Michael Maestlin (1550â1631), Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University of Tübingen and one of the few adherents to Copernicanism in the period between Copernicus and Kepler-Galileo, was struckâlike every astronomer of his timeâby the celestial novelties that appeared in the heavens from 1572 onwards. His treatises in Latin on the nova of 1572 in Cassiopeia and on the comets of 1577 and 1580 count among the most significant contributions on these phenomena. His study of the comet of 1577, in particular, marks for many the dawn of modern cometary theory. Maestlin pioneered a more complete mathematical analysis of comets, tracing their paths and positions beyond the sublunary sphere.1 His Copernicanism was manifest from his tracts on the nova and the comet of 1577, and it was duly noted and criticised by Tycho Brahe.2 The Prince of Astronomers praised Maestlin for his accuracy and insight,3 but ultimately disagreed with his cosmological conclusions.
Maestlin was also attentive to the ensuing celestial novelties and wrote two manuscript treatises on the nova of 1604 in Serpentarius and the comet of 1618. These treatises, now among Maestlinâs papers at the Württembergische Landesbibliothek in Stuttgart (WLB in what follows), were never printed, although their existence was always known to scholars, at least since Richard A. Jarrell wrote the first modern intellectual biography of Maestlin in his doctoral dissertation of 1971.4 These treatisesâthe first on the nova written in Latin and the second on the comet of 1618 in Germanâremained unfinished, in draft form, with many deletions in the main text, additions in the margin (also frequently deleted), and in a hand that is sometimes very difficult to decipher. Jarrellâs descriptions of the manuscript on the nova as âbadly scored and illegibleâ and of the first two chapters of the one on the comet as âbadly scored and practically illegibleâ,5 may have contributed to the fact that both treatises have been largely neglected by scholars.
Recently, however, a critical edition of Maestlinâs Latin treatise on the nova of 1604 has been published (WLB, Cod. math. 4°, 15b. 11: Consideratio Astronomica inusitatae Novae et prodigiosae Stellae, superiori 1604 anno, sub initium Octobris, iuxta Eclipticam in signo Sagittarii vesperi exortae, et adhuc nunc eodem loco lumine corusco lucentis [Astronomical consideration of the extraordinary and prodigious new star that appeared near the ecliptic in the sign of Sagittarius one evening in early October in the preceding year 1604, and continues to shine in the same place with a tremulous light]).6 Now, in this volume, we offer an edition of the German manuscript treatise on the comet of 1618 (WLB Cod. Math. 4° 15b, Nr. 8) with an English translation. This Preface briefly describes the peculiar character and structure of the manuscript in the form in which it has arrived to us, together with a justification of the choices regarding the constitution of the text as it appears in the present edition.
In the Introduction, we describe the following issues: (Chapter 1) the broad impact of the three comets of 1618 on European astronomy on the eve of the Thirty Yearsâ War (1618â1648); (Chapter 2) the genesis and structure of Maestlinâs treatise on the third and greatest comet; (Chapter 3) the dates of appearance of the three comets and Maestlinâs observations of them; (Chapters 4 and 5) Maestlinâs earlier cometary treatises and the differences in their outlook with respect to the German treatise of 1618â1619; (Chapter 6) the Aristotelian Bartholomaeus Keckermann (ca. 1572â1609) and his fierce rejection of the interpretation of novas and comets as natural phenomena in the heavens; (Chapter 7) Maestlinâs keen reply to Keckermann, and finally (Chapter 8) the introduction of sunspots and the telescopic observations of the Moon into the discussion of the celestial location of the comet and the ensuing elimination of cosmological dualism. A final chapter focuses on the issue of the predictability of comets and the claim of the Ulm mathematician Johann Faulhaber (1580â1635) to have predicted the appearance of the first comet of 1618 for 1 September, a possibility that Maestlin decidedly rejects.
The first part of this volume presents the transcription of the manuscript. It has arrived to us in two very different versions: a clean copy (Cod. math. 4° 15b, Nr. 8c), extending from pages 9 to 65, and a rough copy or first draft of the treatise (Cod. math. 4° 15b, Nr. 8a), spanning 27 pages and offering in the first eight an initial draft of the first sheet with the eight pages absent from the clean copy. The title of the treatise appears on the first page. The two copies of the manuscript treatise are accompanied by a set of five slips of paper (Cod. math. 4° 15b, Nr. 8b) presenting a first draft of the significant discussion with Keckermann in Chapter 8, still absent from the rough copy, as well as a first draft of several issues in the preceding chapters. These five slips of paper, written on both sides and numbered I, II, 1â8, thus represent an intermediary stage between the two copies. The same slips, as well as pages 11â26 of the rough copy, allow us to follow Maestlinâs reasoning from his first thoughts to the final formulation found in the clean copy. For this reason, reference is frequently made in the notes to both the slips and the second section (pp. 11â27) of the rough copy. Further particulars of the manuscript are presented in Chapter 2. In the second part, we present an English translation.
