Category Archives: History of Astronomy

If you’re going to blog about history of science then at least do the legwork.

In 2012 I found it necessary on two occasions to pour scorn onto the attempts of Esther Inglis-Arkell to blog about the history of science on the io9 website. In the end I gave up having come to the conclusion, not only because of her contributions, that io9 was, despite according to Wikipedia being “named one of the top 30 science blogs by Michael Moran of The Times’ Eureka Zone blog“, definitely not a place to go for anything resembling sensible history of science. However I recently had recourse to visit this quagmire of questionable information to trace the source of a dubious history of science claim. Entering the name Tycho Brahe into the sites search engine the first thing offered was a post about Denmark’s most notorious astronomer written by Esther Inglis-Arkell at the beginning of December. Against my better judgement I decided to read this pre-Christmas offering and very much wished that I hadn’t succumbed to temptation. This post with the title The Bitterest Scientific Duel in History Was Over “Geoheliocentrism” is to put it mildly pretty awful.

Before we examine the post let us consider the title. I have on numerous occasions argued that one should not use superlatives in the history of science, or in history in general come to that, terms such as ‘first’, ‘greatest’, etc., are to be avoided at all cost and the situation here is no different. ‘Bitterest scientific duel”? Really? What about Galileo contra Scheiner on sunspots or Galileo contra Grassi on the nature of comets? Hooke contra Huygens on the watch spring? Hooke contra Newton on everything under the sun or Newton contra Leibniz on the invention of the calculus? That’s just picking some of the cherries off the cake. In the Early Modern period disputes over priority, plagiarism, scientific interpretation and numerous other things were part of the daily bread of scholars. If should think that it was only the mathematical sciences which went in for verbal warfare try the dispute between Leonhart Fuchs and Janus Cornarius, which used language that would make a drunken sailor blush.

EIA’s introduction is also somewhat less than fortunate, she writes, “His bitterest fight involved three famous astronomers of the 16th century, and their battle over the best theory about how Earth was at the center of the universe“. This less than perfect sentence seems to imply that the dispute was about competing cosmological systems, it wasn’t. The dispute was about whether Nicolaus Reimers Bär, generally known as Ursus, had plagiarised the Tychonic system from its Danish creator. Tycho said he had, Ursus denied the charge. EIA’s confusion is not restricted to the introduction as in the following paragraph she writes:

[Tycho] published a geoheliocentric version of the universe, with both the Earth and Sun at the center of the solar system. The “system of the world” was well-received, and an improvement on the existing geocentric model. It was not unique. Nicolaus Reimarus also published a book, titled “Fundamentals of Astronomy,” that replaced the geocentric model.

First off in Tycho’s system “both the Earth and Sun are not at the center of the solar system”! The earth is at the centre and is orbited by the sun, which in turn is orbited by the five planets. Here it is also very clear that EIA is not aware that with slight differences they both published the same system. Tycho claiming that Ursus had plagiarised him and Ursus claiming that he had developed/discovered the system independently. In the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that Paul Wittich, Duncan Liddel, Helisaeus Röslin and Simon Marius all claimed to have independently developed/ discovered a Tychonic system: In fact Gingerich and Westman argue a very good case that Tycho and Ursus both plagiarised Wittich!

I’m not going to discuss the whole story here although I might write a post about it in the future but anybody who wants to read up on it for themselves should, to get a full and balanced picture, read Edward Rosen’s Three Imperial Mathematicians: Kepler Trapped between Tycho Brahe and Ursus, Nicholas Jardine’s The Birth of the History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler’s ‘A Defence of Tycho against Ursus’ with Essays on its Provenance and Significance and Owen Gingerich’s and Robert S. Westman’s The Wittich Connection: Conflict and Priority in Late Sixteenth Century Cosmology, as well as Victor Thoren’s The Lord of Uraniborg: A biography of Tycho Brahe and Dieter Launert’s Nicolaus Reimers (Raimarus Ursus) (this is in German). If that is not enough volume 36 (2005) of the Journal for the History of Astronomy (which is open access) has nine papers by Jardine et al on the subject and volume 44 (2013, not open access) has an interesting paper Trying Ursus: A Reappraisal of the Tycho-Ursus Priority Dispute by Juan D. Serrano. All of this literature means that there really is no excuse for EIA not to get her story right!

We now get introduced to Tycho:

The dual publication was bound to cause bad feelings. Tycho Brahe was a great drinking buddy, but he did not have an even temper when it came to academic debate. He’d lost part of his nose in a duel with his third cousin over a difference in their appraisal of mathematical formula. He was also a dyed-in-the-wool aristocrat who avoided marrying a woman because she was a commoner, despite the fact that they lived together for 30 years and had eight children.

