De revolutionibus orbium coelestium

From revolutionibus orbium coelestium listen (?·i) (On the spins of the celestial bodies) is the fundamental work of the astronomer Nicolas Copernicus, where he exposes his heliocentric theory. He began to write it in 1506, ending it in 1531, although it was not published until the year of his death, in 1543, dedicating it to Pope Paul III.

Copernicus thought that the Ptolemaic system was too complicated and wanted to propose a simpler and more correct alternative model.

History

Nicolas Copernicus.

Copernicus first outlined his system in a short, anonymous, untitled manuscript that he distributed to various friends, known as the Commentariolus. Most historians believe that he wrote the Commentarioulus after returning from a trip to Italy, possibly around 1510. At this time Copernicus already anticipated being able to easily reconcile the motion of the Earth with perceived motions. of the planets, and this with fewer movements than were necessary according to the Alfonsíes Tables (the version of the Ptolemaic system accessible at the time).

To develop the heliocentric model, Copernicus made use of Muʾayyad al-Dīn al-ʿUrḍī's Urdi Lemma, an extension of the theorem of Apollonius of Perga that allowed him to dispense with the Ptolemaic equant.

Johanes Schöner gave Copernicus observations of Mercury made by Bernhard Walther (1430–1504) of Nuremberg, a pupil of Regiomontanus: 45 observations in all, 14 of them with details of longitude and latitude. Copernicus used three of them in De revolutionibus.

Only one manuscript in Copernicus's hand of De revolutionibus has survived. After his death, it was given to his ward, Georg Joachim Rheticus, for publication.

In 1539, Rheticus, a young mathematician from Wittenberg, came to Frombork to study with him. Rheticus read the Copernican manuscript and immediately wrote a summary, free of technical details, in an open letter to Schöner, his master astrologer at Nuremberg. He published this letter under the title Narratio Prima in Danzig, 1540. Achilles Gasser, Rheticus's friend and mentor, published a second edition of the Narratio in Basel in 1541. Due Upon the friendly reception of his work, Copernicus finally agreed to publish more of his work – in 1542, a treatise on trigonometry, which was taken from the second book of the as yet unpublished De revolutionibus. Then, under pressure from Rheticus and having seen that the first reception of his work had not been unfavourable, Copernicus agreed to give his book to his close friend, Bishop Tiedemann Giese, to be delivered to Rheticus in Wittenberg and printed by Johannes Petreius. in Nuremberg. It was published just before Copernicus's death in 1543.

Content

Johannes Petreius, printer From Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium in 1543.

De revolutionibus is divided into six “books” (sections or parts) and closely follows the layout of Claudius Ptolemy's Almagest, although it updates and replaces it.

Book I

Chapters from 1 to 11 are in general a vision of heliocentric theory and a summary exhibition of his cosmology. The order of the blue planes is spherical, as well as the earth and water make up a single globe. The celestial bodies (including the Earth) have circular movements that last forever. In addition to exposing how the Earth rotates on its own axis around the Sun, Copernicus tries to answer why the ancients thought the Earth was central and also reveals what, according to him, the order and periodicity of the movement of the planets around the Sun. In the chapters ranging from 12 to 14 there are theorems for a rope geometry, as well as a string board.

Book II

The principles of spherical astronomy are described as a basis for the arguments developed in the next books and a comprehensive catalogue of fixed stars is displayed.

Book III

Copernicus describes his work on the precession of equinoxes and treats the apparent movements of the Sun and some related phenomena.

Book IV

The Moon and its orbital movements are described.

Book V

It explains how to calculate the positions of the stars based on the heliocentric model and tables are offered for the five planets.

Book VI

The issue of latitude digressions of the five planets in relation to the ecliptic is addressed.

Copernicus argues that the universe comprises eight spheres. The last, most distant and outer, consists of fixed stars without movement, with the Sun still in the center. The known planets revolve around the Sun, each in its own sphere, in this order, from the center out: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. The Moon, however, revolves in its sphere around the Earth. What seemed to be a daily revolution of the Sun and the stars around the Earth, was actually the rotation of the Earth on itself.

Copernicus adhered to one of the general beliefs of his time, that the movements of the celestial bodies should be composed of uniform circular movements. For this reason, he could not account for the observed motion of the planets, for example, Mars and Mercury, without retaining a complex system of epicycles similar to those of the Ptolemaic system. Despite Copernicus's adherence to this aspect of ancient astronomy, his radical proposal for a heliocentric, not a geocentric cosmology, was a serious blow to Aristotle's science – it laid the foundations for what we now call the Scientific Revolution.

Ad lectorem

Andreas Osiander, author of Ad readerem.

Lutheran preacher Andreas Osiander had taken over the printing and publication of De Revolutionibus. In an effort to reduce the controversial impact of the book, Osiander added an unsigned letter, written by himself, titled Ad lectorem de hypothesibus huius operas (To the reader concerning the hypothesis of this work). Osiander placed it before Copernicus's preface, which was a letter to Pope Paul III.

Osiander's letter attempted to establish that Copernicus's system was a mathematical proposal, intended to contribute to the discipline of astronomical calculations, and not an attempt to state literal truth:

(...) it is the duty of an astronomer to compose the history of the celestial movements through a careful and expert study. You must conceive and discern the causes of these movements or hypothesis about these. Since it cannot in any way abide by the true causes, it will adopt whatever assumptions allow it to calculate these movements correctly (...). The present author has devoted himself to both duties with excellence. These hypotheses do not need to be true or probable. On the contrary, if together with the observations they provide a consistent calculation, that is already enough (...). Because this art, which is clear, ignores completely and absolutely the causes of the apparent. And if some causes are seen by imagination, as in fact many are, it does not mean that they are advanced to convince anyone that they are true, but merely to provide a reliable basis for calculations. Similarly, since different hypotheses are sometimes offered for the same [cause] (...) the astronomer will choose as the first hypothesis that is easier to learn. The philosopher will perhaps seek, instead, the appearance of truth. But none will understand or declare anything with certainty, unless it has been divinely revealed (...). That no one expects anything true of astronomy, because it cannot conceive it, and that it is avoided to accept as the truth ideas conceived for another purpose and thus not to end its study more foolish than it was when it began.

Osiander's own defenders point out that his Ad lectorem "expresses views about the purpose and nature of scientific theories that diverge from what Copernicus claimed for his own theory."

Many see Osiander's letter as a betrayal of science and Copernicus, and an attempt to pass off their own thoughts as those of the book's author. An example of these types of claims can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states:

Fortunately for him [the dying Copernicus], he could not see what Osiander had done. This reformist, knowing the attitude of Luther and Melanchthon against the heliocentric system (...), without adding his own name, replaced the Preface of Copernicus by another who contrasted strongly in spirit [with his].

While Osiander's motives have been questioned by many, he has been defended by historian Bruce Wrightsman, who points out that Osiander was not an enemy of science. Apparently Osiander had many connections with scientists:

Johannes Schöner, the master of Rheticus, who Osiander recommended for his position at the Nuremberg Gymnasium; Pedro Apiano of the University of Ingolstadt; Hieronymous Schreiber... Joachim Camerarius... Erasmus Reinhold... Joachim Rheticus... and finally, Hieronymous Cardan.

This same historian advances the opinion that Osiander did not sign the letter because "he was a well-known reformer, whose name was quite infamous among Catholics" and his signature would have caused negative scrutiny of Copernicus's work, which was a loyal catholic scholar. Copernicus himself had communicated to Osiander his "own fears that his work would be reviewed and criticized by peripatetics and theologians" and that he had already been in trouble with his bishop, Johannes Dantiscus, over a relationship with a mistress and friendship with Dantiscus' enemy and suspected heresy, Alexander Scultetus. It was also possible that Protestant Nuremberg could fall to the forces of the Holy Roman Empire and since "the books of hostile theologians could be burned (...) why not scientific works associated with the names of hated theologians". Wrightsman also argues that this is why Copernicus did not mention his best student, Rheticus (a Lutheran) in the book's dedication to the pope.

Osiander's interest in astronomy was theological, hoping that "improving the chronology of historical events would provide more accurate apocalyptic interpretations of the Bible... [he shared] the general attention to the fact that the calendar does not it was agreed according to the astronomical movement and that therefore needed to be corrected with the design of better models on which to base the calculations".

Copernican system.

Copernicus was hampered by his insistence on preserving the idea that celestial bodies should make perfect spheres – he "was still attached to the classical ideas of circular motion (...)". It was not until the Great Comet of 1577 that this idea was challenged. In 1609 Johannes Kepler established Copernicus's theory by establishing that the planets orbit the Sun not in circles, but in ellipses.

In his work Copernicus "used conventional and hypothetical devices such as epicycles (...) as have all astronomers since antiquity (...) hypothetical constructs designed to 'save the phenomenon' and assist computation". Ptolemy's theory contained a hypothesis about the epicycle of Venus that was absurd if seen as anything other than a geometric device (it had to correspond to a much greater variation in brightness and distance than actually registered). "Despite this flaw in Ptolemy's theory, the Copernican hypothesis predicts roughly the same variations." "little gain in terms of the truth referred to the technical or physical" in the transition from one system to another. It was this distinction regarding the technicality of astronomy that allowed the Ptolemaic system "to function since antiquity, despite its inconsistencies with the principles of physics and the philosophical objections of the Averroists".

