Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:08:22.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Publish or Perish: Legal Contingencies and the Publication of Kepler's Astronomia nova*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

James R. Voelkel
James R. Voelkel
Affiliation:
Dibner Institute for the History of Science and TechnologyCambridge, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The publication of Johannes Kepler's brilliant and revolutionary Astronomia nova (1609) has hitherto been viewed as somehow inevitable. This paper argues that, on the contrary, the book's very existence and a measure of its unusual form and content are in fact highly contingent, and derive from a legal dispute between Kepler and Tycho's heirs over the right to capitalize on his astronomical legacy. On Tycho's death, Kepler rather accidentally found himself in charge of Tycho's posthumous astronomical publications, especially the highly prestigious Rudol phine Tables. Tycho's legal heirs, not having been paid by the emperor for Tycho's astronomical assets and feigning Kepler's unworthiness as his successor, wrested this mandate back. Ordered in turn to justify his employment, Kepler contrived the Astronomia nova as an interim announcement of the fruits of his astronomical research. In an effort to block Kepler's continuing exploitation of Tycho's observations, the heirs obtained the legal right to censor his publications, which severely threatened his philosophical freedom. The threat of editorial interference was responsible in part for Astronomia nova's unusual narrative form.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Spring 1999 , pp. 33 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Princeton University Press for their gracious permission to reproduce material from my forthcoming book. Unless otherwise indicated in the list of references, all translations are my own.

References

Brahe, Tycho. 1913–1929. Tychonis Brahe Dani opera omnia. 15 vols. Edited by Dreyer, J. L. E. Copenhagen: Libraria Gyldendaliana.Google Scholar
Brahe, Tycho. 1946. Tycho Brahe's Description of his Instruments and Scientific Work as given in Astronomiae instauratae mechanica ( Wandesburgi 1598). Translated and edited by Hans, Raeder, Ellis, Strömgren, and Bengt, Strömgren. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Caspar, Max. 1968. Bibliographia Kepleriana: Ein Fürer durch das gedruckte Schrifttum von Johannes Kepler, 2nd ed. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Caspar, Max. [1959] 1993. Kepler. Translated and edited by Doris Hellman, C.. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Christianson, J.R. Forthcoming. On Tycho's Island: Tycho Brahe and his Assistants, 1570–1601. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donahue, William H. 1988. “Kepler's Fabricated Figures: Covering up the Mess in the New Astronomy.” Journal for the History of Astronomy. 19:217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donahue, William H. 1993. “Kepler's First Thoughts on Oval Orbits: Text, Translation, and Commentary.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 24:71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyer, J. L. E. 1890. Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black.Google Scholar
Gassendi, Pierre. 1654. Tychonis Brahei equitis dani, astronomorum coryphi, vita. Paris.Google Scholar
Gingerich, Owen, and Robert, S. Westman. 1988. The Wittich Connection: Conflict and Priority in Late Sixteenth-Century Cosmology. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 78, pt. 7. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.Google Scholar
Grafton, Anthony. 1992. “Kepler as a Reader.” Journal of the History of Ideas 53:561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, N. 1984. The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler's A Defense of Tycho against Ursus with Essays on Its Provenance and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kepler, Johannes. 1858–1871. Joannis Kepleri astronomi opera omnia. Edited by Christian, Frisch. Frankfurt and Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer.Google Scholar
Kepler, Johannes. 1937–. Johannes Kepler Gesammelte Werke. 20+ vols. Edited by Max, Caspar et al. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Kepler, Johannes. 1981. Mysterium cosmographicum: The Secret of the Universe. Translated by Duncan, A. M. Introduction and notes by E. J. Aiton. New York: Abaris Books.Google Scholar
Kepler, Johannes. 1992. New Astronomy. Translated by William, H. Donahue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koestler, Arthur. 1959. The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre. [1973] 1980. The Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus — Kepler — Borelli. Translated by Maddison, R. E. W. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Rosen, Edward. 1986. Three Imperial Mathematicians: Kepler Trapped between Tycho Brahe and Ursus. New York: Abaris Books.Google Scholar
Seck, Friedrich. 1970. “Johannes Kepler und der Buchdruck: Zur aü²eren Entstehungsgeschichte seiner Werke.” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 11:609–726.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Bruce. 1987. Kepler's Physical Astronomy. Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, 13. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoren, Victor E. 1990. The Lord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe. With contributions by John Christianson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voelkel, James R. 1994. “The Development and Reception of Kepler's Physical Astronomy, 1593–1609.” Ph.D. diss. Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Westman, Robert. 1980. “The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study.” History of Science 18:105–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre. [1973] 1980. The Astronomical Revolution: Copernicus — Kepler — Borelli. Translated by R. E. W. Maddison. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Rosen, Edward. 1986. Three Imperial Mathematicians: Kepler Trapped between Tycho Brahe and Ursus. New York: Abaris Books.Google Scholar
Seck, Friedrich. 1970. “Johannes Kepler und der Buchdruck: Zur aü²eren Entstehungsgeschichte seiner Werke.” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 11:609–726.Google Scholar
Stephenson, Bruce. 1987. Kepler's Physical Astronomy. Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences, 13. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoren, Victor E. 1990. The Lord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe. With contributions by John Christianson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voelkel, James R. 1994. “The Development and Reception of Kepler's Physical Astronomy, 1593–1609.” Ph.D. diss. Indiana University. Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
Westman, Robert. 1980. “The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study.” History of Science 18:105–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar