Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T09:36:37.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Birkenmajer's Copernicus: Historical Context, Original Insights, and Contributions to Current Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2018

André Goddu
André Goddu*
Affiliation:
Stonehill College, Easton MA E-mail: agoddu@stonehill.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer (1855-1929), following along the paths pioneered by Leopold Prowe, Maximilian Curtze, Franz Hipler, and J. L. E. Dreyer, joined them as trailblazers of Copernican scholarship in the nineteenth century. Educated in the classics and mathematics, Birkenmajer began by examining more closely the Cracow background to Copernicus's development and studying his works and annotations in books he owned or read. Birkenmajer contributed many discoveries that eventually became common knowledge, and his studies loomed over Polish research on Copernicus into the 1970s. Focusing on historical context and his original insights, the essay reminds readers of his contributions (sections 1–2), relates them to discussions of Copernicus's precursors (section 3), to the debate about Maragha precedents (section 4), his reading of the Uppsala Notebook (sections 2 and 5), and his account of the origin of Copernicus's heliocentrism (section 6). By means of a more critical assessment of his interpretation, the essay revises earlier accounts, rescuing the original insights that mark Birkenmajer's most important contributions to current debates and his efforts to reconstruct Copernicus's path to heliocentrism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 189 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

References

Albertus de Brudzewo. [1495]1900. Commentariolum super Theoricas novas planetarum Georgii Purbachi. Edited by Birkenmajer, Ludwik Antoni. Cracow: University of Cracow.Google Scholar
Barker, Peter. 2013. “Albert of Brudzewo's Little Commentary on George Peurbach's ‘Theoricae Novae Planetarum’.” Journal for the History of Astronomy. 44:125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Peter, and Heidarzadeh, Tofigh. 2016. “Copernicus, the Tusi Couple and East-West Exchange in the Fifteenth Century.” In Unifying Heaven and Earth, edited by Granada, Miguel A., Boner, Patrick, and Tessicini, Dario, 19–57. Barcelona: University of Barcelona.Google Scholar
Barker, Peter, and Vesel, Matjaž. 2012. “Goddu's Copernicus: An Essay Review of André Goddu's Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition.” Aestimatio 9:304–336.Google Scholar
Birkenmajer, Ludwik Antoni. 1900. Mikołaj Kopernik, Część pierwsza, Studya nad pracami Kopernika oraz materyały biograficzne [Nicholas Copernicus. Part One, Studies on Copernicus's Works and Biographical Materials]. Cracow: Cracow Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Birkenmajer, Ludwik Antoni. 1976. Nicholas Copernicus, Part One, Studies on the Works of Copernicus and Biographical Materials. Translation supervised by Jerzy Dobrzycki and Owen Gingerich. Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Birkenmajer, Ludwik Antoni. 1924. Stromata Copernicana: Studja, poszukiwania i materiały biograficzne [Copernican Miscellanies Studies, Research, and Biographical Materials]. Cracow: Polish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bisaha, Nancy. “European Cross-Cultural Contexts before Copernicus.” In Feldhay and Ragep, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blåsjö, Viktor. 2014. “A Critique of the Arguments for Maragha Influence on Copernicus.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 45:183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, Geoffrey. 2013. “Diplomacy, Patronage, and the Preface to De Revolutionibus.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 44:75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, Geoffrey. 2015. “Astrology and Copernicus's Early Experiences in the World of Renaissance Politics.” Centaurus 57:96–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celenza, Christopher. 2017. “What Did It Mean to Live in the Long Fifteenth Century?” In Feldhay and Ragep, 17–28.Google Scholar
Chabás, José and Goldstein, Bernard. 2012. A Survey of European Astronomical Tables in the Late Middle Ages. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen-Morris, Raz and Feldhay, Rivka. 2017. “Framing the Appearances in the Fifteenth Century: Alberti, Cusa, Regiomontanus, and Copernicus.” In Feldhay and Ragep, 110–140.Google Scholar
