Category Archives: Renaissance Science

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

You can read Part I here and Part II here

Although I dealt with the special case of Vienna and the 1st Viennese School of Mathematics in the first post of this series, it is now time to turn to the general history of the fifteenth-century university and the teaching of astronomy. Although the first, liberal arts, degree at the medieval university theoretically encompassed the teaching of the quadrivium, i.e. arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy, in reality the level of teaching was very low and often neglected all together. Geometry was a best the first six books of Euclid and at worst just book one and astronomy was the Sphaeraof Sacrobosco, a short non-technical introduction.

This all began to change in the fifteenth century. The humanist universities of Northern Italy and of Poland introduced dedicated chairs for mathematics, whose principle purpose was the teaching of astrology to medical students. However, to fully understand astrology and to be able to cast horoscopes from scratch students first had to learn astronomy, which in turn entailed first having to learn arithmetic and geometry, as well as the use of mathematical and astronomical instruments. The level of mathematical tuition on the university increased considerable. The chairs for mathematics that Galileo would occupy at the end of the sixteenth century in Pisa and Padua were two such astrology chairs.

As the first European university, Krakow introduced two such chairs for mathematics and astronomy relatively early in the fifteenth century.

Założenie_Szkoły_Głównej_przeniesieniem_do_Krakowa_ugruntowane_(Matejko_UJ)

The founding of the University of Krakow in 1364, painted by Jan Matejko (1838–1893) Source: Wikimedia Commons

It was here at the end of the century  (1491–1495) that Copernicus first learnt his astronomy most probably in the lectures of Albert Brudzewski (c. 1445–c.1497) using Peuerbach’s Theoricae Novae Planetarum and Regiomontanus’ Astronomical Tables. Brudzewski also wrote an important commentary on Peuerbach’s Theoricae Novae Planetarum,Commentum planetarium in theoricas Georgii Purbachii (1482).Krakow was well endowed with Regiomontanus’ writings thanks to the Polish astrologer Marcin Bylica (c.1433–1493), who had worked closely with Regiomontanus on the court ofMatthias Corvinus (1443–1490) in Budapest and who when he died bequeathed his books and instruments to the University of Krakow, including the works of Regiomontanus and Peuerbach.

From Krakow Copernicus went on to Northern Italy and its humanist universities. Between 1496 and 1501 he studied canon law in Bologna, Europe’s oldest university.

Universität_Bologna_Deutsche_Nation

The entry of some students in the Natio Germanica Bononiae, the nation of German students at Bologna; miniature of 1497. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Here he also met and studied under/worked with the professor for astronomer Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara (1454–1504), who claimed to be a student of Regiomontanus and it is known that he studied under Luca Pacioli (c. 1447–1517), who was also Leonardo’s mathematics teacher. Although none of Novara da Ferrara writings have survived he is said to have taken a critical attitude to Ptolemaic astronomy and he might be the trigger that started Copernicus on his way. In late 1501 Copernicus moved to the University of Padua, where he studied medicine until 1503, a course that would also have included instruction in astrology and astronomy. In 1503 he took a doctorate in canon law at the University of Ferrara. Sometime in the early sixteenth century, probably around 1510 he wrote an account of his first thoughts on heliocentricity, now known as the Commentariolus, which was never published but seems to have circulated fairly widely in manuscript. We will return to this later.

The first German university to install a dedicated chair for mathematics/astronomy was Ingolstadt in the 1470s.

Hohe_Schule_und_Collegium_Georgianum_1571

The Hohe Schule (High School), The main building of the University of Ingolstadt 1571 Source: Wikimedia Commons

As with the North Italian universities this was principally to teach astrology to medical student. This chair would prove to be an important institution for spreading the study of the mathematical sciences. In 1491/1492 the humanist scholar and poet, Conrad Celtis (1459–1508) was appointed professor of poetics and rhetoric in Ingolstadt. Celtis had a strong interest in cartography as a part of history and travelled to Krakow in 1489 in order to study the mathematical sciences. In Ingolstadt Celtis was able to turn the attention of Andreas Stiborius (1464–1515) and Johannes Stabius (1468–1522) somewhat away from astrology and more towards cartography. In 1497 Celtis received a call from the University of Vienna and taking Stiborius and Stiborius’ star student Georg Tannstetter (1482–1535) with him he decamped to Vienna, where he set up his Collegium poetarum et mathematicorum, with Stiborius as professor for mathematics. In 1502 he also fetched Johannes Stabius. From 1502 Tannstetter also began to lecture on mathematics and astronomy in Vienna. Stiborius, Stabius and Tannstetter form the foundations of what is known as the 2ndViennese School of Mathematics. Tannstetter taught several important students, most notably Peter Apian, who returned to Ingolstadt as professor for mathematics in the 1520, a position in which he was succeeded by his son Philipp. Both of them made major contributions to the developments of astronomy and cartography.

Stabius’ friend and colleague Johannes Werner also studied in Ingolstadt before moving to and settling in Nürnberg. One of the few astronomical writing of Copernicus, apart from De revolutionibus, that exist is the so-called Letter against Werner in which Copernicus harshly criticised Werner’s Motion of the Eighth Sphere an essay on the theory of precession of the equinox.

Another graduate of Ingolstadt was Johannes Stöffler (1452–1531), who having had a successful career as an astronomer, astrologer and globe and instrument maker was appointed the first professor of mathematics at the University of Tübingen.

Tübingen_Alte_Aula_BW_2015-04-27_15-48-31

The Old Auditorium University of Tübingen Source: Wikimedia Commons

Amongst his student were Sebastian Münster (1488–1552) the most important cosmographer of the sixteenth century and Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560), who as a enthusiastic fan of astrology established chairs for mathematics and astronomy at all of the protestant schools and universities that he established starting in Wittenberg, where the first professor for lower mathematic was Jakob Milich (1501–1559) another graduate of the University of Vienna. Milich’s fellow professor for astronomy in Wittenberg Johannes Volmar (?–1536), who started his studies in Krakow. The successors to Milich and Volmar were Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514–1574) and Erasmus Reinhold (1511–1553).

Another Melanchthon appointment was the first professor for mathematics on the Egidien Obere Schule in Nürnberg, (Germany’s first gymnasium), the globe maker Johannes Schöner (1477–1547), who would play a central role in the heliocentricity story. Schöner had learnt his mathematics at the university of Erfurt, one of the few German universities with a reputation for mathematics in the fifteenth century. When Regiomontanus moved from Budapest to Nürnberg he explained his reasons for doing so in a letter to the Rector of Erfurt University, the mathematician Christian Roder, asking him for his active support in his reform programme.

The Catholic universities would have to wait for Christoph Clavius (1538–1612) at the end of the sixteenth century before they received dedicated chairs for astronomy to match the Lutheran Protestant institutions. However, there were exceptions. In Leuven, where he was actually professor for medicine, Gemma Frisius (1508–1555) taught astronomy, astrology, cartography and mathematics. Amongst his long list of influential pupils we find Johannes Stadius (1527–1579), Gerhard Mercator (1512–1594) and John Dee (1527–1609). In France, François I appointed Oronce Fine (1494–1555) Royal lecturer for mathematics at the University of Paris. He was not a very impressive mathematician or astronomer but a highly influential teacher and textbook author. In Portugal, Pedro Nunes (1502–1578) was appointed the first professor of mathematics at the university of Coimbra as well as to the position of Royal Cosmographer.

