Aiton Celestial Spheres

Hist. Sci., xix (1981) Copyright © 1981 by E. J.
Aiton
CELESTIAL SPHERES AND CIRCLES
E. J. Aiton
Manchester Polytechnic
Aristotle's crystalline spheres and the mathematical circles of Ptolemy's

A lmagest seem to belong to two essentially different kinds of theory
concerning the motions of the stars and planets. The mathematical
approach, which came to be embodied in the formula 'apparentias
salvare', was regarded by Pierre Duhem I as the most seminal guiding
principle in the history of early and medieval astronomy. Otto
Neugebauer takes a similar view when he remarks that discussions of the
spheres distract attention from "the crucial mathematical arguments
which are needed for the prediction of the planetary positions". 2
According to the interpretation implied in such statements, physical
speculation could only act as an obstacle, so that the ideal astronomer
should simply aim 'to save the appearances'. This raises two important
questions; first, the degree of commitment of astronomers to physical
explanations, and secondly, the role of physics in the development of
astronomy.
Recent research has brought into question Duhem's attribution
(following Simplicius) of the formula 'apparentias salvare' to Plato and
revealed in the physics of Sosigenes an attempt to reconcile the
mathematical theory of Ptolemy with Aristotle's physics. Moreover, there
are clear indications that the reasoning of Sosigenes influenced Copernicus
in the formulation of the axioms set out in the Commentariolus. Another
remarkable discovery, brought to light by the location of a hitherto
unknown section of Ptolemy's Planetary hypotheses, is that the world
picture current up to the time of Kepler, according to which the
planetary spheres are nested to fill completely the space between the
elemental spheres and the fixed stars, belongs to Ptolemy himself.
Evidently astronomers at least desired a reconciliation of mathematical
and physical theories.
Apart from the equant, all the hypotheses devised by astronomers to
'save the appearances' satisfied the physical axiom of Sosigenes (essentially
a Platonic concept), that every circularly moved body moves uniformly
about its own centre. With Nicholas of Cusa, who started the
Neoplatonic revival that provided an alternative to Aristotle in the
Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

76 E. J. AITON
Renaissance, physics itself became hypothetical, in the sense that

knowledge of reality could be approached but not attained. This did not
mean that the formula 'apparentias salvare' was extended to physics. For
there was a distinction, clearly recognized by Kepler for example,
between true hypotheses (which claimed to describe reality within the
limits inherent in all knowledge) and the fictitious hypotheses rejected by
Ramus. When Ramus issued his general challenge for the production of
an astronomy without hypotheses, it was from the followers of
Melanchthon that he hoped for a response, for under his influence
mathematics had been cultivated as nowhere else. The role of this
influential Wittenberg circle, which included Rheticus as well as
Reinhold, has been examined and clarified in recent historical
investigations.
Jean Pena was the first to reject the solid spheres on the basis of
empirical evidence and in this he may have influenced Tycho Brahe, who
also rejected the spheres. Kepler discarded both the spheres and the
circles but succeeded as no one before him in bridging the gulf between
mathematical and physical astronomy. His new astronomy was in fact a
celestial physics which described reality and also 'saved the appearances'
with an improvement of nearly two orders of accuracy in the prediction of
the planetary positions over that of the mathematical astronomy of his
time."
1. ARISTOTLE'S SPHERES
Aristotle's theory of the division of the universe into two distinct regions, a
sub-lunary region of change and imperfection, contrasted with a sup~r
lunary region of perfection and ceaseless uniform circular motion, is
introduced in De caelo and acquires its definitive form in the
Metaphysics. From the concept of the completeness of circular motion
Aristotle deduces that this motion must be prior to the straight motion
(necessarily incomplete because it is always capable of extension) which is
natural to the terrestrial elements, and moreover, there must exist a fifth
element (to which circular motion is natural) more divine than and prior
to (theiotera kai protera 4 ) the four elements of the sub-lunary world. To
this fifth element he gave the name aether (aither), derived from aei
thein (runs always)."
Like the spheres to which they are attached, the stars and planets are
made of aether, while the light and heat of the Sun are engendered as the
air (or rather the elemental fire)" beneath is chafed by its movement. 7
Since a sphere can only have one natural uniform circular motion, it

