granada+tessicini_copernicus & fracastoro: the dedicatory letters to pope paul iii, the history...

8/12/2019 Granada+Tessicini_Copernicus & Fracastoro: the dedicatory letters to Pope Paul III, the history of astronomy, and t…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/granadatessicinicopernicus-fracastoro-the-dedicatory-letters-to-pope-paul 1/46

Copernicus and Fracastoro: the dedicatoryletters to Pope Paul III, the history of

astronomy, and the quest for patronage

Miguel A. Granada a, Dario Tessicini b

a Department of History of Philosophy, University of Barcelona, Baldiri Reixac s/n, 08028 Barcelona, Spainb Department of Italian, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK

Received 2 February 2005; received in revised form 14 April 2005

Abstract

Copernicuss De revolutionibus (1543) and Girolamo Fracastoros Homocentrica (1538)were both addressed to Pope Paul III (1534–1549). Their dedicatory letters represent a rhetor-ical exercise in advocating an astronomical reform and an attempt to obtain the papal favour.Following on from studies carried out by Westman (1990) and Barker & Goldstein (2003), thispaper deals with cultural, intellectual and scientific motives of both texts, and aims at under-lining possible relations between them, such as that Copernicus knew of Fracastoros Homo-

centrica, and that at least part of the rhetorical strategy laid out in De revolutionibussdedicatory letter can be read as a sophisticated response to Fracastoro s arguments. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Copernicus; Fracastoro; Paul III; History of astronomy; Patronage.

1. Introduction

Copernicuss De revolutionibus (Nuremberg, 1543) begins—leaving aside theanonymous praefatiuncula Ad lectorem, whose real author, as Kepler revealed in

0039-3681/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2005.07.001

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.A. Granada), [email protected] (D. Tessicini).

Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 36 (2005) 431–476

Studies in Historyand Philosophyof Science

www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsa

mailto:[email protected]






1609, was Andreas Osiander—with the publication of the letter sent by CardinalNicholas Schonberg in November 1536. This is followed by the dedicatory letterto Pope Paul III,1 in which Copernicus presents several arguments in defence of

his astronomical and cosmological innovation, starting with an account of the his-tory of astronomy since the Greeks, involving a discussion of the two main astro-nomical models (homocentric spheres, and eccentric spheres and epicycles). Thedeficiencies of these models had in fact been the main reason for Copernicuss deci-sion to produce a new system.

The dedicatory is not, however, the earliest extant text in which he defended hisreform. The Commentariolus, a handwritten text not published in the sixteenth cen-tury, has also survived. Its first paragraphs have a similar intent to that of De rev-

olutionibuss dedicatory letter, and indeed the structures of the two texts areidentical in several places. We do not know when the Commentariolus was written,

but we know that it must have been finished before 1514, since on 1 May of thatyear a copy of it was entered in the registry of the library of Maciej of Miecho w,professor of medicine at the University of Krakow. We can only guess at the exactdate of its composition: possibly several years before, towards the beginning of thecentury.

Like De revolutionibus, the Commentariolus begins its presentation of the Coper-nican reform with a reference to the two models of mathematical astronomy thathad dominated the field since the Greeks. These models were the homocentricspheres (literally concentrici circuli ), and the eccentric spheres and epicycles.Copernicuss aim was to justify his project by placing it alongside these modelsand by highlighting their deficiencies and errors. But some thirty years separatesthe Commentariolus from the letter to Paul III, long enough to explain one sub-stantial difference between their respective presentations of the history of astron-omy, and long enough to connect this difference with a new astronomicalpanorama as it had emerged towards the end of the 1530s. We are referring tothe publication in Italy of some proposals for astronomical reform—at odds withCopernicuss project—which defended the revival of the model of homocentricspheres. The proposals were made, as it is known, by Giovanni Battista Amico(De motibus corporum coelestium iuxta principia peripatetica sine eccentricis et epi-

cyclis, Venice 1536 and 1537, Paris 1540) and Girolamo Fracastoro (Homocen-trica, Venice 1538). Besides, like De revolutionibus, Fracastoros work wasdedicated to Paul III.

The question we wish to address is whether Copernicus knew about the revival of the homocentric theory in Italy, and whether this had any relevance on the latest

1 According to most scholars it was written in June 1542 and sent immediately to the printer Petreius inNuremberg. Cf. Copernicus (1978), pp. 338 and 343. See also in Gingerich (2002), p. 108, the descriptionof the copy owned by A. Pirmin Gasser (a friend of Rheticus and editor of his Narratio prima in Basle,1541), who inscribed at the end of the letter to Paul III Datum Warmiae in Borussia mense Junio anni1542. Barker & Goldstein (2003) also agree on this point. Their investigation, which continues along thesame lines as the seminal work by Robert S. Westman (see below, n. 16), studies the quest for patronage byCopernicus and his friends (Bishop Giese and Rheticus) along paths other than the ones we are pursuinghere and with results that are compatible with our hypothesis.

432 M.A. Granada, D. Tessicini / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 36 (2005) 431–476



stages of the composition and publication of De revolutionibus in 1543.2 At times,scholars have hinted at the possibility of a personal encounter between Copernicusand Fracastoro during their study years in Padua and, above all, at a possible refer-

ence to Homocentrica in the dedicatory letter,3

but no special consideration has beengiven to the topic so far. Initial indications point to the value of exploring these ties,at least as an hypothesis, and this article seeks to collect circumstantial, historicaland textual evidence of a connection between Copernicuss Preface and the emer-gence of these homocentric proposals.

We will begin our analysis with the presentation of the history of astronomy in theCommentariolus, in order to evaluate Copernicuss revised version of the same themepresented in the dedicatory letter of 1542 (as well as the decision to include the letterfrom Cardinal Nicolas Schonberg in the edition of De revolutionibus). We will thenproceed to compare his project with that of Fracastoro, taking into account that

their rivalry was not only at the theoretical level; it was a practical matter as well,since both authors were seeking patronage and institutional recognition.

2. The history of astronomy in the Commentariolus

The Commentariolus opens with a critical review of the history of astronomy. Aprelude to this, and a touchstone of the historical value of astronomical construc-tions is the statement of what Reinhold would later describe (in a handwritten notein the frontispiece of his copy of De revolutionibus, so as to stress the fundamentalrole it still plays in this work) as the axiom of astronomy:4 that the circular move-ment of celestial spheres is uniform and regular around its own centre. Copernicussays:

Our predecessors assumed, I observe, a large number of celestial spheres

mainly for the purpose of explaining the planets apparent motion by the prin-

ciple of uniformity. For they thought it altogether absurd that a heavenly body,

which is perfectly spherical , should not always move uniformly. By connecting

2 A positive answer to the first question, admittedly, does not represent a corroboration of the secondone, although it might provide additional evidence. Copernicus in fact may have known about Amico andFracastoro (either directly, that is reading their works, or indirectly, for instance through informalcommunication), but this does not immediately imply a relation between these proposals and a reaction onthe part of Copernicus.3 One recent instance can be found in Barker (1999), p. 353: writing in the 1540s he [Copernicus] may

well have intended to refer to the relatively recent attempts by Amico and Fracastoro to repairhomocentric models. Barker, however, does not mention at any point the difference with respect to theCommentariolus; nor does he offer any argument in support of his suggestion. Cf. also n. 48. Commentingon Westmans essay (see below, n. 16), Nicholas Jardine has emphasized the similarities between the twoprefaces. See Jardine (1998), p. 53: Westmans reading is strongly confirmed by the dedication to Paul IIIof another new ordering of the planetary motions, Fracastoros Homocentrica, in which the strategies of appeal to the humanist pope are closely similar. We are grateful to P. Boner for drawing our attention tothis comment, which we think gives support to our hypothesis.4 See Gingerich (2002), p. 269.

M.A. Granada, D. Tessicini / Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 36 (2005) 431–476 433



and combining uniform motions in various ways, they had seen, they could

make any body appear to move to any position.5

Note that Copernicus

s

principle of uniformity

implies that the assumption tohold the contrary—that the movement of celestial bodies is non-uniform or irregu-lar—is highly unreasonable. This is also linked to the theory shared with thePlatonic, Aristotelian and Stoic traditions of the divinity of heaven and the perfec-tion of its essence and movement, which expressed the constancy and immutabilityof the underlying divine will by means of the regularity of its own trajectory. Thus,admitting any motion other than the uniform one was irrational and even, we mightadd, impious and blasphemous.

Copernicus then presents Eudoxuss and Callippuss model of the concentric cir-cles (concentricos circulos) as the first Greek astronomical theory. The models

error—which in fact led to its replacement—did not lie in any transgression of theprinciple of uniformity (as Copernicus says nothing about this in his exposition,we can assume that he recognised the concentric model was orthodox on thismatter).6 Rather, its flaw was that—by assuming a constant distance between theplanet and the centre of its movement, that is, the Earth, at the centre of theworld—it was unable to account for the planets movement in latitude, that is, theirascent and descent in the sky manifested in the changes in their apparent sizes. Thisphenomenon or appearance, which was interpreted as an effect of their greater orlesser distance from the central, motionless Earth, and which was incompatible withthe equidistance throughout their circular course postulated by the model, led to its

replacement by the model of eccentric spheres and epicycles, which was eventuallyaccepted by most scholars (maxima pars sapientium).7

Copernicus attributes this new model to Ptolemy and most others, and he alsoseems to suggest that a small minority remained who did not accept the novelty. Per-haps this vague reference can be interpreted as an allusion to those scholars (sapien-

tes, possibly the expression should be taken to refer to philosophers as well as tomathematical astronomers) who rejected the model of eccentric spheres and epicyclesboth because it did not comply with the regularity or uniformity, and because one of the implications of the astronomical axiom, understood in its strictest sense, wasthat the celestial movement is circular with respect to the unique centre of move-

ment, the immobile Earth. Instead, eccentric spheres and epicycles assume different

5 Copernicus (1985), p. 81. Cf. the Latin text in Copernicus (1974), p. 9: Multitudinem orbiumcoelestium maiores nostros eam maxime ob causam posuisse video, ut apparentem in sideribus motum sub

regularitate salvarent. Valde enim absurdum videbatur coeleste corpus in absolutissima rotunditate non

semper aeque moveri . Fieri autem posse animadverterant, ut etiam compositione atque concursu motuum

regularium diversimodo ad aliquem situm moveri quippiam videretur (our italics; all italics in thequotations are ours, except where stated otherwise).6 Cf. the comment by Swerdlow (1973), p. 434.7 Copernicus (1985), p. 81: Callippus and Eudoxus, who tried to achieve this result by means of

concentric circles, could not thereby account for all the planetary motions, not merely the apparentrevolutions of those bodies but also their ascent and descent at others, [a pattern] entirely incompatiblewith [the principle] of concentricity. Therefore for this purpose it seemed better to employ eccentrics andepicycles, [a system] which most scholars finally accepted.




centres of circular movements that do not coincide with the worlds absolute centre(the Earth) and in fact, in the case of epicycles, even assume mobile centres. Coper-nicus may therefore be referring to the Andalusian revolt against Ptolemaic astron-

omy, as formulated (to mention only authors known to Copernicus) by Alpetragiusand Averroes.8 This anti-Ptolemaic reaction was inspired by Aristotles support forthe Eudoxus–Callippus model, as well as by philosophical requirements such as thecompatibility between astronomical models and physics, and the subordination of mathematical astronomy to natural philosophy. When Copernicus wrote the Com-

mentariolus, in the first years of the sixteenth century, these ideas acquired new lifewith a new philosophical denunciation of the impossibility of the model of eccentricspheres and epicycles, and the announcement of the search for an astronomy thatwould return to the truth of concentric spheres. In fact, in 1498, Alessandro Achil-lini, professor of philosophy at the University of Bologna, published De orbibus,

which Copernicus may well have known during his stay in Italy, and in particularduring his time at Bologna (1496–1500).9

However, despite the possible reference to new supporters of the homocentric the-ory, the historical account of the Commentariolus does seem to take for granted thedisappearance of this model from the astronomical scene. Copernicus appears to re-gard homocentrism as a thing of the past, a stage in the history of astronomical sci-ence that has been surpassed. This was probably because this resistance andAchillinis recent proclamation were exclusively philosophical assertions, lackingany serious or effective geometrical construction able to explain planetary move-ments, and therefore devoid of relevance to astronomy.

So in the Commentariolus Copernicus proceeds from the acknowledgement of thehistorical fact that the Ptolemaic astronomy of eccentric spheres and epicycles wasthe only model existing at that moment. He centres his criticism on it in order to jus-tify his proposal for reform, which he presents as a rectification of the particularpoint in Ptolemaic astronomy that rendered it totally deficient. This suggests thatthe opening premise in his account of the history of astronomy—the formulationof the axiom of astronomy, of the uniformity of circular movement with respectto its centre, whatever this centre is, without thus affirming the existence of a singlecentre—should be seen against this historical background, that is, the exclusive pres-

ence of the Ptolemaic astronomical model (recall that the astronomy of concentricspheres meticulously respects the principle of the uniformity of movement).What Copernicus criticizes in Ptolemys astronomy is its violation in practice of

the rational principle of the regularity of circular movement with regard to its cen-tre, a violation which can in no way be mitigated by the fact that regularity is pre-served with regard to the equant point. The equant is not the geometric centre of movement, with reference to which there must be uniformity; therefore, Ptolemy sapproach represents a purely imaginary, fictitious solution which cannot mask the

8 See Sabra (1994).9 See Poppi (1996), pp. 56 ff.; Barker (1999), pp. 346–350, argues that Copernicus knew of the Averroist

attack on Ptolemy as early as his student days in Krakow prior to 1496. On the deficiencies of Achillini swork in the astronomical domain, see Di Bono (1990), pp. 62–64.




basic structural flaw in his astronomical model. This is the case of the theoricae orgeometrical models Ptolemy built for the planets:

[the widespread planetary theories] although consistent with the numerical

[data], seemed likewise to present no small difficulty. For these theories were

not adequate unless they also conceived certain equalizing circles, which made

the planet appear to move at all times with uniform velocity neither on its def-

erent sphere nor about its own [epicycles] centre. Hence this sort of notion

seemed neither sufficiently absolute nor sufficiently pleasing to the mind.10

Indeed, Copernicuss account of the history of astronomy is aimed at showing thereader that Ptolemaic astronomy, the only astronomy in existence at the time, isfounded on a basic error that must be corrected urgently. The error consists in theviolation of the principle according to which astronomy must reveal the rationality

of the planetary movements.11 The necessary reform of astronomy, the principles of which Copernicus presented in the Commentariolus, should be founded on the accep-tance and the strictest observance of uniformity of movement. This is exactly whatCopernicus indicates, insofar as this is the central feature of his astronomical reformbased on heliocentrism and the Earths movement: Therefore, having become awareof these [defects], I often considered whether there could perhaps be found a morereasonable arrangement of circles, from which every apparent irregularity wouldbe derived while everything in itself would move uniformly, as is required by the ruleof perfect motion.12

In summary, the history of astronomy in the Commentariolus seems to be con-structed on the meeting of two single forces: on the one hand Ptolemy and theastronomy of the present, and on the other Copernicus and the astronomy of thefuture, able to point out the basic structural flaw in its predecessor and the necessityof reform. The criterion for the evaluation of the two systems is the rational principleof uniformity. This principle condemns Ptolemys model and establishes Copernicanastronomy as the appropriate method for reform, since Copernicus claimed that hiscosmological–astronomical model preserved uniformity. In this scenario of opposingforces the astronomy of concentric spheres is conspicuous by its absence, a modelabandoned some time before: not on the charge levelled against Ptolemy (the viola-

tion of uniformity), but because of the models incompatibility with the modificationof the distance of the planets.

10 Copernicus (1985), p. 81.11 Note that the violation of the uniformity with respect to the centre of the circular movements and the

unacceptability of the equant point had also been mentioned during the Andalusian revolt and evenearlier (since the times of Ibn-al-Haytham, or Alhazen) by the Aristotelian defenders of the concentricspheres.12 Copernicus (1985), p. 81. Cf. the Latin text in Copernicus (1974), p. 10: Igitur, cum haec

animadvertissem ego, saepe cogitabam, si forte rationabilior modus circulorum inveniri possit, e quibusomnis apparens diversitas dependeret, omnibus in seipsis aequaliter motis, quemadmodum ratio absolutimotus poscit.




A further point should be made in this reconstruction of the history of astronomy,with reference to Copernicuss defence of heliocentric astronomy. His criticism of Ptolemys astronomy is based solely on the reason mentioned above, and is largely

sufficient for his purpose. He does not present other reasons, as he would do laterin the 1542 letter to Paul III in which he also considers the issue of the Ptolemaicmonstrum, that is, a flaw present not in the theoricae of each of the planets separately,but one of a very different nature: the fact that in Ptolemy there is no unitary, pro-portionate system of the world built up via the interconnection of its componentparts in accordance with a proportionate and symmetric design of the whole. Thislatter argument may have been introduced in response to intervening events, eventswhich—as we mentioned above—had probably induced a change in the way inwhich the history of astronomy was presented.