Paços_da_Universidade_ou_Paços_das_Escolas_-_Porta_Férrea

The University of Coimbra Palace Gate. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Over the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the mathematical sciences, driven mainly by astrology and cartography, established themselves in the European universities, where the professors and lecturers, as we shall see, played a central role in the reform and renewal of astronomy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

7 Comments

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

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

I have recently been involved in more that one exchange on the subject as to what tipped the scales in favour of heliocentricity against geocentricity in the Early Modern Period. People have a tendency to want to pin it down to one crucial discovery, observation or publication but in reality it was a very gradual process that took place over a period of at least three hundred and fifty years and involved a very large number of people. In what follows I intend to sketch that process listing some, but probably not all, of the people involved. My list might appear to include people, who at first might not appear to have contributed to the emergence of modern astronomy if one just considers heliocentricity. However, all of those who raised the profile of astronomy and emphasised its utility in the Early Modern Period raised the demand for better and more accurate astronomical data and improved models to produce it. The inclusion of all these factors doesn’t produce some sort of linear progress but more a complex mosaic of many elements some small, some simple, some large and some spectacular but it is not just the spectacular elements that tells the story but a sum of all the elements. So I have cast my nets very wide.

The first question that occurs is where to start. One could go back all the way to Aristarchus of Samos (c.310–c.230 BCE) but although he and his heliocentric theories were revived in the Early Modern Period, it was largely with hindsight and he played no real role in the emergence of heliocentricity in that time. However, we should definitely give a nod to Martianus Capella (fl.c. 410–420), whose cosmos model with Mercury and Venus orbiting the Sun in an otherwise geocentric model was very widespread and very popular in the Middle Ages and who was quoted positively by Copernicus.

1024px-martianus_capella,_cosmography

The Capellan system Source: Manuscript Florenz, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, San Marco 190, fol. 102r (11th century) via Wikimedia Commons

Another nod goes to Jean Buridan (c.1300–c.1358/61), Nicole Oresme (c.1320-1325–1382), Pierre d’Ailly (1351–1420) and Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) all of whom were well-known medieval scholars, who discussed the model of geocentrism with diurnal rotation, a model that was an important step towards the acceptance of heliocentricity.

I start with a figure, who most would probably not have on the radar in this context, Jacopo d’Angelo (c.1360–1411). He produced the first Latin translation of Ptolemaeus’ Geōgraphikḕ Hyphḗgēsis(Geographiaor Cosmographia) in Florence in 1406.

la_cosmographie_de_claude_ptolemée,_0009

Manuscript: d’Angelo’s translation of Ptolemy’s Geography Source: Scan from Nancy Library (Hosted at Wikicommons, early 15th century).

This introduced a new concept of cartography into Europe based on a longitude and latitude grid, the determination of which requires accurate astronomical data. Mathematical, astronomy based cartography was one of the major forces driving the reform or renewal of astronomy in the Early Modern Period. Another major force was astrology, in particular astro-medicine or as it was known iatromathematics, which was in this period the mainstream school medicine in Europe. Several of the astronomy reformers, most notably Regiomontanus and Tycho, explicitly stated that a reform of astronomy was necessary in order to improve astrological prognostications. A third major driving force was navigation. The Early Modern Period includes the so call great age of discovery, which like mathematical cartography was astronomy based. Slightly more nebulous and indirect were new forms of warfare, another driving force for better cartography as well as the collapse of the feudal system leading to new forms of land owner ship, which required better surveying methods, also mathematical, astronomy based. As I pointed out in an earlier post the people working in these diverse fields were very often one and the same person the Renaissance mathematicus, who was an astrologer, astronomer, cartographer, surveyor or even physician.

Our next significant figure is Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli (1397–1482), like Jacopo d’Angelo from Florence, a physician, astrologer, astronomer, mathematician and cosmographer.

toscanelli_firenze

Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli. Detail taken from the 19th century honorary monument to Columbus, Vespucci and Toscanelli dal Pozzo in the Basilica di Santa Croce in Florence (Italy). Source: Wikimedia Commons

Most famous for his so-called Columbus world map, which confirmed Columbus’ erroneous theory of the size of the globe. In our context Toscanelli is more important for his observation of comets. He was the first astronomer in the Early Modern Period to treat comets as astronomical, supralunar objects and try to record and measure their trajectories. This was contrary to the ruling opinion of the time inherited from Aristotle that comets were sublunar, meteorological phenomena. Toscanelli did not publish his observations but he was an active member of a circle of mathematically inclined scholars that included Nicholas of Cusa, Giovanni Bianchini (1410 – c.1469), Leone Battista Alberti (1404 – 1472),Fillipo Brunelleschi (1377 – 1446) and most importantly a young Georg Peuerbach (1423–1461) with whom he probably discussed his ideas.

Here it is perhaps important to note that the mathematical practitioners in the Early Modern Period did not live and work in isolation but were extensively networked, often far beyond regional or national boundaries. They communicated extensively with each other, sometimes in person, but most often by letter. They read each other’s works, both published and unpublished, quoted and plagiarised each other. The spread of mathematical knowledge in this period was widespread and often surprisingly rapid.

We now turn from Northern Italy to Vienna and its university. Founded in 1365, in 1384 it came under the influence of Heinrich von Langenstein (1325–1397), a leading scholar expelled from the Sorbonne in Paris, who introduced the study of astronomy to the university, not necessarily normal at the time.

langenstein_heinrich_von_1325-1397_in_rationale_divinorum_officiorum_des_wilhelmus_durandus_codex_2765_oenb_1385-1406_106.i.1840_0-2

Probably Heinrich von Langenstein (1325-1397), Book illumination im Rationale divinorum officiorum des Wilhelmus Durandus, circa 1395 Source: Archiv der Universität Wien, Bildarchiv Signatur: 106.I.1840 1395

Heinrich was followed by Johannes von Gmunden (c.1380–1442) who firmly established the study of astronomy and is regarded as the founder of the 1stViennese School of Mathematics.

scaled-350x219-johannes_von_gmunden_calendar_1

Johannes von Gmunden Calendar Nürnberg 1496 Source: Wikimedia Commons

Georg Peuerbach the next member of the school continued the tradition of astronomical studies established by Heinrich and Gmunden together with his most famous student Johannes Regiomontanus.

800px-johannes_regiomontanus

Johannes Regiomontanus Source: Wikimedia Commons

It can’t be a coincidence that Peuerbach and Regiomontanus extended Toscanneli’s work on comets, with Regiomontanus even writing a pamphlet on the determination of parallax of a moving comet, which was only publish posthumously in the sixteenth century. The two Viennese astronomers also designed and constructed improved astronomical instruments, modernised the trigonometry necessary for astronomical calculations and most importantly with Peuerbach’s Theoricarum novarum planetarum(New Planetary Theory),

peuerbach-theoricarum-1515-3

Georg von Peuerbach, Theoricae novae planetarum, Edition Paris 1515 Source: Wikimedia Commons

first published by Regiomontanus in Nürnberg in 1472, and their joint Epytoma in almagesti Ptolemei, a modernised, shortened improved edition of Ptolemaeus’ Syntaxis Mathematiké

regiomont4

Epytoma in almagesti Ptolemei: Source

first published by Ratdolt in Venice in 1496, produced the standard astronomy textbooks for the period right up into the seventeenth century.