CELESTIAL SPHERES AND CIRCLES 77
follows that the motion of each planet is controlled by a number of

spheres; that is, a nest of spheres, to the innermost of which the planet is
attached." Although the stars and planets do not move of themselves ,9
their spheres have initiative and life (praxeos kai zoes'") so that the motion
of a planet may be attributed to a number of immanent unmoved
movers, one for each simple motion of the planet. However, the diurnal
motion of the sphere of the fixed stars is incited by a transcendent
unmoved mover. II
There is no evidence that anyone before Aristotle adopted the theory of
solid (that is, material) spheres. In the Myth of Er, Plato describes a set of
concentric whorls (sphondulos") lying within one another, which carry
the planets." These whorls were evidently rings with circular rims and
may be compared with the nest of rings envisaged by Parmenides
(stephanas peripeplegmenas"}. In the Timaeus" Plato describes the paths
of the planets as circles (kukla). He supposed the sphere of the fixed stars
to rotate from east to west, and the circles of the Sun, Moon and other
planets to rotate about the poles of the ecliptic in the contrary direction.
Venus and Mercury he placed
in an orbit equal to the Sun in speed, but endowed with a power
contrary thereto; whence it is that the Sun and the Star of Hermes
and the Morning Star regularly overtake and are overtaken by one
another. 16
This means that, according to Plato, Venus and Mercury move along
their paths with non-uniform motions, 17 but with mean motion equal to
that of the Sun. The stars he believed to have two motions; a rotation of
each on its own axis (for circular motion belongs to reason and
intelligence, which is the essence of the stars!") and the diurnal motion of
the whole sphere of the fixed stars." Astronomy, as defined by Plato, is
concerned with "the courses of the stars and Sun and Moon, and their
relative speeds" .20
A mathematical realization of the kind of concentric astronomy
envisaged by Plato was attempted by Eudoxus of Cnidus in a lost work
entitled On speeds (Peri tahhon], This is known to us through a brief
description in Aristotle's Metaphysics" and a longer but still incomplete
account in the commentary of Simplicius on Aristotle's De caelo."
Aristotle considered the number of spheres to be a problem for
investigation by astronomy, "that branch of mathematical science which
is most akin to philosophy". 23 The kinship lies in the fact that astronomy is
physical rather than mathematical, though combining both disciplines."
Eudoxus had supposed the motions of the Sun and Moon each to involve

78 E.]. AITON
three spheres, the outermost of which had the same motion as that of the
fixed stars and the second revolving about the poles of the ecliptic. In the
case of the Moon, the second sphere produced the retrograde motion of
the nodes," while the third sphere, carrying the Moon, rotated on an axis
inclined at a small angle to the axis of the ecliptic. The motion of the
Sun, like that of the Moon, required three spheres because astronomers
attributed to the Sun a motion in latitude from an imaginary ecliptic. 26
The motions of the planets in each case involved four spheres. As
envisaged by Eudoxus, the systems of the spheres for the different planets
were separate from one another.
Aristotle and Simplicius relate that Callippus assumed the same
arrangement with respect to the order but added two further spheres
each for the Sun and Moon and one for each of the other planets.
Aristotle explains, however, that if all the homocentric spheres in
combination are to account for the phenomena (ta phainomena
apodosein 27) , there must be added for each planet other spheres (also
concentric with the universe), one less in number than those already
mentioned, which counteract the latter and restore to the same position
the first sphere of the planet which in each case is next in order below. By
means of these counteracting or unrolling spheres (anellittousai sphairai),
Aristotle was able to establish a mechanical link between the planets,
which nevertheless permitted the outermost sphere of each planet,
disentangled from the motions of the planets above, to transmit the
diurnal motion.
2. SAVING THE APPEARANCES.
The astronomical practice of 'saving the appearances' has usually been

attributed to Plato, following the report of Simplicius, quoting Sosigenes,
that Plato had g-iven the astronomers this problem: "through what
uniform, reg-ular motions, admitted as hypotheses, would the appearances
of the planetary motions be completely saved.':" Although the word
'circular' does not appear at this point, the omission is evidently
unintended, for in describing the hypotheses admitted by astrohomers,
Simplicius had just remarked that the nature of the stars required their
motions to be "circular, uniform and regular", 2" and in another reference
to Plato's supposed challenge, he states that the appearances were to be
saved through "uniform, circular and reg-ular motions"(di' homalon kai
egkuklion kai tetagmenon hineseini)," Althoug-h the idea of saving the
appearances by the invention of imaginary circles seems quite foreign to
the thought of Plato, this interpretation of Simplicius, .adopted in the

influential works of Duhem." has only recently been brought into

question.
The expression 'to save the appearances' (sozein. ta phainomena) is not
to be found in Plato but he does refer to "saving' the probable
explanation". For example, in discussing the assignment of the regular
solids to the elements, he writes: "Wherefore, we are preserving the
probable explanation (diasozein ton eikota logon) when we assign this
figure [the cube] to earth ,":" Again, the primary role of physical (and
metaphysical) explanation is emphasized by Plato in the Timaeus, where
he remarks that, in explaining the origins of individual things, both
mechanical causes and divine purposes must be considered, and
moreover, that if we wish to attain a true scientific explanation, which
satisfies the human reason, we must be primarily concerned with the
causes that lie outside the material in the realm of the spiritual. 33
According to Simplicius" (quoting Sosigenes), Eudoxus was the first
Greek to attempt a mathematical hypothesis to save the appearances, in
response to Plato's supposed challenge. jurgen Mittelstrass has suggested,
however, that the idea of saving the appearances originated not with
Plato but with Eudoxus himself. 35 In a late work, the Laws, Plato remarks
that he had learnt of a new theory not long before. According to this
theory, the idea that the planets wander is not correct and the truth is
precisely the opposite, so that, as Plato explains, "each of them always
travels in a circle in one and the same path-i- not many paths, although it
appears to move along many paths". 36 In the view of Mittelstrass." these
remarks refer to the theory of Eudoxus, in which it became clear to Plato
that a wonderful order ruled behind the visible motions of the planets.
But the astronomy of Eudoxus, as Mittelstrass emphasizes, did not
represent a purely empirical approach, like that of the Babylonians, but
an axiomatic approach, which permits the possibility of making
astronomy a deductive science. Now the appearances that the hypotheses
of Eudoxus" saved were not regarded by him as simply perceived
(fictitious) motions but as the actual motions of the planets, which in the
Timaeus Plato had described as non-uniform. They were the first
anomaly with the sidereal period and the second anomaly (stations and
retrogressions) within the synodic period. Moreover, the axiomatic basis
of concentric uniform circular motion was regarded, at least by Aristotle,
as descriptive of reality. Thus, by the introduction of his counteracting
spheres to connect the separate systems of the theory of Eudoxus and
Callippus, Aristotle explained the appearances physically (apodidonoi
physlkos) from the nature of the stars. This procedure, F. Lassere" has
remarked, IS reminiscent of the principle of Anaxagoras, that

80 E. J. AITON
'phenomena' provide a 'vision' of 'things that are obscure'. 40 In other

words, the evidence of the senses provides a basis for inferences
concerning- what cannot be directly observed.
In the view of Fritz Krafft, II Mittelstrass is mistaken in taking
apodidonai and sozein as synonyms. For sozein ta phainomena implies
a challenge to save the appearances only (without representing
them physically) and could only make sense if there were at least two
mathematical theories which represented the appearances equally well.
This situation had not yet arisen in the time of Eudoxus.
The investig-ations of Erkka Maula lend further support to the view that
the intention of Eudoxus was to explain the motions of the planets. or at
least to develop a mathematical theory that was not only in agreement with
the appearances but also with the physical (or metaphysical) theory of
Plato underlying the construction of the world-soul in the 'Fimaeus.
Maula claims to identify the source of the parameters of the theory of
Eudoxus, including the obliquity of the ecliptic, in the harmonic basis of
Plato's theory and to reconstruct Eudoxus's computational and
observational methods. I~ Most exciting- is Maula's reconstruction of
Eudoxus's instrument, the arachne, which is "a plane projection of the
pivotal features of the ever rotating- spheres", and the subsequent
discovery of a copy of the arachne, on a larg-er scale, in the form of a
temple of Aphrodite. n
Althoug-h it is clear that Aristotle himself did not reg-ard the problem of
the motions of the planets as finally solved, II the work in which he is said
by Sosigenes to have doubted the hypotheses of the astronomers. because
the apparent sizes of the planets do not always remain the same. is
unfortunately lost. However, it must have been such problems as the
inequality of the seasons and the appearances of Venus that led to the
introduction of eccentrics and epicycles, I', while the failure of
homocentric astronomy was finally confirmed by the observation of
differences in the nature of solar eclipses. According- to Ptolemy, the
proof of the equivalence of the deferent-epicycle combination and the
eccentric was given in about 244 B.C. by Apollonius of Perga , Ih This proof
introduced a new situation; namely the existence of' two mathematical
models which represented the appearances equally well. It was clearly
impossible that both could be physically true, so that the conditions for
the formulation of 'saving- the appearances' as a methodolog-ical principle
for astronomy had come into being.
A distinction between physics (physiologia) and astronomy (aslrologia}
is neatly drawn by Geminus in a commentary on a work of Posidonius,
who founded a school in Rhodes in about 103 R,C, According- to Gcminus,

the astronomer seeks hypotheses on the basis of which the appearances

(phainomena) can be saved (sothesetai). However, although he does not
concern himself with physical causes, the astronomer must nevertheless
take over from physics the principles of uniform circular motion.V That
the terminology really belongs to Posidonius finds confirmation, in
Krafft's view, in the fact that Geminus, in his own work on astronomy,
does not use sozein but symphonein (to be in harmony with) and
similar expressions." In support of his attribution of the methodological
principle of 'saving the appearances' to Posidonius, Krafft notes that, on
the one hand, older documents for the formula sozein ta phainomena
do not exist, and on the other hand, the dispositions to positivism needed
for the concept of 'saving the appearances' first appeared with the Stoics.
For a physical system (that of Aristotle) had been offered, which claimed
uniform circular motions without being able to represent the apparent
variations, and there existed two mathematical models which represented
the appearances equally well, while failing to correspond to an accepted
physics. This situation called for hypotheses that would save the
appearances but respect, as axioms, the physical principles of uniform
circular motion. Thus the emphasis shifted from the Platonic and
Aristotelian concern with causes to a primary concern with the
appearances, but the mathematical hypotheses demanded of the
astronomers were nevertheless required to offer at least the possibility of a
physical explanation.
3. SOSIGENES ON ARISTOTLE'S SPHERES
Sosigenes, the teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias," offered a physical

basis for the eccentrics and epicycles, the hypotheses which could really
save the appearances. The theory of Sosigenes, described by Simplicius in
his commentary on Aristotle's De caelo, has been the subject of a detailed
analysis by Matthias Schramm. 50
Among the objections to the homocentric spheres of Eudoxus and his
followers, Sosigenes cites the decisive proof of the variation in the distance
of the Sun or Moon or both provided by the first observation of an
annular eclipse of the Sun in Athens in A.D. 164. 5 \ That his criticism was
directed principally against the physical spheres of Aristotle rather than
the system of spheres of Eudoxus is clearly indicated by the title of his lost
work, On the counteracting spheres (Peri ton Anelittouson), in which he
used the 'term (anelittousai) wholly in the sense of Aristotle, unlike
Simplicius, who gave it a wider meaning. The theories of eccentrics and
epicycles seemed to Sosigenes simpler than those of homocentric and

82 E.]. AITON
counteracting spheres (for they did not need the circulation of so many
spheres) and they saved the appearances that the older hypotheses could
not save. However, Sosigenes adds that they failed to satisfy the axiom of
Aristotle which states that the heavenly bodies rotate about the centre of
the universe. But Sosigenes claims:
The axiom is more true [malton alethesi which says that every circularly
moved body {kukophoretikon soma] rotates about its own centre,
because of all the heavenly bodies, which have the centre of the
world for centre, it is correct to say that they move themselves about
the centre of the universe, and because that which lies outside this
centre and separated in greater depth, rotates about its own centre,
as the stars, the epicycle and the eccentric, in so far as such bodies
exist in the heaven. S2
Evidently Sosigenes is anxious to depart from Aristotle as little as possible,
for he goes on to show that his 'truer axiom' is not really in conflict with
Aristotle's, if the latter is correctly interpreted. In effect, he attempts to
'save the probable explanation' in the sense of Plato. For these heavenly
bodies, he asserts,
move themselves about the centre of the universe, if not in the
motion proper to them, yet in the motion of the sphere which carries
them and is homocentric with the universe. In this sense the
proposition of Aristotle may be taken as true, that every circularly
moved body is carried about the centre of the universe, provided we
do not suppose it is carried in the motion proper to it."
With this remark, says Schramm, Sosigenes achieves a double goal. First,
he shows the possibility of reconciling Aristotle's teaching with the new
astronomy of eccentrics and epicycles. Secondly, he develops a basis for
an explanation of the diurnal rotation of the universe with the sphere of
the fixed stars without the counteracting spheres of Aristotle. For he
conceives the individual motions of the heavenly bodies to be relative to
the fixed star enclosure; the whole complex of all the heavenly bodies is
then carried around with this enclosure in a daily rotation.
A sphere rotating on its own centre will always occupy the same space,
but an eccentric, moving about a centre not its own" (namely, the centre
of the universe) continually occupies new space and vacates the old.
Consequently, says Sosigenes, it would leave a void in the space that it
vacates. ',', But this and other difficulties can be solved, he explains, if the
eccentric spheres are supposed t,o be embedded in homocentric spheres.
By their motion about the centre of the universe, the homocentric spheres
carry the eccentric spheres with them, while these at the same time move

about their own centres. Then Sosigenes adds, "And we shall take all
spheres to be complete [teleios], for in connection with this, we do not
need to be alarmed because one body inter-penetrates another". 56 We
may therefore interpret sphairai teleiai as spheres with one surface, that
is, 'solid spheres'. Although 'solid' is here used in a geometrical sense,
Sosigenes's spheres are physical but of a surprising nature. For he sees
nothing objectionable in the assumption that the bodies which move the
planets (homocentric spheres with embedded eccentrics) inter-penetrate
one another." Thus, according to Schramm, the aether, for Sosigenes,
becomes a quasi-field, which forces the motions of the planets after the
pattern of the astronomical calculations.
4. PTOLEMY
Ptolemy's Syntaxis mathematica (commonly known as the Almagest)