3. Dedications and intermediaries

The letter by Schonberg and the dedication to the Pope were added in the finalstages of printing and reflected Copernicuss goals at the time of the publication of his work. The new opening sections replaced a short paragraph that appears in themanuscript before the first chapter of Book I and that was originally intended as anopening for the entire De revolutionibus.13 For the purposes of this investigation, acontextual analysis of the Preface (including the letter by Schonberg) would highlightits aims, its effects on the readers and, finally, some aspects of its relation with Homo-

centricas dedicatory letter. An important hint comes from the title, since Copernicus sletter appears to serve a double purpose: first, it is a praefatio, meaning an introduc-tion to and a concise explanation of the ideas at the heart of the book; secondly, it isaddressed Ad sanctissimum Dominum Paulum III, that is, it is dedicated to—andtherefore under the protection of—the ruling pontiff. These two aspects, inseparableas they are, determine both the content and the rhetorical strategy of the letter.

In the sixteenth century, dedicatory letters made up a literary genre in their ownright.14 As a means for having access to, or strengthening patronage relations, theywere written in the form of a letter to the patron and placed before the beginning of

the work.

15

Although printed books provided the possibility of reaching a wider

13 See Lerner & Segonds (2003), p. 394 n. 1.14 On dedicatory letters, see the studies by Dunn (1994); Farenga (1994); Richardson (1999), pp. 50–57;

Tarquini, (2001), Ch. IV–V; Fiorato & Margolin (1989). The dialogue by Fratta (1590) provides furtherinformation on the literary value and social etiquette of dedicatory letters.15 Obviously, in the case of De revolutionibus, the author did not authorize the addition of the

praefatiuncula To the reader. This too was not an unusual practice in the sixteenth century, since printers,publishers and editors enjoyed considerable independence with regard to the text, all the more so when theauthor could not be present or personally supervise the printing of the book. Cf. Richardson (1999), pp.77–79: Editors, compositors and pressmen might all introduce deviations from the copy-text, and thesewould not necessarily be corrected at the proof stage, in some cases causing the fury of the authors. Thepublication of De revolutionibus fits into this scheme insofar as its bedridden author and its editors (such asG. J. Rheticus, appointed to supervise the printing process) did not know of Osianders To the reader

until after the publication of the book.




public, thus transforming the original purpose of the manuscript dedication ad per-

sonam into what might be considered modern prefaces/introductions, sixteenth-century dedications were mainly intended to appeal to the patron as a principal

source of protection and favour. From this point of view, Copernicus s preface isa typical example of the sixteenth-century combination of the search for patronagewith good editorial practice. Accordingly, the initial pages of De revolutionibus werecarefully tailored for the recipient of the dedication and adopted rhetorical schemesthat can be found in the overwhelming majority of sixteenth-century dedicatory let-ters: praise of the patron, call for protection, show of modesty, appeal to commonfriends, and references to classical literature.16

A crucial aspect of the dedication of a book is that it was conceived as a gift-giving within client–patron relations. Typically, this action was illustrated by thekneeling of the giver before the recipient while offering a copy of the book. By this

offering, authors could hope to gain the favour of a powerful protector, to enter intohis circle of clients and to improve their social position and income.17 In the historyof science, an extraordinary example of the dedication as gift-giving practice is Gali-leos naming of the satellites of Jupiter after the Medici family. The dedication of thenew stars complemented the ambitions of the Medici family to present their ruleover Florence as a matter of fate. The Medici envisaged their dynasty as a theogonyand since mythological imagery identified gods with stars, the discovery of new star-gods established a clear symbolism with the ruling Florentine family.18 Yet, the po-sitive outcome of a dedication did not depend entirely on the author s skills and therecipients disposition and possibilities. According to good social practice andcourtly etiquette, a dedication should not come unsolicited or by those with whomthe patron did not want to be associated. To prevent an unwanted gift and its con-sequences, some form of informal contact made before the composition of a dedica-tion was customary. In this way the giver would make sure that his gift would befavourably accepted, and the recipient that his name would not be associated withsomething that he did not want or that could cause him embarrassment. Moreover,when the giver and the recipient belonged to different social ranks, as was often thecase, the first could not approach the second directly, even with a precious gift.19 Thehierarchical nature of the relation between courtier and patron is clearly expressed

by Galileo in his correspondence with Belisario Vinta, secretary general of the

16 On some of these aspects, see Westman (1990). This article investigates Copernicuss Preface in thecontext of papal patronage and shows the association between the cultural framework of Paul IIIs innercircle and Copernicuss heritage of Italian humanist culture acquired during his student days. In particular,Westman focuses on the presence of Horatian themes and classical allusions in the Preface, which, in turn,would appeal to the literary tastes of the Italian humanist audience. According to Westman, Copernicus spreface acquires a political status, evoking moral and political associations to which fellow clerics from hisown local region of Varmia could respond (p. 189), and at the same time advocating a heavenly reform

(p. 186) through a reformist rhetoric (p. 192) that could be acceptable to the Vatican policy-makers.17 On dedications as gift-giving, see Davis (2000). On scientific gifts and dedications, see Findlen (1991),

and Rutkin (2001).18 See Biagioli (1993), pp. 106–112. On Medici cultural policy, cf. also Cox-Rearick (1984).19 See Biagioli (1993), p. 20: A lowly client could not approach a very important patron directly.




Medici and intermediary during the negotiations for his appointment as mathemati-cian and philosopher at the Florentine court. Galileo wrote that he could not appearin front of [the grand duke] at once and stare in the eyes of the most serene light of

the rising sun without having reassured and fortified [him]self with their secondaryand reflected rays.20 In this case, the metaphor of the ruler as the Sun and its raysas his immediate subordinates illustrates the vital role played by intermediaries inbridging the social difference between patrons and clients.

In the mid-sixteenth century, Copernicus and Fracastoro relied on similar socialpractices as Galileo, and their careers were also influenced by patronage and per-sonal favours. Copernicus owed his post as canon to his uncle, while Fracastoro ob-tained the canonicate of Malcesine through his role as personal physician of theBishop of Verona, Gian Matteo Giberti. Copernicus also practised medicine andat least on one occasion this proved to be useful when soliciting political patronage

and protection.21 In this section of our investigation, Copernicuss and Fracastorossocial relations will be examined in relation to the rhetorical strategies devised in thededications of De revolutionibus and Homocentrica.

The social network of Fracastoro comprised high representatives of the CatholicChurch (he treated the Cardinals Farnese and Madruzzo), noblemen of Verona, andan entire generation of intellectuals, artists, poets and philosophers, among whomfigured the Della Torre family, Andrea Navagero, Giovanni Battista Ramusio andPaolo Giovio.22 Above all, his career was characterised by his reputation as a phy-sician and his good connections with the political and religious elites. At the heightof his fame, in 1545 Fracastoro was appointed by Paul III as medicus conductus et

stipendiatus at the Council of Trent and given a salary of 60 golden scudi . In the sameyear, he also benefited from a papal licence to publish De contagione and De sympa-

thia et antipathia rerum, praising their public utility, while in 1546, a prediction onthe spread of an epidemic in Trent that forced the Council to move to Bologna with-in territory controlled by Rome, brought on allegations that Fracastoros profes-sional advice was determined by his political allegiance.23

The role of Giberti as intermediary between Fracastoro and Paul III can beunderstood within this social and political context. As Bishop of Verona, Fracast-oros homeland, he naturally represented a primary patronage connection. They

came into contact between 1524 and 1528, that is between the time of Gibertisappointment and his arrival in the city. Around this time, Fracastoro entered Giber-

tis academy, the Gibertina, and became his physician. In turn, Giberti appointed

20 Ibid.21 See Barker & Goldstein (2003), pp. 354–357.22 On Fracastoros life, see Pellegrini (1948), pp. 19–25 (on Fracastoros acquaintances in Padua), and

Peruzzi (1997); while for Fracastoros natural philosophy, also relevant for the composition of theHomocentrica, we refer to Peruzzi (1995), and Pearce (1996). On Ramusio and Fracastoro, see Milanesi(1978), pp. XIV–XX. Paolo Giovio, whose friendship with Fracastoro also started in Padua, was later atthe service of the Medici family and of Clement VII. Giovio, famous for his Histories, was also a protegeof Gian Matteo Giberti, who provided him with a canonicate.23 On Fracastoro and the Council of Trent, cf. Jedin (1949), Vol. 2, pp. 353–371, and Pellegrini (1948),

pp. 37–39.




Fracastoro canon of Malcesine and provided him with a villa.24 The relation be-tween the two proved long-lasting and, besides the Homocentrica, Gibertis name ap-pears in several other works of Fracastoro. The esteem was reciprocal up to the point

that Giberti commissioned a portrait of Fracastoro, that he later gave as a gift toPaolo Giovio.25

The scenario of Homocentricas dedicatory letter is set just after the election of Pope Paul III (1534). As soon as Giberti returned from Rome, Fracastoro presentedhim his speculations on the stars not only as a reverence, but because I was indebtedto him, whose liberality was such that I was freed and now I can benefit from thefreedom and from almost any commodity that it is necessary for the study of thehumanities.26 By referring to the favours he obtained from Giberti, Fracastoro pub-licly acknowledged his client–patron relation. In turn, Giberti advised Fracastoro toaddress his work to a more important patron, since it would have been appropriate

to dedicate a new work on the stars to a new pontiff, whose love for the humanitiesand in particular for astrology was widely known. Fracastoro recalled the words of the bishop:

You will publish not under mine, but under mightier auspices. For if this gift is

mine, it is my pleasure that a new work that deals with the contemplation of the

sky and the stars, should be dedicated to a new pope.27

According to this picture, Giberti seems to have inspired more than one aspect of Homocentrica: not only did he urge the astronomer to pursue the study of DellaTorres astronomical theories so that his memory lived among the mortals, buthe was also responsible for the dedication of these studies to the Pope, who was circa

sydera et celestes orbes versatu[s] (a clear allusion to his passion for astrology). Theinvolvement of Giberti in the manoeuvre to reach Paul III also included consider-ations on the political situation in Rome and the preparations for the Council.Indeed, the dedication referred to the political programme of the new Pope, alludingto his reformist mission and to the attempt to re-establish fully the papal authority.28

Since his role in the dedication, the career of Gian Matteo Giberti merits somefurther comment. From the early 1520s, the Bishop of Verona held an impressive

24 On the canonicate, see Fasani (1989), Vol. 2, p. 508. This episode is also remembered by Fracastoro inthe dedicatory letter of the Homocentrica (see below). On Giberti and Fracastoro, see also the unfinishedoration that Fracastoro wrote for Giberts entry in Verona as bishop in 1528 in Fracastoro (1955), pp.233–273. On Giberti as patron of Fracastoro, see also the Life of Fracastoro published in Fracastoro(1584), s. p.: Scripsit summa ingenii fertilitate nondum senex de Stellis, astrologiae omnis peritissimus, inIoannis Matthaei Giberti Episcopi Veronensis, et gratissimi Maecenatis gratiam, librum summaeeruditionis Paulo III Pontifici Maximo dicatum.25 On Gibertis patronage and protection of artists and writers, see Brownell (1988), pp. 53–83 (on

Fracastoros portrait see p. 68), and Prosperi (1969), pp. 95–106.26 Fracastoro (1538), f. 2r.27 Ibid.28 On Paul IIIs policy we refer to Capasso (1924), Pastor (1959), and on Paul IIIs patronage, Zapperi

(1990).




number of appointments, among which that of Datario made him one of the mostpowerful figures in Rome.29 He had also served as a secretary to Giulio de Medici,later elected as Clement VII, and as a diplomat under the pontificate of Leo X, siding

with the pro-Empire faction in the Vatican. The pontificate of Clement VII witnessedhis election as bishop and increased his influence over papal policy. In 1526, Gibertiabandoned his political positions and undertook responsibility for ensuring the alli-ance between the Vatican and France. His turn of policy proved dramatically wrongwhen the Imperial troops sacked Rome in 1527. Imprisoned in Castel SantAngeloGiberti managed to flee from Rome and find refuge in Venice at the beginning of 1528. After his downfall, Giberti devoted his efforts to the diocese of Verona andto a programme to reform the roles of the bishop and clerics. In this period, Gibertipromoted new editions and translations of the Fathers of the Church—considered asa model for the new generations of clerics—and invited to Verona the poet, humanist

and reformer Marcantonio Flaminio with the aim of starting a programme of edi-tions of religious works.30 Gibertis activity as patron was manifold: as an influentialfigure of the Roman court and Datario of Leo X, he naturally attracted prospectiveclients in search of an influential patron. His network of support, however, was notconfined to literary works: he hired Giulio Romano in Rome and in Verona, andintroduced the painter Parmigianino to Pope Clement VII. With the election of PaulIII in 1534, Giberti regained his political influence, mainly in virtue of his reformistagenda, and later took part in the Council of Trent.

Gibertis political profile is consistent with his role as intermediary for the dedica-tion of Homocentrica. In the late 1530s, the Bishop of Verona was in a position tobridge the social distance between the final recipient and the client and to serve inthe capacity of a political and intellectual patron, employing Fracastoro in an officeover which he had control and supporting his studies on the movements of the stars.In return, Homocentrica followed the etiquette of literary patronage insofar as it didnot address directly its dedicatee, Paul III, but stressed the intercession of GianMatteo Giberti. Fracastoros dedication is thus based on a three-party transaction,involving a patron (Paul III), a client (Fracastoro himself), and an intermediary(Giberti), and it follows closely the practice of patronage and gift-giving as outlinedabove by using an intermediary to reach a higher figure in the socio-political

hierarchy.A similar strategy also emerges from a passage in De revolutionibuss dedicatoryletter, where Copernicus expressed his gratitude to the friends that supported hisstudies, urged their publication and acted as intermediaries between the authorand the final recipient of his work:

29 On Gibertis offices and appointments, see the list in Prosperi (1969), pp. 115–118. On Gibertispolitical career, see also Alberigo (1959).30 On Gibertis patronage of editions of the Fathers of the Church, see Prosperi (1969), pp. 95–106 and p.

231 n. 130, the excerpt from a letter by Giberti, regarding the Homocentrica as a new and fine work onAstrology that he wanted to dedicate to me. In the same letter, the Bishop also mentioned another work, atranslation of Eusebius, that he had dedicated to Paul III.




But while I hesitated for a long time and even resisted, my friends drew me

back. Foremost among them was the Cardinal of Capua, Nicholas Scho ¨ nberg,

renowned in every field of learning. Next to him was a man who loves me

dearly, Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chelmno, a close student of sacred lettersas well as of all good literature. For he repeatedly encouraged me and, some-

times, adding reproaches, urgently requested me to publish this volume and

finally permit it to appear.31

The language of this passage is telling in its patronage-based implications: friend-ship and love were terms by which patron–client culture expressed its own rela-tions. The client benefited from the patrons love by receiving things that couldnot be obtained in other ways. In turn, the tie between the two would be describedas a friendship, insofar as their communications involved expressions of affection,

confidentiality and familiarity.32

As for the two individuals mentioned in the Preface,Tiedemann Giese, Bishop of Kulm, was a long-standing friend of Copernicus, whosupported and protected him in times of difficulty and had a relevant part in the pub-lication of De revolutionibus.33 But it is the second friend of Copernicus that reallydraws attention. Nicholas Schonberg was made cardinal of San Sisto by Paul III,and was one of the main political players during times of difficult relations betweenthe Church and the Empire throughout the 1520s and 1530s. Schonbergs connectionwith Copernicus, then, needs to be carefully examined, in order to elucidate his pres-ence among the circle of friends who convinced Copernicus not to abandon com-pletely the work which [he] had undertaken.34

One of the aims of Copernicuss dedicatory letter was to create a connection betweenthe book and the courtly audience to which Copernicus is writing. In this instance, theimpression that Copernicus wants to make upon his readers is that Schonberg—whohad been an influential member of that audience—showed great interest in his workand urged its publication, and that De revolutionibus and its dedication to the Popeis but the result of an early interest in his research on the part of members of the Churchhierarchy. In this way, Copernicuss strategy—strikingly similar to Fracastoros—isaimed at bridging the gap between himself and the audience he is addressing.

This strategy takes shape through the publication of Cardinal Schonbergs letterbefore the actual dedication as what was meant to be the beginning of De revolutio-

nibus —if Osiander did not add his Ad lectorem. The letter praised Copernicuss pro-ficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. His great prestige is congratulatedby the Cardinal, as well as his mastery of the discoveries of the ancient astronomers.Schonberg wished to know more about Copernicuss new cosmology and sent acopyist to retrieve everything he had written on the subject. In return, Schonbergoffered Copernicus his protection and patronage: If you gratify my desire in this

31 Copernicus (1978), p. 3.32 On the language of patronage, see the considerations in Kettering (1992), p. 849: Early modern clients

and patrons used the term ‘‘friend’’ and ‘‘friendship’’ to express their trust and loyalty .33 On Giese and the production of De revolutionibus, cf. again Barker & Goldstein (2003).34 Copernicus (1978), p. 3.




matter, you will see that you are dealing with a man who is zealous for your repu-tation and eager to do justice [satisfacere] to so fine a talent.35 Copernicus appliedSchonbergs letter to the advantage of his presentation of his new cosmology:

you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus

the central, place in the universe; that the eighth heaven remains perpetually

motionless and fixed; and that, together with the elements included in its

sphere, the moon, situated between the heavens of Mars and Venus, revolves

around the sun in the period of a year.36

This outline of the Copernican system is significant because it is the first one toappear in the De revolutionibus. Also, the fact that it is written by Schonberg, aninfluential and authoritative member of the Church, immediately lends the systeman air of credibility. Thus, the significance of the letter lies in the rhetorical effect

it produces: the heliocentric cosmology is not presented as an insane pronounce-ment —Copernicuss own words in the opening lines of the dedicatory letter—butas a most notable effort, worthy of a cardinal s interest and protection and otherthings far surpassing what might be gathered from the modest words in the authorsdedication. From this, a sixteenth-century reader could also gather that the Cardinalencouraged Copernicuss studies in astronomy, that he was eager to read them (asindicated by his inclination to pay for a copyist sent to Poland), and that he wouldhave rewarded Copernicus (to do justice in the Cardinals words).