That the duel in which Tycho lost part of his nose was over some sort of mathematical dispute (version differ) is apocryphal or put less politely, a myth with no basis in fact, put into the world by Pierre Gassendi. Tycho did not avoid marrying Kirstin Jørgensdatter, because he was a noble and she was a commoner, they couldn’t marry formally, it being illegal at that time in Denmark. However under a Jutish law (accepted at the time), “the woman who for three winters lived openly as wife in a house, eating and drinking and sleeping with the man of the house and possessing the keys to the household, should be his true wife”[1]. Tycho’s and Kirstin’s marriage was thus under Danish law a legitimate one and their children were also legitimate and not bastards but having a commoner as mother they were themselves commoners and could not inherit Tycho’s titles or properties. They could however and did inherit his astronomical observational data, a fact that caused Johannes Kepler much stress.

We then get introduced to Ursus:

Reimarus started his life lower, and arguably rose higher. As a child he was a pig herder. (Confusingly, this seemed to earn him the nickname of “Bear” or “Ursus.”) His academic performance helped him rise quickly, and his book on the true shape of the universe earned him a position as the Imperial Astronomer to the Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolph II.

Nicolaus Reimers’ nickname Bär (English bear, Latin Ursus) naturally, had nothing to do with his activities as a swineherd, which took place when he was eighteen years old not when he was a child, but was a name he adopted in 1588 because of his relationship to the Baren clan, a notable family in Dithmarschen. He was born in Hennstedt in Dithmarschen, an area in North Germany.

EIA goes on to say that Brahe circulated his accusations against Ursus in a letter “amongst the other imperial scientists”. Whilst it’s true that Brahe originally spread his accusations against Ursus in his correspondence with other scholars, not just one letter, I have no idea who ‘the other imperial scientists’ are supposed to be? However, the dispute first really blew up when he published a volume of his scientific correspondence in 1596 in which he included his correspondence on the topic of Ursus and his intellectual theft with Christian Rothmann, astronomer on the court of Wilhelm IV of Hessen-Kassel. Rothmann, who knew Ursus personally from a period he had spent in Kassel, and didn’t like him, fanned the flames from his side with some choice gratuitous insults. Ursus was not amused.

EIA tells us, “Reimarus replied to the allegations in an astronomy journal“. This is a clear proof that EIA has no idea what she is talking about. Ursus’ reply was actually in the form of a book, De astronomicis hypothesibus, published in 1597. He could not have replied in an astronomical journal because there weren’t any in the sixteenth century. I don’t actually know when or where the first astronomical journal was published but certainly not before the eighteenth century. The first ever academic journal was the Journal des sçavans of which the first edition appeared on Monday 5 January 1665 two months ahead of the first edition of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which celebrates its 350th birthday this year. Ursus’ book set new levels for invective in an academic dispute.

The non-existent astronomical journal might seem to be a rather trivial error to non-historians of science but in reality it is anything but trivial. The media with which scholars communicate, disseminating and discussing their results is a very important and very central theme in the history of science. The error that EIA makes is a very high level error. It is as if a military or political historian describing the Battle of Culloden would claim that Bonnie Prince Charlie was driven away from the battlefield in a Rolls Royce.

Not content with all her errors up to now EIA now drops a major clanger:

Then he did something he lived to regret – if only briefly. He mentioned that Johannes Kepler, another famous astronomer, had sided with him in this little dispute. He even included a letter from Kepler, full of extravagant praise, in which Kepler declared that good old Ursus had taught him everything he knew about brilliant mathematics. When one of the most famous astronomers and mathematicians of the age was on his side, how could he be wrong?

Yes, Ursus did include a very obsequious letter from Johannes Kepler in his book, which did acknowledge Ursus as his teacher (not quite as extremely as EIA would have as believe) but Kepler was not “one of the most famous astronomers and mathematicians of the age”. This is common mistake that people make, if XY became famous he must have always been famous. This is of course not true, famous people must of course go through a process of becoming famous, which can often take many years. When Kepler wrote the embarrassing letter to Ursus he was a completely unknown schoolteacher from the Austrian provinces and in fact this was the motivation for his obsequious letter.

Kepler had just written his first book, the Mysterium Cosmographicum, and in order to try to interest people for his book and start to build a scholarly reputation he sent off gratis copies of the book accompanied with obsequious letters to well-known and influential astronomers and mathematicians, including sending copies to both Tycho and Ursus, who was after all Imperial Mathematicus in Prague.

EIA now adds fuel to the flames of her own historical funeral pyre she informs us:

Even in his own time he was revered, and so the person who actually did teach him had bragging rights. Those rights belonged to Michael Maestlin, Kepler’s math teacher at his university. When Maestlin heard that Kepler was making the Reimarus claim, he was understandably peeved, and fired off a letter to Kepler.