The work on the Viennese School very much laid the foundations for the evolution of the modern astronomy and was one of the processes anchoring the ‘modern’ study of astronomy an the European universities, How the journey continues will be told in Part II of this series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 Comments

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

Galileo’s the 12th most influential person in Western History – Really?

Somebody, who will remain nameless, drew my attention to a post on the Presidential Politics for America blog shortly before Christmas in order to provoke me. Anybody who knows me and my blogging will instantly recognise why I should feel provoked if they just read the opening paragraph.

Despite the paradigm-shifting idea of our #28 Nicolaus Copernicus, for nearly a century afterward his heliocentric theory twisted in the solar wind. It took another man to confirm Copernicus’s daring theory. That alone would make this other man an all-time great contributor to Western science, but he gifted us so much more than merely confirming someone else’s idea. He had a series of inventions, discoveries, and theories that helped modernize science. His accomplishments in mechanics were without precedent. His telescope observed what was once unobservable. Perhaps most importantly, he embodied, furthered, and inspired a growing sentiment that truth is a slave to science and facts, not authority and dogma.

This man was Galileo Galilei, and he’s the 12thmost influential person in Western History.

Before I start on my usually HistSci_Hulk demolition job to welcome the New Year I should point out that this crap was written by somebody claiming to be a history teacher; I feel for his student.

This post is part of a long-term series on The Top 30 Most Influential Western European Figures in History; I kid you not! Sorry, but I’m not a fan of rankings in general and to attempt to rank the historical influence of Western Europeans is in my opinion foolhardy at best and totally bonkers at worst.

We turn our attention to his #11 Galileo Galilei. We start with the very obvious false claim, the very first one in fact, Galileo did not ‘confirm Copernicus’s daring theory.’ Next up we have the statement: ‘He had a series of inventions, discoveries, and theories that helped modernize science.’

Only in his teens, he identified the tautochronic curve that explains why the pendulum behaves as it does. This discovery laid the groundwork for Christian [sic] Huygens to create the world’s first pendulum clock, which became the most accurate method of keeping time into the twentieth century. 

It is Christiaan not Christian Huygens. Galileo discovered the isochronal principle of the pendulum but the earliest record of his researches on the pendulum is in a letter to his patron Guidobaldo del Monte dated 2 November 1602, when he was 38 years old. The story that he discovered the principle, as a teenager was first propagated posthumously by his first biographer Viviani and to be taken with a pinch of salt. He didn’t discover that the free circular pendulum swing is not isochronal but only the tautochrone curve is; this discovery was actually made by Huygens. There is no evidence that Galileo’s design of a never realised pendulum clock had any connections with or influence on Huygens’ eventually successfully constructed pendulum clock. That pendulum clocks remained the most accurate method of keeping time into the twentieth century is simply wrong.

The precocious Galileo also invented thethermoscope…

 It is not certain that Galileo invented the thermoscope; it is thought that his friend Santorio Santorio actually invented it; he was certainly the first during the Renaissance to publish a description of it. The invention was attributed to Galileo, Santorio, Robert Fludd and Cornelius Drebble. However, the principle on which it was based was used in the Hellenic period and described even earlier by Empedocles in book On Nature in 460 BCE. This is part of a general pattern in the Galileo hagiography, inventions and discoveries that were made by several researchers during his lifetime are attributed solely to Galileo even when he was not even the first to have made them.

At just 22, he published a book onhydrostatic balance, giving him his first bit of fame.

 This ‘book’, La Bilancetta or The Little Balance was actually a booklet or pamphlet and only exists in a few manuscripts so during his lifetime never printed. He used it together with another pamphlet on determining centres of gravity to impress and win patrons within the mathematical community such as Guidobaldo del Monte and Christoph Clavius; in this he was successful.

He attended medical school but, for financial reasons, he had to drop out and work as a tutor. Nevertheless, he eventually became chair of the mathematics department at theUniversity of Pisa.

He studied medicine at the University of Pisa because that was the career that his father had determined for him. He dropped out, not for financial reasons but because he wanted to become a mathematician and not a physician. He studied mathematics privately in Florence and having established his abilities with the pamphlets mentioned above was, with the assistance of his patrons, appointed to teach mathematics in Pisa. However, due to his innate ability to piss people off his contract was terminated after only three years. His patrons now helped him to move to the University of Padua.

He taught at Padua for nearly 20 years, and it’s there where he turned from reasonably well-known Galileo Galilei to Galileo[emphasis in original]. Like the great Italian artists of his age, he became so talented and renowned that soon just his first name sufficed.

This is simply rubbish. He remained virtually unknown outside of Padua until he made his telescopic discoveries in 1610. He turned those discoveries into his exit ticket and left Padua as soon as possible. As for his name, he is, for example, known in English as Galileo but in German as Galilei.

We now turn to mechanics the one field in which Galileo can really claim more than a modicum of originality. However, even here our author drops a major clangour.

Through experimentation, he determined that a feather falls slower than a rock not because of the contrasting weight but because of the extra friction caused by the displacement of Earth’s atmosphere on the flatter object. 

Through experimentation! Where and when did Galileo build his vacuum chamber? Our author missed an opportunity here. This was, of course, Galileo’s most famous thought experiment in which he argues rationally that without air resistance all objects would fall at the same rate. In fact Galileo’s famous use of thought experiments doesn’t make an appearance in this account at all.

Galileo built on this foundation a mathematical formula that showed the rate of acceleration for falling objects on Earth. Tying math to physics, he essentially laid the groundwork for later studies of inertia. These mechanical discoveries provided a firm launching point for Isaac Newton’s further modernization of the field.

It is time for the obligatory statement that the mean speed formula the basis of the mathematics of free fall was known to the Oxford Calculatores and the Paris Physicists in the fourteenth century and also the laws of free fall were already known to Giambattista Benedetti in the sixteenth century. As to inertia, Galileo famously got it wrong and Newton took the law of inertia from Descartes, who in turn had it from Isaac Beeckman and not Galileo. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries several researchers tied mathematics to physics, many of them before Galileo. See comment above about attributing the work of many solely to Galileo. We now turn to astronomy!

In the early 1600s, despite Copernicus’s elegant heliocentric model of the solar system having debuted more than a half-century earlier, skeptics remained. Indeed, there was an ongoing divide among astronomers; some favored the Copernican model while others clung to the traditional Ptolemaic premise adopted by the Catholic Church, which put the earth at the universe’s center. Even Tycho Brahe, a leading post-Copernican astronomer, favored geocentrism, though his Tychonic system did make some allowances for Copernicus’s less controversial ideas. Brahe’s position helped him avoid the fate of heliocentrist Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake by the Catholic Inquisition in 1600. This heated astronomical climate awaited Galileo Galilei.

There is nothing particularly elegant about Copernicus’ heliocentric model of the solar system. In fact it’s rather clunky due to his insistence, after removing the equant point, of retaining the so-called Platonic axiom of uniform circular motion. His model was in fact more cluttered and less elegant than the prevailing geocentric model from Peuerbach. Sceptics didn’t remain, as our author puts it, implying in this and the following sentences that there was no reason other than (religious) prejudice for retaining a geocentric model. Unfortunately, as I never tire of repeating, Copernicus’ model suffered from a small blemish, a lack of proof. In fact the vast majority of available empirical evidence supported a geocentric system. You know proof is a fundamental element of all science, including astronomy. If I were playing mythology of science bingo I would now shout full house with the introduction of Giordano Bruno into the mix. No, Giordano was not immolated because he was a supporter of heliocentricity.

Like Bruno, Galileo knew Copernicus was right, and he set out to prove it. Early in the seventeenth century, he received word about a new invention created by the German-Dutch spectacle-makerHans Lippershey In 1608, Lippershey used his knowledge of lenses to make a refracting telescope, which used lenses, an eye piece, and angular strategies to bend light, allowing in more of it. More light could clarify and magnify a desired object, and Lippershey’s rudimentary design could make something appear about three times bigger. Galileo, though he never saw a telescope in person nor even designs of one, heard a basic description of it, checked the information against his brain’s enormous database, realized it could work, and built one of his own. A better one.

Comparing Bruno with Galileo is really something one should avoid doing. Our author’s description of how a refracting telescope works is, I admit, beyond my comprehension, as the function of a refracting telescope is apparently beyond his. The claim that Galileo never saw a telescope, which he made himself, has been undermined by the researches of Mario Biagioli, who argues convincingly that he probably had seen one. I love the expression “checked the information against his brain’s enormous database.” I would describe it not so much as hyperbole as hyperbollocks!

With his improved telescope he could magnify objects thirty times, and he immediately pointed it to the once unknowable heavens and transformed astronomy in numerous ways:

I will start with the general observation that Galileo was by no means the only person pointing a telescope at the heavens in the period between 1609 and 1613, which covers the discoveries described below. He wasn’t even the first that honour goes to Thomas Harriot. Also, all of the discoveries were made independently either at roughly the same time or even earlier than Galileo. If Galileo had never heard of the telescope it would have made virtually no difference to the history of astronomy. He had two things in his favour; he was in general a more accurate observer that his competitors and he published first. Although it should be noted that his principle publication, the Sidereus Nuncius, is more a press release that a scientific report. The first telescope Galileo presented to the world was a 9X magnification and although Galileo did build a 30X magnification telescope most of his discoveries were made with a 20X magnification model. The competitors were using very similar telescopes. “…the once unknowable heavens” we actually already knew quite a lot about the heavens through naked-eye observations.

  • It was assumed that the moon, like all the heavenly spheres, was perfectly smooth. Galileo observed craters and mountains. He inferred, accurately, that all celestial objects had blemishes of their own.

This was actually one of Galileo’s greatest coups. Thomas Harriot, who drew telescopic images of the moon well before Galileo did not realise what he was seeing. After seeing Galileo’s drawings of the moon in the Sidereus Nuncius, he immediately realised that Galileo was right and changed his own drawing immediately. One should, however, be aware of the fact that throughout history there were those who hypothesised that the shadows on the moon were signs of an uneven surface.

  • Though Jupiter had been observed since the ancient world, what Galileo was the first to discover was satellites orbiting around it — the Jovian System. In other words, a planet other than the Earth had stuff orbiting it. It was another brick in Copernicus’s “we’re not that important” wall.

And as I never tire of emphasising, Simon Marius made the same discovery one day later. I have no idea what Copernicus’s “we’re not that important” wall is supposed to be but the discovery of the moons of Jupiter is an invalidation of the principle in Aristotelian cosmology that states that all celestial bodies have a common centre of rotation; a principle that was already violated by the Ptolemaic epicycle-deferent model. It says nothing about the truth or lack of it of either a geocentric or heliocentric model of the cosmos.

  • Pointing his telescope at the sun, Galileo observed sunspots. Though the Chinese first discovered them in 800 BC, as Westerners did five hundred years later, no one had seen or sketched them as clearly as Galileo had. It was another argument against the perfect spheres in our sky.

Telescopic observations of sunspots were first made by Thomas Harriot. The first publication on the discovery was made by Johannes Fabricius. Galileo became embroiled in a meaningless pissing contest with the Jesuit astronomer, Christoph Scheiner, as to who first discovered them. The best sketches of the sunspots were made by Scheiner in his Rosa Ursina sive Sol (Bracciano, 1626–1630).

  • Galileo also discovered that Venus, like the moon, has phases (crescent/quarter/half, waxing/waning, etc.). This was a monumental step in confirming Copernicus’s theory, as Venusian phases require certain angles of sunlight that a geocentric model does not allow.

The phases of Venus were discovered independently by at least four observers, Thomas Harriot, Simon Marius, Galileo and the Jesuit astronomer Paolo Lembo. The astronomers of the Collegio Romano claimed that Lembo had discovered them before Galileo but dating the discoveries is almost impossible. In a geocentric model Venus would also have phases but they would be different to the ones observed, which confirmed that Venus, and by analogy Mercury, whose phases were only observed much later, orbits the Sun. Although this discovery refutes a pure geocentric system it is still compatible with a Capellan system, in which Venus and Mercury orbit the Sun in a geocentric model, which was very popular in the Middle ages and also with any of the Tychonic and semi-Tychonic models in circulation at the time so it doesn’t really confirm a heliocentric model

  • The observable hub of the Milky Way galaxy was assumed to be, just as it looks to us, a big, milky cloud. Galileo discovered it was not a cloud, but a huge cluster of stars. (We now know it numbers in the billions.)

Once again a multiple discovery made by everybody who pointed a telescope at the heavens beginning with Lipperhey.

Galileo not only confirmed Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, but he allowed the likes of Johannes Kepler to more accurately plot out the planets’ orbits, Isaac Newton to explain how it was happening, and Albert Einstein to explain why. It was such a colossal step forward for the observable universe that some people didn’t even believe what they were seeing in the telescope, electing to instead remain skeptical of Galileo’s “sorcery.”

Galileo did not in any way confirm Copernicus’ heliocentric theory. In fact heliocentricity wasn’t confirmed until the eighteenth century. First with Bradley’s discovery of stellar aberration in 1725 proving the annual orbit around the sun and then the determination of the earth’s shape in the middle of the century indirectly confirming diurnal rotation. The telescopic observations made by Galileo et al had absolutely nothing to do with Kepler’s determination of the planetary orbits. Newton’s work was based principally on Kepler’s elliptical system regarded as a competitor to Copernicus’ system, which Galileo rejected/ignored, and neither Galileo nor Copernicus played a significant role in it. How Albert got in here I have absolutely no idea. Given the very poor quality of the lenses used at the beginning of the seventeenth century and the number of optical artifacts that the early telescopes produced, people were more than justified in remaining skeptical about the things apparently seen in telescopes.

Ever the watchdog on sorcery, it was time for the Catholic Church to guard its territory. Protective of geocentrism and its right to teach us about the heavens, the Church had some suggestions about exactly where the astronomer could stick his telescope. In 1616, under the leadership of Pope Paul V, heliocentrism was deemed officially heretical, and Galileo was instructed “henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way.”

The wording of this paragraph clearly states the author’s prejudices without consideration of historical accuracy. Galileo got into trouble in 1615/16 for telling the Catholic Church how to interpret the Bible, a definitive mistake in the middle of the Counter Reformation. Heliocentrism was never deemed officially heretical. The injunction against Galileo referred only to heliocentrism as a doctrine i.e. a true theory. He and everybody else were free to discuss it as a hypothesis, which many astronomers preceded proceeded to do.

A few years later, a confusing stretch of papal leadership got Galileo into some trouble. In 1623,Pope Urban VIII took a shine to Galileo and encouraged his studies by lifting Pope Paul’s ban. A grateful Galileo resumed his observations and collected them into his largest work, 1632’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” In it, he sums up much of his observations and shows the superiority of the newer heliocentric model. The following year, almost as if a trap were set, the Catholic Inquisition responded with a formal condemnation and trial, charging him with violating the initial 1616 decree. Dialogue was placed on the Church’s Index of Prohibited Books.

Maffeo Barberini, Pope Urban VIII, had been a good friend of Galileo’s since he first emerged into the limelight in 1611 and after he was elected Pope did indeed show great favour to Galileo. He didn’t, however, lift Paul V’s ban. It appears that he gave Galileo permission to write a book presenting the geocentric and heliocentric systems, as long as he gave them equal weight. This he very obviously did not do; Galileo the master of polemic skewed his work very, very heavily in favour of the heliocentric system. He had badly overstepped the mark and got hammered for it.  He, by the way, didn’t resume his observations; the Dialogo is based entirely on earlier work. One is, by the way, condemn after being found guilty in a trial not before the trial takes place when one is charged or accused.

Galileo’s popularity, combined with a sheepish Pope Urban, limited his punishment to a public retraction and house arrest for his remaining days. At nearly 70, he didn’t have the strength to resist. Old, tired, and losing his vision after years of repeatedly pointing a telescope at the brightest object in the solar system, he accepted his sentence. Blind and condemned, his final years were mostly spent dictating “Two New Sciences,” which summarized his 30 years of studying physics.

Galileo’s popularity would not have helped him, exactly the opposite. People who were highly popular and angered the Church tended to get stamped on extra hard, as an example to the masses. Also, Urban was anything but sheepish. The public retraction was standard procedure for anyone found guilty by the Inquisition and the transmission of his sentence from life imprisonment to house arrest was an act of mercy to an old man by an old friend. Whether Galileo’s telescopic observations contributed to his blindness is disputed and he hadn’t really made many observations since about 1613. The work summarised in the Discorsi was mostly carried out in the middle period of his life between 1589 and 1616.

The author now veers off into a discussion, as to who is the father or founder of this or that and why one or other title belongs to Copernicus, Newton, Aristotle, Bacon etc. rather than Galileo. Given his belief that one can rank The Top 30 Most Influential Western European Figures in History, it doesn’t surprise me that he is a fan of founder and father of titles. They are, as regular readers will already know, in my opinion a load of old cobblers. Disciplines or sub-disciplines are founded or fathered over several generations by groups of researchers not individuals.

His article closes with a piece of hagiographical pathos:

Moreover, Galileo’s successes were symbolic of a cornerstone in modern science. His struggle against the Church embodied the argument that truth comes from experience, experiments, and the facts — not dogma. He showed us authority and knowledge are not interchangeable. Though the Inquisitors silenced him in 1633, his discoveries, works, and ideas outlived them. For centuries, he has stood as an inspiration for free thinkers wrestling against ignorant authority.

This is typical exaggerated presentation of the shabby little episode that is Galileo’s conflict with the Catholic Church. It wasn’t really like that you know. Here we have the heroic struggle of scientific truth versus religious dogma, a wonderful vision but basically pure bullshit. What actually took place was that a researcher with an oversized ego, Galileo, thought he could take the piss out of the Pope and the Catholic Church. As it turned out he was mistaken.

Being a history teacher I’m sure our author would want me to grade his endeavours. He has obviously put a lot of work into his piece so I will give him an E for effort. However, it is so strewn with errors and falsities that I can only give him a F for the content.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 Comments

Filed under History of Astronomy, History of Optics, History of science, Myths of Science, Renaissance Science

Christmas Trilogy 2018 Part 3: Johannes’ battle with Mars

It would be entirely plausible to claim the Johannes Kepler’s Astronomia Nova was more important to the eventual acceptance of a heliocentric view of the cosmos than either Copernicus’ De revolutionibus or Galileo’s Sidereus Nuncius. As with most things in Kepler’s life the story of the genesis of the Astronomia Nova ΑΙΤΙΟΛΟΓΗΤΟΣ seu physica coelestis, tradita commentariis de motibus stellae Martis ex observationibus G.V. Tychonis Brahe, to give it its full title, is anything but simple.

Astronomia_Nova

Astronomia Nova title page Source: Wikimedia Commons

From his studies at Tübingen University Kepler was sent, in 1594, by the Lutheran Church to Graz as mathematics teacher in the local Lutheran school and as district mathematicus, responsible for surveying, cartography and above all yearly astrological prognostica. His situation in Graz, a predominantly Catholic area, was anything but easy and as the Counter Reformation gained pace the Lutheran school was closed and the Protestants were given the choice of converting to Catholicism or leaving the area. Largely because of the success of his prognostica Kepler was granted an exemption. However, by 1600 things got very tight even for him and he was desperately seeking a way out. All of his efforts to obtain employment failed, including, somewhat surprisingly, an appeal to his teacher Michael Mästlin in Tübingen.

During his time in Graz he had published his first book, Mysterium Cosmographicum (The Cosmographic Mystery), in which he attempted to prove, the for us today bizarre hypothesis, that in a heliocentric cosmos there were and could only be six planets because their obits were separated by the ratios of the volumes of the five regular Platonic solids. He realized that regular polygons bound one inscribed and one circumscribed circle at definite ratios, which, he reasoned, might be the geometrical basis of the universe. However, when he actually did the maths he realised that although he had a good approximation, it wasn’t good enough; he blamed the failing accuracy on the poor quality of the data he had available. He needed to obtain better data.

Kepler-solar-system-1

Kepler’s Platonic solid model of the solar system, from Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596) Source: Wikimedia Commons

Kepler was well aware of the fact that, for the last thirty years or so, Tycho Brahe had been accumulating vast quantities of new, comparatively accurate data, so he decided to go visit the Danish aristocratic astronomer in Prague, maybe there was also a chance of employment. There was, however, a small problem with this plan. As a young, first time author, he had sent complimentary copies of his publication to all of the leading European astronomers. This had led to the first correspondence with Galileo, who had received his copy rather more by accident than by design but also to a very tricky situation with Tycho. Kepler had sent a copy to Nicolaus Reimers Baer (1551–1600), also called Ursus, at the time Tycho’s predecessor as Imperial Mathematicus to the Emperor Rudolph II; this was accompanied by the usual highly flattering Renaissance letter of introduction. Ursus was engaged in a very bitter priority dispute with Tycho about the so-called Tychonic system, Tycho had accused him of having stolen it during a visit to Hven, and Ursus printed Kepler’s flattering letter in a highly insulting answer to Tycho’s accusations. Kepler was very definitely not Tycho’s favourite astronomer, as a result. Despite all of this Tycho, also in desperate need of new assistants since moving to Prague, actually invited the young Kepler to come and visit him. By a strange twist of fate the letter of invitation arrived after Kepler had already left Graz for Prague.

Kepler duly arrived in Prague and one of the most fateful meetings in the history of astronomy took place. That first meeting was a monumental disaster. Kepler took umbrage and departed to sulk in a Prague hotel, convinced that his journey to Prague had been in vain. However, thanks to the diplomatic efforts of the Bohemian physician Johannes Jessenius (1566–1621) the two hot heads settled their differences and Tycho offered Kepler at least temporary employment. Having no better offers Kepler agreed, returned to Graz, packed up his home and together with his wife and children returned to Prague.

Unfortunately, there was no way that Tycho was going to trust a comparative stranger with the accumulated treasures of thirty years of observations and Kepler had to be satisfied with the tasks that Tycho gave him. First of all, maybe as a form of punishment, Tycho set him to work writing a vindication of Tycho’s claims against Ursus. Although Kepler did not produce the stinging condemnation of Ursus that Tycho wanted, he did produce a fascinating philosophical analysis of the role of hypothesis in the history of astronomy, A Defence of Tycho against Ursus, which was not published at the time but which historian Nicholas has described in the title of his scholarly edition of the work as ‘the birth of history and philosophy of science.[1]’ On the astronomical front, Tycho gave Kepler what would prove to be a task of immeasurable importance in the history of astronomy, the determination of the orbit of Mars.

When Kepler initially arrived in Prague to work with Tycho, Longomontanus, Tycho’s chief assistant, was working on the orbit of Mars. With Kepler’s arrival Tycho moved Longomontanus onto his model of the Moon’s orbit and put Kepler onto Mars. When first assigned Kepler famously claimed that he would knock it off in a couple of weeks, in the end he took the best part of six years to complete the task. This fact out of Kepler’s life often gets reported, oft with the false claim that he took ten years, but what the people almost never add is that in those six years the Astronomia Novawas not the only thing that occupied his time.

Not long after Kepler began his work Tycho died and he inherited the position of Imperial Mathematicus. This, however, had a major snag. Tycho’s data, the reason Kepler had come to Prague, was Tycho’s private property and that inherited his children including his daughter Elizabeth and her husband Frans Gansneb genaamd Tengnagel van de Camp. Being present when Tycho had died, Kepler secured the data for himself but was aware that it didn’t belong to him. There followed long and weary negotiations between Kepler and Frans Tengnagel, who claimed that he intended to continue Tycho’s life’s work. However, Tengnagel was a diplomat and not an astronomer, so in the end a compromise was achieved. Kepler could retain the data and utilise it but any publications that resulted from it would have Tengnagel named as co-author! In the end he contributed a preface to the Astronomia Nova. Kepler also spent a lot of time and effort haggling with the bureaucrats at Rudolph’s court, attempting to get his salary paid. Rudolph was good at appointing people and promising a salary but less good at paying up.

Apart from being distracted by bureaucratic and legal issues during this period Kepler also produced some other rather important scientific work. In 1604 he published his Astronomiae Pars Optica, written in 1603, which was the most important work in optics published since the Middle Ages and laid the foundations for the modern science. It included the first explanations of how lenses work to correct short and long sight and above all the first-ever correct explanation of how the image is formed in the eye. The latter was confirmed empirically by Christoph Scheiner.

C0194687-Kepler_s_Astronomiae_Pars_Optica_1604_

Astronomiae Pars Optica title page

In 1604 a supernova appeared in the skies and Kepler systematically observed it, confirmed it was definitively supralunar (i.e. above the moon’s orbit) and wrote up and published his findings, De Stella nova in pede Serpentarii, in Prague in 1606.

The Astronomia Nova is almost unique amongst major scientific publications in that it appears to outline in detail the work Kepler undertook to arrive at his conclusions, including all of the false turnings he took, the mistaken hypotheses he used and then abandoned and the failures he made in his calculations. Normally scientific researchers leave these things in their notebooks, sketchpads and laboratory protocols; only presenting to their readers a sanitised version of their results and the calculations or experiments necessary to achieve them. Why did Kepler act differently with his Astronomia Nova going into great detail on his six-year battle with Mars? The answer is contained in my ‘it appears’ in the opening sentence of this paragraph. Kepler was to a large extent pulling the wool over his readers’ eyes.

Kepler was a convinced Copernicaner in a period where the majority of astronomers were either against heliocentricity, mostly with good scientific reasons, or at best sitting on the fence. Kepler was truly revolutionary in another sense, he believed firmly in a physical cause for the structure of the cosmos and the movement of the planets. This was something that he had already propagated in his Mysterium Cosmographicum and for which he had been strongly criticised by his teacher Mästlin. The vast majority of astronomers still believed they were creating mathematical models to save the phenomena, irrespective of the actually physical truth of those models. The true nature of the cosmos was a question to be answered by philosophers and not astronomers.

Kepler structured the rhetoric of the Astronomia Nova to make it appear that his conclusions were inevitable; he had apparently no other choice, the evidence led him inescapably to a heliocentric system with real physical cause. Of course, he couldn’t really prove this but he did his best to con his readers into thinking he could. He actually road tested his arguments for this literary tour de force in a long-year correspondence with the Frisian astronomer David Fabricius. Fabricius was a first class astronomer and a convinced Tychonic i.e. he accepted Tycho’s geo-heliocentric model of the cosmos. Over the period of their correspondence Kepler would present Fabricius with his arguments and Fabricius would criticise them to the best of his ability, which was excellent. In this way Kepler could slowly build up an impression of what he needed to do in order to convince people of his central arguments. This was the rhetoric that he then used to write the final version of Astronomia Nova[2].

To a large extent Kepler failed in both his main aims when the book was published in 1609. In fact it would not be an exaggeration to say that it was initially a flop. People weren’t buying either his heliocentricity or his physical cause arguments. But the book contains two gems that in the end would prove very decisive in the battle of the cosmological systems, his first and second laws of planetary motion:

1) That planets orbit the Sun on elliptical paths with the Sun situated at one focus of the ellipse

2) That a line connecting the planet to the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal periods of time.

Kepler actually developed the second law first using it as his primary tool to determine the actually orbit of Mars. The formulation of this law went through an evolution, that he elucidates in the book, before it reached its final form. The first law was in fact the capstone of his entire endeavour. He had known for sometime that the orbit was oval and had even at one point considered an elliptical form but then rejected it. When he finally proved that the orbit was actually an ellipse he knew that his battle was over and he had won. Today school kids learn the first two laws together with the third one, discovered thirteen years later when Kepler was working on his opus magnum the Harmonice mundi, but they rarely learn of the years of toil that Kepler invested in their discovery during his battle with Mars.

[1]Nicholas Jardine, The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler’s ‘A Defence of Tycho against Ursus’ with Essays on its Provenance and Significance, CUP, ppb. 2009

[2]For an excellent account of the writing of Astronomia Novaand in particular the Kepler-Fabricius correspondence read James R. Voelkel, The Composition of Kepler’s Astronomia Nova, Princeton University Press, 2001

2 Comments

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

The Jesuit Mirror Man

Although the theory that a curved mirror can focus an image was already known to Hero of Alexandria in antiquity and also discussed by Leonardo in his unpublished writings; as far as we know, the first person to attempt to construct a reflecting telescope was the Italian Jesuit Niccolò Zucchi.