The content and function of the letter by Schonberg is such that it can not be eas-ily dismissed. The Cardinals intellectual and political profile and the extent of hisconnections in Italy and in Germany do not match the pitifully small intellectual

described by E. Rosen.37 Rather, from the 1520s up until his death in 1537, Schon-berg was an imposing figure in all respects amongst the curial hierarchy. A Domin-ican friar, Schonberg had been a follower of Savonarola, prior to the convent of SanMarco in Florence, and a prominent member the Dominican order. In 1510 hebecame Professor of Theology at the University of Rome and under Leo X took partin the Fifth Lateran Council as the official representative of the Duke of Saxony. 38

Already at this relatively early stage in his career his political preferences inclinedtowards the Emperor and he advocated an alliance with Rome. From the early

1520s his connections with the Medici family grew stronger and he served ascounsellor to Leo X and secretary to Giulio de Medici, later elected Clement VII(1523–1534).39

35 Ibid., p. XVII.36 Ibid.37 Commentary by E. Rosen in Copernicus (1978), p. 336. On Schonbergs life we rely on Walz (1930) and

(1961), pp. 45–60.38 See Jedin (1957), Vol. 1, p. 52.39 See Guicciardini (1618), Bk. XVI, Ch. II, p. 641: The Archbishop of Capua, his ancient Secretarie and

Counsellor, and who for many years had been of great authoritie with him , and Pastor (1960), p. 360, onSchonberg and Giberti as secretaries of Cardinal de Medici.




What concerns the present investigation is that starting from this periodSchonbergs career intertwined with that of Giberti, since they both becamepersonal advisors to the new pope. Compared to Giberti, however, Schonbergs

career did not witness the same kind of political turns that characterised thatof the Bishop of Verona. While he was convinced of the necessity of the alliancebetween the Emperor and the Vatican, Giberti mainly devoted his efforts toestablishing Romes dominance over Italy (the independence of Italy fromforeign occupiers), strengthening ties with France and trying to keep the Emperorat bay.40 In the early years of Paul IIIs pontificate, both Giberti and Schonbergheld leading roles in shaping the policy that would eventually lead to the Councilof Trent. Schonbergs signature appears on the bull calling for a Council to beheld in Mantua, which was later moved to Vicenza and finally floundered underthe opposition of the Emperor. Later on, Schonberg seemed to have inspired the

decision to institute a commission to produce a proposal for reform. Members of the commission were, among others, Cardinals Contarini (as president), Sadoleto,Pole, Carafa and Bishop Giberti. The document produced, the Consilium de

emendanda ecclesia, was meant to be secret according to the suggestion of Schon-berg, who thought that his release would be interpreted by the Protestants as anadmission of guilt on the part of the Church.41

In the light of his political career, the publication of Schonbergs letter at thebeginning of De revolutionibus is remarkable on several counts. Had he lived longenough to receive Copernicuss work, he would have surely been an influentialand generous patron, as suggested by the tone of his letter. Above all, the strong con-nection between Schonbergs dedicatory letter and Gibertis would not have beenmissed by politically-minded readers of De revolutionibus and Homocentrica in1543. In fact, particularly during the pontificate of Clement VII, Schonberg andGiberti represented two formidable, very different political perspectives, both of which influenced the Pontiff at times and ultimately contributed to events leadingto the sack of Rome. It is in the years 1525–1527 that the relations between Schon-berg and Giberti went awry: their influence over the Pope and at the same time theirdifferent political orientations led the historian Guicciardini to consider themresponsible for the hesitations of Clement VII that finally caused the sack of Rome.

In his portrait of Clement VII, Guicciardini represented Giberti and Schonberg asopposite poles and inspirers of papal policy, as their personal interests and ambitionscaused it great damage:

40 See Prosperi (1969), pp. 38–45, and Tucker (1903).41 On this episode and on Schonbergs position towards the Council and Catholic reform, see Sarpi

(1974), pp. 140–143: Frate Nicolo Scomberg dellordine domenicano, cardinale di San Sisto, con altronome chiamato di Capua, con longhissimo discorso mostro, che quel tempo allora presente noncomportava che si riformasse alcuna cosa . . .. Aggionse che sarebbe dar occasione a luterani di vantarsiche avessero sforzato il pontefice a far quella riforma (p. 142). In the following, though, Sarpi claimsthat Schonberg was responsible for breaking the secrecy of the Consilium through sending a copy of itin Germany, probably with the aim of showing to the German world a reformist intent within theCuria.




Oftentimes [Clement VII] was transported by his servants, he seemed rather to

be led then counselled by them. Of these, Nicolaus Scomberg, & John Mathew

Gibert a Genoway, were of great authoritie with him: for Scomberg was rever-

enced and almost feared of the Pope, and Gibert much loved and favoured. . .They agreed well together whilest he was Cardinall, and also in the beginning

and entrie to his Popedome so that they caused him to do whatsoever they

would: but beginning afterwards to disagree, either through ambition, or by

the diversitie of their natures, they undid him, and brought him into great con-

fusion. For, Frier Nicholas either because he was a Germane, or for some other

regard, being much affected to the name of the Emperor, and naturally obsti-

nate and resolute in his opinions, which oftentimes were different from the iudg-

ement of others, the Pope entred many times into doubt of him, as if he loved

more the profit of others then his owne. And touching the other, he affected

no man but the Pope, nor acknowledged any other Lord, and naturally tookehis affaires to heart. And albeit in the time of Leo he had bene a great enemie

to the French, and had favoured the affaires of the Emperour, yet after the death

of Leo he was quite altered. Thus the two officers of the Pope, who were in great

credite with him, being at manifest discord between themselves, proceeded not

discreetly, nor with any respect to the honour of the Pope; and being the cause

that all men knew how irresolute and weak the Pope was, they made him con-

temptible and almost ridiculous to most men.42

The echo of the political enmity between Schonberg and Giberti may also have

reached Copernicus. Throughout his career, Schonberg maintained close connectionswith the German territories that he visited both as a Dominican visitor and as a diplo-matic envoy. Specifically, he was in Ermland at the time of the crisis between Polandand the Teutonic Order and he also visited the diocese of Varmia. In one of his letters,Copernicus mentioned the preparations for the reception of his guest, although, whenSchonberg finally arrived in Varmia for Christmas in 1518, Copernicus had alreadytaken up the post of administrator in southern Varmia.43 But, although Copernicusmight not have met Schonberg in 1518 or later, as a member and the administratorof the diocese he was most likely aware of Schonbergs political stances, such as hissupport of the imperial party over which depended the relations with Giberti.

When read in this light, the decision to publish Schonbergs letter before theactual dedication to the Pope was certainly aimed at emphasising the Cardinal s roleand protection, even without taking into consideration that the publication of hisletter represented an allusion to Homocentrica and to the rivalry between the twointermediaries, as if it reflected on their proteges. In fact, it can be assumed thatas much as Fracastoro was associated with Giberti, Copernicus would have wantedto be protected by Gibertis rival (he did not, however, respond to the Cardinals letter,

42 Guicciardini (1618), Bk. XVI, ch. XII, pp. 666 ff . The same opinion is found in Pastor (1959), p. 166,and Tucker (1903), p. 34: Clement depended on the counsels of two men, Gian Matteo Giberti andNicholas Schomberg, Archbishop of Capua.43 For the letter of Copernicus and bibliographical references, cf. Copernicus (1985), pp. 309–312.




as far as we know). Schonbergs role, then, and at least according to what emergesfrom the interpretation of his letter, was to intercede between the client (Copernicus)and the patron (Paul III) in order to ensure a favourable reception through the

authority of the intermediary. This rhetorical effect produced by the letter is notharmed by the fact that, while Fracastoro was truly part of Gibertis network of patronage, the same cannot be said—strictly speaking—of Copernicus. Nonetheless,readers of De revolutionibus would have interpreted the letter by Schonberg as a gen-uine act of protection and might have guessed that the book had been favourablyreceived in Rome, regardless of the fact that the addition of Schonbergs letter isan act of simulation by Copernicus, a rhetorical construction whose scope is merelyto give the illusion of a patron–client relation. That this false impression was con-vincing is proved by the fact that more than one reader of De revolutionibus has seenthe letter in the context of a successful patronage relation. Confirmation comes, for

instance, from Bernardino Baldi, whose Life of Copernicus claimed that

Scho ¨ nberg had Copernicuss work; recognized its perfection and excellence;

showed it to the Pope, by whose judgement it was approved. The said Cardinal

addressed himself to Copernicus to ask him for many reasons to be willing to

publish it.44

Writing approximately four decades after the publication of De revolutionibus,Baldi interpreted Copernicuss dedication without referring to any external evidence.Since Schonberg asked for a copy of Copernicuss work, Baldi assumed (wrongly)that the Cardinal received one, and since De revolutionibus was dedicated to thePope, he also assumed that the dedication came after a previous agreement betweenthe client (Copernicus) and the patron (Paul III) through an intermediary (Schon-berg).45 In other words, Baldis scenario is drawn according to what might have beenif Copernicuss network of patronage had worked effectively.46 What Baldi did not

44 Translation in Rosen (1975), p. 534. See also Rose (1974), pp. 387–389.45 See Rose (1974), p. 389: Baldis account of the Italian relations of De revolutionibus was drawn, it

seems, from a reading of the introductory material to De revolutionibus rather than from any specialknowledge obtained through the Urbino connection with Paul of Middelburg. Rosen (1958) claimed that

Galileos suppositions that Copernicus (1) was called to Rome during the Fifth Lateran Council; (2) wroteDe revolutionibus by order of the Pope; and (3) was favourably accepted, were not any deliberate desire todistort the facts, but rather the intensity of his struggle against bigoted and narrow-minded coreligionists

(ibid., p. 330). It might well be instead, that, like Baldi, Galileo also inferred from the Preface what was thesituation of the relations between Copernicus and Rome, as represented by Copernicus himself. The samemay apply to Campanellas assertion that Pope Paul III approved the De revolutionibus and gave hispermission that the book should be published (ibid.).46 In this regard, the attempt of the Dominican Bartolomeo Spina—master of the Sacred Palace from

July 1542 onwards and thus responsible for examining works that were potentially dangerous from thepoint of view of orthodoxy—to refute Copernicuss work (a task which came to an end with his death in1547, but was pursued to an extent by his companion of the order Giovanni Maria Tolosani), may havebeen motivated by a desire to undermine the false interpretations of the Holy Sees implicit approval of Copernicuss cosmological doctrine inferred from the works dedication to the pontiff (and to oppose theaffirmations regarding the mataiolo goi theologians expressed in the last paragraph of the Preface). OnSpina and Tolosanis project see Lerner (2002), pp. 685–687. Cf. also Westman (1990), pp. 187 ff .




consider was the political situation of the Papal court and its internal factions at thetime of the composition of De revolutionibus and Homocentrica, that is, the connec-tion, though in the form of political opposition and rivalry, between Schonberg and

Giberti, and the fact that the Preface (including Schonbergs letter) could be read aspart of a more complex strategy devised by Copernicus to present his work as di-rectly opposed to Homocentrica and as a more viable and useful reform of astronomy.

4. The presentation of the work: the novelty and antiquity of astronomical doctrines and

other possible anti-Fracastorian issues

Against this background, can the dedication to the Pope in De revolutionibus

and the inclusion of Cardinal Schonbergs letter be interpreted as a tacit responseto Fracastoros attempt to obtain the protection of the Pontiff for his astronomicalreform via the mediation of Bishop Giberti? Although Copernicus s De revolutioni-

bus never explicitly referred to Fracastoro and Homocentrica, nonetheless this con-troversial relationship seems to emerge at several points in the letter fromCopernicus to the Pope, in which we can observe an implicit intention to supplantFracastoros work either (a) by addressing the aims of the Veronese physician andachieving them in a more accomplished manner, or (b) by adopting the oppositeapproach. This section aims to argue this, but before we do so we should concen-trate on what, in our opinion, legitimizes our analysis: the fact that the historicaldescription of astronomy that Copernicus gives in his dedicatory letter in defenceof his heliocentric reform is a modified version with respect to that in theCommentariolus.

Now, in 1542, the Pope became the subject of the dedication, replacing the anon-ymous addressee (the international community of astronomers) of the Commentari-

olus: Your Holiness will perhaps not be greatly surprised . . . But you are ratherwaiting to hear from me . . . I have accordingly no desire to conceal from Your Holi-ness.47 The presentation of the history, progress, and fall of astronomy caused byPtolemys abandonment of the uniformity of circular movement, which made neces-

sary the restoration of rationality through the petitiones of heliocentrism, is replacedby a more complex scheme, in which the role of the axiom of astronomy has beensomewhat diluted. Now the perspective is synchronic; Copernicus justifies the reformon the grounds that the astronomical community of the time has not reached anyconsensus on matters of theory, and is sharply divided by the conflict between thedefenders of the two rival systems: the homocentric spheres, and the eccentricspheres and epicycles (the followers of Ptolemy). Copernicus addresses the Pope inthe following terms:

47 Copernicus (1978), p. 4. Of course, the Commentariolus was a rough text, not intended for publication,but at the most for restricted circulation among a small circle of experts and friends. See Barker &Goldstein (2003), pp. 345 ff .




Astronomers do not agree among themselves in their investigations of this sub-

ject . . . they do not use the same principles, assumptions, and explanations of

the apparent revolutions and motions. For while some employ only homocen-

trics, others utilize eccentrics and epicycles, and yet they do not quite reachtheir goal.48

However, if we compare this presentation with the text traditionally taken to bethe Introduction of the first book of De revolutionibus, but which was in fact (asMichel-Pierre Lerner and Alain-Philippe Segonds have recently shown) the generalpreface of the work, present in the autograph manuscript but of course omitted inthe first edition after its replacement by the new Preface to Paul III, we note a majordifference which supports our hypothesis that the presentation and defence of theastronomical reform itself was modified also as a reaction against Fracastoro, his

opponent and rival for the procurement of Papal patronage.The content of the handwritten Preface (composed between 1516 and 1525, thus,much earlier than the publication of Amicos and Fracastoros works)49 is very similarto the Commentariolus. It uses the same historical approach as the earlier treatise,and actually devotes less time than its predecessor to the early stages of astronomy;it does not explicitly mention the concentric spheres but merely mentions the disputebetween astronomers, not as a modern matter, but a historical one: The main reasonis that its principles and assumptions, called ‘‘hypotheses’’ by the Greeks, have been

[ fuisse] a source of disagreement, as we see, among most of those who undertookto deal with this subject, and so they did not rely on the same ideas.50 Copernicus con-

siders only Ptolemy, and insists that the Greek astronomer brought progress and nearperfection to astronomy. Far from mentioning the problem of the violation of theuniformity of circular movement, and without specifying the discordance betweenreality and Ptolemys mathematical constructions, Copernicus added

To be sure Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, who far excels the rest by his won-

derful skill and industry, brought this entire art almost to perfection with the

help of observations extending over a period of more than four hundred years,

so that there no longer seemed to be any gap which he had not closed . Neverthe-

less very many things, as we perceive, do not agree with the conclusions which

ought to follow from his system.51

48 Copernicus (1978), p. 4; see also below. Barker (1999), p. 345, quotes extensively from this passage andsays that the courtesy in granting the title of astronomers to the defenders of the homocentric sphereswas perhaps in the light of the work of Amico and Fracastoro. See above n. 3.49 See Lerner & Segonds (2003), p. 394 n. 1.50 Copernicus (1978), p. 7. Cf. Lerner & Segonds (2003), p. 386: Praesertim quod circa eius principia et

assumptiones quas graeci hypotheses vocant plerosque discordes fuisse videamus, qui ea tractaturi aggressisunt: ac perinde non eisdem rationibus innixos.51 Cf. Copernicus (1978), p. 8. Lerner & Segonds (2003), pp. 386 ff.: Nam et si C. Ptolemaeus

alexandrinus: qui admiranda sollertia et diligentia caeteris longe praestat ex quadringentorum et ampliusannorum observatis totam hanc artem pene consumaverit ut iam nihil deesse videretur: quod non attingisset.Videmus tamen pleraque non convenire iis quae traditionem eius sequi debebant; and see n. 16 on pp. 398ff. for the interpretation of the criticism.