First off at the time of the publication of Ursus’ book Kepler was, as already said, a nobody and by no means revered. In fact the letter from Maestlin was completely different. Before we look briefly at that, calling another scholar your teacher was a fairly standard Renaissance flowery phrase meaning I have learnt so much from reading your work and didn’t faze Maestlin at all. What did faze Maestlin was the letter he received from Tycho complaining about the appearance of Kepler’s letter in Ursus’ book praising the man who had stolen Tycho’s ideas. Maestlin wrote to Kepler to tell him to apologise to Tycho, which Kepler did very quickly. This would prove to be a highly embarrassing situation for Kepler, who a couple of years later, expelled from Austria by the Counter-Reformation, desperately wanted Tycho to give him a job. In fact the noble Dane did give him employment but as his first assignment ordered him to write a book on the dispute exonerating himself and condemning Ursus. Kepler complied, although the book was originally not published, Tycho having died before it was finished, and it is this document that is the subject of Nicholas Jardine’s book mentioned above.

You may ask why I bother to tear this apology for history of science apart, a question I ask myself. What really angers me is that a website with the reach and influence that io9 has allows somebody like Esther Inglis-Arkell to write articles on the history of science, a discipline about which she very obviously knows next to nothing. There are a lot of good historians of science out in the world couldn’t io9 find somebody who knows what they are talking about to write their history of science articles or at least somebody who is prepared to do the leg work and read up on the topic they are writing about before putting fingers to keyboard?

[1] Thoren, p. 46


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

Preach truth – serve up myths.

Over Christmas I poked a bit of fun at Neil deGrasse Tyson for tweeting that Newton would transform the world by the age of 30, pointing out he was going on forty-five when he published his world transforming work the Principia. The following day NdGT posted a short piece on Face Book praising his own tweet and its success. Here he justified his by the age of thirty claim but in doing so rode himself deeper into the mire of sloppy #histsci. You might ask why this matters, to which the answer is very simple. NdGT is immensely popular especially amongst those with little idea of science and less of the history of science and who hang on his every utterance. Numerous historians of science labour very hard to dismantle the myths of science and to replace them with a reasonable picture of how science evolved throughout its long and convoluted history. NdGT disdains those efforts and perpetuates the myths leading his hordes of admirers up the garden path of delusion. Let us take a brief look at his latest propagation of #histmyth.

NdGT’s post starts off with the news that his Newton birthday tweet is the most RTed tweet he has every posted citing numbers that lesser mortals would not even dare to dream about. This of course just emphasises the danger of NdGT as disseminator of false history of science, his reach is wide and his influence is strong. Apparently some Christians had objected to NdGT celebrating Newton’s birthday on Christ’s birthday and NdGT denies that his tweet was intended to be anti-Christian but then goes on to quote the tweet that he sent out in answer to those accusations:

“Imagine a world in which we are all enlightened by objective truths rather than offended by them.”

Now on the whole I agree with the sentiment expressed in this tweet, although I do have vague vision of Orwellian dystopia when people from the scientism/gnu atheist camp start preaching about ‘objective truth’. Doesn’t Pravda mean truth? However I digress.

I find it increasing strange that NdGT’s craving for objective truth doesn’t stretch to the history of science where he seems to much prefer juicy myths to any form of objectivity. And so also in this case. In his post he expands on the tweet I had previously poked fun at. He writes:

Everybody knows that Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25th.  I think fewer people know that Isaac Newton shares the same birthday.  Christmas day in England – 1642.  And perhaps even fewer people know that before he turned 30, Newton had discovered the laws of motion, the universal law of gravitation, and invented integral and differential calculus.  All of which served as the mechanistic foundation for the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries that would forever transform the world.

What we are being served up here is a slightly milder version of the ‘annus mirabilis’ myth. This very widespread myth claims that Newton did all of the things NdGT lists above in one miraculous year, 1666, whilst abiding his time at home in Woolsthorpe, because the University of Cambridge had been closed down due to an outbreak of the plague. NdGT allows Newton a little more time, he turned 30 in 1672, but the principle is the same, look oh yee of little brain and tremble in awe at the mighty immaculate God of science Sir Isaac Newton! What NdGT the purported lover of objective truth chooses to ignore, or perhaps he really is ignorant of the facts, is that a generation of some of the best historians of science who have ever lived, Richard S. Westfall, D. T. Whiteside, Frank Manuel, I. Bernard Cohen, Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs and others, have very carefully researched and studied the vast convolute of Newton’s papers and have clearly shown that the whole story is a myth. To be a little bit fair to NdGT the myth was first put in the world by Newton himself in order to shoot down all his opponents in the numerous plagiarism disputes that he conducted. If he had done it all that early then he definitely had priority and the others were all dastardly scoundrels out to steal his glory. We now know that this was all a fabrication on Newton’s part.

Newton was awarded his BA in 1665 and in the following years he was no different to any highly gifted postgraduate trying to find his feet in the world of academic research. He spread his interests wide reading and absorbing as much of the modern science of the time as he could and making copious notes on what he read as well as setting up ambitious research programmes on a wide range of topics that were to occupy his time for the next thirty years. In the eighteen months before being sent down from Cambridge because of the plague he concentrated his efforts on the new analytical mathematics that had developed over the previous century. Whilst reading widely and bringing himself up to date on material that was not taught at Cambridge he simultaneously extended and developed what he was reading laying the foundations for his version of the calculus. It was no means a completed edifice as NdGT, and unfortunately many others, would have us believe but it was still a very notable mathematical achievement. Over the decades he would return from time to time to his mathematical researches building on and extending that initial foundation. He also didn’t ‘invent’ integral and differential calculus but brought together, codified and extended the work of many others, in particular, Descartes, Fermat, Pascal, Barrow and Wallace, who in turn looked back upon two thousand years of history on the topic.

In the period beginning in 1666 he left off with mathematical endeavours and turned his attention to mechanics mostly addressing the work of Descartes. He made some progress and even wondered, maybe inspired by observing a falling apple in his garden in Woolsthorpe, if the force which causes things to fall the Earth is the same as the force which prevents the Moon from shooting off at a tangent to its orbit. He did some back of an envelope calculations, which showed that they weren’t, due to faulty data and he dropped the matter. He didn’t discover the laws of motion and as he derived the law of gravity from Huygens’ law of centripetal force that was first published in 1673 he certainly didn’t do it before he was thirty. In fact most of the work that went into Newton’s magnum opus the Principia was done in an amazing burst of concentrated effort in the years between 1684 and 1687 when Newton was already over forty.

What Newton did do between 1666 and 1672 was to conduct an extensive experimental programme into physical optics, in particular what he termed the phenomenon of colour. This programme resulted in the construction of the first reflecting telescope and in 1672 Newton’s legendary first paper A Letter of Mr. Isaac Newton, Professor of the Mathematicks in the University of Cambridge; Containing His New Theory about Light and Colors published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Apparently optics doesn’t interest NdGT. Around 1666 Newton also embarked on perhaps his most intensive and longest research programme to discover the secrets of alchemy, whilst starting his life long obsession with the Bible and religion. The last two don’t exactly fit NdGT’s vision of enlightened objective truth.

Newton is without doubt an exceptional figure in the history of science, who has few equals, but like anybody else Newton’s achievements were based on long years of extensive and intensive work and study and are not the result of some sort of scientific miracle in his young years. Telling the truth about Newton’s life and work rather than propagating the myths, as NdGT does, gives students who are potential scientists a much better impression of what it means to be a scientist and is thus in my opinion to be preferred.

As a brief addendum NdGT points out that Newton’s birthday is not actually 25 December (neither is Christ’s by the way) because he was born before the calendar reform was introduced into Britain so we should, if we are logical, be celebrating his birthday on 4 January. NdGT includes the following remark in his explanation, “But the Gregorian Calendar (an awesomely accurate reckoning of Earth’s annual time), introduced in 1584 by Pope Gregory, was not yet adopted in Great Britain.” There is a certain irony in his praise, “an awesomely accurate reckoning of Earth’s annual time”, as this calendar was developed and introduced for purely religious reasons, again not exactly enlightened or objective.





Filed under History of Astronomy, History of Mathematics, History of Physics, History of science, Myths of Science, Renaissance Science

Just saying…

Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to have a real talent for very sloppy history of science. He pontificates on history of science topics without taking the trouble to check his facts. On Christmas day to acknowledge the birthday of Isaac Newton he tweeted the following:

On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642

Now, you would think that an astrophysicist would be able to cope with simple arithmetic but it seems to be beyond NdGT’s mental grasp. Newton, as he points out, was born in 1642. The contribution to science that he made that “would transform the world” can only refer to his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica and, as any historian of science could have told NdGT, this was published in 1687. Applying the subtraction algorithm, which most of us learnt in primary school, 1687 – 1642 = 45 and not thirty. Even being generous, as this is a fifty per cent error in the stated age at which Newton “would transform the world” we cannot really award NdGT anything but an F for this incredibly sloppy piece of work. Do try to do better next time Neil!


Filed under History of Astronomy, History of science, Newton

Someone is Wrong on the Internet.

Many of the readers of this blog will probably recognise the title of this post, as the punch line to one of the best ever xkcd cartoons. Regular readers will also know that the Renaissance Mathematicus cannot resist stamping on people who post inanely inaccurate or downright wrong history of science claims, comments etc. on the Internet. This last pre-Christmas post brings two examples of such foolishness that crossed our path in recent times.

The first concerns a problem that turns up time and again, not only on the Internet but also in many books. It is the inability of lots of people to comprehend that there cannot be a year nil, year zero or whatever they choose to call it. (Have patience dear reader the reason will be explained soon). Even worse are the reasons that such people, in their ignorance, dream up to explain the absence of the, in their opinion, missing numberless year. I stumbled across a particularly juicy example on the BBC’s History Extra website last Thursday, in a post entitled, 10 of the most surprising numbers in history. Actually the whole post really deserves a good kicking but for now I will content myself with the authors surprising number, AD 0…  the date that never was. The entry is very short so I’ve included the whole of it below:

The AD years of the Christian calendar are counted from the year of Jesus Christ’s birth, and, as the number zero was then unknown to the west, Dionysius began his new Christian era as AD 1, not AD 0. [my emphasis]

While it is now the consensus that Jesus was probably born between 7 and 3 BC, Dionysius’s new calendar is now the most widely used in the world, while AD 0 is one of the most interesting numbers never to have seen the light of day.

The first time I read this sparking pearl of historical wisdom I experienced one of those extremely painful ‘head-desk’ moments; recovering from my shock and managing at least a semblance of a laugh at this stunning piece of inanity I decided to give it the Histsci Hulk treatment.

Before I explain why there cannot be a year zero, let us look briefly at why Dionysius Exiguus, or Dennis the Short, started his count of the years with AD 1. Dennis, he of little stature, was not trying to create the calendar we use today in everyday lives but was making his contribution to the history of computos, the art of calculating the date of Easter. Due to the fact that the date of Easter is based on the Jewish Pesach (that’s Passover) feast, which in turn is based on a lunar calendar and also the fact that the lunar month and the solar year are incommensurable (you cannot measure the one with the other), these calculations are anything but easy. In fact they caused the Catholic Church much heartbreak and despair over the centuries from its beginnings right down to the Gregorian calendar reform in 1582. In the early centuries of Christianity the various solution usually involved producing a table of the dates of the occurrence of Easter over a predetermined cycle of years that then theoretically repeats from the beginning without too much inaccuracy. Dennis the vertically challenged produced just such a table.

In the time of our little Dennis there wasn’t a calendar with a continuous count of years. It was common practice to number the years according to the reign of the current monarch, emperor, despot or whatever. So for example the year that we know as 47 BCE would have been the third year of the reign of Gaius Julius Caesar. For formal purposes this dating system actually survived for a very long time. I recently came across a reference to a court case at the English Kings Bench Court in the eighteenth century as taking place on 12 July ‘4Geo.III’, that is the fourth year of the reign of George III. In Dennis the Small’s time the old Easter table, he hoped to replace, was dated according to the years of the reign of the Emperor Diocletian (245-311, reigned 284-305). Diocletian had distinguished himself by being particularly nasty to the Christians so our dwarf like hero decided to base his cycle on the 525 532 years “since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ”; quite how he arrived at 525 532 years is not really known. AD short (being short, Dennis liked short things) for Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi (“In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ”). It was only later, starting with the Venerable Bede’s History of the Church (Historia Ecclesiastica) that Dennis’ innovation began to be used for general dating or calendrical purposes. The idea of BC years or dates only came into use in Early Modern period.

We now turn to the apparently thorny problem as to why there cannot be a year zero in a calendrical dating system. People’s wish or desire to find the missing year zero is based on a confusion in their minds between cardinal and ordinal numbers. (In what follows the terms cardinal and ordinal are used in their common linguistic sense and not the more formal sense of mathematical set theory). Cardinal numbers, one, two, three … and so on are used to count the number of objects in a collection. If, for example, your collection is the cookie jar there can be zero or nil cookies if the jar is, sadly, empty. Ordinal numbers list the positions of objects in an ordered collection, first, second, third … and so on. It requires only a modicum of thought to realise that there cannot be a zeroeth object, if it doesn’t exist it doesn’t have a position in the collection.

This distinction between cardinal and ordinal numbers becomes confused when we talk about historical years. We refer to the year five hundred CE when in fact we should be saying the five hundredth year CE, as it is an ordinal and not a cardinal. Remember our little friend Dennis’ AD, Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi (“In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christ”)! We are enumerating the members of an ordered set not counting the number of objects in a collection. Because this is the case there cannot be a zeroeth year. End of discussion!