Niccolò_Zucchi

Niccolò Zucchi Source: Wikimedia Commons

Niccolò Zucchi, born in Parma 6 December 1586, was the fourth of eight children of the aristocrat Pierre Zucchi and his wife Francoise Giande Marie. He studied rhetoric in Piacenza and philosophy and theology in Parma, probably in Jesuit colleges. He entered the Jesuit order as a novice 28 October 1602, aged 16. Zucchi taught mathematics, rhetoric and theology at the Collegio Romano and was then appointed rector of the new Jesuit College in Ravenna by Cardinal Alessandro Orsini, who was also a patron of Galileo.

In 1623 he accompanied Orsini, the Papal legate, on a visit to the court of the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II in Vienna. Here he met and got to know Johannes Kepler the Imperial Mathematicus. Kepler encouraged Zucchi’s interest in astronomy and the two corresponded after Zucchi’s return to Italy. Later when Kepler complained about his financial situation, Zucchi sent him a refracting telescope at the suggestion of Paul Guldin (1577–1643) a Swiss Jesuit mathematician, who also corresponded regularly with Kepler. Kepler mentions this gift in his Somnium. These correspondences between Kepler and leading Jesuit mathematicians illustrate very clearly how the scientific scholars in the early seventeenth century cooperated with each other across the religious divide, even at the height of the Counter Reformation.

Zucchi’s scientific interests extended beyond astronomy; he wrote and published two books on the philosophy of machines in 1646 and 1649. His unpublished Optica statica has not survived. He also wrote about magnetism, barometers, where he a good Thomist rejected the existence of a vacuum, and was the first to demonstrate that phosphors generate rather than store light.

Today, however Zucchi is best remember for his astronomy. He is credited with being the first, together with the Jesuit Daniello Bartoli (1608–1685), to observe the belts of Jupiter on 17 May 1630.  He reported observing spots on Mars in 1640. These observations were made with a regular Galilean refractor but it is his attempt to construct a reflecting telescope that is most fascinating.

In his Optica philosophia experimentis et ratione a fundamentis constituta published in 1652 he describes his attempt to create a reflecting telescope.

Title_page

Optica philosophia title page Source: Linder Hall Library

As I said at the beginning, and have described in greater detail here, the principle that one could create an image with a curved mirror had been known since antiquity. Zucchi tells us that he replaced the convex objective lens in a Galilean telescope with bronze curved mirror. He tried viewing the image with the eyepiece, a concave lens looking down the tube into the mirror. He had to tilt the tube so as not to obstruct the light with his head. He was very disappointed with the result as the image was just a blur, although as he said the mirror was, “ab experto et accuratissimo artifice eleboratum nactus.” Or in simple words, the mirror was very well made by an expert.

zucchi5

Optica philosophia frontispiece

Zucchi had stumbled on a problem that was to bedevil all the early attempts to construct a reflecting telescope. Mirror that don’t distort the image are much harder to grind and polish than lenses. (The bending of light in a lens diminishes the effect of imperfections, whereas a mirror amplifies them). The first to solve this problem was Isaac Newton, proving that he was as skilled a craftsman as he was a great thinker. However, it would be more that fifty years before John Hadley could consistently repeat Newton’s initial success.

All the later reflecting telescope models had, as well as their primary mirrors, a secondary mirror at the focal point that reflected the image either to the side (a Newtonian), or back through the primary mirror (a Gregorian or a Cassegrain) to the eyepiece; the Zucchi remained the only single mirror telescope in the seventeenth century.

In the eighteenth century William Herschel initially built and used Newtonians but later he constructed two massive reflecting telescopes, first a twenty-foot and then a second forty-foot instrument.

1280px-Lossy-page1-3705px-Herschel's_Grand_Forty_feet_Reflecting_Telescopes_RMG_F8607_(cropped)

Herschel’s Grand Forty feet Reflecting Telescopes A hand-coloured illustration of William Herschel’s massive reflecting telescope with a focal length of forty feet, which was erected at his home in Slough. Completed in 1789, the telescope became a local tourist attraction and was even featured on Ordnance Survey maps. By 1840, however, it was no longer used and was dismantled, although part of it is now on display at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich. This image of the telescope was engraved for the Encyclopedia Londinensis in 1819 as part of its treatment of optics. Herschel’s Grand Forty feet Reflecting Telescopes Source: Wikimedia Commons

These like Zucchi’s instrument only had a primary mirror with Herschel viewing the image with a hand held eyepiece from the front of the tube. As we name telescopes after their initial inventors Herschel giant telescopes are Zucchis, although I very much doubt if he even knew of the existence of his Jesuit predecessor, who had died at the grand old age of eighty-three in 1670.

 

3 Comments

Filed under History of Astronomy, History of Optics, History of science, History of Technology, Newton, Renaissance Science

Printing the Hindu-Arabic numbers

Arte dell’Abbaco, a book that many consider the first-ever printed mathematics book, was dated four hundred and forty years ago on 10 December 1478. I say many consider because the book, also known as the Treviso Arithmetic, is a commercial arithmetic textbook and some historians regard commercial arithmetic as a separate discipline and not really mathematics.

0380b Large

Calculation from the Arte dell’Abbaco

The unknown author explains his book thus:

I have often been asked by certain youths in whom I have much interest, and who look forward to mercantile pursuits, to put into writing the fundamental principles of arithmetic, commonly called abbacus.

The Treviso Arithmetic is actually an abbacus book, those books on calculating with the Hindu-Arabic numerals that derive their existence from Leonardo Pisano’s Liber Abbaci. Like most abbacus books it is written in the vernacular, which in this case is the local Venetian dialect. If you don’t read 15thcentury Venetian there is an English translation by Frank J. Swetz, Capitalism and Arithmetic: The New Math of the 15thCentury Including the Full Text of the Treviso Arithmetic of 1478, Open Court, 1987.

5 Comments

Filed under Early Scientific Publishing, History of Mathematics, Renaissance Science, Uncategorized

The Seven Learned Sisters

I have suffered from a (un)healthy[1]portion of imposter syndrome all of my life. This is the personal feeling in an academic context that one is just bluffing and doesn’t actually know anything and then any minute now somebody is going to unmask me and denounce me as an ignorant fraud. I always thought that this was a personal thing, part of my general collection of mental and emotional insecurities but in more recent years I have learned that many academics, including successful and renowned ones, suffer from this particular form of insecurity. On related problem that I have is the belief that anything I do actually know is trivial, generally known to everyone and therefore not worth mentioning[2]. I experienced an example of this recently on Twitter when I came across the following medieval illustration and its accompanying tweet.

Ds_0u89X4AAWCyn

Geometria Source: Wikimedia Commons

Woman teaching geometry to monks. In the Middle Ages, it is unusual to see women represented as teachers, in particular when the students appear to be monks. Euclid’s Elementa, in the translation attributed to Adelard of Bath, 1312.

I would simply have assumed that everybody knew what this picture represents and not commented. It is not a “women teaching geometry to monks” as the tweeter thinks but a typical medieval personification of Geometria, one of the so-called Seven Learned Sisters. The Seven Learned Sisters are the personifications of the seven liberal arts, the trivium (grammar, rhetoric and dialectic)

and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy),

which formed the curriculum in the lower or liberal arts faculty at the medieval university. The seven liberal arts, however, have a history that well predates the founding of the first universities. In what follows I shall only be dealing with the history of the quadrivium.