Next, Copernicus affirms that the passing of time has revealed the existence of cer-tain movements in the sky that were unknown to Ptolemy because of the inevitabledeficiencies in his observational basis (and besides certain other motions have been

discovered which were not yet known to him).52

He thus adopts the perspective of historical progress—as does Fracastoro later, in a way, in his dedicatory letter to thePope—and as a consequence concludes that his own time has a greater power toascertain the truth: For the number of aids we have to assist our enterprise growswith the interval of time extending from the originators of this art to us .53

In 1542 this presentation of the Copernican reform of astronomy, which coin-cided with Fracastoros in its appeal to the adage Veritas filia temporis and put bothreforms on the same footing, perhaps to the disadvantage of Copernicuss project byits distancing from the secular geocentric tradition, was abandoned. The new presen-tation developed along a new route which did not subscribe to the notion of histor-

ical progress. In 1542 the model of the homocentric spheres is no longer consideredas an anachronism championed by a few nostalgic philosophers who are unable toprevent its sinking into oblivion, eclipsed by the wise men (sapientes) and their prac-tically unanimous support for the Ptolemaic model of the eccentrics; homocentrismis now an active system taken at present seriously by some astronomers (mathema-

tici ). Thus, Copernicus acknowledges the revival of the astronomy of homocentricspheres. A very plausible—we argue—explanation for this (in the light of his changeof strategy, from a historical, diachronic defence to a systematic, synchronic one) isthat he knew of—and therefore recorded—the recent attempts of Amico and/orFracastoro to reformulate the old astronomy of Eudoxus and Callippus. SinceCopernicus is writing to the same pope to whom Fracastoro had sent his proposal,he possibly wished to record the existence of a rival theory both at the strictly the-oretical level and in the quest for patronage. The mention of the astronomy of con-centric spheres could be explained as well (or in fact, above all) by Copernicuss needto discredit his competitor before the protector. And he continues in the same vein,adducing the same reason he had forwarded thirty years earlier in the Commentari-

olus (albeit with a minimal concession), but which it was now in his interest to maketotally clear to the prospective patron: For although those who put their faith inhomocentrics showed that some diverse motions could be compounded in this

way, nevertheless by this means they were unable to obtain any incontrovertible re-sult in absolute agreement with the phenomena.54 The conclusion is clear: the Pontiff would be wrong to grant his protection, and thus that of the Church, to an astron-omy which, beyond this superficial renovation, is condemned by history because of the impotence of its principles. As we will show in the next section, the replacementof the term concentric circles (in the Commentariolus) with that of circulis homocen-

tris (a term used by both Amico and Fracastoro) in the letter to Paul III is perhaps

52 Ibid.53 Ibid.54 Ibid.; we have modified the translation here. Cf. the Latin text in Copernicus (1984), p. 4: Nam qui

homocentris confisi sunt, etsi motus aliquos diversos ex eis componi posse demonstraverint, nihil tamencerti, quod nimirum phaenomenis responderet, inde statuere potuerunt.




another indication that Copernicus knew of the competing proposals publishedshortly beforehand, and that he was aware of their controversial content. But,though Copernicus may have known of Amicos proposal, there is little doubt that

it is with Fracastoro that his real battle lies: his attempt to wrest from him the pro-tection of the Pope. To look at this confrontation more closely we will now comparethe two dedicatory letters in detail, in order to shed light not only on Copernicus sprobable knowledge of his opponent, but also on a conscious, systematic desire tooust Fracastoro as the favourite of the Pope and the Church.

We noted at the start of this section that Copernicus s strategy for discrediting andreplacing Fracastoro—that is, his dismantling of the proposal in the Veronese physi-cians dedicatory letter—had two lines of attack. First, Copernicus wanted to showthe Pope that, put rather informally, anything Fracastoro could do, he could do better:that in the areas in which they coincided, he was superior; and second, in other areas, he

was able to correct Fracastoros errors by using a diametrically opposite approach.The approaches used by the two authors to insert their reform programs inside the

astronomical tradition exemplify the latter strategy. Whereas Fracastoro character-izes his project as a novelty, Copernicus defines his as the restoration of an ancienttruth. Perhaps the most repeated point in Fracastoros dedicatory letter is preciselythe novelty of his proposal: initially, he says, its novelty (as well as its difficulty) wasa powerful deterrent (rei difficultate novitateque non parum deterrebar);55 however, oncompleting the task, he is pleased that a new work should be dedicated to a new pon-tiff ( placet ut novo Pontifici novum dicetur opus).56 Indeed, it is, furthermore, entirely just that you should rejoice with new and abundant orbs, which are now known forthe first time, and they with you.57 Finally, because of its innovative character hisproposal is certain to meet resistance and opposition from his contemporaries and judgement on this issue should be made on the basis of the things themselves, noton human authorities; if this is done, and if his proposal is justly understood, its nov-elty will be a reason for delight rather than for hatred.58 In addition, this proclama-tion of novelty, which ends the historical crisis of astronomy, is situated within theframework of an insistent appeal to modernity—with a certain pre-Baconianflavour—that is, an appeal to the superiority of the contemporary era over the en-tirety of human history, an appeal which runs parallel to the apotheosis of the papacy.

We will consider this idea in depth in the last section of this article.What matters now is that Fracastoro begins his dedicatory letter by acknowledgingthe excellence of the Ancients (illa priscorum saecula), their numerous great discoveries

55 Fracastoro (1538), p. 2r.56 Ibid.57 Fracastoro (1538), p. 2v: Aequissimum praeterea est, ut et tu novis plerisque orbibus, qui nunc primi

cogniti sunt, gratuleris, et illi tibi.58 Ibid.: Caeterum non me latet quae valde nova sunt, praesertim et maiorum nostrorum placitis

adversantia, ea et odium quoddam secum afferre consuevisse, et suspicionem temeritatis cuiusdam.Quosdam praeterea fore scio, quos novorum orbium numerus, multiplicitasque offendat. . . .Verum in iisquae nova in lucem veniunt, aequum est non ab authoribus summendum essse iudicium, sed ab iis quaescribuntur, quae lecta intellectaque si recte tradita fuerint, delectare potius, quod nova sint, quam odiohaberi debent.




and the ambiguous situation of his own time (nostra vero aetas), rooted in its neglectand ignorance of many of the discoveries of the Ancient world. But he also applaudsthe excellence of his era and its superiority in many fields; modern man has discovered

many things that were unknown to the Ancients. To illustrate his point Fracastoromentions, first, the geographical discoveries of his age, in both the East and the West,which had allowed his contemporaries to know the entire world.59 Second, he adducesa logically parallel process, destined for this reason to occur at the same time—thediscovery of the heavenly, superior world, that is, the discovery of new orbs andmotions: in a nutshell, the new Fracastorian astronomy of the homocentric spheres:

But we may probably claim that a great part of this superior world, which we

call Heaven, also remained unknown to our ancestors, because as they contem-

plated the celestial region they did not recognize many spheres and were hardly

able to discover their two principal motions. Now, however, (as if the knowl-edge of one and the other world were reserved by a certain destiny for our era)

a larger and more admirable number of spheres and two other principal

motions have been discovered, by means of which the way to many of the most

hidden secrets of nature will be opened up.60

In contrast, Copernicus chooses the path of Antiquity and its restoration, a paththat links up with the Renaissance principle of the superiority of Antiquity and withthe cultural program—perhaps more characteristic of the Quattrocento —of promotingits rebirth as a way to attain excellence in the present era, based on the deeply held con-viction that the truth had already been discovered in Ancient Times. We may wonderhow far Copernicus saw this approach as a way of appealing to the cultural sensitivityof the Roman sectors, whose benevolence and protection he was—according to ourhypothesis—striving to win from Fracastoro, and was playing this card in his rhetor-ical strategy,61 no matter what his personal convictions. Whatever the case, Copernicus

59 Fracastoro (1538), p. 1r: Contra vero multa alia, quae ne antiqui quidem novere, perinde ac enascentiaaetate nostra comperta sunt: qua in re vel magnum quoddam fatum tempestas haec habuisse videtur mihi,ut si priscis illis comparanda forte non sit, multis tamen anteponenda videatur. Maiores nostri (ut alia permulta taceam) ultra Fortunatas insulas ab occasu, ultra Catygaram ab ortu nihil pene novere, atque

inferioris mundi huius, quem nos mortales colimus, vix dimidium attingere valuere: nunc, tot Insulae, totlittora, tot gentes patent, ac totum quodcunque Maris Terraeque est, et cognitum nobis et navigatum fuit.60 Ibid.: Sed certe et superioris quoque mundi illius, quod Caelum dicimus, magnam partem ipsis illis

maioribus nostris ignotam fuisse possumus affirmare: nam ii et caelestem regionem contemplati, nec sanemultos orbes agnovere, et praecipuos illorum motus vix duos deprehendere potuere. Nunc vero (quasiutriusque Mundi cognitio fato quodam reservata fuerit aetati nostrae) et maiore numero et magisadmirando cogniti orbes sunt, et praecipui duo alii motus adinventi: per quos cum aditus ad multa eorumpatet, quae abditissima sunt in natura. On the two heavenly motions referred to here, whose discoveryFracastoro attributes in the dedication to Giambattista Della Torre and connects with Platos Timaeus

(cf. Homocentrica, p. 1v and Timaeus 36a–b) see Peruzzi (1995), pp. 19–20, 45–54, 97–100. For the parallelin Francis Bacon of the providential coincidence between the exploration of the world and the progress of sciences (the realization of the interpretatio naturae in general, rather than the discovery of the trueastronomy) see at least Novum Organum, I, 93.61 Recall what we said above on the progressive tone of the historical development of astronomy outlined

in the original Preface.




never called his astronomical reform nor the principles on which it was based (helio-centrism and the motion of the Earth) a novelty, and he certainly did not do so inhis dedicatory letter to the Pope. Quite the opposite: Copernicus proceeds on the basis

of the contrast between the wise, learned minority, who know the truth, and the vulgar,ignorant majority, guided only by the evidence of the senses and thus prone to error.Thus, the principles of his reform of astronomy, the basis of its truth, insofar as theysurpass the understanding of the common people (since they are principles contraryto the evidence of the senses, that is, intellectual principles), will be judged by the com-mon people as worthy of reprobation and as an insane pronouncement (absurdum

akro ama), because of their absurdity and novelty:

I can readily imagine, Holy Father, that as soon as some people hear that in

this volume . . . I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will shout

that I must be immediately repudiated together with this belief . . .

. Those whoknow that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that

the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its centre would, I

reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion

that the earth moves . . .. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which

I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opin-

ion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had

undertaken.62

Therefore, the Copernican reform and its principles do not in fact constitute anovelty. They are new only in the eyes of the ignorant common people and theirprejudices, which cannot be a valid arbiter: I am aware that a philosophers ideasare not subject to the judgement of ordinary persons.63

In accordance with this principle of a distinction between the wise and the ignorant(also mirrored in the distinction between truth and error) and its consequences for thechoice of the authority to issue judgement it is natural that Copernicus should initiallyprefer the idea of a restricted and controlled transmission of his astronomy and itsprinciples among a select group, following the practices of the ancient Pythagoreans:rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used totransmit philosophys secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word

62 Copernicus (1978), p. 3. Cf. Copernicus (1984), p. 3: Satis equidem, Sanctissime Pater, aestimarepossum, futurum esse, ut, simul atque quidam acceperint, me hisce meis libris . . ., terrae globo tribuerequosdam motus, statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitent . . .. Itaque cum mecum ipsecogitarem, quam absurdum akroama existimaturi essent illi, qui multorum seculorum judiciis hancopinionem confirmatam norunt, quod terra immobilis in medio coeli tanquam centrum illius posita sit, siego contra assererem terram moveri, diu mecum haesi . . .Cum igitur haec mecum perpenderem,contemptus, qui mihi propter novitatem et absurditatem opinionis metuendus erat, propemodum impuleratme, ut institutum opus prorsus intermitterem.63 Copernicus (1978), p. 3. Copernicus (1984), p. 3: Et quamvis sciam, hominis philosophi cogitationes

esse remotas a iudicio vulgi. Thus, the problem of the arbiter is also considered by Copernicus, but as wewill see later, his approach is much more refined and complex than Fracastoro s.




of mouth, as is shown by Lysis letter to Hipparchus.64 But this is not the point thatwe aim to develop in our analysis of Copernicuss possible battle to oust Fracastoro;what we want to stress is merely that Copernicus suggests to the Pope that his plan for

reform is new only to the (mistaken) eyes of the common man; it is in fact ancient, somuch so that it pre-dates Aristotle. This is suggested in his slightly rhetorical acknowl-edgement to the Pope (only partially coinciding with the effective genesis of his helio-centrism) that he adopted the idea of the motion of the Earth after reading accountsof ancient doctrines in ancient authors:

For a long time, then, I reflected on this confusion in the astronomical tradi-

tions [the contradiction between the supporters of the concentric and eccentric

spheres] concerning the derivations of the motions of the universes spheres . . ..

For this reason I undertook the task of re-reading the works of all the philos-

ophers which I could obtain to learn whether anyone had ever proposed othermotions of the universes spheres than those expounded by the teachers of

astronomy in the schools. And in fact first I found in Cicero that Hicetas sup-

posed the earth to move. Later I also discovered in Plutarch that certain others

were of this opinion.65

Copernicus makes a display of his humanist erudition to impress the Pope and todemonstrate that he belongs to the lovers of Antiquity, and quotes in Greek thewords of Plutarch (in fact Aetius) which state that the cosmology and astronomyof an Earth in motion was in fact a Pythagorean doctrine. Only with this support,conceded by the revered Antiquity, had Copernicus decided to develop his reform:Therefore, having obtained the opportunity from these sources, I too began to con-sider the mobility of the earth.66 In the anti-Fracastorian strategy that we are sug-gesting, Copernicus sets out to win over the Pope by presenting his astronomy not asa modern development, as Fracastoro does, but as an ancient one (inside the frame-work of the distinction between the intellectual elite and the common people), in the

64 Copernicus (1978), p. 3. We know that Copernicus extensively reproduced Lysis letter to Hipparchusin the conclusion of book I of the manuscript of De revolutionibus, but on finally deciding to publish thework he omitted this passage. See Lerner & Segonds (2003), pp. 390–392 (edition of the Latin text andFrench translation), 402–404 (commentary), 407 ff. (facsimile reproduction of the manuscript).65 Copernicus (1978), p. 4.66 Ibid., p. 5. Copernicus (1984), p. 4: Inde igitur occasionem nactus, coepi et ego de terrae mobilitate

cogitare. The antiquity of the doctrine is completed with the references (in Ch. 10 of the first book) toancient authors in favour of the central position of the Sun: cf. Copernicus (1978), p. 22. We could alsonote the expansion and development of this ancient character of the Copernican principles in RheticussNarratio prima (published in 1540 and 1541), which Copernicus does not name in the dedication to thePope, probably so as not to compromise the efficacy of his strategy of gaining papal patronage bymentioning a Protestant author. In any case in these texts by Copernicus and Rheticus lies the basis of thetopic (common to both supporters and critics) of Copernican astronomy as the resurrection of thePythagorean doctrine.




hope that the Rome of the humanists and the clergy would accept this as more inaccordance with the principles of humanist and Renaissance culture.67

But Copernicus does not always oppose Fracastoro. Occasionally he proceeds

along the same lines as his rival, trying to improve on the latters conclusions ormerely applying his proposals in the correct way. Let us look at three examples of this attempt to persuade the Pope of the superiority of the astronomy of the Ancientsas revived by Copernicus: (1) the description of Ptolemys astronomy of eccentricsand epicycles as monstrous; (2) the establishment of the arbiter or authority of judgement in the debate on astronomy; (3) the appeal to, and praise of, the Pope(a point that we will reserve for the final section of this article).

In his dedicatory letter Fracastoro twice describes the astronomy of eccentrics asmonstrous: the spheres of Ptolemys astronomy are monstrous in the eyes of anytrue philosopher, because they are ontologically and physically impossible in the am-

bit of the divine and most perfect [heavenly] bodies that can acknowledge only asingle centre (the centre of the world, the Earth).68 For this reason, after the histor-ical triumph of Ptolemys astronomy, in the absence of any worthy new proposal, amonstrous astronomy is all that has remained: Until now, no philosopher couldfind how to set those monstrous spheres [monstrosas sphaeras] among those divineand most perfect bodies. Since nothing has been found (that would be proper),astronomy laid monstrous and largely imperfect.69

As is well known, the monstrum of Ptolemys astronomy is also present in Coper-nicuss dedicatory letter. In his exposition of the deficiency of Ptolemys astronomy,alongside the point he had already made in the Commentariolus, that is, the violationof the principle of uniformity of circular motion with respect to its centre (a pointwhich alone justified the heliocentric reform of astronomy, according to that earlywork) a new point appears:

Nor could they [the Ptolemaics] elicit or deduce from the eccentrics the princi-

pal consideration, that is, the structure of the universe and the true symmetry

of its parts. On the contrary, their experience was just like someone taking

from various places hands, feet, a head, and other pieces, very well depicted,

it may be, but not for the representation of a single person; since these

67 Perhaps the anti-Fracastorian purpose of stressing the ancient character of his reform explains the factthat (in comparison with the reticence of the original Preface, which limited itself to saying Multapraeterea aliter quam priores fateor me traditurum : cf. Lerner & Segonds, 2003, p. 388) Copernicus ismuch more explicit in the dedication to the Pope about the ancient principle on which his reform is based:I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe (Copernicus, 1978, p. 3). Nonetheless, he does not revealhis principles and prefers to leave it to the reader to discover a more complete declaration in the letter fromCardinal Schonberg: the daily and yearly movement of the Earth and the central place of the Sun.68 Fracastoro (1538), p. 1v: Verum enim vero adversus hosce (quantum ad Eccentricos pertinebat) omnis

semper Philosophia, imo ipsa Natura magis, ac orbes ipsi semper reclamavere. Nemo nam qui Philosophusesset, hactenus inventus est, qui inter divina illa et perfectissima corpora monstrosas spheras statui audire

posset.69 Ibid.




fragments would not belong to one another at all, a monster rather than a man

would be put together from them.70

It has been traditionally thought that this metaphor of the Ptolemaic monstrumderived from the passage from Horaces Epistle to the Pisones (or Ars poetica, Verses

1–13) which describes the necessary proprietas of a poem, the need for adequateadjustment and reciprocal correspondence between its parts. Copernicus—whohad already alluded to this Epistle by referring to the period of latency in his workas the fourth period of nine years —may have applied the Horatian simile to paint-ing as a metaphor of the structure of the universe and the true symmetry of itsparts.71 The dependence on Horace appears undeniable, but the fact is that theRoman poet does not use the word monstrum at any time. The fact that Copernicusused it in 1542 in the dedicatory letter is an indication that he probably knew of

Fracastoros work and dedication. The Polish astronomer seems to accept the termas an accurate description of Ptolemys astronomy, but introduces a decisive modifica-

tion of its application and true meaning: this astronomy is a monstrum not becausethe eccentrics and epicycles it contains are monstrous (indeed Copernicus continuedto use these geometrical tools), but because it fails to envisage the structure of theuniverse as a whole with its parts—that is, planets in movement around a centreand inside a spherical body—in a relation to each other which, being the work of God, must be according to proportion. Instead, the result is a monstrum without pro-portion or harmony. In 1542, then, Copernicus adds a cosmological–astronomicalargument72 for rejecting Ptolemys astronomy alongside the reason he presented in

Commentariolus (repeated in fact, as we have seen, in De revolutionibus). This newargument refines and redirects Fracastoros accusation—an accusation only validin the form in which it is presented by the Polish astronomer.

