations for the acceptance of astrology as a science. He then demonstrates how the Speculum Astronomiae, Bacon and Albertus expanded Aristotle’s thoughts to include the whole of horoscope astrology and imbedded it into medieval Aristotelian natural philosophy, this is our “astrologizing Aristotelian natural philosophy.” He also shows how Thomas, whilst not so strongly astrological, as the others, also accepts this model. The technical astrology that is considered here is a highly mathematical, read geometrical, one based on the radiation theories of the Arabic scholar al-Kindi in his De radiis stellarum, as originally introduced into European thought by Robert Grosseteste (1175–1253) in his optical theories and adopted by Bacon. This explains how every geographical point on the earth at every point in time has a unique horoscope/astrological celestial influence: the “geometrical-optical” part of our intimidating twelve-word term. This also ties in with Aristotle’s geographical theories of the influence of place on growth and change. What comes out of this analysis is an astrological-geographical-mathematical-natural philosophical model of knowledge based on Aristotle’s natural philosophy, Ptolemaeus’ astronomy and astrology, and al-Kindi’s radiation theory at the centre of thirteenth century thought.

Rutkin does not simple state an interpretation of Albertus’, Bacon’s or Aquinas’ views but analyses their actual writings in fine detail. First he outlines one step in a given thought process then he quotes a paragraph from their writings in English translation, with the original in the footnotes, including original terms in brackets in the translation if they could possible be considered ambiguous. This is followed by a detailed analysis of the paragraph showing how it fits into the overall argument being discussed. He proceeds in this manner paragraph for paragraph cementing his argument through out the book. This makes hard work for the reader but guarantees that Rutkin’s arguments are as watertight as possible.

The second section of the book proper deals with the subject of theology, a very important aspect of the medieval knowledge complex. Rutkin shows that both Albertus and Thomas accepted astrology within their theology but were careful to show that celestial influence did not control human fate, providence or free will these being the dominion of their Christian God. This is of course absolutely central for the acceptance of astrology by Christian theologians. Bacon’s attitude to astrology and theology is completely different; he builds a complete history of the world’s principle religions based on the occurrence of planetary conjunctions, explaining why, as a result, Christianity is the best religion and addressed to the Pope, for whom he is writing, how one needs to combat the religion of the Anti-Christ.

The third section of the book proper now turns to the vexed question of the relationship between astrology and magic. Rutkin shows that both the Speculum Astronomiae and Albertus in his writing accept that astrology can be used to create magical images or talisman for simple tasks such as killing snakes. However, this is the limit of the connection between the two areas, other aspects of magic being worked by evil spirits or demons. Thomas, not surprisingly rejects even this very circumscribed form of astrological magic regarding all of magic to have its roots in evil. Bacon is much more open to a wider range of connections between the areas of astrology and magic.

Having set up the place of astrology in the medieval knowledge complex of the thirteenth century, the fourth and final section of the book proper takes brief looks at the evidence for its use in various fields within Europe in the period up to 1500. Fields sketched rather than covered in great detail included mathematics, medicine, teaching in the various faculties at the universities, annual prognostications at the universities and to close astrology in society, politics and culture.

Does Rutkin succeed in proving his central thesis for this his first volume? History is not like mathematics and does not deliver conclusive proofs but Rutkin’s thesis is argued in great detail with an impressive array of very convincing evidence. His work is rock solid and anybody wishing to refute his thesis is going to have their work cut out for them. That is not to say that with time, new research and new evidence his thesis will not undergo modification, refinement and improvement but I think its foundations will stand the test of time.

His second main thesis, which will be presented in the two future volumes of his work, is to explain how and why the medieval, mathematics based (read mathematical astrology), Aristotelian natural philosophy that had been created in the High Middle Ages came to replaced by a very different mathematics based, system of natural philosophy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Having ploughed my way through Volume I, I very much look forward to reading both future volumes.