That this error, and particularly the harebrained explanation for the supposedly missing year zero, should occur on any history website is bad enough but that it occurs on a BBC website, an organisation that used to be world renowned for its informational reliability is unforgivable. I say used to be because I don’t think it’s true any longer. I would be interested in who is responsible for the history content of the BBC’s web presence as it varies between sloppy as here and totally crap as witnessed here and discussed here and here.

My second example is just as bad in terms of its source coming as it does from the Windows to the Universe website Brought to you by the National Earth Science Teachers Association. You would think that such an educational body would take the trouble to make sure that the historical information that they provide and disseminate is accurate and correct. If you thought that, you would be wrong, as is amply demonstrated by their post on Hellenistic astronomer, Ptolemy.

Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived between 85-165 A.D. He put together his own ideas with those of Aristotle and Hipparchus and formed the geocentric theory. This theory states that the Earth was at the center of the universe and all other heavenly bodies circled it, a model which held for 1400 years until the time of Copernicus.

Ptolemy is also famous for his work in geography. He was the first person to use longitude and latitude lines to identify places on the face of the Earth.

We don’t actually know when Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) lived, the usual way used to present his life is ‘fl. 150 CE’, where fl. means flourished. If you give dates for birth and death they should given as circa or c. To write them as above, 85–165 A.D. implies we know his exact dates of birth and death, we don’t! This is a trivial, but for historians, important point.

More important is the factual error in the second sentence: He … formed the geocentric theory. The geocentric theory had existed in Greek astronomy and cosmology for at least seven hundred years before Ptolemaeus wrote his Syntaxis Mathematiké (the Almagest). Ptolemaeus produced the most sophisticated mathematical model of the geocentric theory in antiquity but he didn’t form it. Those seven hundred years are not inconsequential (go back seven hundred years from now and you’ll be in 1314!) but represent seven hundred years of developments in cosmology and mathematical astronomy.

The last sentence contains an even worse error for teachers of the earth sciences. Ptolemaeus did indeed write a very important and highly influential geography book, his Geographike Hyphegesis. However he was not “the first person to use longitude and latitude lines”. We cannot be one hundred per cent who did in fact first use longitude and latitude lines but this innovation in cartography is usually attributed to a much earlier Alexandrian geographer, Eratosthenes, who lived about three hundred and fifty years before Ptolemaeus.

This is an example of truly terrible history of science brought to you by an organisation that says this about itself, “The National Earth Science Teachers Association is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization, founded in 1985, whose mission is to facilitate and advance excellence in Earth and Space Science education” [my emphasis]. I don’t know about you but my definition of excellence is somewhat other.



Filed under History of Astronomy, History of Cartography, History of science, Myths of Science

A very similar luminous lustre appears when one observes a burning candle from a great distance through a translucent piece of horn.

On 15 December 1612 (os) Simon Marius, Court Mathematicus in Ansbach, became the first astronomer to record a telescopic observation of the Andromeda Nebula. The importance of this observation was that whereas other known nebulae such as the Orion Nebula, had resolved into individual stars when viewed with a telescope, the Andromeda Nebula as recorded by Marius appears as “…a weak and faint lustre at the centre with a diameter of about one quarter of a degree. A very similar luminous lustre appears when one observes a burning candle from a great distance through a translucent piece of horn” (Simon Marius, Mudus Iovialis, 1614 my translation).

In the history of astronomy the Andromeda Nebula would go on to play a central role in the deep space observations of Charles Messier (M31) and William Herschel in the eighteenth century. In the early twentieth century its nature and status then became the bone of contention in the legendary dispute between Shapley and Curtis.

2014 being the four hundredth anniversary of the publication of Marius’ major astronomical work the Mundus Iovialis we have been celebrating his live and work in Middle Franconia. First high point of the various activities were the launching of the Marius Portal, an Internet website giving researchers free access to all primary and secondary works by and about Simon Marius with navigation in almost thirty different languages.

On 20 September a one-day conference was held with contributions covering the various aspects of Marius’ life and academic work (mathematics, astrology and astronomy) in Nürnberg. The proceedings of this conference are due to appear in book, form hopefully in 2015.

This coming Wednesday, 17 December 2014, will see the founding of the Simon Marius Gesellschaft (Simon Marius Society) in Nürnberg to further research and promote his life and work. Anybody who is interested is herewith cordially invited to apply for full or corresponding membership. There are no membership fees!


Filed under History of Astronomy, History of science, Local Heroes, Renaissance Science

Financing Tycho’s little piece of heaven

On Chris Graney’s recent guest post I linked to an earlier guest post that he had written about the Danish Renaissance astronomer Tycho Brahe and one of the new readers, that this link attracted, posted a question that I seem to have answered a lot of times in my life so I thought that this time, I would turn the answer in to a new post.