As a concept this four-fold division of the mathematical sciences can be traced back to the Pythagoreans. The mathematical commentator Proclus (412–485 CE) tells us, in the introduction to his commentary on the first book of Euclid’s Elements:

The Pythagoreans considered all mathematical science to be divided into four parts: one half they marked off as concerned with quantity, the other half with magnitude; and each of these they posited as twofold. A quantity can be considered in regard to its character by itself or in its relation to another quantity, magnitudes as either stationary or in motion. Arithmetic, then, studies quantities as such, music the relations between quantities, geometry magnitude at rest, spherics [astronomy] magnitude inherently moving.

The earliest know written account of this division can be found at the beginning of the late Pythagorean Archytas’ book on harmonics, where he identifies a set of four sciences: astronomy, geometry, logistic (arithmetic) and music. Archytas’ dates of birth and death are not known but he was, roughly speaking, a contemporary of Plato. He was the teacher of Eudoxus (c.390–c.337 BCE) Harmonics, by the way, is the discipline that later became known as music in the quadrivium.

Without mentioning Archytas, Plato (428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BCE), who was highly influenced by the Pythagoreans,takes up the theme in his Republic (c.380 BCE). In a dialogue with Glaucon, Plato explains the merits of learning the “five” mathematical sciences; he divides geometry into plane geometry (two dimensional) and solid geometry (three dimensional). He also refers to harmonics and not music.

In the CE period the first important figure is the Neo-Pythagorean, Nicomachus of Gerasa (c.60–c.120 CE), who wrote an Introduction to Arithmeticand a Manual of Harmonics, which are still extant and a lost Introduction to Geometry. The four-fold division of the mathematical sciences only acquired the name quadrivium in the works of Boethius (c.477–524 CE), from whose work the concept of the seven liberal arts was extracted as the basic curriculum for the medieval university. Boethius, who saw it as his duty to rescue the learning of the Greeks, heavily based his mathematical texts on the work of Nicomachus.

Probably the most influential work on the seven liberal arts is the strange De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (“On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury“) of Martianus Capella (fl.c. 410-420). The American historian H. O. Taylor (1856–1941) claimed that On the Marriage of Philology and Mercurywas “perhaps the most widely used schoolbook in the Middle Ages,” quoted from Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Artsby William Harris Stahl.[3]Stahl goes on to say, “It would be hard to name a more popular textbook for Latin reads of later ages.”

Martianus introduces each of the members of the trivium and quadrivium as bridesmaids of the bride Philology.

“Geometry enters carrying a radius in her right hand and a globe in her left. The globe is a replica of the universe, wrought by Archimedes’ hand. The peplos she wears is emblazoned with figures depicting celestial orbits and spheres; the earth’s shadow reaches into the sky, giving a purplish hue to the golden globes of the sun and moon; there are gnomons of sundials and figures showing intervals weights, and measures. Her hair is beautifully groomed, but her feet are covered with grime and her shoes are worn to shreds with treading across the entire surface of the earth.”[4]

geometry

A 16th century Geometria in a printed copy of the Margarita Philosophica

“As she enters the celestial hall, Arithmetic is even more striking in appearance than was Geometry with her dazzling peplos and celestial globe. Arithmetic too wears a robe, hers concealing an “intricate undergarment that holds clues to the operations of universal nature.” Arithmetic’s stately bearing reflects the pristine origin, antedating the birth of the Thunder God himself. Her head is an awesome sight. A scarcely perceptible whitish ray emanates from her brow; then another ray, the projection of a line, as it were, coming from the first. A third ray and a fourth spring out, and so on, up to a ninth and a tenth ray–all radiating from her brow in double and triple combinations. These proliferate in countless numbers and in a moment are miraculously retracted into the one.”[5]An allusion to the Pythagorean decade.

1024px-Houghton_Typ_520.03.736_-_Margarita_philosophica

Gregor Reisch Margarita Philosophica: Arthimetica presiding over a computing competition between Hindu-Arabic numerals and a reckoning board

“Astronomy like her sister Geometry, is a peregrinator of the universe. She has traversed all the heavens and can reveal the constellations lying beneath the celestial arctic circle. […] Astronomy tells us that she is also familiar with the occult lore of Egyptian priest, knowledge hoarded in their sanctums; she kept herself in seclusion in Egypt for nearly forty thousand years, not wishing to divulge those secrets. She is also familiar with antediluvian Athens.”[6]

40c42e35f7555bac1d90e219565ebf06

“Harmony herself is ineffably dazzling and Martianus is stricken in his efforts to describe her. A lofty figure, her head aglitter with gold ornaments, she walks along between Apollo and Athena. Her garment is tiff with incised and laminated gold; it tinkles softly and soothingly with every measured step She carries in her right hand what appears to be a shield, circular in form. It contains many concentric circles, and the whole is embroidered with striking figure. The circular chords encompass one another and from them pours forth a concord of all tones: Small models of theatrical instruments, wrought of gold, hang suspended from Harmony’s left hand. No know instrument produces sounds to compare with those coming from the strange rounded form.”[7]

Quadrivium-742x200

Quadrivium

I have included Stahl’s passages of Martianus’ descriptions of the quadrivium to make clear then when I talk of the disciplines being personified as women I don’t just mean that they get a female name but are fully formed female characters. This of course raises the question, at least for me, why the mathematical disciplines that were taught almost exclusively to men in ancient Greece, the Romano-Hellenistic culture and in the Middle Ages should be represented by women. Quite honestly I don’t know the answer to my own question. I assume that it relates to the nine ancient Greek Muses, who were also women and supposedly the daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne (memory personified). This however just pushes the same question back another level. Why are the Muses female?

034562

Having come this far it should be noted that although the quadrivium was officially part of the curriculum on medieval universities it was on the whole rather neglected. When taught the subjects were only taught at a very elementary level, arithmetic based on the primer of Boethius, itself an adaption of Nicomachus, geometry from Euclid but often only Book One and even that only partially, music again based on Boethius and astronomy on the very elementary Sphere of Sacrobosco. Often the mathematics courses were not taught during the normal classes but only on holidays, when there were no normal lectures. At most universities the quadrivium disciplines were not part of the final exams and often a student who had missed a course could get the qualification simple by paying the course fees. Mathematics only became a real part of the of the university curriculum in the sixteenth century through the efforts of Philip Melanchthon for the protestant universities and somewhat later Christoph Clavius for the Catholic ones. England had to wait until the seventeenth century before there were chairs for mathematics at Oxford and Cambridge.

[1]On the one hand imposter syndrome can act as a spur to learn more and increase ones knowledge of a given subject. On the other it can lead one to think that one needs to know much more before one closes a given research/learn/study project and thus never finish it.

[2]To paraphrase some old Greek geezer, the older I get and the more I learn, the more I become aware that what I know is merely a miniscule fraction of that which I could/should know and in reality I actually know fuck all.

[3]William Harris Stahl, Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts: Volume I The Quadrivium of Martianus Capella. Latin Traditions in the Mathematical Science, With a Study of the Allegory and the Verbal Disciplines by Richard Johnson with E. L. Burge, Columbia University Press, New York & London, 1971, p. 22

[4]Stahl pp. 125–126

[5]Stahl pp. 149–150

[6]Stahl p. 172

[7]Stahl p. 203

12 Comments

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