contains data for his own observations ranging from A.D. 124 to A.D. 141
and was probably completed soon after the end of this interval." Since
the Planetary hypotheses quotes the Almagest, this work was evidently
written later but most likely before the work of Sosigenes. There is no
evidence of direct influence either way, though there are striking
similarities of viewpoint, especially concerning the aether and the
explanation of the diurnal motion without the counteracting spheres. As
far as physical theory is concerned, Sosigenes followed Aristotle, while
Ptolemy looked more to Plato.
The doctrine of the spheres was an essential part of Ptolemy's
astronomy, as is clear from the Planetary hypotheses. 60 Near the
beginning Ptolemy mentions that, for greater clarity he will represent the
motions of the planets only with circles, as if they were separated from the
spheres which surround them;" In his exposition of the astronomical
system of eccentrics and epicycles, Ptolemy therefore follows the method
he had adopted in the Almagest. In the Planetary hypotheses he places
Venus and Mercury below the Sun62 (in the Almagest he admitted there
was no objective criterion for planetary distances) and develops a theory
of the planetary distances on the assumption that the spheres of the
planets are arranged contiguously, so that the "least distance of a sphere
is considered equal to the greatest distance of the sphere below it". t,' In
Book II of the Planetary hypotheses, Ptolemy considers the nature of the
spheres." From the mathematical point of view. he remarks, there is no
ditference between the following two modes of explanation. The first'
attributes to each motion of a planet a whole sphere, either hollow (a
spherical shell) like the spheres which surround one another or the Earth,

84 E. J. AITON
or solid (having one surface) like those which move the planets and are
called epicycles. The second attributes to each motion of the planet only
a part of a sphere, extending on both sides of the ecliptic just far enough
to allow for the motion of the planets in latitude. In the case of the
epicycles, these pieces of spheres take the form of discs (tambourines),
and in the case of a hollow sphere (or spherical shell), the piece takes the
form of a ring (or annulus), such as, in Ptolemy's view, Plato describes. 65
Remarking that we need not attribute to the aethereal bodies the same
properties that we find in terrestrial objects, Ptolemy rejects the
counteracting spheres which Aristotle had introduced to provide a
mechanical link between the spheres of the different planets." He locates
the moving forces in the planets themselves (another indication of his
preference for Plato), so that the self-moving planet communicates its
motion first to its epicycle, then to the deferent sphere, and finally to the
spherical shell (concentric with the universe) which encloses these. 67 In
the case of the first mode of describing the planetary motions, a sphere of
aether must be included between the spheres of neighbouring planets to
transmit the diurnal motion." In the case of the second mode, these
aether spheres may be discarded. For in this case, only three (whole)
spheres are needed; namely, the sphere that moves the fixed stars, the sphere of
the fixed stars themselves and the sphere that moves all the rest of the aether. 69
This simplicity, whereby the appearances are saved with fewer spheres,
leads Ptolemy to prefer the second mode. The planets are thus moved on
the one hand by the ambient aether, which transmits to all of them the
diurnal motion, and on the other hand by their innate force, which
produces their own motion and that of their epicycles and deferents. 70
5. PROCLUS
Proclus (fifth century A.D.) was the last great representative of

Neoplatonism in the ancient world and exerted a considerable influence
on Nicholas of Cusa and the Renaissance Platonism of the Florentine
Academy." In his HYpOtYPOSl!/" Proclus mentions the fitting of the spheres
of Mercury and Venus between the Moon and the Sun as the opinion held
by some. Neugebauer?" concludes from this that Proclus did not know
Book II of the Planetary hypotheses, where Ptolemy definitely places
them in this position. In his commentary on the Timaeus, Proclus
remarks that, in the Planetary hypotheses, Ptolemy is not greatly
concerned with the distances of the planets." This suggests that he was
not familiar with the last section of Book I. If, as therefore seems
probable, Proclus had only the part of the Planetary hypotheses that now

exists in Greek, he did not know that the doctrine of space-filling nested
spheres, which he mentioned briefly without attribution to any named
astronomer, 7" had the authority of Ptolemy.
Proclus regarded the epicycles and eccentrics as pure fictions existing
only in the mind of the astronomer. 76 If real bodies of this kind existed, he
believed that they would disrupt the heavens. On the other hand,
mathematical circles could not explain the natural causes of the motions,
which (following Plato) he 'located in the planets themselves. Plato, he
remarks, had no need of the "fictitious hypotheses of epicycles". 77
According to the interpretation of Proclus, Plato saw the planets as
intermediate between the beings which are moved with absolute
uniformity (the stars) and those which are moved with absolute
irregularity (terrestial beings), so that the anomalies in their movement
imply regularity in returning to the same point. 7~ Moreover, it is by virtue
of their own nature that they have these anomalies.I" However, Proclus
recognized the usefulness of the fictitious hypotheses of epicycles and
eccentrics in reducing the complex motions of the planets to order. HO
These devices could not explain the physical causes of the motions but
they served to render them intelligible.
6. THE ARABS
At least five Arabic translations of the Almagest had been made by the
end of the ninth century." The translation of Thabit ibn Qurra (836-
901), which was a revision of that of Ishaq ibn Hunayn, formed the basis
for the later and most influential edition of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. Thabit
is also credited with the ,correction of an already existing Arabic
translation of Ptolemy'S Planetary hypotheses. H2 The attribution was
made on the strength of a credit in the margin of one of the manuscripts,
but apart from this dubious indication there is no evidence that Thabit
knew this work of Ptolemy. H3 From the remarks of Maimonides and
Albertus Magnus" it is evident that in his lost work, On the motion of the
spheres, Thabit himself followed the doctrines of Ptolemy's Planetary
hypotheses, which he may have learnt through an intermediate source.
The system of nested spheres is described, though without attribution to
Ptolemy;" in the work of a contemporary, al-Farghani (Alfraganus}."
Another contemporary, al-Battani, whose tables imply a thorough
familiarity with Ptolemy'S system, ascribed the theory of contiguous
spheres underlying the planetary distances to "more recent scientists after
Ptolemy". ~7 Ptolemy'S authorship probably first became known when the
Planetary hypotheses was translated into Arabic, some time before al-