It goes without saying that the book has an impressively long bibliography of both primary and secondary sources that the author has consulted. I consider myself reasonably well read on the history of European astrology but if I were to sit down and read all of the new, interesting titles I discovered here, I would be very busy for a number of years to come. There is also a first class index and I’m very happy to report that the book also has excellent footnotes, many of which I consulted whilst reading, rather than the unfortunately ubiquitous endnotes that plague modern publishing.

Before I move to a conclusion I wish to point out a second way to read this book. As it stands this is not a book that I would necessarily dump on an undergraduate or a historian, whose interest in the fine detail of Rutkin’s argument was peripheral but that is not necessary or at least not in its totality. I have already mentioned that the introduction contains a detailed road map to the whole volume and as well as this, each of the four sections has an introduction outlining what the section sets out to show and a conclusion neatly summarising what has been demonstrated in the section. By reading main introduction and the introductions and conclusions to the sections a reader could absorb the essence of Rutkin’s thesis without having to work through all of the documentary proof that he produces.

In general I think that Rutkin has set standards in the historiography of medieval astrology and that his book will become a standard work on the topic, remaining one for a long time. I also think that anybody who wishes to seriously study medieval European astrology and/or medieval concepts of knowledge will have to read and digest this fundamental and important work.

I’m posting this today, having pulled it up from the back of a list of planned blog posts because today Darrel’s book is being formally presented at the University of Venice, where he is currently working in a research project, this afternoon with Monica Azzolini as one of those discussing the book and so a circle closes. I shall be there with them in spirit.

69645207_10156641241176332_1790148631035117568_o

 

 

8 Comments

Filed under Book Reviews, History of Astrology, Uncategorized

The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XVII

As I stated earlier in this series only a comparatively small number of astronomers accepted the whole of Copernicus’ theory, both cosmology and astronomy. More interestingly almost none of them had any lasting impact during the final decades of the sixteenth century on the gradual acceptance of heliocentrism. Although he appears to have abandoned Copernicus’ astronomy later in life, Rheticus did have a strong impact with his Narratio Prima(1540), which through its various editions was the first introduction to the heliocentric hypothesis for many readers. Two others, whose impact was principally in the seventeenth century, were Kepler and Galileo, who will be dealt with later. However, one astronomer who did play an important role in the sixteenth century was Michael Mästlin.

michaelis_mc3a4stlin_gemc3a4lde_1619

Michael Mästlin portrait 1619 artist unknown

Michael Mästlin (1550-1631) stood at the end of a long line of important Southern German astronomers and mathematicians. A graduate of the University of Tübingen he was a student of Philipp Apian (1531–1589),

hu_alt_-_philipp_apian_1590_mr

Philipp Apian, artist unknown Source: Wikimedia Commons

 

who was a student of his more famous father Peter Apian (1495–1552) in Ingolstadt. Peter Apian had studied under Georg Tannstetter (1482–1535) in Vienna, who had studied under Andreas Stiborius (c. 1464–1515) and Johannes Stabius (1450–1522) first in Ingolstadt then in Vienna. In 1584 Mästlin succeeded his teacher Philipp Apian as professor for astronomy and mathematics at Tübingen. An active astronomer since the beginning of the 1570s Mästlin was regarded as a leading German astronomer and consulted by the Protestant princes on matters astronomical, astrological and mathematical.

Mästlin represents the transitional nature of the times probably better than any other astronomer. His Epitome Astronomiae (1582), a university textbook, which went through a total of seven editions, was a standard Ptolemaic geocentric text that he continued to teach from until his death in 1631.

introimage

However, at the same time he taught selected students the fundaments of Copernican heliocentric astronomy. Earlier accounts claimed that he did this in secret but all of the available evidence suggests that he did so quite openly. This quasi revolutionary act of teaching famously produced one significant result in that Mästlin introduced Copernican astronomy to the young Johannes Kepler, who would go on to become the most important propagator of heliocentric astronomy in the early seventeenth century.