Copernic, Nicole. [1543]2015. De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, 3 vols. Edited and translated (vol. 2) with introduction, (vol. 1), with commentary, and (vol. 3) with commentary by Michel-Pierre Lerner, Alain-Philippe Segonds, and Jean-Pierre Verdet. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Copernicus, Nicolaus. 2007. De hypothesibus motuum caelestium a se constitutis commentariolus. Edited by Dobrzycki, Jerzy. In Pisma pomniejsze, Dzieła wszystkie, 3:10-18. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Curtze, Maximilian. 1878. Inedita Copernicana, Mitteilungen des Coppernicus-Vereins für Wissenschaft und Kunst zu Thorn. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Czartoryski, Paweł. 1978. “The Library of Copernicus.” In Science and History, Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen. Studia Copernicana 16: 355–396.Google Scholar
Diamond, Jared. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York and London: Norton.Google Scholar
Dobrzycki, Jerzy, and Kremer, Richard. 1996. “Peurbach and Maragha Astronomy? The Ephemerides of Johannes Angelus and their Implications.” Journal for the History of Astronomy. 27:187–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droppers, Garrett. 1966. Nicole Oresme's Questiones de spera. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Dreyer, John L. E. [1963]1894a. Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Dreyer, J. L. E. 1894b. Tycho Brahe, Ein Bild wissenschaftlichen Lebens und Arbeitens im sechzehnten Jahrhundert. Translated by M. Bruhns. Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
Feldhay, Rivka, and Ragep, F. Jamil, eds. 2017. Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gingerich, Owen. 2004. The Book Nobody Read. New York: Walker.Google Scholar
Goddu, André. 1996. “The Logic of Copernicus's Arguments and His Education in Logic at Cracow.” Early Science and Medicine 1:28–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddu, André. 2004. “Copernicus's Annotations—Revisions of Czartoryski's ‘Copernicana’.” Scriptorium 58:202–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddu, André. 2006. “Reflections on the Origin of Copernicus's Cosmology.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 37:37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddu, André. 2009. “Copernicus's Mereological Vision of the Universe.” Early Science and Medicine 14:316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddu, André. 2010. Copernicus and the Aristotelian Tradition. Leiden and Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddu, André. 2013. “Response to ‘Goddu's Copernicus’ by Peter Barker and Matjaž Vesel.” Aestimatio 10: 248–276.Google Scholar
Goddu, André. 2015-. “Appendix on Ptolemy's Lunar Model”; “Translations: Mikołaj Kopernik (Cracow 1900),” completed through chapter 10: <andregoddu.strikingly.com>..' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Goddu,+André.+2015-.+“Appendix+on+Ptolemy's+Lunar+Model”;+“Translations:+Mikołaj+Kopernik+(Cracow+1900),”+completed+through+chapter+10:+.>Google Scholar
Goddu, André. 2016. “Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer and Curtis Wilson on the Origin of Nicholas Copernicus's Heliocentrism.” Isis 107: 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guessoum, Nidhal. 2008. “Copernicus and Ibn al-Shatir: Does the Copernican Revolution Have Islamic Roots?” The Observatory 128:231–239.Google Scholar
Hipler, Franz. 1873. Spicilegium copernicanum. Braunsberg: Historischen Verein für Ermland.Google Scholar
Hipler, Franz. 1874. “Analecta Warmiensia,” Zeitschrift für die Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ermlands 5:316–488.Google Scholar
Hon, Giora and Goldstein, Bernard. 2004. “Symmetry in Copernicus and Galileo.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 35:273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knox, Dilwyn. 2002. “Ficino and Copernicus.” In Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy, edited by Allen, Michael and Rees, Valery, 399–418. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langermann, Y. Tzvi. 1990. Ibn al-Haytham's “On the Configuration of the World.” New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Lerner, Michel-Pierre. 2008. Le monde des sphères. 2 volumes. 2d ed. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Mästlin, Michael. 