As for the question of the authority of judgement, Copernicus also seems to as-pire to make a better use of it than Fracastoro. The appeal to the Pope as arbiter,only implicit in the work of the Veronese physician, is clearly spelled out by thePolish astronomer. Copernicus poses the problem from the very start of his dedi-catory letter, in close relation to the problem of the distinction between theeducated and the common man, between truth and error, science and falsehood,and forcefully asserts that the common people are not suitable arbiters in matters

related to philosophy (sciam, hominis philosophi cogitationes esse remotas a iudiciovulgi —an implicit vindication by Copernicus of the philosophical character of hiswork and of its pretension to attain the truth). The initial appeal to the Popetacitly requests the approval of the proposal, and with it the establishment of the Pope as the legitimate and ultimate arbiter—something that is stated explicitlyat the end of the dedication.

70 Copernicus (1978), p. 4.71 Ibid., p. 3. On this point, see the splendid analysis in Westman (1990), pp. 179–186.72 See Hallyn (1997), pp. 86–101 (on p. 61 he quotes Fracastoros passage on the Ptolemaic monstrum but

does not relate it to the passage from Copernicus analysed later), and Granada (2004), pp. 96–103.




It is true, as Copernicus says in the last paragraph of the dedicatory letter, thatmathemata mathematicis scribuntur (Astronomy is written for astronomers),73 butthis does not stop him, as we have just seen, from considering his work as a work

of philosophy, and for this reason, among others, he aligns himself with thePythagorean–Platonic tradition. As a result, the judge of his work can only be amathematician–astronomer, a category which, following Plato, also includes thephilosopher:

I have no doubt that acute, and learned astronomers will agree with me if, as this

discipline especially requires, they are willing to examine and consider, not

superficially but thoroughly, what I adduce in this volume in proof of these

matters.74

However, we live in a complex human society, not in the world of ideas. The philos-

opher–astronomer deals not only with his peers but with laymen as well. So, whenCopernicus abandons the Pythagorean–Platonic wisdom in the point of communica-tion of knowledge and decides to publish the true reform of astronomy, he must takethis situation into account and be ready for the inevitable (though theoreticallyunjustified) intrusion of the layman. As he states at the beginning: I am not so enam-oured of my own opinions, that I disregard what others may think of them.75 Forthis reason, Copernicus addresses his work to the Pope, whom he establishes asthe highest authority:

However, in order that the educated and uneducated alike may see that I do

not run away from the judgement of anybody at all, I have preferred dedicat-ing my studies to Your Holiness rather than to anyone else. For even in this

remote corner of the earth where I live you are considered the highest author-

ity by virtue of the loftiness of your office and your love for all literature and

astronomy too. Hence by your prestige and judgement you can easily suppress

calumnious attacks although, as the proverb has it, there is no remedy for a

backbite.76

The Pope must be the ultimate arbiter because in the social context where astron-omy–philosophy lives, the authority of mathematician–philosophers is insufficient: a

73 Copernicus (1978), p. 5.74 Ibid. This philosophical dimension of astronomy and mathematics developed or continued the

proposals of the original Preface. There, it was said concerning astronomy: multi priscorum[astronomiam] mathematices consumationem vocant: cf. Lerner & Segonds (2003), p. 386; Copernicus(1978), p. 7: . . . by many of the ancients, the consummation of philosophy. In their extensive commentary(see p. 396 n. 6) the French scholars rightly insist on the philosophical dimension, and therefore thediscovery of truth that this expression confers on astronomy.75 Copernicus (1978), p. 3.76 Ibid., p. 5. Copernicus (1984), p. 5: Ut vero pariter docti atque indocti viderent, me nullius omnino

subterfugere judicium, malui Tuae Sanctitate, quam cuiquam alteri, has meas lucubrationes dedicare;propterea quod et in hoc remotissimo angulo terrae, in quo ego ago, ordinis dignitate et litterarum omnium

atque mathematices amore eminentissimus habearis, ut facile tua auctoritate et judicio calumniantiummorsus reprimere possis, etsi in proverbio sit, non esse remedium adversus sycophantae morsum .




higher power is needed, at once theoretical, political and social. This authority canbe no other than the Pope, firstly by virtue of the loftiness of your office (ordinis

dignitate) and secondly because his pre-eminence at the social level is complemented

by his expertise in the scientific question that is the object of dispute, and by his sta-tus as philosopher and astronomer (your love for all literature and astronomy, lit-

terarum omnium atque mathematices etiam amore).Like Fracastoro—ignoring for a moment the differences in procedure of the two—

Copernicus not only addresses the Pope as the head of an institution but also appealsto him on a personal level, to his humanistic education and his known interest andability in astronomy (or astrology). Though we will leave this point for the last sec-tion, we will say to conclude our examination at this stage that Copernicuss appealto the Pope as arbiter is an attempt to secure his intervention and thus to placate thetheologians (dismissively described in Greek as mataiolo goi or babblers, a word

that recalls the Averroistic term mutakallimun or loquentes, that is the theologiansas opposed to the philosophers) or to neutralize their condemnation of astronomy.According to Copernicus, these theologians, in spite of their ignorance in astronomyand philosophical truth, dare to issue their judicium temerarium, their unfounded

judgements based on passages from the Scriptures, interpreted to suit their own aims:

Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although

completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passage of Scrip-

ture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it.

I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded.77

Though these reactions had been produced in a Protestant environment (in fact bynone other than Luther and Melanchton and, though they were private in nature,Copernicus could easily have known of them through Rheticus),78 Copernicusmay have thought that similar reactions would emerge in the Catholic world andhoped that the Pope would discredit them. Here, though, the Polish astronomerseems to overstep the mark: dismissing as ignorant and incompetent, avant la lettre,those who on the basis of the sacred texts reject the notion of the Earth s movement,and accusing them of mischievously distorting the Scripture, he thus denies theauthority of theology to pass verdict on a scientific question inside its own ambit,

and challenges its status as the queen of the sciences. There is no doubt that it is thispoint, along with the other questions, that would arouse the fury of conservative sec-tors of the Roman Curia, and in particular of the new Master of the Sacred Palace,Bartolomeo Spina, whose indignation at the dethroning of theology79 would be

77 Copernicus (1978), p. 5.78 See Granada (1996). The neutralization of these reactions had also been the aim of Rheticus s treatise

On Holy Scripture and the motion of the Earth: see Hooykaas (1984). The correspondence betweenCopernicus and Osiander in 1541 already reflects the Polish astronomers fear of the negative responsefrom the Aristotelians and theologians.79 Cf. Lerner (2002), p. 685. Lerner notes that Spina had written and published a treatise in 1525,

significantly entitled Tractatus de praeeminentia Sacrae Theologiae super alias omnes scientias, & praecipue

humanarum legum.




added to the denunciation of Copernicuss appeal to the Pope as an abuse that wascontrary to the interests and the position of the Church itself, as embodied by thePope.80 But we should not divert attention from our main points, that is, that Coper-

nicus was probably moving an issue raised in Fracastoros dedicatory letter towardsa position that he believed to be more correct, and that this was part of his rhetoricalstrategy to supplant Fracastoros reform of astronomy and to secure Papal patron-age for his own.

5. Eccentrics and homocentrics

To the historical and intellectual sketch presented above it is possible to add fur-ther relations between the two letters based on the analysis of the structure and orga-

nization of the arguments, terminological choices and theoretical stances of theauthors. This section will mainly deal with the textual aspects of De revolutionibusswell known account of the quest for a new planetary arrangement, in which Coper-nicus first rejected unsatisfactory hypotheses, arguing that the astronomers do notfollow sound principles, and then resorted to a systematic exploration of the ancientphilosophy (the works of all the philosophers) which finally led to the rediscovery of Pythagorean heliocentrism. The first part of this section can be directly compared toFracastoros dedicatory letter:

G. Fracastoro, Homocentrica, f. 1r: N. Copernicus, De revolutionibus, p. 4:Non te latet quicunque Astronomica suntprofessi, omnes semper in reddendiseorum causis, quae circa sydera apparent,magnam habuisse difficultatem.81

Itaque nolo Sanctitatem tuam latere,me nihil aliud movisse, ad cogitandumde alia ratione subducendorummotuum sphaerarum mundi, quamquod intellexi, Mathematicos sibi ipsisnon constare in illis perquirendis.(Translated above)

These lines form a sort of second exordium of the dedicatory letters, introduced by a

direct, attention-arousing appeal to the Pope and followed by the discussion on theplanetary models and their astronomical and cosmological suitability. The two presen-tations use similar linguistic expressions at the beginning of the tense (non te latet; nolo

Sanctitatem tuam latere), and follow the same line of thought, outlining a difficulty (dif-

ficultas) within the community of the astronomers. That is to say that they do not usethe same principles, assumptions and explanations of the apparent revolutions andmotions, leaving astronomy in a state of confusion and uncertainty (incertitudo).82

80 See the perceptive observations on this point in Westman (1990), pp. 187 ff .81

It is not unknown to you that the astronomers had always been in great difficulty in providing thecauses of the celestial appearances.82 Cf. also Copernicus (1978), p. 4: For a long time, then, I reflected on this confusion in the astronomical

traditions concerning the derivation of the motions of the universes sphere.




Historians of science have interpreted these words as an allusion to those criticalevaluations of astronomy, mainly of Averroist nature, that stressed the excessivevariety of the geometrical models used to represent planetary motions, the unneces-

sary multiplication of spheres, the contravening of basic physical principles, theapproximate calculations and, finally, the discrepancies between natural philosophyand astronomy. But within the revival of Averroess attack on Ptolemy, Copernicusswording and argumentation seem to follow almost literally what he could havefound in the works endorsing homocentrism that were published in the second half of the 1530s—namely Giovanni Battista Amicos De motibus (1536) and FracastorosHomocentrica (1538), which also reiterated Averroess critique of Ptolemy. BothAmico and Fracastoro stressed the idea of a conflict between two different and alter-native models, thus differentiating themselves from earlier supporters of Averroeswho mainly focused on a philosophical rebuttal of Ptolemy. Accordingly, the pas-

sages from De revolutionibus and Homocentrica under consideration have more todo with drawing a scenario of conflict and opposition than with a critique of Ptol-emys mathematical astronomy and its physical consequences. While this latter atti-tude was characteristic of the commentary of Averroes on Metaphysics and it wasrepeated by Albertus de Brudzewo and Achillini (as shown by A. I. Sabra, M. DiBono, and P. Barker),83 Amico and Fracastoro presented the homocentric theoryas a credible alternative to Ptolemys eccentrics and epicycles on the grounds thatthere was an old dispute between astronomers and philosophers on the causes of the planetary motions, that is whether they can be attributed to eccentrics and epi-cycles or, in accordance with Aristotle, to homocentric circles.84 The irreconcilabilityof the homocentric and eccentric hypotheses is thus presented within the context of adiscrepancy between the physical principles and the mathematical models, caused bythe eccentrics and epicycles, and whose solution is the adoption of the homocentricorbs. In Amicos words, [the astronomers] attributed all the appearances to eccen-trics and epicycles, while [the philosophers] denied that such orbs can exist. But untilnow the philosophers have not found a principle that can ascribe those appearancesto a combination of homocentric orbs.85 In the first chapter of De motibus, Amicoargued that while Eudoxus, Callippus and Aristotle brought together astronomy andnatural philosophy, Ptolemy and his followers devised those eccentrics and epicycles,

that were adverse to nature.86

83 Cf. Sabra (1994), Barker (1999), p. 345, and Di Bono (1990), Ch. 1, and pp. 62–71 (Achillinis De

orbibus as a philosophical response to Ptolemy).84 Amico (1540), f. Aiir: Vetus discordia est Nicolae Cardinalis amplissime, et iampridem inter

Astrologos et Philosophos agitata, ad quas causas varietas illa motuum quae in coelestibus apparet, referridebeat. Cf. Di Bono (1990), p. 134 (Amicos arguments against the eccentrics).85 Amico (1540), f. Aiir (ed. Di Bono, p. 134): Illi enim omnes effectus eccentricis et epicyclis ascribunt, hi

vero inficiantur huiusmodi orbes esse in rerum natura. Nemo tamen ex tot philosophis usque ad hoctempus aliqua attulit principia, quae per homocentricos orbes varios illos effectus possunt assignare. Egovero quum persuasissimum mihi esset Peripateticorum fuisse opinionem, quorum princeps est Aristoteles,omnes illas affectiones ad homocentricos orbes esse referendas.86 Amico (1540), f. Aiiv. See n. 93.




In turn, Fracastoros dedicatory letter draws upon Amico, possibly with the onlydifference that Fracastoro seems less inclined to stress the Aristotelian framework of the homocentric orbs, preferring instead to focus on the existence of two astronom-

ical traditions, that of Eudoxus and Callippus, as opposed to Ptolemy and his fol-lowers. In turn, Copernicuss remarks over the relative failure of the homocentricsand the eccentrics seem to follow Fracastoros account more closely than that of Amico, at least from the perspective of the wording of the argument. This firstimpression is reinforced when taking into account the following passage:

G. Fracastoro, Homocentrica, f.1r: N. Copernicus, De revolutionibus, p. 4:Duae enim quum essent viae easreddendi causas, altera per orbes illos,quos Homocentricos vocant: altera per

eos, quos appellant Eccentricos, inutraque quidem suus labor, suusscopulus impendebat. Si enimHomocentricis uterentur, apparentianon demonstrabant. Si vero Eccentricis,melius quidem demonstrare videbantur,sed inique et quodammodo impie dedivinis illis corporibus sentiebant,situsque illis ac figuras dabant, quaeminime coelum deceant.87

Alii namque circulis homocentris solum,alii eccentris et epyciclis, quibus tamenquaesita ad plenum non assequuntur.

Nam qui homocentris confisi sunt, etsimotus aliquod diversos ex eis componiposse demonstraverint, nihil tamen certi,quod nimirum phaenomenis responderet,inde statuere potuerunt. Qui veroexcogitaverunt eccentrica, etsi magna exparte apparentes motus, congruentibusper ea numeris absoluisse videantur:pleraque tamen interim admiserunt, quaeprimis principiis, de motus aequalitate,videntur contravenire.88

The idea of antithetical opposition (Fracastoro: altera . . ., altera; Copernicus:alii . . . alii) is conveyed by presenting two geometrical options, homocentrics andeccentrics, as mutually exclusive models, although neither of them provides a final,satisfactory solution (F.: in utraque . . . impendebat; C.: ad plenum non assequun-tur). Homocentrics, on the one side, are not capable of saving the appearances(F.: apparentia non demonstrabant; C.: nihil tamen certi, quod nimirum phaeno-menis responderet), while, on the other side, eccentrics and epicycles do not conform

87For there are two ways of explaining such causes, either through those circles called homocentrics, or

through those called eccentrics, yet their difficulties make both of them vulnerable. Indeed, if thehomocentrics are used, the appearances would not be saved; instead, as for the eccentrics, they would seemto save them more appropriately, although they would make unsuitable and, in a way, impiousassumptions on those divine bodies, and would provide locations and positions that by no means suit theheaven (our translation).88 Copernicus (1978), p. 4: For while some employ only homocentrics, others utilize eccentrics and

epicycles, and yet they do not quite reach their goal. For although those who put their faith inhomocentrics showed that some uniform motions could be compounded in this way, nevertheless by thismeans they were unable to obtain any incontrovertible result in absolute agreement with the phenomena.On the other hand, those who devised the eccentrics seem thereby in large measure to have solved theproblem of the apparent motions with appropriate calculations. But meanwhile they introduced a goodmany ideas which apparently contradict the first principles of uniform motions .




to the physical principles (F.: minime coelum deceant; C.: primis principiis . . . con-travenire). Both Fracastoro and Copernicus (and differently from Amico) adopt thisintertwining presentation in which each model fails where the other succeeds: homo-

centrics are physically acceptable but astronomically flawed, while eccentrics andepicycles are able to represent the celestial phenomena, but physically impossible.This physical–astronomical reversal is for both authors the cause of the deadlockand thus at the centre of the efforts to reform the astronomy.

The relation between the two passages is also strengthened by Copernicuss use of the term homocentri. At the time this terminology was not yet conventional to iden-tify the astronomical theory by Eudoxus and Callippus. Instead, concentrici circuli

was the preferred choice, its meaning extending to both the geometrical model of a circle whose centre is also the centre of the world—also used by Copernicusthroughout his work—and the astronomical theory now known as homocentrism.

Averroess commentaries on Aristotle provided, as we said, a particularly effectivestandpoint for those interested in challenging Ptolemy. But it must be noted thatAverroes never explicitly referred to a homocentric theory, resorting instead to aspiral motion called motus gyrationis or alternatively motus girativus to indicatethe circles assumed by Aristotle in this astronomy in imitation of those who camebefore him.89 Leaving aside Averroes, the term concentricus [circulus] can be foundin the commentary on Aristotles De caelo by Simplicius, as well as in the De repro-

batione ecentricorum et epiciclorum by Henry of Hesse, written at end of the four-teenth century.90 Later on, Regiomontanus (1436–1476), who had a copy of De

reprobatione, consistently adopted the term concentrici and concentrica astronomia

within the context of his considerations on the viability of a homocentric pro-gramme.91 Another important source for fifteenth- and sixteenth-century followers

89 Cf. Aristoteles (1562–1574), V, De coelo, Bk. II, comm. 32, 35 (against the eccentrics) and VIII,Metaph., Bk. XII, comm. 45: Sed nihil de eis, quae apparent in motibus stellarum, cogit necessario dicereepicyclum esse, aut eccentricum. Et forte excusant utrumque motus leuliab, quod ponit Aristoteles et sicutPtolemeus dixit in suo libro, qui dicitur liber Narrationis, in quo dixit quod Aristoteles et Antiquiponebant loco istorum motuum motum gyrationis; translated in Sabra (1994), p. 141. Cf . also Carmody(1952), pp. 570–572 (on the interpretation of the leuliab/motus gyrationis).90 Cf. Simplicius (1543), comm. 43, p. 171: Sic quidem Aristoteles solutionem dubitationis dedit, cedens

dubitationi et concedens planetas, multis specie moveri motibus propter apparentes ipsorum non solumdirectiones, sed et retrogradationes et stationes, et apparitiones diversas et antecessiones, et comitationes,et multimodas irregularitates, propter has enim salvari plures secundum unumquemque motus assumunt,alii quidem eccentricos et epiciclos, alii autem concentricos revolventes vocatas supponentes, verus autemsermo, neque stationes ipsorum aut retrogradationes ipsorum neque appositiones aut ablationes ipsorumin motibus ipsorum suscipit. And ibid., comm. 46, p. 173: Et qui primus Eudoxus Cnidius incidit insuppositiones quae per revolventes vocatas sphaeras habentur. Callippus autem Cyzicenus qui cumPolemarcho studuit familiari Eudoxi, post illum Athenas veniens cum Aristoteles conversatus fuit, quae abEudoxo inventa fuerunt cum Aristotele corrigens et supplens. Nam Aristoteli putanti omnia oporterecoelestia circa medium universi moveri, placuit suppositio revolventium tamque supponens concentricas

universo et non eccentricas. Henry of Hesses text is in Kren (1968): Ponitur ergo unus solus orbis omninoconcentricus mundo ad salvandum motus solis, qui super centro proprio moveatur tali et tantadifformitate quanta secundum ecentricistas sol movebatur in orbe signorum, que difformitatis reducitur aduniformitatem (p. 272), and: Luna vero habet primo unam concentricam speram mundo (p. 275).91 Cf. Shank (1998), pp. 157–166 nn. 4 and 10, and Swerdlow (1999).




of Averroes, Alessandro Achillini, never used the term homocentrici in his De orbibus

(1498), preferring instead concentrici circuli .92 Finally, it appears that the Latin termhomocentric[us] was first introduced into astronomical terminology by Amicos De

motibus caelorum, whose first chapter described how the homocentrici orbes devisedby Eudoxus and Callippus tied together natural philosophy and astronomy, as op-posed to Ptolemy and his followers who were forced to conceive alternative, albeitphysically impossible, planetary models.93 Amico used this terminology consistentlythroughout De motibus, followed two years later by Girolamo Fracastoro.

Copernicuss homocentri might thus be an indication that he found the term inAmico and/or Fracastoro, and its adoption places the conflict between differentastronomical hypotheses in a more precise and contemporary context, that is, the re-cent revival of the homocentric theory. A corroboration that this is the case, and anexample of how sixteenth-century readers have interpreted these lines of the Preface

in connection with Fracastoro, comes from the itinerant mathematician Paul Wittich(c. 1546–1586) and the annotations to his copies of De revolutionibus.94 These oftenrefer to the sources of Copernicus, both ancient and recent, and to the contemporaryastronomical debate. As for our investigation, between the lines of the above passageof the Preface, right over the word homocentris, Wittich wrote: secundum Fracas-torii opiniones, an inscription which points to what he thought was the origin of thatsection of the text, that is, the Homocentrica. As a speculation on the kind of relationthat Wittich saw between Copernicuss homocentri and Fracastoro, it is difficult tosay whether the reference should be extended to the entire passage (as we have done),or it is confined to the word homocentris. In both cases, however, if Wittich onlywanted to stress a vague reference to the homocentric theory, it seems more likelythat he would have thought of Eudoxus and Callippus, rather than Fracastoro, asthe main representatives of that model.

A further terminological and conceptual correspondence can be found in the con-cluding remarks of both passages. Since both astronomical hypotheses only reachone side of their goal, the result is that the structure of the universe and the truesymmetry of its parts remains hidden, being replaced by an aberration, a falseand disproportionate representation. In principle, both Fracastoro and Copernicus

92 Achillini (1545), Bk. I, dubium III, ff. 28v–30v: Premitto igitur primo quod corpus mundoconcentricum est corpus cuius centrum est centrum mundi (f. 28v).93 Amico (1540), f. Aiiv, and in Di Bono (1990), p. 136: Ex veteribus igitur alii Astrologiam cum

Philosophia naturali coniungere, alii prorsus disiungere conati sunt. Eudoxus enim et Callippus atqueAristoteles omnem varietatem difformitatemque motus, quae circa superiora corpora apparent ad

homocentricos orbes quos agnoscit natura. Ptolomaeus autem, et qui eum sequuntur ad eccentricos etepicyclos adversante natura referre conati sunt. But on Eudoxus and Callippus, cf. also Fracastoro (1538),ff. 44v–46v, Ch. 25 (Quomodo antiqui Eudoxus et Callippus apparentia in stellis demonstrabant): Atqueita quidem antiqui videntur de planetis existimasse, et causas eorum motuum per homocentricos orbesredidisse, defectuose quidem in multis, propter quod Hipparcus (ut Ptolemeus refert) opus edidit, in quoplacita Callippi et Eudoxus quum sustulisset, viam eccentricorum induxit.94 Cf. Gingerich (2002), p. 9 (copy of De revolutionibus 1543 at the University of Liege), and Westman

(1990), p. 198 n. 45, for a similar mention in Wittichs copy now at the Clementinum Library in Prague.Gingerich (2002), pp. 23–28, has not recorded this annotation in his extensive description of this copy.




seem to agree on the monstrous outcome of the difficulty and uncertainty afflictingastronomy (differing, however, on the solutions to the crisis):

Fracastoro, Homocentrica, f. 1v: Copernicus, De revolutionibus, p. 4:Nemo enim qui Philosophus esset,hactenus inventus est, qui inter divinailla et perfectissima corpora monstrosassphaeras [i.e., eccentrics] statui audireposset . . . Ita nullo hac in re (quoddignum esset) invento monstrosaquidem hactenus, et magna ex parteimperfecta permansit Astronomia.(Translated above)

Rem quoque praecipuam, hoc est mundiformam, ac partium eius certamsymmetriam non potuerunt invenire, velex illis colligere. Sed accidit eis perinde,ac si quis e diversis locis, manus, pedes,caput, aliaque membra, optime quidem,sed non unius corporis comparatione,depicta sumeret, nullatenus invicem sibirespondentibus, ut monstrum potius

quam homo ex illis componeretur.(Translated above)

These considerations present the final outcome of the failure to provide a harmo-nious representation of the cosmos. Its current appearance is compared by Coperni-cus to a portrait made by parts belonging to different individuals and perfect inthemselves, if taken singularly, but whose mutual arrangement does not correspondto the proportion of a single human body. The metaphor (besides its possible clas-sical source, as said above) alludes to the method on which Ptolemy s astronomyis based, that is the construction of mutually independent geometrical models forthe planets whose organization into a united (apparent) system produced the solidorbs, or spheres, of the medieval cosmos. In turn, the monstrous orbs are also atthe centre of Fracastoros critique, according to whom the divine celestial bodieshave been violated and disfigured by those constructions, resulting in a largelyimperfect astronomy.95

But the relation between the two texts goes deeper than the recurrence of a con-ventional argument against the eccentrics and epicycles, that is their contravention of Aristotelian physical principles for the sake of saving the appearances. Fracastorosanimosity is expressed in terms usually adopted in the fight against heresy: eccentrics

are indecent, unjust, and impious, and, since they are the cause of the monstrousoutcome of the cosmological portrait they have to be replaced by more suitablemodels—the homocentrics. At first, Copernicus seems to mirror Fracastoros seriousaccusations (F.: Si vero Eccentricis; C.: Qui vero excogitarunt eccentrica), sincethey seem to contravene the first principles (C.: quae primis principis videnturcontravenire), leading to disharmony. But after this sort of acknowledgement of Fracastoros point, Copernicus responds to the argument: the aberration is notproduced by the use of the eccentrics as such, as it was implied by Fracastoro, butby the fact that they are not parts of a system, members of the same individual,

95 Cf. also Fracastoro (1538), p. 41r, Ch. 22 (De causis per nostra principia): Quum autem inter divinailla et perfectissima corpora eiusmodi monstrosi orbes esse non possint, tentandum est per alia principiapraedictorum omnium causas assignare.




proportioned elements of a geometrical construction. Thus, the problem lies in theirarrangement, not in their nature, and therefore, as he will say in the following sectionof the Preface, a solution might come from finding true physical principles by whicheverything would be confirmed beyond any doubt. The inverted symmetry of Copernicus and Fracastoros position is finally visible in their respective solutionsto the crisis: while the Veronese astronomer wanted to adapt so far unsatisfactorygeometrical models to the physical principles, Copernicus offered an opposite alter-native, keeping those models that had the better track record in predicting planetarymotions and finding sound principles, that, incidentally, would also be more ancientthan those of Aristotle and Ptolemy. In short, according to Fracastoro the choice of the astronomical models depended on physical assumptions, while the opposite wastrue for Copernicus.

6. The calendar reform

The sixteenth-century debate over the calendar was largely influenced by the re-sults, though unsuccessful in terms of reaching a final agreement, of an official com-mission of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517).96 At its head was the astronomerand Bishop of Fossombrone, Paul of Middelburg (1446–1534), whose Paulina de

recta Paschae celebratione (1513) served as a main point of reference. Dealing withissues such as the determination of the date of Easter and of the crucifixion, the Pau-

lina opens with letters of exhortation to the pope, Emperor Maximilian I, the

cardinals and the Duke of Urbino (Pauls earlier patron). According to Paul, the cal-endar reform was a necessity for the collective celebration of Easter—the principalevent of the Christian faith—at its correct time.97 Pope Leo X complied with Paulsappeal and in July 1514 sent briefs to Emperor Maximilian I, the Christian princes,and their theologians and astronomers urging their intervention in the reform.98 Theletters also contained an invitation to join the Council, or alternatively to send writ-ten proposals. The third of the letters sent by Leo X was the one that reached Coper-nicus in Varmia, as his name appears in the final report of the commission as praeterhos Universitatum nomine scribentes sunt . . . Nicolaus Coppernicus, warmiensis.99

From this record it appears that Copernicus was not directly contacted by Paul of Middelburg; rather, he was forwarded the letter by his superiors in Varmia.

96 On the Fifth Lateran Council and the calendar, see Marzi (1897), and North (1983), pp. 94–100.97 Cf. Middelburg (1513), f. br: Ad sacratissimam caesaream maiestatem epistola exhortatoria pro recta

paschae celebratione et calendarii correctione, urging the Emperor ut ad correctionem calendarii animumapponat, et Pascha sanctum iuxta patrum decreta celebrari praecipiat, ut secundum legem viventes etmandata Dei observantes a iudaeorum calumniis atque convitiis immunes esse possumus.98 Leo X sent a first brief, addressed to Maximilian I on 21 July 1514, and a second one three days later,

which bears the title of Breve . . .ad principes super correctione Calendarii pro recta Paschae celebratione. Athird one was sent to European universities shortly thereafter. Its title was Universis et singulis Studiorumgeneralium et Universitatum rectoribus ac gubernatoribus, nec non doctoribus et magistris theologiam etastrologicam disciplinam profitentibus, quarumcumque civitatum Terrarum et locorum Dictionischristianae, ad quos praesentes pervenerint, salutem et apostolicam benedictionem.99 Middelburg (1516), f. 4r. Cf. Biskup (1973), p. 67 n. 103.




Although Copernicuss reply is unknown, some information can be found in thePreface in the context of the disputes among astronomers: for, in the first place, theyare so uncertain about the motion of the sun and the moon that they cannot estab-

lish and observe a constant length even for the tropical year .100

The exact length of the year was indeed part of the debate over the calendar; the necessity of the reformresulted from an error in its calculation, and although the works of the commissionwere aimed at solving the problem of the commemoration of Easter, the calculationof the solar year (which would help determine the vernal equinox) was a similarlyurgent issue. As for the circumstances of Copernicuss intervention, the Secundum

compendium offers a great deal of insight into the status of the debate. The contentand viability of the proposals received by Paul of Middelburgs commission variedgreatly, up to the point that some of them suggested the celebration of Easter ona fixed date (such as 25 or 27 March), thus detaching it from astronomical problems;

this fundamentally altered the canon established by the Council of Nicea by com-memorating Easter according only to solar motion, or linking Easter with the Nativ-ity. Paul of Middelburgs opinion was to set the vernal equinox for 10 or 11 Marchand to adjust the calendar accordingly, dropping a day every 134 years. The majorityof those who replied agreed that it was necessary to maintain the Nicean canon andto improve the calculations for the solar year and the lunar cycles, so as not to rep-licate the errors of the Julian calendar.101 Copernicuss brief considerations in De

revolutionibus seem to support this line of thought.There appears to be no evidence that after the Fifth Lateran Council Copernicus

dedicated any more work to the calendar. Before 1543, a short remark in the Intro-

duction to Book I of De revolutionibus (the first Preface to the whole work) points outthe political role of astronomy in determining the time for festivals and sacrifices,102

that might very well be an allusion to the issue of the celebration of Easter and to thecase Paul of Middelburg made in order to urge the intervention of political author-ities, astronomers and theologians in reforming the calendar. Contrastingly, thePreface of De revolutionibus attributed an important role to the theme of calendarreform, but before taking this up it is necessary to analyse what kind of receptionCopernicus (and Fracastoro for that matter) could expect for his efforts on the cal-endar, that is whether at the time of the publication of Homocentrica and De revo-

lutionibus the Pope and his court were interested in studies on the topic. Paul IIIsfascination with astrology is well known, as is his patronage of works on anatomy

and medicine, critical days, medicaments and healing, physiognomy, chiromancyand astronomy.103 Yet, it is less well known that shortly after his election he person-

100 Copernicus (1978), p. 4.101 On the Secundum compendium and the results of the papal commission, see Marzi (1897), pp. 167–184.102 Cf. Copernicus (1978), p. 7: The great benefit and adornment which this art confers on thecommonwealth [res publica] (not to mention the countless advantages to individuals) are most excellentlyobserved by Plato. In the Laws, Bk. VII [808 C–D; 818 C–D], he thinks that it should be cultivated chieflybecause by dividing time into groups of days as months and years, it would keep the state alert andattentive to the festivals and sacrifices.103 On the court of Paul III and the patronage of science, see Thorndike (1923–1958), Vol. 5, pp. 252–274,and Pastor (1959), pp. 686–691.




ally invited astronomers to Rome to work on the calendar. Paul of Middelburg wassummoned to Rome from Fossombrone in December 1534 (Paul III had beenelected on 13 October of the same year), but the old Bishop of Fossombrone, then

88, died shortly thereafter. Three years later, in October 1537, Paul III sent a brief to Ferrara inviting the astronomer Gaspare Insoni to come to Rome as soon as pos-sible (cum prima occasione). The letter was very clear on the matter: Paul III had re-ceived information on the activity of Insoni and wanted him to work specifically onthe correction of the year, a question very dear to us, as are all the others concern-ing the establishment of the truth by removing the errors and the guidance and theconvenience of the Christians.104

In the wake of the Popes interest, members of the Papal court were actively work-ing on reforming the calendar in the years immediately before and after the publica-tion of De revolutionibus. Notably, at least some of these individuals were involved in

the publication and/or the early reception of both De revolutionibus and Homocen-trica. A good example of this connection is Paul IIIs personal astrologer and pro-tege, Luca Gaurico. In 1532 he visited Melanchthon in Wittenberg and later on,in 1540 and 1543, two of his works were printed by Petreius— De revolutionibusspublisher. Moreover, Gaurico was also personally acquainted with Fracastoro andhe certainly knew his works: a 1557 catalogue of his library registers two entries withthe name of the Veronese astronomer (Manilius & Fracastorus, and HieronymiFracastorii).105 During his career, Gaurico intervened three times on the reformof the calendar at the request or pressure of the Pope. In 1535 he published the Quis

modus sit in posterum observandus in calendarii Romani reformatione & vera paschalis

solemnitatis festarumque mobilium celebratione, and in 1539 the De eclipsi Soli mirac-

ulosa in passione Domini celebrata in which he challenged Paul of Middelburgs Pau-

lina. Later on, at the time of the Council of Trent, Gaurico published another workon the calendar, the Calendarium ecclesiasticum novum ex sacris literis probatisque

Sanctorum Patrum synodis excerptum (Venice 1552), dedicated once again to PaulIII, despite his death in 1549.