86 E. J. AITON
Biruni.
In his treatise, On the configuration of the universe (Fi hay'at al-
'alam], Ibn al-Havtham (Alhazen, c. 965-c. 1039) sought, like Sosigenes,
to reconcile Aristotle's physics with Ptolemy's theory of the motions of the
planets. ~~ At the beginning of the third part, concerning the heavenly
bodies and their motions, Alhazen explains that the term [alah'"
(corresponding to sphaira) applies to any round quantity, as for example
a globular body, a spherical surface, the surface of a disc or the
circumference of a circle." though in the sequel it is generally used to
denote a spherical shell. According to Alhazen, the universe is divided
into nine contiguous, concentric spherical shells. The spherical bodies
envisaged by Alhazen were, in addition to the epicyclic sphere (al-Jalak
al-tadunr), spherical shells of non-uniform thickness, complementing the
deferent eccentric shell (al-Jalak al-hamil)" to make up the total
concentric shell constituting the sphere of the planet (al-falak al-
mumaththal). 'I~ The system is different from that of Sosigenes, whose
spheres were all complete, so thatan embedded sphere actually occupied
some of the same space as the surrounding sphere.
Although Alhazen's acount is purely descriptive and makes no use of
mathematical demonstrations, there is no indication that his
constructions were intended to be understood simply as illustrative
models. First, Alhazen declares that he operates with complete spheres
and not mere circles, "because that is more true with reference to the
description of the state of affairs and is clearer for the understanding". 'n
That he intended his account to be taken as a description of a physical
theoryis confirmed by his classification of the work as belonging to the
physical as opposed to the mathematical sciences, which may be found in
an autobiography quoted by Ibn Abi Usaybi'a." Moreover, there is an
appendix to the treatise, On the configuration of the universe, in which
Alhazen describes the underlying principles, leaving no doubt that his
intention was to reconcile the mathematical theory of Ptolemy'S Almagest
with Aristotle's physics."
Alhazen's treatise, On the configuration of the universe, was an early
work. Later, he wrote a critique of Ptolemy's works, including the
Planetary hypotheses. Of this, he commented that "many of the motions
demanded in the Almagest had been left our'"."
Al-Biruni (973-1048), a contemporary of Alhazen, refers to the theory
of contiguous spheres set out by Ptolemy III his "Kitab al-Manshu rat . and
in which he has been followed by the ancient and modern astronomers"."
There is a reference in a thirteenth century Arabic work to Kitab at-
Maush u.rat as an alternative title for Ptolemy's Planetary hyjJOthese.\

CELESTIAL SPHERES AND CIRCLES· 87
(otherwise called Kitab al-Ikusas) and the Arabic manuscript of this work
confirms Hartner's surmise that the term 'al-rnanshurat' means 'discs' or
'sawn pieces' (prismata)."
Alhazen's treatise, On the configuration of the universe, was widely
known in the Islamic world. His theory is described in the Cosmography
of al-Qazwini'" (thirteenth century) and in the astronomical treatise of al-
jaghmini!" (fourteenth century). After explaining Alhazen's physical
spheres, al-jaghmini describes the mathematical circles of Ptolemy's
models in the Almagest, remarking that each circle is called by the name
of the sphere in which it is found. 101
The Spanish philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1128 - 98) and his
contemporary al-Bitruji (Alpetragius) also adopted a realist position but
demanded a return to the physical principles of Aristotle. Against the
existence of epicycles and eccentrics, Averroes argues that, if the celestial
motions admitted several centres, there would be several heavy bodies
exterior to the Earth. 102 Again, epicycles were impossible because
circularly moved bodies must move about a fixed centre, 103 and eccentrics
were impossible, because they would entail either a void between the
celestial bodies, or the filling of this space with bodies that were not
naturally spherical and which would therefore remain at rest. IlH All these
objections were founded on the physics of Aristotle. Besides, Averroes
could find nothing in the works of the astronomers that supported
eccentrics, except the eclipses of the Moon, and he added: "perhaps it is
possible to invent an astronomy in agreement with that which appears
concerning the Moon, without the eccentric sphere. "Illr, Since the
epicycles and eccentrics were considered to be impossible, it was necessary
to consider again the investigation of a true astronomy, founded on
principles of physics. In fact, said Averroes, "the astronomy of our time
does not exist; it agrees with calculation, but does not accord with what
is" . 106 A true astronomy, in his view, would be an astronomy of
homocentric spheres. In his youth, Averroes had hoped to produce such
an astronomy himself, but now expressed the wish that his words would
encourage someone else to produce it.
Alpetragius produced the kind of astronomy that Averroes had in
mind. This was a homocentric astronomy but not a revival of that of
Eudoxus, of which he seems to have had no knowledge. Although
Avempace, the founder of the Aristotelian school in Spain, like Averroes
had rejected epicycles (but not eccentrics),"? Alpetragius derived his
inspiration from neither of these but from the instruction of his teacher,
Ibn al- Tufail (Abubacerj.!" In effect, Alpetragius attempts to reconcile
the mathematical theory of Ptolemy'?" with the physical principles of

88 E. J. AITON
Aristotle by locating the deferent and epicycle in the vicinity of the pole
of the equator of a homocentric sphere, where they control the rotations
of the planetary spheres and hence the motion of the planet in the
neighbourhood of .the ecliptic.!'" Although Alpetragius took all his
parameters from Ptolemy, his models were inferior as representations of
the apparent motions of the planets. III Duheru'" has suggested that the
device of polar deferents and epicycles may have had a Greek origin,
though no reference has been found in a Greek source. In support of his
surmise, Duhem remarks that the order of letters employed by
Alpetragius in his geometrical demonstration follows that of the Greek
alphabet.
A century later, the Persian astronomer Nasir aI-Din al-Tusi, in his
Memorial of astronomy (Tadhkirah fi 'ilm al-hay'ah], II" criticized the
planetary models of Ptolemy and introduced the device now called the
Tusi-couple, which was applied by Ibn al-Shatir, for example, to produce
a lunar theory identical to that of Copernicus. I H Al-Tusi's aim was to find
a representation in better accord with the Aristotelian postulates (after
the manner of Sosigenes) rather than to remove the variations in distance
of the Ptolemaic theory which were inconsistent with observations. II',
Thus, although only some of the appearances were to be saved (namely
the long-itudes), they had to be saved in accordance with true
'astronomical principles'. Al-Tiisi's interest in physical mechanism is
demonstrated by his reference to the nested eccentric and concentric
spheres described by Alhazen: in effect the representation described by
Ptolemy in the Planetary hypotheses. l l h He quotes Alhazen as sug-gesting
that the complete spheres could be replaced by discs, but he remarks that
such a non-spherical system would conflict with the principles of
astronomical science. Iii
7. THE SPHERES OF ARISTOTLE AND PTOLEMY IN THE LA TIN WEST
The system of Alpetragius entered the Latin west in the translation of

Michael Scot, completed in 1217. m This system seems to have been
favoured from the philosophical point of view by Robert Grosseteste, 11'1
who influenced Campanus and Roger Bacon, though he used the
Ptolemaic system of the Almagest in his calendrical work. Roger Bacon
(c. 1219 - 92) described and commented critically on the planetary
theories of Ptolemy and Alpetragius without deciding in favour of one or
the other. Moreover, he introduced into the Latin west the theory of solid
(that is, material) spheres proposed by Ptolemy in the Planetary
hypotheses and adopted by Alhazen, but without mentioning either by

name. Indeed Bacon referred to the theory of solid planetary spheres as a

certain imagination of the moderns.I'" All philosophers, he remarked,
had believed the heavenly motions to be necessarily circular, continuous
(that is, in one direction)!" and uniform. Ptolemy, he believed, had
supposed the planets to describe circles whose centres were outside the
centre of the world, namely the eccentrics and epicycles, in order to
reconcile the appearances with these astronomical principles. 122. One of
the objections that he raised to the system of Ptolemy was the assumption
of two primary motions for the sphere of fixed stars (that is, the diurnal
motion from east to west and the slow motion in the opposite direction
which accounted for the precession of the equinoxesj.!" because in
questions of physics it was better to suppose simplicity and unity rather
than composition and plurality.!" On the other hand, Bacon claimed to
have an answer to Averroes's objection, that the rotation of the eccentrics
about the centre of the world would leave a vacuum in their wake. For in
his view, this problem could be resolved by supposing the eccentric sphere
(orbis) to move about its own centre and not about the centre of the
world. 12', The alternative to Aristotle's axiom stated here by Bacon is no
other than the axiom of Sosigenes. All these arguments of Bacon show
that he associated the traditional 'apparentias salvare' with a physical
theory, so that the function of the astronomer was not simply to invent
mathematical hypotheses for the purpose of saving the appearances but,
as in classical times with Geminus and Posidonius, to formulate
hypotheses that would save the appearances while being consistent with
physical principles.
Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225 - 74), in his commentary on Aristotle's De
caelo, written in the last years of his life, used and quoted the ideas of
Simplicius, whose commentary on Aristotle's work had been translated
into Latin by William of Moerbeke, while the physics of Sosigenes was
explained by Aquinas's friend Henricus Bate in his Speculum divinorum
et quorundam naturalium.t" Aquinas followed Simplicius in attributing
to Plato the idea of 'saving the appearances' .12; Having described in
outline Aristotle's development of the theory of Eudoxus and Callippus.!"
he objected that, on the one. hand the theory could not explain the
variation in distance, which needea (he eccentrics and epicycles of
Hipparchus and Ptolemy, and on the other hand, the multitude of
spheres!" was unreasonable, especially the attribution to each planet of a
sphere for the diurnal motion, when this could be saved by the revolution
of the whole heaven with the supreme spherc.!" In effect Aquinas
adopted the doctrines advocated by Ptolemy in the Planetary hypotheses
and by Sosigenes. Again, he remarked that, in the case of the hypotheses