A first appendix in both parts offers a section, clearly very significant, missing from the clean copy but present in the rough copy, which discusses the question whether comets can be predicted (An Cometae prognosci possent?). This is precisely the issue that Faulhaber had raised, and about which Maestlin had been previously consulted by the Reutlingen mathematician Matthäus Beger (1588â1661), who acted as an intermediary.7 The publication as an appendix reflects our conviction that, even though this section appears on pages 9â10 of the rough copy (Nr. 8a), it was probably too long to fit into the first missing pages of the clean copy (Nr. 8c). Accordingly, Maestlin most probably decided to approach the question in a later chapter of the last version, devoted to the meaning and effects of the comet. This chapter, however, was not written, since the only extant (autograph) copy breaks off abruptly before Chapter 9 is finished. Finally, a second appendix transcribes the final partâafter 13 lines opening a short discussion on the meaning of the comet (âWas aber diser Comet bedeutteâ)âof page 27 in the rough copy, where there seems to be a draft of a letter addressed to the Duke of Württemberg, Johann Friedrich (1582â1628), justifying Maestlinâs failure to deliver the report on the comet requested by the Duke. The date at the foot of the page, 9 February 1619, offers an approximate date for the conclusion of the incomplete draft, while the fact that it is the response to a request by the Duke (âbevelchâ, that is, âBefehlâ, order or command) explains why Maestlin writes in vernacular German, thus breaking with his normal custom of composing his mathematical and astronomical works in Latin.
The authors have distributed their work each according to his own abilities. Miguel Ã. Granada, the primary author and principal investigator, has written the introduction and transcribed the manuscript, while Patrick J. Boner has translated the manuscript into English and aided with the preparation of the volume in various other ways. The notes to the English translation are the product of our joint endeavour. It goes without saying that both authors have contributed to the better performance of each otherâs work.
This edition is the result of research conducted by the project âCosmologÃa, teologÃa y antropologÃa en la primera fase de la Revolución CientÃfica (1543â1633),â funded by the Spanish Government (Ministerio de EconomÃa y Competitividad, Projects FFI2012â31573 for the triennium 2013â2015 and FFI2015â64498-P for the triennium 2016â2018). Miguel Ã. Granada, who initiated research on Maestlinâs manuscript, warmly thanks the Württembergische Landesbibliothek in Stuttgart for kindly allowing him to reproduce some pages from Maestlinâs treatise on the comet of 1618 (Cod. Math. 4° 15 b, Nr. 8), as well as Wilhelm Schickardâs beautiful figure of the cometâs path in his manuscript treatise Cometen Beschreibung (Cod. math. 4° 43, fol. 157). His thanks also go to the library staff, especially Dr Kerstin Losert for her kind assistance and attention during the time he spent at the library. Miguel Ãngel is especially grateful to Friedrich Seck, who carefully oversaw the final phase of the transcription of the manuscript. His knowledge allowed us to correct many erroneous readings as well as to clarify many doubtful ones, particularly in the transcription of the rough copy. Carlos Gilly and Jürgen Hamel have also been helpful in finally solving some obscure points in the transcription. Denis Savoie aided us in commenting on Maestlinâs demonstration of the absence of parallax in the comet.
The work greatly benefited from research conducted by Miguel Ãngel at the Center for the History of Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen in June 2015, following an invitation by Hans Thijssen and Christoph Lüthy. Miguel Ãngel also thanks the MaxâPlanckâInstitut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte in Berlin and its director, Professor Jürgen Renn, for warmly accepting and hosting him as a researcher during a sabbatical leave in 2014. To all of them, as well as Pietro Daniel Omodeo, Anna Jerratsch and other members of the Institut, we express our most sincere gratitude for their collaboration and suggestions.
Finally, we wish to thank Ãdouard Mehl and Friedrich Seck for their insightful reviews of the text presented to the publisher. Their final suggestions and corrections have allowed us to rectify many errors, improve the transcription of the manuscript at several points, and enrich the annotation with some significant additions. It is our hope that this edition will contribute to a better and more complete understanding of the important work of Maestlin, a titan in his own right who remains best remembered for introducing Kepler to the astronomy and cosmology of Copernicus. Needless to say, any remaining insufficiencies are entirely our own responsibility.
Miguel Ã. Granada
Patrick J. Boner
See, for example, Ruffner (1971) and Heidarzadeh (2008).
See Maestlin (1573), (1578) and (1581), as well as Hellman (1944), Westman (1972), (2011) and Granada (2007), (2013).
Brahe (1602, iii, 58).
Jarrell (1971, 127â128). See also Betsch (2002).
Jarrell (1971, 127).
See Granada (2014). The Latin text (106â116) is followed by an English translation by Patrick J. Boner (116â122).
Beger, a modest craftsman, was in contact from ca. 1607 with Maestlin, who lent him many books on mathematics. See Hawlitschek (1995, 31, 216â222), (2006, 109â113).