In writing his Ad lectorem, Osiander was influenced by Pico della Mirandola's idea that humanity "orders a cosmos out of a chaos of opinions." From Pico's writings, Osiander "learned to extract and synthesize various notions from various sources without having to become a subservient follower of any of them," but Pico's effect on Osiander was coupled with the influence of Nicholas of Cusa and his idea about the coincidence of opposites (coincidentia oppositorum). Rather than uphold Pico's emphasis on human endeavor, Osiander followed Cusa's insight that understanding the universe and its Creator came from divine inspiration, rather than intellectual organization. Osiander maintained that in the area of philosophical speculation and scientific hypotheses there were no "heretics of the intellect", but that when one goes beyond speculation, to enter into the declaration of truths, the last measure is in the Bible. By defining Copernicanism as a mathematical speculation, Osiander affirmed that he did not make sense to oppose it to the findings of the Bible.

Pico's influence on Osiander did not escape the notice of Rheticus. He reacted strongly against the Ad lectorem, in the words of historian Robert S. Westman:

The deepest source of Rheticus' anger was (...) the vision of astronomy as a discipline fundamentally incapable of producing accurate knowledge. For Rheticus, this extreme position must surely resonate uncomfortablely with the attacks of Pico della Looking at it against the foundation of divine astrology.

In his Disputations Pico had led a devastating attack on astrology and because the astrologers who made the predictions relegated to astronomers the authority to tell them where the planets were, the latter also became partly white. Pico argued that since the astronomers who calculated the planetary positions could not agree even among themselves, they could not be trusted, while Pico]] could bring writers like Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, etc. to agree. Averroes, Avicennas, and Aquinas. The lack of consensus that he saw in the community of astronomers seemed to him sufficient proof of the fallibility of astronomy, comparable to that of astrology. Pico pointed out that astronomers' instruments were inaccurate and that any imperfection, even one of a degree, nullified any possible value they might have for astrology. People were not to trust astrologers because astronomers' numbers were unreliable. Pico pointed out that astronomers couldn't even tell where the Sun appeared within the order of the planets orbiting the Earth (some placed it near the Moon, others between the planets). Pico wondered if astrologers could claim to be able to read what was going on, when the astronomers they trusted couldn't offer even minimal precision on the basics.

As Westman points out:

It would appear that Osiander offered new bases to support Pico's conclusions: it was not merely the disagreement among astronomers a basis to distrust the kind of knowledge they produced, but Osiander proclaimed that astronomers could build a world deduced from false premises. Hence, a conflict, between the skepticism of Pico and the safe principles for a science of the stars, was embedded in the complex dedicated apparatus of From Revolutionibus.

According to Michael Maestlin's notes, "Rheticus (...) became involved in a very bitter quarrel with the printer [over the Ad lectorem]. Rheticus (...) suspected that Osiander had written the preface. If it was true, he declared, he was going to discipline the guy with such violence that in the future he would know how not to interfere in what was not his business ».

In opposition to the Ad lectorem, Tiedemann Giese asked the city of Nuremberg to publish a correction, but this was not done, and the matter fell into oblivion. Jan Brożek, who supported Copernicus, also lamented the Ad lectorem, writing:

Ptolemy's hypothesis remains. The Copernicus hypothesis is that the earth is moving. Can therefore be true? (...) In fact, Osiander with that confusing preface (...) someone might ask: How could one know which hypothesis is more true, Ptolomeica or Copernicana?

Petreius had sent a copy to Hieronymus Schreiber, a Nuremberg astronomer who had replaced Rheticus as professor of mathematics at Wittenberg while Rheticus was in Nuremberg supervising the printing.

Schreiber, who died in 1547, left a note about Osiander's authorship on his copy of the book. Via Michael Mästlin this copy reached the hand of Johannes Kepler, who discovered what Osiander had done and methodically proved that he had added the preface. The most renowned astronomers of the time had already accepted that the preface was Osiander's.

Owen Gingerich gives a slightly different version: Kepler knew that Osiander] was the author because he had read it in Schreiber's annotation, and that it was Maestlin who learned it from Kepler. Indeed, Maestlin examined Kepler's book to the point of leaving written annotations in it. However, Maestlin was already suspicious of Osiander, because he had bought his De revolutionibus from the widow of Philip Apianus; upon examining the book he found a note attributing the introduction to Osiander.

Johannes Praetorius (1537–1616), who learned of Osiander's authorship from Rheticus told him when he visited him in Kraków, wrote Osiander's name in the margin of the preface in his copy of De revolutionibus.

The first three editions of De revolutionibus included Osiander's preface.

Reception of the work

A page of the work with annotations by Erasmus Reinhold and Paul Wittich (Liège University Library).

When the book was finally published, demand was low, with an initial print run of four hundred copies never going out of print. Copernicus had made the book extremely technical, unreadable by all but the most advanced astronomers of the day, thus allowing it to spread widely. between them without causing excessive controversy. And, like Osiander, contemporary mathematicians and astronomers promoted to the audience the view that it was a useful mathematical fiction, with no real physical validity, thus shielding him from charges of blasphemy. But even before publication in 1543, Rumors were already circulating about the central theses to be found in De revolutionibus. Supposedly Martin Luther said in 1539:

"People lent their ear to an adventist who sought to demonstrate that the earth moves, not the heavens in the firmament, the sun and the moon (...). This mad man desires to reverse all the complete science of astronomy; but the sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

The book caused moderate controversy upon its publication. However, in 1546 a Dominican priest, Giovanni Maria Tolosani, wrote the treatise De veritate Sacrae Scripturae denouncing the Copernican theory and defending the absolute truth of the Bible. The argumentation used by Tolosani in this work is found again in the accusations made against Galileo Galilei.

The reception of this work in the European academic and intellectual world of the 16th century (but not the following) was predominantly negative. The Sorbonne (Paris, France) and most Catholic universities described it as sacrilegious, as well as the main representatives of Protestantism, especially Luther and Calvin, who strongly condemned it, alleging that it contradicted the Holy Scriptures. On the other hand, it was well received at the University of Salamanca (Spain): in its Statutes of 1561 it appears as optional reading and in those of 1594 it is mandatory reading.

Among some astronomers, the book "immediately took its place as the authentic successor to Ptolemy's Almagest, which had hitherto been the Alpha and Omega of astronomers". Erasmus Reinhold praised the work in 1542. and by 1551 he had developed the Prutenic Tables using the methods of Copernicus. The Prutenic Tables, published in 1551, were used as the basis for the calendar reform instituted in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII. They were also used by sailors and maritime explorers of the time, whose 15th-century predecessors had used the Regiomontano Table of the Stars. In England, Robert Recorde, John Dee, Thomas Digges, and William Gilbert were among those who took the position of recognizing Copernicus's methods; in Germany, Christian Wurstisen, Christoph Rothmann and Michael Mästlin, the teacher of Johannes Kepler; in Italy, Giambattista Benedetti and Giordano Bruno, while Francesco Patrizi did accept the rotation of the Earth. In Spain, the rules published in 1561 for the curriculum of the University of Salamanca gave students the choice between studying Ptolemy or Copernicus. One of his students, Diego de Zúñiga, published an acceptance of the Copernican theory in 1584.

In 1549 Melanchthon, the chief lieutenant of Luther, wrote against Copernicus, pointing out the apparent conflict with what was declared in the Sacred Scriptures and advocating that “several measures” were taken to restrict the impiety of the Copernicans.

In 1616 Cardinal Bellarmine ordered Galileo on behalf of the pope to take the position that the system was only a mathematical construction without constituting a physical reality. Previously, Galileo had argued in his defense that the Copernican thesis had also been shared by other authors, among whom he mentioned the Spanish theologian Diego de Zúñiga (1536–1598). He had written in his book In Job Commentaria (1584) that Copernicus' heliocentrism was not incompatible with the Catholic faith. However, the Church ended up including the works of Zúñiga and Copernicus in the Index of prohibited books, through a Decree of the Sacred Congregation of March 5 of that year:

(...) It has also come to the knowledge of this Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine—which is false and completely opposed to Holy Scripture—of the movement of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicholas Copernicus in 'De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium', and by Diego de Zúñiga in 'Job', is now spreading abroad and being accepted by many (...). Therefore, so that this opinion cannot be insinuated in greater depth to the detriment of the Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the work of the so-called Nicolas Copernico, 'De Revolutionibus orbium', and Diego de Zúñiga, 'About Job', be suspended until they are corrected.

Only some corrected editions were allowed in which it was explained that the heliocentric theory had nothing to do with the description of reality. These editions were prepared in 1620 but were never printed in large numbers. The book did not appear in the Index of Prohibited Books revised by Pope Benedict XIV in the mid-18th century. The original book remained in the Index until the year 1835.

The first edition of this work fetched the historic $2.2 million price for a science book at public auction at Christie's on June 18, 2008.

Copy census

A copy of the play.

Arthur Koestler described De revolutionibus as "The Book Nobody Read", saying that the book "was and is one of the worst sellers of all time", despite the fact that it was reprinted four times. Owen Gingerich, a writer devoted to both Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler, refuted this claim after a thirty-five-year project in which he examined all surviving copies of the first two editions. Gingerich showed that almost all the leading mathematicians and astronomers of the day had the book and read it; however, his analysis of the margins shows that almost all of them were ignorant of cosmology at the beginning of the book and were only interested in the later chapters that contained the new models of motion that dispensed with the Ptolemaic equant.

Nicolaus Reimers translated the book into German in 1587.

In January 2017 a second edition copy was stolen as part of a hold-up at Heathrow airport that has yet to be clarified.