The Sleepwalkers (274 page)
Authors: Arthur Koestler
Same
source, loc. cit.
Ibid
.
De
Revolutionibus
,
Dedication
to
Paul
III.
Johannes
Kepler,
Astronomia
Nova
,
Prefatory
matter,
Gesammelte
Werke
,
Vol.
III.
I
have
followed
Rosen's
English
translation
of
the
passage.
Johannes
Praetorius
to
Herwart
von
Hohenburg
.
The
letter
was
first
published
by
Zinner,
op.
cit.,
p.
454.
It
is
equally
suspect
that
Kepler,
having
seen
the
whole
Osiander-Copernicus
correspondence,
quotes
Osiander's
letters
to
Copernicus
and
Rheticus
verbatim,
but
summarizes
the
much
more
important
reply
from
Copernicus
to
Osiander
in
a
single
phrase
about
Copernicus'
"stoical
firmness
of
mind".
The
Artronomia
Nova
attempts
to
put
the
Copernican
system
on
a
physical
basis,
and
Kepler
could
not
admit
that
Copernicus
had
any
doubts
concerning
its
physical
reality
or
was
prepared
to
compromise
on
that
question.
Private
communication, 5 August, 1955.
Careful
reading
of
Osiander's
preface
will
show
that
his
charges
of
"improbability"
and
"absurdity"
are
directed
against
geometrical
details
of
the
Copernican
system,
but
not
against
the
basic
concept
of
the
earth's
motion.
On
this
central
idea
he
shared
Copernicus'
beliefs,
as
shown
by
his
letters
to
Copernicus
and
Rheticus,
and
by
his
devotion
to
the
project.
His
stressing
of
the
formal
or
fictitious
nature
of
the
system
was
partly
prompted
by
diplomacy,
but
partly
by
a
genuine
disbelief
in
the
reality
of
the
epicyclic
machinery.
Copernicus'
attitude
was
essentially
the
same;
the
long
and
heated
controversy
on
this
point
is
mostly
based
on
a
failure
to
distinguish
between
the
heliocentric
idea
and
the
epicyclic
detail
of
the
system.
Concerning
the
former,
the
text
of
the
dedication
to
Paul
III
is
alone
sufficient
proof
that
Copernicus
was
convinced
of
its
physical
truth.
Concerning
the
latter,
a
series
of
passages
in
the
text
show
that
he
regarded
epicycles
and
eccenters
as
not
more
than
computing
devices.
Hence
Copernicus
was
neither
a
"realist"
(to
use
Duhem's
terms)
nor
a
"fictionalist",
but
a
realist
regarding
the
immobility
of
the
sun
and
the
fixed
stars,
and
a
fictionalist
regarding
the
motions
of
the
planets.
The
fictionalist
attitude
is
particularly
evident
in
the
treatment
of
the
rectilinear
oscillatory
motions
of
all
planets
in
latitude,
of
Mercury
in
longitude
and
of
the
earth's
axis,
which
could
not
be
represented
by
any
model
with
even
a
remote
semblance
of
reality.
For
a
brief
and
sensible
discussion
of
the
issue,
with
a
Est
of
some
relevant
passages
in
the
Revolutions
,
see
Armitage,
op.
cit.,
pp.
84-87.
The
only
protest
on
record
came
from
the
loyal
Giese,
who
saw
the
printed
book
only
after
Copernicus'
death.
Copernicus
died
in
May
1543,
when
Giese
was
away
in
Cracow
to
attend
the
marriage
of
the
King
of
Poland.
He
returned
to
Prussia
in
July,
and
found
two
copies
of
the
Revolutions,
which
Rheticus
had
sent
him
from
Nuremberg
with
a
personal
dedication.
Only
now
did
Giese
see
Osiander's
preface,
and
he
considered
it
a
desecration
of
the
memory
of
his
dead
friend.
He
wrote
(on
26
July)
to
Rheticus,
blaming
both
Osiander
and
the
printer
Petreicus,
and
suggesting
that
the
operung
pages
of
the
book
should
be
reprinted,
Osiander's
preface
eliminated,
and
Rheticus'
biography
of
Copernicus,
as
well
as
his
theological
defence
of
the
Copernican
system,
inserted
in
its
place.
He
also
asked
Rheticus
to
intervene
with
the
Nuremberg
City
Fathers
(to
whom
Giese
had
written
directly)
that
they
should
force
Petreius
to
comply.
Rheticus
did
as
he
was
asked,
but
the
Corporation
of
Nuremberg,
after
investigating
the
matter,
resolved
on
29
August:
"To
forward
to
Bishop
Tiedeman
at
Culm
the
written
answer
to
his
letter
by
Johan
Petreius
(after
eliminating
its
harshness
and
toning
it
down),
with
the
comment
that
in
view
of
the
contents
of
the
answer,
no
action
could
be
taken
against
him."
(Cf.
Prowe
I,
2,
p.
535
seq.,
and
Zinner
p.
255
f.)