One subject on, which the German Protestant princes consulted Mästlin was the proposed Gregorian calendar reform from 1582. Mästlin launched a vitriolic polemic against it largely on religious grounds with his Gründtlicher Bericht von der allgemeinen und nunmehr bei 1600 Jahren von dem ersten Kaiser Julio bis jetzt gebrauchten jarrechnung oder kalender (Rigorous report on the general and up till now for 1600 years used calculation of years or calendar from the first Caesar Julio) (1583). The Protestant princes accepted his advice and as a result didn’t adopt the new calendar until 1700.

On the other side of the religious divide the man charged by the Pope to promote and defend the new calendar was the Jesuit professor of astronomy and mathematics at the Collegio Romano, Christoph Clavius (1538–1612).

christopher_clavius

Christoph Clavius. Engraving Francesco Villamena, 1606 Source: Wikimedia Commons

Although Clavius was a convinced defender of the Ptolemaic system until his death, he did play a central role in the developments that led to the eventual acceptance of the heliocentric system. The Catholic universities in the last quarter of the sixteenth century still didn’t really pay the mathematical disciplines much attention and their teaching of astronomy had not really progressed beyond the High Middle Ages. Clavius introduced modern mathematics and astronomy into the Jesuit educational reform programme, following the fundamental principle of that programme, if you want to win the debate with your non-Catholic opponents you need to be better educated than them. Many Jesuit and Jesuit educated mathematicians and astronomers, who came out of the pedagogical programme established by Clavius, would, as we shall see, make significant and important contributions to the developments in astronomy in the seventeenth century.

Clavius was also the author of a number of excellent up to date textbooks on a full range of mathematical topics. His astronomy textbook In Sphaeram Ioannis de Sacro Bosco commentarius, the first edition appearing in 1570 and further updated editions appearing in 1581, 1585, 1593, 1607, 1611 and posthumously in 1618, was the most widely read astronomy textbook in the last decades of the sixteenth and early decades of the seventeenth centuries. It was strictly Ptolemaic but he presented, described and commented upon Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. Although he showed great respect for Copernicus as a mathematical astronomer, he of course rejected the hypothesis. However, anybody who read Clavius’ book would be informed of Copernicus work and could if interested go looking for more information. One should never underestimate the effect of informed criticism, and Clavius’ criticism was well informed, for disseminating a scientific hypothesis. Many people certainly had their first taste of the heliocentric hypothesis through reading Clavius.

Another group who had a positive impact on the propagation of the heliocentric hypothesis in the last quarter of the sixteenth century was the so-called English School of Mathematics. Whilst Robert Recorde (1510–1558) and John Dee (1527–c. 1608) were not committed supporters of Copernicus, they did much to spread knowledge of the heliocentric hypothesis. As we have already seen John Feild (c. 1520–1587) was a declared supporter of Copernicus but as his Copernican ephemerides proved no more accurate than the Ptolemaic ones his influence diminished. Not so Dee’s foster son Thomas Digges (c. 1546–1595).

His 1576 edition of his father’s A Prognostication everlastingcontained an appendix A Perfit Description of the Caelestiall Orbes according to the most aunciente doctrine of the Pythagoreans, latelye revived by Copernicus and by Geometricall Demonstrations approved, which is an annotated translation of part of the cosmological first book of De revolutionibus into English, which continued to have an impact on English readers long after Digges’ demise.

digges4

Source: Linda Hall Library

Thomas Harriot (c. 1560–1621) was another, who was committed to the heliocentric hypothesis.

thomasharriot

Portrait often claimed to be Thomas Harriot (1602), which hangs in Oriel College, Oxford. Source: Wikimedia Commons

His biggest problem was that he published none of his scientific or mathematical work but he was well networked and contributed extensively to the debate through correspondence. The influence of this group would, as we will see, have an impact on the early acceptance of Kepler’s work inEngland.