2002. “Preface to 1596 edition of Rheticus's Narratio prima.” In Receptio Copernicana, edited by Heribert Nobis and Anna Pastori, Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe 8 (1):448–452, at 449–450. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Malpangotto, Michela. 2016. “The Original Motivation for Copernicus's Research: Albert of Brudzewo's Commentariolum super Theoricas novas Georgii Purbachii.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences (online 18 January) 70:361–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markowski, Mieczysław Hubert. 2002. “Krótka biografia Ludwika Antoniego Birkenmajeru.” (“Short Biography of Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer”). In Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer, Monographs 5, edited by Kokowski, Michał, 17–20. Cracow: Commission for the History of Science.Google Scholar
Markowski, Mieczysław Hubert. 2002. “Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer—badacz kopernikanizmu w kontekście XV-wiecznej astronomii kirakowskiej” [Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer – Research on Copernicanism in the Context of Fifteenth-Century Cracow Astronomy]. In Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer, Monographs 5, edited by Kokowski, Michał, 35–41. Cracow: Commission for the History of Science.Google Scholar
Morrison, Robert. 2014. “A Scholarly Intermediary between the Ottoman Empire and Renaissance Europe.” Isis 105:32–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, Robert. 2017. “Jews as Scientific Intermediaries in the European Renaissance.” In Feldhay and Ragep, 198–214.Google Scholar
Prowe, Leopold. 1883–1884. Nicolaus Coppernicus. 2 volumes. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung; reprinted Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1967.Google Scholar
Ragep, F. Jamil. 2014. “From Tun to Turun: The Twists and Turns of the Tusi-Couple.” Preprint 457, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.Google Scholar
Ragep, F. Jamil. 2017. “From Tun to Toruń: The Twists and Turns of the Tusi-Couple.” In Feldhay and Ragep, 161–197.Google Scholar
Ragep, F. Jamil. 2016. “Ibn al-Shatir and Copernicus: The Uppsala Notes Revisited.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 47:395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragep, F. Jamil. 1993. Nasir al-Din al-Tusi's Memoir on Astronomy. 2 vols. NewYork and Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Ragep, Sally P. 2017. “Fifteenth-Century Astronomy in the Islamic World.” In Feldhay and Ragep, 143–160.Google Scholar
Regiomontanus, Johannes. 1496. Epytoma almagesti Ptolomei. In Opera collectanea, edited by Schmeidler, Felix, Milliaria 10, 2. Venice; facsimile reprinted Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1972.Google Scholar
Rheticus, Georg Joachim. [1540]2015. Narratio prima. Gdańsk: facsimile reprinted Truszczyny, Poland: Nicholas Copernicus Foundation, and Warsaw: University of Warsaw Press.Google Scholar
Shank, Michael. 2017a. “The French Copernicus Edition.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 48:460–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shank, Michael. 2017b. “Regiomontanus and Astronomical Controversy in the Background of Copernicus.” In Feldhay and Ragep, 79–109.Google Scholar
Sylla, Edith. 2017. “The Status of Astronomy as a Science in Fifteenth-Century Craow: Ibn al-Haytham, Peurbach, and Copernicus.” In Feldhay and Ragep, 45–78.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, Noel. 1973. “The Derivation and First Draft of Copernicus's Planetary Theory.” In Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117:423–512.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, Noel. 2017a. “Copernicus's Derivation of the Heliocentric Theory from Regiomontanus's Eccentric Models of the Second Inequality of the Superior and Inferior Planets.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 48: 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swerdlow, Noel. 2017b. “Early Responses to Copernicus: An Essential Edition.” Review of Receptio Copernicana, Nicolaus Copernicus Gesamtausgabe, 8, 1–2. Journal for the History of Astronomy 48:242–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toomer, Gerald J. 1998. Ptolemy's Almagest. 2d edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Curtis. 1975. “Rheticus, Ravetz, and the ‘Necessity’ of Copernicus’ Innovation.” In The Copernican Achievement, edited by Westman, Robert S., 17–39. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar