De revolutionibus
by Nicolaus Copernicus · first published 1947
16mentions
0recommended by
14HN commenters
2016–2026first – last mentioned
100% neutral
Affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
>the ad lectorum (to the reader) that he added to the front of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus that one could regard the heliocentric hypothesis as a mere mathematical model and not necessarily a true representation of the cosmos But choice of reference frame is arbitrary. Modeling the solar system…
on “Andreas Osiander: The greatest villain in the history of science?” ↗…grand Manichean battle between Religion and Science was nothing but the fallout of the provincial squabbling of petty men. Copernicus -- who was a classically educated cleric -- was reluctant to publish De Revolutionibus on account of hostility from rival astronomers (and though the Church had no doctrinal interest in something as theologically irrelevant as which rock orbits which other rock, Paul III and Cardinal von…
on “They knew it was round, damn it” ↗…really about heliocentrism it was about the Catholic Church trying to protect themselves. See also this line from the wikipedia article: "The decree of the Congregation of the Index banned Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and other heliocentric works until correction. Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical and philosophic idea, so long as he did not advocate for…
on “A new book on Renaissance mathematics makes a bold case” ↗…undeniably a heresy, the sentence banned Galileo's book and the heliocentric books, including the older one by Copernicus, remained officially banned by the Church for centuries afterwards: "Copernicus's De Revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue were then subsequently omitted from the next edition of the Index [of the prohibited books by the Catholic church] when it appeared in 1835." It's 202 years after the sentence.…
on “A new book on Renaissance mathematics makes a bold case” ↗…reflected reality. The Church did not begin to formally accept heliocentrism until the 1750s, when they dropped the general prohibition against heliocentric books. The prohibition against Copernicus's book De Revolutionibus was only rescinded in 1835.
on “The End of the Roman Empire Wasn’t That Bad” ↗…copy. It’s one of the best tools for getting at the “reception” of a particular work. The most complete and well-known example of this study to date was Owen Gingrich’s census of copies of Copernicus’ de revolutionibus: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Book_Nobody_Read.ht... The main findings of the Principia study according to the NYT: > An earlier census of the book, published in 1953, identified 189 copies…
on “Newton’s Daunting Masterpiece Had a Surprisingly Wide Audience, Historians Find” ↗I'm saying that Copernicus wrote _de revolutionibus_ in 1543 and its contents were globally accepted not before around the 1700s. So anyone in that timeframe were looking at the state of science with their best mind and rightfully questioned "who's right?…
on “People who decide what becomes history” ↗…There are two "new" references about "old" physics literature I particularly enjoyed: - "The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus," by O. Gingerich, about Copernicus' book "De revolutionibus." - "A Student’s Guide Through the Great Physics Texts," by K. Kuehn (4 volumes). It presents many original papers by Newton, Galileo, Maxwell, etc., together with study questions and exercises.
on “C.S. Lewis on the Reading of Old Books” ↗…dynasty always assuming they use the geocentric one. Well unlike the dogmatic Dominican the Jesuit has its friend in the court. “In 1618, the Holy Office recommended that a modified version of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus be allowed for use in calendric calculations, though the original publication remained forbidden until 1758” (wiki) only during a few year has the catholic lost its chief astronomer in the court of emperor.…
on “A New Map of All the Particles and Forces” ↗> I'm saying that Copernicus wrote _de revolutionibus_ in 1543 and its contents were globally accepted not before around the 1700s. That's because the telescope hadn't even been invented yet. And no scientific evidence could be gathered, no hypothesis could…
on “People who decide what becomes history” ↗…(nor had he vindicated heliocentrism) and had high ranking friends and acquaintances in the clergy (including cardinals like Cardinal Schõnberg and Pope Clement VII) who took an interest in his work. De Revolutionibus was itself dedicated to Pope Paul III. If anything, Copernicus was wary of other academics who held to the Ptolemaic view at the time. Plus ça change… No doubt, you have in mind the oft-repeated Galileo…
on “Tell HN: Merry Christmas!” ↗Owen Gingerich was a historian of astronomy who did a census of printed early editions of Copernicus' book De revolutionibus. He found a tradition of students copying annotations from teachers readings into their own copies of the book. I recollect that he was able to trace various traditions of commentary each stemming from…
on “Galileo's handwritten notes found in ancient astronomy text” ↗…suffered an honourable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed.” Because history is a stage of many actors and many forces, it is also worth noting that Copernicus dedicated "De Revolutionibus" to Paul III, and that his theory was met with interest by Clement VII as well as several cardinals (e.g., Schoenberg). Luther, on the other hand, vehemently rejected heliocentrism. Tycho Brahe argued…
on “Why Catholics Built Astronomical Features into Churches” ↗…Brahe's. Galileo may well have offended the Pope with the character of Simplicius, but that character appeared in the book Dialog Concerning the Two World Systems, which was published in 1632. Copernicus's De Revolutionibus was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, along with other heliocentric texts, 16 years earlier, in 1616. (This was also the time of the Inquisition's first investigation of Galileo, for promulgating…
on “The End of the Roman Empire Wasn’t That Bad” ↗…(Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 59). The 1594, statutes were reproduced with no change in 1625, despite the prohibition of Copernicus’ work by the Roman Inquisition in 1616 (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 60). In fact, De revolutionibus was “never placed on any Spanish Inquisitorial index” (Navarro-Brotóns 1995, 63), which does not mean Spanish astronomers were free to adopt heliocentrism but does indicate that it was possible to teach…
on ““Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans”” ↗