Another figure in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, who, although not an astronomer, made a very important contribution to the cosmological debate, was the physician William Gilbert (1544–1603).

william_gilbert_45626i

William Gilbert (1544–1603) artist unknown. Source: Wellcome Library via Wikimedia Commons

Gilbert is well known in the history of science as the author of the first modern scientific investigation of magnetism in his De Magnete, Magneticisque Corporibus, et de Magno Magnete Tellure (On the Magnet and Magnetic Bodies, and on That Great Magnet the Earth).

167203_0

Gilbert carried out many of his experiments with spherical magnets, which he called terella, from which he deduced his belief that the Earth itself is a spherical magnet. Based on his erroneous belief that a suspended terella rotates freely about its axis he came to accept and propagate diurnal rotation. Book VI of De magnete, the final book, is devoted to an analysis of the Earth as a spherical magnet based on the results of Gilbert’s experiments with his terella.

In Chapter III of Book VI, On the Daily Magnetic Revolution of the Globes, as Against the Time-Honoured Opinion of a primum mobile: A Probable Hypothesis, Gilbert gives a detailed review of the history of a geocentric system with diurnal rotation starting with Heraclides of Pontus and going through to Copernicus. Gilbert rejects the whole concept of celestial spheres, dismissing them as a human construction with no real existence. He brings the standard physical arguments that it is more logical that the comparatively small Earth rotates once in twenty-four hours rather than the vastly larger sphere of the fixed stars. In the following chapter he then argues that magnetism is the origin of this rotation. In Chapter V he discusses the arguments for and against movement of the Earth. At the end of Chapter III Gilbert writes, “I pass by the earth’s other movements, for here we treat only of the diurnal rotation…” so what he effectively promotes is a geocentric system with diurnal rotation. Later in his De Mundo Nostro Sublunari Philosophia Nova (New Philosophy about our Sublunary World), Gilbert propagated a full heliocentric system but this book was first published posthumously in 1651 and had no real influence on the astronomical discussion.

Demundo

Diagram of the cosmos De Mundo p. 202 Source: Wikimedia Commons

Gilbert’s De magnete was a widely read and highly influential book in the first half of the seventeenth century. Galileo praised it but criticised its lack of mathematics. As we shall see it had a massive influence on Kepler. Because of its status the book definitely had a major impact on the acceptance of geo-heliocentric systems with diurnal rotation rather than without later in the seventeenth century.

We will stop briefly and take stock in 1593, fifty years after the publication of De revolutionibus. We have seen that within Europe astronomers had already begun to question the inherited Ptolemaic system during the fifteenth century. In the sixteenth century a major debate developed about both the astronomical and cosmological models. The Aristotelian theories of comets, the celestial spheres and celestial immutability all came under attack and were eventually overturned. Alternative models–Aristotelian homocentricity, the Capellan system and geocentricity with diurnal rotation–were promoted.  With the publication of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus with its heliocentric hypothesis the debates went into overdrive. Only a comparatively small number of astronomers propagated the heliocentric system and an even smaller number of them actually went on to have a real impact on the discussion. A much larger number showed an initial strong interest in the mathematical models in De revolutionibus and the planetary tables and ephemerides based on them, in the hope they would generate better, more accurate data for applications such as astrology, cartography and navigation. This proved not to be the case as Copernicus’ work was based on the same inaccurate and corrupted ancient data, as Ptolemaic geocentric tables. Recognising this both Wilhelm IV in Kassel and Tycho Brahe on Hven began programmes of extensive new astronomical observations. However, this very necessary new data only became generally available well into the seventeenth century. Other astronomers partially convinced by Copernicus’ arguments turned to Capellan models with Mercury and Venus orbiting the Sun rather than the Earth and full geo-heliocentric models with the Moon and the Sun orbiting the Earth and all the other five planets orbiting the Sun. This was the situation at the beginning of the 1590s but a young Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who would have a massive impact on the future astrological and cosmological models, was waiting in the wings.

 

 

 

 

 

5 Comments

Filed under History of Astrology, History of Astronomy, Renaissance Science

Kepler was wot, you don’t say?

 

The Guardian is making a serious bid for the year’s worst piece of #histsci reporting or as Adam Shapiro (@tryingbiology) once put it so expressively, #histsigh! The article in question has the shock, horror, sensation headline: Groundbreaking astronomer Kepler ‘may have practised alchemy’. Ignoring the fact for the moment that he probably didn’t, given the period and the milieu in which Kepler lived and worked saying that he may have been an alchemist is about as sensational as saying he may have been a human being.

1024px-Johannes_Kepler_1610

Johannes Kepler Source: Wikimedia Commons

The period in which Kepler lived was one in which the interest in alchemy was very widespread, very strong and very open. For eleven years he was Imperial Mathematicus at the court in Prague of the German Emperor Rudolph II, which was a major centre for all of the so-called occult sciences and in particular alchemy. In Prague Kepler’s original employer Tycho Brahe had been for years a practitioner of Paracelsian alchemical medicine (a very widespread form of medicine at the time), which to be fair the article sort of says. What they say is that Tycho was an alchemist, without pointing out that his alchemy was restricted to medical alchemy.

Tycho_de_brahe1

Tycho Brahe Source: Wikimedia Commons

One of his colleagues was the Swiss clockmaker Jost Bürgi, who had come to Prague from Hesse-Kassel,

Jost_Bürgi_Porträt

Jost Bürge Source: Wikimedia Commons

where the Landgrave Moritz was a major supporter of alchemy, who appointed Johannes Hartmann (1568–1631) to the first ever chair for chemistry, actually Paracelsian medicine, at the university of Marburg. The real surprise is not that Kepler was an alchemist or practiced alchemy but rather that given the time and milieu in which he lived and worked that he wasn’t and didn’t.

Johannes_hartmann

Johannes Hartmann Source: Wikimedia Commons

How can I be so sure that Kepler didn’t dabble in alchemy? Simply because if he had, he would have written about it. Kepler is a delight, or a nightmare, for the historian, there is almost no figure that I know of in #histSTM, who was as communicative as Kepler. He wrote and published eighty three books and pamphlets in his lifetime covering a very wide range of topics and in all his written work he was always keen to explain in great detail to his readers just what he was doing and his thoughts on what he was doing. He wrote extensively and very openly on his mathematics, his astronomy, his astrology, his family, his private affairs, his financial problems and all of his hopes and fears. If Kepler had in anyway been engaged with alchemy, he would have written about it. If anybody should chime in now with, yes but alchemists kept they activities secret, I would point out in Kepler’s time the people practicing alchemy, particularly the Paracelsians, were anything but secretive. And it was with the Paracelsians that Kepler had the closest contact.

There are a few letters exchanged between Kepler and his Paracelsian physician friends, which show quite clearly that although Kepler displayed the natural curiosity of a scientific researcher in their alchemistic activities he did not accept the basic principles of alchemy. In his notorious exchange with Robert Fludd, he is very dismissive of Fludd’s alchemical activities. Kepler was not an alchemist.

From a historical point of view particularly bad is the contrast deliberately set up in the article between good science, astronomy and mathematics, and ‘dirty’ pseudo- science’, alchemy. This starts with the title:

Groundbreaking astronomer Kepler ‘may have practised alchemy’

Continues with the whole of the first paragraph:

The pioneering astronomer Johannes Kepler may have had his eyes on the heavens, but chemical analysis of his manuscripts suggests he was “willing to get his hands dirty” and may have dabbled in alchemy.

“Kepler, who died in 1630, drew on Copernicus’s work to find laws of planetary motion that paved the way for Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity” is contrasted with “The authors speculate that Kepler could have learned the “pseudo-chemical science.” 