Similarly, Giovanni Maria Tolosani, otherwise known for his rebuttal of Coper-nicus, published several works on the calendar, among which the Opusculum de

104 The brief is published in Fontana (1889–1899), Vol. 1, p. 505: Dilecto filio, Gaspari Jnsoni,Ferrariensi// Dilecte fili salutem etc. Ex relatu nonnullorum fidedignorum, multa de virtute scientiaque tuaaccepimus, quodque errorem dierum aliquot, ex minutiis temporum (ut quidam mathematici asserunt) aprimaeva correctione anni, in kalendario exortum, corrigere te posse confidas. Quod quidem cum valdenobis cordi sit, ut et caetera, quae ad fidelium regimen, et commodum, veritatemque amotis erroribusstabiliendum pertinent, gratissimum nobis feceris, si cum prima occasione in urbem te conferes. DatumRomae a. S. P. etc. die xij octobris 1537.105 Copernicus had probably come to know Gaurico (as well as Fracastoro himself) during his stay inPadua. See Westman (1990), p. 184. Barker & Goldstein (2003), p. 349, have suggested that Gaurico couldhave served as the channel through which information about Copernicus reached Nuremberg from Romeand thus have given occasion to Rheticuss visit to Copernicus in 1539. If so, Rheticus could have spokento Copernicus of Gaurico and have recalled personal memories. We must bear in mind, however, thatsome knowledge of Copernicus could be present in Nuremberg in the persons of the mathematiciansGeorg Hartmann and Johannes Schoner. For Gauricos library (that does not include a copy of De

revolutionibus), cf. Rhodes (1973).




emendationibus temporum (1537, 1546, 1575; published under the pseudonym of Ioannes Lucidus Samotheus)106 merits special attention both for its content andfor the context of its publication. In its second edition he added two appendices,

namely an Additio de recta computatione ipsorum temporum and a Brevis annotatioemendatoria calendarii Romani , written at the request of the general of his orderand advocating the proposal to set the vernal equinox on 10 or 11 March and theomission of one day every 104 and 108 years alternatively. Tolosani admitted thathis calculations were based on the authority of Albategnius and of the Germanastronomer Johannes Stoffler. The Opusculum stressed the necessity of establishingthe true quantity of the year through the motion of the Sun, its vernal equinox,and the motions of the moon107 —similarly to the outline by Copernicus—and ex-pressed the wish that the Council of Trent arrive at a final solution.

What is more relevant is that Tolosanis Opusculum shares another connection

with De revolutionibus, as it is also dedicated to Cardinal Schonberg. As pointedout in the Opusculums dedicatory letter, both Tolosani and Schonberg belongedto the Dominican Order and were together in the Convento di San Marco in Flor-ence at the end of the fifteenth century. This long standing friendship ( antiqua inter

nos mutua benevolentia) was maintained over the years and must have remainedrather confidential (Tolosanis praise of Schonberg also implied some criticism of the corruption within the Church in contrast to the Cardinals virtues and hon-esty).108 In 1546/7, Tolosani wrote his refutation of Copernicus as a tribute to his latefriend and Maestro di Sacro Palazzo, Bartolomeo Spina. It is also possible that hisconnection with Schonberg, whose letter he found at the beginning of De revolutio-

nibus, played a part in his decision to write De coelo et elementis.109 Conversely, thededication of Tolosanis Opusculum de emendationibus temporum and Schonbergsletter to Copernicus (dated October 1535 and November 1536, respectively) indicatethat in the mid-1530s the Cardinal was actively involved in promoting studies on the

106 On Giovanni Maria Tolosani, see Garin (1971); Garin (1975); Granada (1997); Lerner (2002) andn. 123.107 Tolosani (1546), f. 194v: De vera anni quantitate ex motu Solis, cap. I/ Emendare collapsumcalendarium Romanum et invenire pascha[m] recte non possumus, nisi prius cognoscamus veram anni

quantitatem ex motu Solis: et eius vernum aequinoctium, ac lunationem verni temporis iuxta quam paschae

solennitas per ecclesiam celebrari praecipitur iuxta illud ecclesiastici 43. A luna signum die sesti. Ex hisenim duobus magnis luminaribus coeli, mensuratur omne tempus in annis, diebus, ac mensibus .108 Cf. ibid., dedication, dated 15 October 1535, s. p.: Reverendissimo D.D. Nicolao Alemano SanctaeRomanae Ecclesiae Cardinali Capuano, tituli Xysti ex ordine praedicatorio assumpto: F. Ioannes Mariaede Tholosanis ex colle vallis Elsae eiusdem ordinis S. P. D./ Ut autem hoc opus adhuc maius authoritatisrobur obtineat, consilio ab amicis accepto, decrevi id Reverendissime dominationi tuae dedicare exantiqua inter nos mutua benevolentia: et praecipue cum ex ordine nostro praedicatorio olim assumptusfueris ad archiepiscopatum Capuanus: et nunc denuo ad apicem Cardinalatus Romanae ecclesiae: nonpecunia et muneribus: sed virtutibus, ingenio, solertia, atque doctrina. Accipe igitur hoc munus ab authoreet ab eius coadiutore plurimo labore confectus: et me continue ama: sicut ego te semper diligo .109 Significantly, the publication of this anti-Copernican tract was intended as an appendix to a largetheological work entitled De purissima veritate Divinae Scripturae adversus errores humanos, which wasalso dedicated to Paul III. The publication of this work, which contained several other appendices of acontroversial nature directed against humanistic and protestant theology, was impeded by Tolosanisdeath in 1549.




reform of the calendar, either as part of his own interests or of his duties towardspapal policy. But on the other side of this investigation, it is also worth noting thatFracastoros patron, Gian Matteo Giberti, sponsored similar studies. In 1537, the

Veronese astronomer Pietro Pitati published his proposals for calendrical reformin Paschales atque noviluniorum mensurationi canones (Venice, Giunti), which werededicated to Paul III. A few years later, in 1544, Pitatis Almanach novum,110 meantto be a continuation of Stofflers ephemerides, was dedicated to the Bishop of VeronaGiberti.

These brief examples show how in the late 1530s and early 1540s, calendar reformattracted the attention of the Pope and his court. Although this was not done in theform of an officially appointed commission, as during the Fifth Lateran Council, orthrough any formal appointment (but the letter to Insoni seems quite close to it), thePope favoured and sponsored studies on the matter, such as those of Gaurico.

Accordingly, some of his closest advisors, such as Giberti and Schonberg, reflectedPapal policy and supported works on the calendar, which in some cases (such asHomocentrica) they might have suggested be dedicated to the Pope. This contextserves as the background for Copernicuss and Fracastoros claims that their workswere useful for the correction of the calendar reform. Clearly, this was not the case,since both authors never deal with the technicalities of such a topic and are primarilyconcerned with planetary models, an issue which is hardly mentioned (if at all) in six-teenth-century literature on the calendar. This means that this theme in either ded-icatory letter does not elucidate any element included in the content of their books.Rather, it appears to be another part of the strategy intended for readers in theVatican and thereby obtaining Papal protection.

As for Fracastoro, this strategy is carried out as part of an exaltation of the Popeas a religious and secular ruler, and of the benefits that the Romans and particularlythe Popes relatives (the Farnese family) could receive from his election. In this wayFracastoro entreated Papal approval for astrological works, and so he forecast afavourable reign for the new ruler and his associates. The new orbs (novis plerisque

orbibus) are presented as responsible for this prevision, as they hold power over thecelestial and terrestrial regions. It is in this context that the reform of the calendar ismentioned:

And if you will also take care of those worthy and necessary things, as JuliusCaesar Pont. Max. did, such as reforming the year, restoring the solar motion

according to the true equinoxes, and mending the falling cycles, hence the stars,

with which you seem to have a great deal of familiarity, will not only encourage

you, but they will also show the clearest way.111

The setting for these remarks is Papal nepotism and personal benefit, the Pope asruler over the inferior and the superior regions and his discretion in promoting thecalendar reform. But rather than sketching an astronomical proposal to reform

110 Pitati (1544).111 Fracastoro (1538), p. 2v.




the calendar, what this passage envisages is the absolute authority of the Pope, con-veyed through a comparison with Julius Caesar, political leader, religious authorityand reformer of the calendar. The adulation of the Pope parallels the possibility of

reaching eternal fame through the sydera —an allusion to the title of the Homocen-trica, sive de stellis —so that the new circles found by Fracastoro would benefitthe Pope in the same way as they would benefit from the Pontiff s patronage. Fromthis perspective, the new orbs found by Fracastoro become part of an exchange. Onthe one hand, there is a gift—the Homocentrica as a book and the benefits providedby its new orbs—which would serve the Popes interests (the calendar reform as wellas his personal fame); on the other hand, if the gift is accepted, Fracastoro couldlegitimately expect the Pope to reciprocate in terms of personal prestige, protectionand favours, such as the appointment as physician of the Council.

In a similar way, but with different implications and perspectives involved, Coper-

nicus used the calendar reform as a final appeal to the Pope. Paul of Middelburg andthe Fifth Lateran Council are recalled in order to stress further the connection be-tween the presentation of De revolutionibus and the discussions on the reform. Be-sides, Copernicus attributed the failure of the Council to technical, that is,astronomical problems, which after the Council and at the request of Paul of Mid-delburg, as he claims, he set out to correct. De revolutionibus is presented as the resultof those studies:

To them [the astronomers], my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to

make some contribution also to the Church, at the head of which Your Holi-

ness now stands. For not so long ago under Leo X the Lateran Council con-sidered the problem of reforming the ecclesiastical calendar. The issue

remained undecided then only because the length of the year and the month

and the motions of the sun and the moon were regarded as not yet adequately

measured. From that time on, at the suggestion of that most distinguished

man, Paul, bishop of Fossombrone, who was then in charge of this matter, I

have directed my attention to a more precise study of these topics. But what

I have accomplished in this regard, I leave to the judgement of Your Holiness

and in particular of all other learned astronomers. And lest I appear to Your

Holiness to promise more about the usefulness of this volume than I can fulfil,

I now turn to the work itself.112

De revolutionibus did not entail any specific proposal for the reform of the calen-dar. Yet the aim of these considerations is to establish a connection between De rev-

olutionibus and curial policy. The account presented by Copernicus thus functionsaccording to this purpose, despite the fact that the Fifth Lateran Council failedfor reasons unrelated to the calculation of the length of the year, or that there isno evidence that Paul of Middelburg ever directly contacted Copernicus. But accord-ing to this final passage of the dedicatory letter, De revolutionibus appeared as a workwhose inspiration lay in the circles surrounding the Pontiff, Cardinal Schonberg as a

112 Copernicus (1978), p. 6.




political advisor and the Bishop of Fossombrone as a recognized authority over cal-endar matters. This image is further illustrated by the two remarks on the contribu-tion that the De revolutionibus could make to the Church and on its usefulness.

Finally, patronage practices were based on exchange and mutual benefit. Present-ing a gift, either in the form of an object or as an intellectual effort, both of whichwere manifest in the dedication of a book, required that the donation be adequate,that is, to match the recipients status or, as in this case, to serve his purposes.113 Inreturn, accepting a gift required some sort of reciprocation, also adequate to the gi-ver and recipient. It is according to this code of behaviour that Fracastoro andCopernicus crafted the role of the calendar reform in terms of the benefits andadvantages that the recipient could receive from them: this was also part of the rhe-torical strategy they devised in order to secure Papal patronage. In other words, bystressing the utilitarian aspect of the gift, they both aimed at linking the contribution

to the Church to their own interest. It would be difficult to say whether Copernicussconsiderations were directly aimed at counterbalancing Fracastoros exaltation of the Pope, although this might be assumed provided that he had read the Homocen-

trica. Unlike Fracastoro, Copernicuss presentation of the contribution and useful-ness of his work fully exploited the new possibilities offered by the intellectualinterests of the Pope and of his circle; he presented himself as closely connected withthe efforts to reform the calendar, and stressed—unlike Fracastoro—his long stand-ing involvement in the issue.

7. The figure of the Pontiff

Both authors present Paul III in a certain way as the natural recipient of theirworks, on the one hand due to his position as the Roman Pontiff and on the otherto the special interest he showed in natural philosophy and astrology. As we have just seen, all this converges in the problem of the calendar. I feel that he will be de-lighted to hear that decorum and dignity has been restored in his realm, above allbecause he, after his concern for religion and the Christian Republic, has showngreater interest in no other study than in Philosophy as a whole and in the study

of stars and heavenly bodies, said Fracastoro.

114

Copernicus, as we have seen, statedthat for even in this remote corner of the earth where I live you are considered thehighest authority by virtue of the loftiness of your office and your love for all liter-ature and astronomy too.115

113 For another case in the history of astronomy, where the connection between gift and reciprocation isexplicit, cf. Keplers dedication to Rudolph II in the Astronomia nova in Kepler (1992), pp. 34–35: To thisend, I readily offer Your Majesty a work that is not without usefulness . . .I pray and beseech you for thisone favour: that Your Imperial Majesty command the chiefs of the treasury to take thought for the sinewsof war and supply me with new funds to enlist the army.114 Fracastoro (1538), p. 2r.115 See above n. 76. We have already seen why the litterarum omnium amor of which Copernicus speakscan be understood as a reference to Philosophy.




At this point, however, the treatment that the two offer of the figure of the Popediverges radically, indicative of two different, not to say diametrically opposed posi-tions regarding the function of the ecclesiastical authority and the religious crisis of

the time. Fracastoros dedicatory letter concludes with an authentic eulogy of thePope, in true Counter-Reformatory spirit. The dedication to the Pope of the reformof astronomy and of the discovery of cosmological truth is entirely justified becauseof those things [the heaven and the stars] he [the Pope] holds the keys and the em-pire.116 The heaven is his realm (suo regno)—as we have already seen—and, coin-ciding completely with Bishop Giberti, Fracastoro knows that to no one are thecontemplations of the stars and the spheres as due as to you, over which you, aloneamong the mortals, have such power.117

This portrayal of the Pope is entirely characteristic of the rhetoric of the Romanhumanism of the Renaissance. The Pope is the vicar of Christ, who tends, in a way,

to replace Christ himself. Fracastoros portrayal evokes the figure of Julius II, tracedironically and critically by Erasmus in his dialogue Iulius exclusus e coelis.118 But if the Erasmian satire dated from the years immediately following the death of Julius II(1513), Fracastoros (entirely serious) portrayal comes twenty years later and presup-poses the defection to the Church of Rome of a large part of European Christendomafter Luthers rebellion and the expansion of the Reformation, which had obtainedwide support among the German princes in the diet of Augsburg in 1530. Fracast-oros portrayal ends by presenting the Pope as the hero and champion of a Catholiccounteroffensive and of the incipient Counter-Reformation that would ward off thedanger facing the Church: . . . the heavens themselves and at the same time yourVerona and I [Giberti] also rejoice and congratulate so great a Pontiff, whomGod, taking pity on the Church in danger, has at last placed at the head of hisRepublic.119

The tone of the conclusion of Copernicuss dedicatory letter could not be moredifferent. Copernicus does express his loyalty and obedience to the Pope: even in thisvery remote corner of the earth where I live you are considered the highest author-ity.120 But he characterizes the Pope rather in his function as a servant,121 as a de-fender of those who are weak but full of reason in face of the abuses of the powerful.In sum, Copernicuss view of the Pope is more in accordance with the Erasmian im-

age of the pastor at the service of the community of the faithful, whose figurehead isnot so much the Pope—and still less the Pope at war with the Churchs enemies, asFracastoros dedicatory letter suggests—but Christ, who overcomes all dissensions

116 Fracastoro (1538), p. 2r: . . .quorum ille claves atque imperium gerit.117 Ibid.: plane cognovi nulli convenientius quam tibi deberi stellarum orbiumque contemplationes, inquibus potestatem tantam unus e mortalibus cunctis habeas.118 See Erasmus (1933).119 Fracastoro (1538), p. 2r–v: . . . et coeli quodammodo ipsi et simul Verona tua, atque ego paritercongaudeamus, gratulatumque eamus tanto Pontifici, quem Deus optimus suam tandem Rempublicammiseratus ecclesiae periclitanti praefecit.120 Copernicus (1978), p. 5.121 Cf. Westman (1990), p. 188: The pope is also presented to us as a protector—of Copernicus, of truth-seeking philosophers. The final pages (pp. 188–194) of Westmans essay are very important on this point.




and whose peace acts to unite all men. Westman also refers to this and sees it as anexpression of the religiosity that predominated in the diocese of Varmia and the lineof Tiedemann Giese.122