Source Wikicommons

Source Wikicommons

In his guest post Chris Graney wrote, “…Brahe ran a major observatory (“Uraniborg”) and research program on his island of Hven.  The cost of Brahe’s program to the Danish crown was proportionately comparable to the budget of NASA.” This is probably somewhat hyperbolic but it is certainly true that Tycho had financial resources for his observatory that would make any wannabe astronomer jealous. It is these financial resources that prompted the question that I’m going to answer here. Commentator Daniel N. asked:

Once again an excellent post… I have known most of this, however, I got surprised to learn that the Kingdom of Denmark was giving NASA-sized budget to Brahe. What was the reason? NASA started as a combined military/race-against-communist pursuit, in an age of science…

Given that Tycho’s scientific island paradise was indeed financed by the Danish Crown this is a very valid and historically interesting question.

Map of Hven by Blaeu

Map of Hven by Blaeu


Surprisingly, in the first place the simple answer is enthusiasm, Tycho’s all consuming desire to obtain an accurate set of astronomical data on which to base cosmological speculations. This might seem a little bizarre, as you are being expected to believe that the Danish Crown coughed up a small fortune in the last quarter of the sixteenth-century to fulfil the private offbeat desire of one of their aristocrats, but this is exactly what happened, but it was the fact that Tycho was one of their aristocrats that led to this situation. Before going on to explain this let us take a brief look at what exactly it was that Tycho got from his liege lord.


Uraniborg in garden

Uraniborg in garden

The Danish Crown granted Tycho the island of Hven, which lies between Denmark and Sweden, as his fief and supplied him with the money to build both a large manor house, Uraniborg, incorporating the most sophisticated astronomical observatory in the world at the time as well as a Paracelsian chemiatry laboratory, alongside extensive living quarters.

Uraniborg main building

Uraniborg main building

In the grounds he constructed a second sunken observatory, Stjerneborg, equipped with the most advanced observing instruments of his own design.




Stjerneborg subterranean observatory ground plan

Stjerneborg subterranean observatory ground plan

Tycho lived in and managed this, at the time unique, research institution with his family and a large staff of technical assistants and servants as well as a tame elk and a dwarf as court jester. The whole operation financed by a generous yearly appanage from the Danish Crown. Why should the Danish Crown finance all of this? The seemingly paradox answer is that if Tycho had not become the Danish court astronomer/astrologer he would have cost the Crown considerably more in lands and money than he did, how come?

In the sixteenth-century Denmark was basically a feudal warrior society ruled by an oligarchy of about twenty families that was still in the process of transitioning into a modern state. Tycho’s parents Otte Brahe and Beate Bille were both prominent and highly influential members of that oligarchy. When he was two years old Tycho was kidnapped by his uncle Jørgen Brahe (it’s a complicated story) and was brought up by him and his wife Inger Oxe. Jørgen Brahe was an admiral in the Danish navy and Inger Oxe was head of the Queen’s court. Inger’s brother Peder Oxe was finance minister and Lord Steward of Denmark and as such the most influential man in the realm. Tycho didn’t have to climb the greasy pole; he grew up at the top of it and was destined for great things from his birth.

It might have been considered odd for Tycho the scion of warriors to become a scholar, both his father and his uncle Jørgen would definitely not have approved, but both were dead before Tycho came of age. However Peder Oxe was a humanist scholar who had studied at the leading European universities and had helped the King Frederick III to set up a humanist university in Copenhagen. For various reasons (astrology, cartography, navigation etc.) astronomy was regarded as an important discipline and Peder Oxe brought his influence to bear, supporting Tycho in his desire to become an astronomer. Tycho was also supported by Wilhelm IV of Hessen-Kassel (who had already set up his own observatory in Kassel), a cousin of Frederick’s, who also recommended giving Tycho the wherewithal to set up an observatory in Denmark. Accepting the advice of Tycho’s prominent supporters Frederick did just that and Uraniborg came into being.

However had Tycho completed his university studies of law and become a Danish politician, as was originally planned by his family, then given his connections and his position in Danish society his fief and the incomes granted to him by the crown would have been considerably larger than those he received for his observatory on the island of Hven. By granting Tycho’s wishes and financing what was probably Europe’s first modern research institute, despite the elk and the dwarf, Frederick almost certainly saved crown income.


The map of Hven and the pictures of Tycho’s buildings are all taken from Wikicommons  and are all originally from Joan Blaeu’s Atlas Maior. Joan’s father Wilhelm Janson Blaeu had worked as an assistant for Tycho on Hven.


Filed under History of Astronomy, Renaissance Science

Having lots of letters after your name doesn’t protect you from spouting rubbish

The eloquently excellent Elegant Fowl (aka Pete Langman @elegantfowl) just drew my attention to a piece of high-grade seventeenth-century history of science rubbish on the website of my favourite newspaper The Guardian. In the books section a certain Ian Mortimer has an article entitled The 10 greatest changes of the past 1,000 years. I must to my shame admit that I’d never heard of Ian Mortimer and had no idea who he is. However I quick trip to Wikipedia informed that I have to do with Dr Ian James Forrester Mortimer (BA, PhD, DLitt, Exeter MA, UCL) and author of an impressive list of books and that the article on the Guardian website is a promotion exercise for his latest tome Centuries of Change. Apparent collecting lots of letter after your name and being a hyper prolific scribbler doesn’t prevent you from spouting rubbish when it comes writing about the history of science. Shall we take a peek at what the highly eminent Mr Mortimer has to say about the seventeenth-century that attracted the attention of the Elegant Fowl and have now provoked the ire of the Renaissance Mathematicus.

17th century: The scientific revolution

One thing that few people fully appreciate about the witchcraft craze that swept Europe in the late 16th and early 17th centuries is that it was not just a superstition. If someone you did not like died, and you were accused of their murder by witchcraft, it would have been of no use claiming that witchcraft does not exist, or that you did not believe in it. Witchcraft was recognised as existing in law – and to a greater or lesser extent, so were many superstitions. The 17th century saw many of these replaced by scientific theories. The old idea that the sun revolved around the Earth was finally disproved by Galileo. People facing life-threatening illnesses, who in 1600 had simply prayed to God for health, now chose to see a doctor. But the most important thing is that there was a widespread confidence in science. Only a handful of people could possibly have understood books such as Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, when it was published in 1687. But by 1700 people had a confidence that the foremost scientists did understand the world, even if they themselves did not, and that it was unnecessary to resort to superstitions to explain seemingly mysterious things.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I’m a gradualist and don’t actually believe in the scientific revolution but for the purposes of this post we will just assume that there was a scientific revolution and that it did take place in the seventeenth century, although most of those who do believe in it think it started in the middle of the sixteenth-century.

I find it mildly bizarre to devote nearly half of this paragraph to a rather primitive description of the witchcraft craze and to suggest that the scientific revolution did away with belief in witchcraft, given that several prominent propagators of the new science wrote extensively defending the existence of witches. I recommend Joseph Glanvill’s Saducismus triumphatus (1681) and Philosophical Considerations Touching the Being of Witches and Witchcraft (1666). Apart from witchcraft I can’t think of any superstition that was replaced by a scientific theory in the seventeenth-century. However it is the next brief sentence that cries out for my attention.

The old idea that the sun revolved around the Earth was finally disproved by Galileo.

By a strange coincidence I spent yesterday evening listening to a lecture by one of Germany’s leading historians of astronomy, Dr Jürgen Hamel (who has written almost as many books as Ian Mortimer) on why it was perfectly reasonable to reject the heliocentric theory of Copernicus in the first hundred years or more after it was published. He of course also explained that Galileo did not succeed in either disproving geocentricity or proving heliocentricity. Now anybody who has regularly visited this blog will know that I have already written quite a lot on this topic and I don’t intend to repeat myself here but I recommend my on going series on the transition to heliocentricity (the next instalment is in the pipeline) in particular the post on the Sidereus Nuncius and the one on the Phases of Venus. Put very, very simply for those who have not been listening: GALILEO DID NOT DISPROVE THE OLD IDEA THAT THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH. I apologise for shouting but sometimes I just can’t help myself.

Quite frankly I find the next sentence totally mindboggling:

People facing life-threatening illnesses, who in 1600 had simply prayed to God for health, now chose to see a doctor.

Even more baffling, it appears that Ian Mortimer has written prize-winning essay defending this thesis, “The Triumph of the Doctors” was awarded the 2004 Alexander Prize by the Royal Historical Society. In this essay he demonstrated that ill and injured people close to death shifted their hopes of physical salvation from an exclusively religious source of healing power (God, or Christ) to a predominantly human one (physicians and surgeons) over the period 1615–70, and argued that this shift of outlook was among the most profound changes western society has ever experienced. (Wikipedia) I haven’t read this masterpiece but colour me extremely sceptical.

We close out with a generalisation that simply doesn’t hold water:

[…] by 1700 people had a confidence that the foremost scientists did understand the world, even if they themselves did not, and that it was unnecessary to resort to superstitions to explain seemingly mysterious things.

They did? I really don’t think so. By 1700 hundred the number of people who had “confidence that the foremost scientists did understand the world” was with certainty so minimal that one would have a great deal of difficulty expressing it as a percentage.

Mortimer’s handful of sentences on the 17th century and the scientific revolution has to be amongst the worst paragraphs on the evolution of science in this period that I have ever read.


Filed under History of Astronomy, History of medicine, History of science, Myths of Science