A ‘pioneering astronomer’ with ‘his eyes on the heavens’, serious scientific activity, but ‘dabbled in alchemy’. Whoever wrote these lines obviously knows nothing about Kepler’s astronomical writing nor about early 17thcentury alchemy.

The article through its choice of descriptive terms tries to set up a black/white dichotomy between the man who paved the way for modern astronomy, good, and the practitioners of alchemy in the early seventeenth century, bad. However if we actually look at the real history everything dissolves into shades of grey.

Kepler was not just an astronomer and mathematician but also a practicing astrologer. People might rush in here with lots of Kepler quotes condemning and ridiculing the nativity horoscope astrology of his age, all of them true. However, he famously said one shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water defending the basic idea of astrology and presenting his own unique system of astrology based entirely on aspects, that is the angular position of the planets relative to each other. The author of the piece has obviously never turned the pages of either Kepler’s Mysterium Cosmographicum or his Harmonice Mundi. As I commented on Twitter, during a discussion of this article, Kepler’s cosmological heuristic with which he generated all of his successful astronomy was, viewed from a modern rational standpoint, quite simply bat shit insane. Things are not looking good for our pioneering astronomer.

Kepler-solar-system-1

Kepler’s Platonic solid model of the solar system, from Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596) Kepler’s explanation as to why there are only five planets and their order around the sun! Source: Wikimedia Commons

On the other side, as I have noted on several occasions, alchemy included much that we now label applied and industrial chemistry.  For example, alchemists were responsible for the production of pigments for painters and gunpowder for fireworks and cannons, and were often glassmakers. Alchemists were historically responsible for developing the laboratory equipment and methodology for chemical analysis. In the period under discussion many alchemists, including Tycho, were Paracelsian physicians, who are credited with the founding of the modern pharmacological industry. Historians of alchemy tend to refer to the alchemy of the seventeenth century as chymistry because it represents the historical transition from alchemy to chemistry. Not so much a pseudo-science as a proto-science.

Let us now consider the so-called evidence for the articles principle claim. Throughout the article it is stated that the evidence was found on Kepler’s manuscripts, plural. But when the evidence is actually discussed it turns out to be a single manuscript about the moon. On this manuscript the researchers found:

“…very significant amounts of metals associated with the practice including gold, silver, mercury and lead on the pages of Kepler’s manuscript about the moon, catalogued as “Hipparchus” after the classical astronomer.”

Is alchemy the only possible/plausible explanation for the traces of metals found on this manuscript? Could one suggest another possibility? All of these metals could have been and would have been used by a clock and instrument maker such as Jost Bürgi, who was Kepler’s close colleague and friend throughout his eleven years in Prague. Bürgi also had a strong interest in astronomy and might well have borrowed an astronomical manuscript. Of course such a solution doesn’t make for a sensational article, although all the available evidence very strongly suggests that Kepler was not an alchemist.

One final point that very much worries me is the provenance of this document. It is four hundred years old, who has owned it in the meantime? Where has it been stored? Who has had access to it? Until all of these questions can be accurately answered attributing its contamination to Kepler is just unfounded speculation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15 Comments

Filed under History of Alchemy, History of Astrology, History of Astronomy, History of science, Myths of Science, Renaissance Science

Everything you wanted to know about Simon Marius and were too afraid to ask – now in English

Regular readers of this blog should by now be well aware of the fact that I belong to the Simon Marius Society a small group of scholars mostly from the area around Nürnberg, who dedicate some of their time and energy to re-establishing the reputation of the Franconian mathematicus Simon Marius (1573–1625), who infamously discovered the four largest moons of Jupiter literally one day later than Galileo Galilei and got accused of plagiarism for his troubles. Galileo may have discovered them first but Marius won, in the long term, the battle to name them.

1024px-Simon_marius

Frontispiece of Mundus Iovialis Source:Wikimedia Commons

In 2014 the Simon Marius Society organised many activities to celebrate the four-hundredth anniversary of the publication of his opus magnum, Mundus Jovialis (The World of Jupiter). Amongst other things was an international conference held in Nürnberg, which covered all aspects of Marius’ life and work. The papers from this conference were published in German in 2016: Simon Marius und seine Forschung (Acta Historica Astronomiae), (AVA, Leipzig).

41adhtDYmML._SX352_BO1,204,203,200_

Now after much effort and some delays the expanded translation, now includes the full English text of Mundus Jovialis, has become available in English: Simon Marius and his Research, Springer, New York, 2019.

41+zDWLU41L._SX313_BO1,204,203,200_

The ebook is already available and the hardback version will become available on 19 August. I apologize for the horrendous price but the problem of pricing by academic publishers is sadly well known. Having copyedited the entire volume, which means I have read the entire contents very carefully I can assure you that there is lots of good stuff to read not only about Simon Marius but also about astronomy, astrology, mathematics, court life in the seventeenth century and other topics of historical interest. If you can’t afford a copy yourself try to persuade you institutional library to buy one! If your university library buys a copy from Springer then students can order, through the library, a somewhat cheaper black and white copy of the book.

3 Comments

Filed under History of Astrology, History of Astronomy, History of Mathematics, Renaissance Science

The emergence of modern astronomy – a complex mosaic: Part XI

Despite the high level of anticipation De revolutionibus cannot be in anyway described as hitting the streets running; it was more a case of dribbling out very slowly into the public awareness. There are several reasons for this. Today there is a well-oiled machine, which goes into operations when an important new book is published. Book reviews and adverts in the relevant journals and newspapers, books delivered in advance to bookshops all over the country, radio and television interviews with the author and so on.

Absolutely none of this apparatus existed in anyway in the fifteenth century. There were no journals or newspapers, where reviews and adverts could be published. Information about a new publication was distributed over the academic grapevine by mail; the grapevine was quite efficient with scholars communicating with each other throughout Europe but the mail system wasn’t. Letters often took months and quite often never arrived at all. There were no bookstores, as we know them today and no book distribution network. Petreius had a stall on the local market place but he probably would not have sold many copies of De revolutionibus in Nürnberg itself.

DnHIZRmW0AAm9kT.jpg-large

A 19th century painting of the Nürnberg market place

In this context it is interesting that the town library doesn’t own a copy of the 1st edition. For other sales, other than by mail, Petreius would have transported copies of the book packed into barrels to the annual fairs in Leipzig and Frankfurt, where, as well as private customers, other printer publishers would buy copies of the book to take back to their home towns to supplement their own production for their local customers. The Leipzig fair took place at Easter and in autumn, the Frankfurt fair only in autumn. Easter 1543 was in April so the distribution of De revolutionibus only really began in the autumn of that year.

RömerbergMesselo-res1-350x268

Frankfurt Book Fair 1500

The next factors that slowed the reception of De revolutionibus were the price and the content. As a large book with a complex mathematical content with lots of tables and diagrams, De revolutionibus was a very expensive book putting it outside of the financial range of students or anybody without a substantial income or private fortune. A first edition bought by the astrologer Valentin Engelhart (1516-1562) in 1545 cost 1 florin = 12 groschen. A students university matriculation fees at this time cost between 6 and 10 groschens. It is indicative that Kepler could only afford to acquire a second hand copy. Owen Gingerich speculates that the high cost of the book is the reason for the comparatively high survival of copies, Gingerich estimates about fifty per cent. It was very expensive so people took good care of it. The high price and the complex contents very much limited potential sales.

Nicolai_Copernici_torinensis_De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium.djvu

De Revolutionibus woodcut of the heliocentric cosmos Source: Latin Wikisource

In terms of content this was a major, heavy duty, large-scale mathematical text and not in anyway something for the casual reader, no mater how well read. Copernicus’ Mathemata mathematicis scribuntur was meant very seriously. This suggests that the potential circle of purchasers was fairly strictly limited to the comparatively small group of mathematical astronomers, who would be capable of reading and understanding Copernicus’ masterpiece. Given his record in the field of mathematical and astronomical/astrological publishing Petreius naturally already had a group of customers to whom he could offer his latest coup in this genre, otherwise he probably would not have published De revolutionibus. However, even if he could get this very specialist book to its specialist group of readers, they would require a comparatively long time to read, work through and digest its complex contents. The earliest known published reaction to De revolutionibus was Gemma FrisiusDe radio astronomico et geometrico a booklet of a multipurpose astronomical and geometrical instrument published in 1545 two years after Copernicus’ volume.

Here at this comparatively early point Frisius, who knew of Copernicus’ hypothesis through the Narratio Prima and and had been invited by Dantiscus, Prince-Bishop of Frombork, one of his patrons, to come to Frombork and work with Copernicus, displays a very cautious attitude towards the new heliocentric astronomy although he is very critical towards Ptolemaeus’ work.

Dantyszek

Johannes Dantiscus Source: Wikimedia Commons

Given that the main purpose of astronomy was, at this time, still to provide astronomical data for astrology, navigation and cartography many of those potentially interested in the new astronomy were waiting for new planetary tables and ephemerides before passing judgement. The earliest planetary tables, the Tabulae prutenicae (Prutenic Tables) based on De revolutionibus, but not exclusively, were produced by the professor for the higher mathematics (music and astronomy) at Wittenberg Erasmus Reinhold (1511–1553) and first published in 1551.

Prutenic_Tables

Source: Wikimedia Commons

These tables were financed by Albrecht I, Duke of Prussia hence the name Prutenic i.e. Prussia.

Lucas_Cranach_d.Ä._-_Bildnis_des_Markgrafen_Albrecht_von_Brandenburg-Ansbach_(Herzog_Anton_Ulrich-Museum)

Albrecht, Duke of Prussia portrait by Lucas Cranach the elder Source: Wikimedia Commons

Interestingly Reinhold was not a supporter of heliocentricity. Ephemerides based on the Prutenic Tables were produced in the Netherlands by Johannes Stadius (1527–1579) a pupil of Gemma Frisius in 1554 with an introductory letter by his old teacher.

Joannes_Stadius

Johannes Stadius Source: Wikimedia Commons

A second set of ephemerides, also based on the Prutenic Tables, were produced in England by John Feild (c. 1525–1587), a pupil of John Dee (1527–1608) in 1557. Dee was another pupil of Gemma Frisius, so this might be a case of the academic grapevine in operation. These tables and ephemerides played an important roll in spreading awareness of the new heliocentric hypothesis.

Whereas with a modern publication reception will probably be judged in terms of months or even weeks for a popular book and a few years for a serious academic title; looking at De revolutionibus to judge its reception we really need to cover the sixty plus years following its publication up to the invention of the telescope, the next major game changer in astronomy.

There is a popular misconception that that reception can be quantified in terms of those for and those against the heliocentric hypothesis. This is very much not the case. As I tried to make clear at the beginning of this series the sixteenth century was very much characterised by very lively debates on various aspects of astronomy–the nature, status and significance of comet, a lively revival of the Aristotelian homocentric spheres model of the cosmos and a growing dissatisfaction with the quality of the available astronomical data. There were small smouldering fires of debate everywhere within the European astronomical community, Copernicus’ De revolutionibus turned them into a raging bush fire; the reactions to its publication were multifaceted and the suggested changes it provoked were wide-ranging and highly diverse. It would be more than a hundred years before the smoke cleared and a general consensus could be found within the astronomical community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Early Scientific Publishing, History of Astrology, History of Astronomy, Renaissance Science