In accordance with this image of the reigning Pontiff, Copernicus hopes—as wehave seen—that Paul III will act as a judge and will silence the babbling theologians(mataiologoi ) who call for the condemnation of his astronomy on the basis of a dis-torted reading of passages from the Bible and in spite of their total ignorance of phi-losophy and mathematics. Here, Copernicus reveals—unlike Fracastoro andGiberti—his ignorance of the current balance of power in the Roman Curia whichunderpinned Papal policy. The defeat of Erasmian thought on the theological andecclesiastical plane represented the victory of traditionalist theologians such as Bar-tolomeo Spina and Giovanni Maria Tolosani, who proclaimed the supremacy of the-ology over any other human discourse (and at the same time rejected the rhetorical

and moralizing theology of humanism and Erasmus)123 and imposed on the Churcha policy of all out hostility towards the monster of Lutheran heresy. It is no surprisethat the first condemnations of Copernicuss work should come precisely from Spinaand Tolosani. Underlying these reactions was not only the presumed error of Coper-nicuss cosmology and astronomy, but also his irreverence and even his crime of le se

majeste committed against the holy theology and the Vicar of God on Earth.124

8. Conclusion

P. Barker and B. Goldstein have recently suggested that, in agreement with Rheti-cus and Giese, Copernicus intended to dedicate De revolutionibus to the Duke of Prussia, a Protestant prince.125 However, the fact is that Giese and Copernicus final-ly decided to dedicate the work to the Pope. Rheticus, a Protestant, was unlikely tohave been informed; indeed, there are no explicit references to him in the letter to thePontiff. Instead, as Westman has shown, this letter was written having a RomanCatholic audience in mind and with the intent to secure the papal protection and fa-vour (the publication of the letter by Cardinal Schonberg is part of this strategy).Our investigation has pointed out that Fracastoros Homocentrica, equally addressed

to Paul III, was also part of this Italian scenario for De revolutionibuss Preface. Inour view, Copernicus knew about Homocentrica at the time of the composition of the

dedicatory letter and at least part of it was intended to neutralize and oppose theFracastorian reform in order to win support for his own system. We are aware that

122 Ibid., p. 189: Indeed, Varmian religious politics was strongly humanist, irenic, and Erasmian in spirit,amidst growing anti-Catholic sentiment and conversions to Luthers doctrines. The Erasmian basis of Gieses religious conceptions and of Copernicuss circle in general has also been stressed by Hooykaas(1984), pp. 24–27: The ties between Copernicus and Giese were so close, and their spiritual affinity sogreat, that it may be safely assumed that by knowing Gieses theological opinions we know those of Copernicus (p. 25).123 Cf. above nn. 46 and 79. See also Camporeale (1978, 1986).124 We again refer the reader to Lerner (2002).125 Barker & Goldstein (2003).




even the most striking similarities and unequivocal correspondences could be ex-plained, in the last instance, as a consequence of the fact that both texts treat thesame matter and are addressed to the same person. Nonetheless, our analysis wishes

to suggest that the Preface presents a parallel structure to Fracastoros dedication of his Homocentrica: the roles of Schonberg and Giberti as intermediaries, and their riv-alry, sheds light on the political dimension of both dedicatory letters; the similarstrategies in appealing to the Pope as a final judge of the astronomical reform(although with opposite considerations on his figure) reveals a further connectionin terms of religious policy, while the issue of the calendar reform is raised by bothCopernicus and Fracastoro as a means to promote possible benefits in return for thepapal patronage. Moreover, the passage on the homocentri and the Ptolemaic mon-ster is remarkably close to Homocentrica in terms of wording and structure of theargument. Above all, the difference in the presentations of the history of astronomy

in Commentariolus and De revolutionibus shows that, at first, Copernicus consideredthe homocentric theory as an obsolete hypothesis that had been abandoned by theAncient Greeks, while at the time of the composition of the Preface it appears tobe a contemporary alternative to the eccentrics and epicycles and, thus, a possiblerival and competitor.

Acknowledgements

The idea for this article derives from a seminar at the University of Barcelona onLa riforma dellastronomia: scienza, filosofia e cultura tra Rinascimento e prima etamoderna organized by M. A. Granada and held by D. Tessicini in May 2004. Prof.Granada is the author of Sections 2, 4, 7 and Dr Tessicini of 3, 5 and 6. We wish toexpress our gratitude to M.-P. Lerner and R. S. Westman for their comments; and toPatrick Boner and Andrew Campbell for their readings of earlier English drafts. Theauthors are solely responsible for the remaining errors.

References

Achillini, A. (1545). De orbibus. In idem, Opera omnia. Venice: H. Scotum. (First published 1498)Alberigo, G. (1959). I vescovi italiani al Concilio di Trento (1545–1547). Florence: Sansoni.Amico, G. B. (1540). De motibus corporum coelestium iuxta principia peripatetica sine eccentricis et

epicyclis. Paris: I. Keruer. (First published 1536)Aristoteles (1562–1574). Opera cum Averrois commentariis (11 vols). Venice: Giunti. (Reprint Minerva,

Frankfurt a. M., 1962)Barker, P. (1999). Copernicus and the critics of Ptolemy. Journal for the History of Astronomy, 30,

343–358.Barker, P., & Goldstein, B. R. (2003). Patronage and the production of De revolutionibus. Journal for the

History of Astronomy, 34, 345–368.Biagioli, M. (1993). Galileo courtier: The practice of science in the culture of absolutism. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.Biskup, M. (1973). Regesta Copernicana (Calendar of Copernicus papers), Studia Copernicana VIII.

Wroclaw a.o.: Ossolineum, The Polish Academy of Science Press.




Brownell, P. C. (1988). La figura di committente del vescovo Gianmatteo Giberti. Il rinnovamento dellachiesa di S. Stefano. In S. Marinelli (Ed.), Veronese e Verona (pp. 53–83). Verona: Museo diCastelvecchio.

Camporeale, S. I. (1978). Giovanni Tolosani, O.P., e la teologia antiumanistica agli inizi della Riforma.

LOpusculum antivalliano De Constantini donatione. In Xenia Medii Aevi Historiam illustrantia, oblata

Thomae Kaepelli O.P. (2 vols.) (pp. 809–831). Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.Camporeale, S. I. (1986). Giovanmaria dei Tolosani O.P.: 1530–1546. Umanesimo, Riforma, Teologia

controversista, Memorie Domenicane, n.s., 17 , 145–252.Capasso, C. (1924). Paolo III, 1534–1549 (2 vols.). Messina: Principato.Carmody, F. J. (1952). The planetary theory of Ibn Rushd. Osiris, 10, 556–586.Copernicus, N. (1974). Erster Entwurf seines Weltsystems, sowie eine Auseinandersetzung Johannes Keplers

mit Aristoteles u ber die Bewegung der Erde (Fritz Rossmann, Ed. & Trans.). Darmstadt: Wissenschaf-tliche Buchgesellschaft.

Copernicus, N. (1978). On the revolutions (E. Rosen, Trans. and Commentary). In idem, Complete works,Vol. 2 (J. Dobrzycki, et al., Eds.). Cracow & London: Polish Scientific Publishers–The Macmillan

Press. (First published 1543)Copernicus, N. (1984). De revolutionibus libri sex (H. M. Nobis, & B. Sticker, Eds). In idem,Gesamtausgabe (H. M. Nobis, Ed.) (4 vols). Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag. (First published 1543)

Copernicus, N. (1985). Minor works (E. Rosen, Transl. and Commentary). In idem, Complete works, Vol.3 (J. Dobrzycki, et al., Eds.). Cracow & London: Polish Scientific Publishers–The Macmillan Press.

Cox-Rearick, J. (1984). Dynasty and destiny in Medici Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Davis, N. Z. (2000). The gift in sixteenth-century France. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Di Bono, M. (1990). Le sfere omocentriche di Giovanni Battista Amico nell astronomia del Cinquecento, con

il testo del De motibus corporum coelestium . . .. CNR, Genova.Dunn, K. (1994). Pretexts of authority: The rhetoric of authorship in the Renaissance preface. Stanford:

California University Press.Erasmus. (1933). Dialogvs, Ivlivs exclvsvs e coelis. In idem, Opuscula. A Supplement to the Opera omnia

(W. K. Ferguson, Ed.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Farenga, P. (1994). Il sistema delle dediche nella prima editoria romana del Quattrocento. In A. Quondam

(Ed.), Il libro a corte (pp. 57–87). Rome: Bulzoni.Fasani, A. (1989). Riforma pretridentina della diocesi di Verona. Visite pastorali del vescovo G.M. Giberti.

1525–1542. Vicenza: Istituto per le ricerche di storia sociale e di storia religiosa.Findlen, P. (1991). The economy of scientific exchange in Early Modern Italy. In B. T. Moran (Ed.),

Patronage and institutions: Sciences, technology, and medicine at the European court (1500–1700)

(pp. 5–24). Woodbridge: Boydell.Fiorato, A., & Margolin, J.-C. (1989). Le crivain face a son public en France et en Italie a la Renaissance.

Paris: Vrin.Fontana, B. (1889–99). Renata di Francia duchessa di Ferrara (3 vols.). Rome: Forzani.Fracastoro, G. (1538). Homocentrica, sive de stellis. Venice: Giunti.

Fracastoro, G. (1584). Opera omnia. Venice: Giunti. (First published 1555)Fracastoro, G. (1955). Scritti inediti (F. Pellegrini, Ed.). Verona: Valdonega.Fratta, G. (1590). Della dedicatione de libri . Venice: Angelieri.Garin, E. (1971). A proposito di Copernico. Rivista critica di storia della filosofia, 26 , 83–88.Garin, E. (1975). Alle origini della polemica anticopernicana. In idem, Rinascite e rivoluzioni (pp. 283–

295). Bari: Laterza.Gingerich, O. (2002). An annotated census of Copernicus De revolutionibus (Nuremberg 1543 and Basel

1566). Leiden, Boston, & Koln: Brill.Granada, M.A. (1996). Il problema astronomico-cosmologico dopo Copernico e le Sacre Scritture: il

ricorso di Christoph Rothmann alla teoria dellaccomodazione. Rivista di storia della filosofia, 51, 789– 828. (Reprinted in idem, Sfere solide e cielo fluido. Momenti del dibattito cosmologico nella seconda meta

del Cinquecento (pp. 67–113). Milan: Guerini e Associati, 2002)Granada, M. A. (1997). Giovanni Maria Tolosani e la prima reazione romana di fronte al De

revolutionibus di Copernico nellopuscolo De coelo et elementis. In M. Bucciantini, & M. Torrini(Eds.), La diffusione del copernicanesimo in Italia 1543–1610 (pp. 11–35). Florence: Olschki.




Granada, M. A. (2004). Aristotle, Copernicus, Bruno: Centrality, the principle of movement and theextension of the Universe. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 35A, 91–114.

Guicciardini, F. (1618). The historie of Guicciardini (G. Fenton, Trans.). London: R. Field.Hallyn, F. (1997). La structure poetique du monde: Copernic, Kepler. Paris: Seuil.

Hooykaas, R. (1984). G.J. Rheticus treatise On Holy Scripture and the motion of the Earth’. Amsterdam,Oxford, New York: North Holland Publishing Company.

Jardine, N. (1998). The places of astronomy in early-modern culture. Journal for the History of Astronomy,

29, 49–62.Jedin, H. (1949). Geschichte des Konzils von Trient (3 vols.). Freiburg: Herder.Jedin, H. (1957). A history of the Council of Trent (E. Graf, Trans.). London & Melbourne: Thomas

Nelson and Sons.Kepler, J. (1992), New astronomy (W. Donahue, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (First

published 1609)Kettering, S. (1992). Patronage in early modern France. French Historical Studies, 17 , 839–862.Kren, C. (1968). Homocentric astronomy in the Latin West. The De reprobatione ecentricorum et

epiciclorum of Henry of Hesse. Isis, 49, 269–281.Lerner, M.-P. (2002). Aux origines de la polemique anticopernicienne (I). L Opusculum quartum deGiovanmaria Tolosani [1547–1548]. Revue des sciences philosophiques et the ologiques, 86 , 681–721.

Lerner, M.-P., & Segonds, A. (2003). Editer et traduire Copernic. Bruniana & Campanelliana, 9, 379–408.Marzi, D. (1897). La questione della riforma del calendario nel Quinto Concilio Lateranense (1512–1527).

Florence: Carnesecchi e figli.von Middelburg, P. (1513). Paulina de recta Paschae celebratione: et de die passionis domini nostri Iesu

Christi . Fossombrone: O. Petruzzi.von Middelburg, P. (1516). Secundum compendium correctionis calendarii, continens et exponens diversos

modos corrigendi Calendarium pro recta Paschae celebratione. Rome: Silber.Milanesi, M. (1978). Introduzione. In G. B. Ramusio, Navigazioni e viaggi (M. Milanesi, Ed.) (6 vols.).

Turin: Einaudi.

North, J. D. (1983). The Western calendar— intolerabilis, horribilis et derisibilis

. Four centuries of

discontent. In G. V. Coyne, M. A. Hoskin, & O. Pedersen (Eds.), Gregorian reform of the calendar

(pp. 75–113). Vatican City: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum—Specola Vaticana.Pastor, L. von (1959). Storia dei Papi dalla fine del Medio Evo (Vol. V, Paolo III. 1534–1549). Rome:

Editori Pontifici.Pastor, L. von (1960). Storia dei Papi dalla fine del Medio Evo (Vol. IV.1, Leone X). Rome: Editori

Pontifici.Pearce, S. (1996). Nature and supernature in the dialogues of Girolamo Fracastoro. Sixteenth Century

Journal, 27 , 111–132.Pellegrini, F. (1948). Fracastoro. Trieste: Zigiotti editore.Peruzzi, E. (1995). La nave di Ermete: La cosmologia di Girolamo Fracastoro. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.Peruzzi, E. (1997). Girolamo Fracastoro. Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Vol. XLIX, pp. 543–548).

Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.Pitati, P. (1544). Almanach novum . . .superadditis annis quinque supra ultimas hactenus in lucem editas

Ioannis Stoeffleri Ephemeridas 1551 ad futurum Christianum 1556 . Tubingen: Morhard.Poppi, A. (1996). La filosofia naturale del primo Cinquecento nelle Universita di Padova, Bologna e

Ferrara. In L. Pepe (Ed.), Copernico e la questione copernicana in Italia dal XVI al XIX secolo

(pp. 39–67). Florence: Olschki.Prosperi, A. (1969). Tra evangelismo e controriforma. G.M. Giberti (1495–1543). Rome: Edizioni di Storia e

Letteratura.Rhodes, D. H. (1973). An unknown library in south Italy in 1557. Transactions of the Cambridge

Bibliographical Society, 6 , 115–125.Richardson, B. (1999). Printing, writers and readers in Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Rose, P. L. (1974). Copernicus and Urbino: Remarks on Bernardino Baldi s Vita di Copernico (1588). Isis,

65, 387–389.Rosen, E. (1958). Galileos Misstatements about Copernicus. Isis, 49, 319–330.




Rosen, E. (1975). Was Copernicus Revolutions approved by the Pope? Journal of the History of Ideas, 36 ,531–542.

Rutkin, H. D. (2001). Celestial offerings: Astrological motifs in the dedicatory letters of KeplersAstronomia nova and Galileos Sidereus nuncius. In W. R. Newman, & A. Grafton (Eds.), Secrets of

nature. Astrology and alchemy in early modern Europe (pp. 133–172). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Sabra, A. I. (1994). The Andalusian revolt against Ptolemaic astronomy. Averroes and al-Bitruji. In idem,

Optics, astronomy and logic in Arabic science and philosophy (pp. 133–153). Aldershot: AshgateVariorum Reprints.

Sarpi, P. (1974). Istoria del Concilio Tridentino (C. Vivanti, Ed.) (2 vols.). Turin: Einaudi.Shank, M. H. (1998). Regiomontanus and homocentric astronomy. Journal for the History of Astronomy,

29, 157–166.Simplicius (1543). Commentaria in quatuor libros de coelo. Venice: H. Scotum.Swerdlow, N. (1973). The derivation and first draft of Copernicus planetary theory. A translation of the

Commentariolus with commentary. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 177 , 423–512.Swerdlow, N. M. (1999). Regiomontanuss concentric-sphere models for the Sun and the Moon. Journal

for the History of Astronomy, 30, 1–23.Tarquini, S. (2001). Simbologia del potere. Codici di dedica al pontefice nel Quattrocento . Roma: Roma nelRinascimento.

Thorndike, L. (1923–1958). A history of magic and experimental science (8 vols.). New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Tolosani, G. M. (1546). [J. Lucidus Samotheus] Opusculum de emendationibus temporum. Venice: Giunti.Tucker, M. A. (1903). Gian Matteo Giberti, papal politician and Catholic reformer. English Historical

Review, 18, 24–51 (Part 1); 439–469 (Part 2).Walz, A. M. (1930). Zur Lebensgeschichte des Kardinals Nikolaus von Schonberg. Me langes Mandonnet,

Etudes d’Histoire litte raire et doctrinale du Moyen Age (3 vols., pp. 371–383). Paris: Vrin.Walz, A. M. (1961). I domenicani al Concilio di Trento. Rome: Herder.Westman, R. S. (1990). Proof, poetics, and patronage: Copernicuss preface to De revolutionibus. In D. C.

Lindberg, & R. S. Westman (Eds.), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (pp. 167–205). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Zapperi, R. (1990). Tiziano, Paolo III e i suoi nipoti: Nepotismo e ritratto di stato. Turin: BollatiBoringhieri.


granada+tessicini_copernicus & fracastoro: the dedicatory letters to pope paul iii, the history...

Documents