90 E. J. AITON
of eccentrics and epicycles, all bodies were moved about the centre of the
world following the diurnal motion.!" Here he was clearly following
Sosigenes in attempting to reconcile the hypotheses of Ptolemy with the
fundamental axiom of Aristotle. A curious feature of Aquinas's account is
that, while he regarded the deferents or eccentrics as solid (that is,
material) spheres, the epicycles he conceived simply as geometrical
circles. Thus he remarked that the planets were not fixed to them but
moved along them as it were with a progressive motion; that is, as
through a fluid. 132
Campanus of Novara, in his Theorica planetarum (c. 1262),
expounded the system of Ptolemy and calculated the sizes and distances
of the planets in accordance with the theory of contiguous nested spheres
described in the Planetary hypotheses. According to Campanus, all the
spheres (including the elemental spheres) were concentric but in the case
of the celestial spheres (that is, the hollow spherical shells within whose
boundaries the planets moved), the celestial circles by which the motions
of the planets were effected were eccentric.!" The sources used by
Campanus were the Almagest, probably in Gerard of Crernona's
translation, and the Latin translation by John of Seville of the work of al-
Farghani (Alfraganus) already mentioned, in which the system of nested
spheres of Ptolemy'S Planetary hypotheses is set out. 134 Although available
only in manuscript, Campanus's work continued to be cited as late as the
seventeenth century; by Kepler, for example.
The most commonly used textbook from the thirteenth to the
seventeenth century was the Tractatus de sphera of Iohannes de
Sacrobosco, written a little earlier than the work of Campanus.
Sacrobosco described the system of Ptolemy's Almagest, though evidently
through an intermediate source, and he also cited Alfraganus. His
meagre treatment of the planetary motions was supplemented by an
anonymous Theoricae planetarum, which is sometimes attributed to
Gerard of Crernona.!" Sacrobosco gave two definitions of 'sphere'; first,
Euclid's definition and secondly, the definition of Theodosius, according
to which a sphere is a solid body contained within a single surface. 136
Commenting on this definition, probably in about 1271, Robertus
Anglicus!" remarked that 'solid' could be understood in three senses;
namely, hard, continuous and three-dimensional. The Earth was solid in
the first sense, while the celestial bodies were solid in the second and third
senses but were not necessarily hard. According to Sacrobosco the sphere
was divided in two ways; by substance and by accident. 138 By substance it
was divided into the ninth sphere or primum mobile, the sphere of the
fixed stars and the seven spheres of the planets. Each of these spheres

enclosed its inferiors spherically.!" Quoting Aristotle's Meteorologica.r"

he described the layers of water, air and fire surrounding the Earth and
reaching as far as the sphere of the Moon (orb em lune). He described the
three elements as surrounding the Earth spherically (orbicular-iter). 141
Again, quoting Lucan, he used the term 'orbis' in relation to the circle of
the zodiac and also in the sense of 'world' in a non-astronomical context.
It seems clear that, in the most influential textbook from the thirteenth to
the seventeenth century, the term 'orbis' could mean sphere, circle or
world.
Bernard of Verdun (late thirteenth century) decided firmly in favour of
Ptolemy'S epicycles and eccentrics embodied in solid spheres and against
the concentric system of Alpetragius.!" That homocentric astronomy
could not save the appearances was also the view of Jean Buridan, the
most influential teacher of natural philosophy at the University of Paris in
the fourteenth century. Difficulties concerning the Moon's appearance
led him to treat epicycles with suspicion, so that he favoured models
employing only eccentrics. Against Averroes's objections, he argues that
eccentric motion is simple, uniform and regular (that is, in one
direction) with respect to its centre, though not with respect to the Earth,
and that this suffices. Here again we recognize the axiom of Sosigenes.
The physical spheres envisaged by Buridan were those of Alhazen, in
which two shells of non-uniform thickness, one above and the other
below, complement the eccentric shell to make up the total concentric
sphere of the planet. 143 This theory was also taught by Nicole Oresme (c.
1325 - 82) in his Traite de la sphere, 144 to which he refers the reader of his
Livre du ciel et du monde for better understanding. 145 Marsilius of Inghen
(c. 1340 - 96), in his lectures at Heidelberg, taught both the theory of
complete spheres and also the alternative theory of discs and rings that
had been suggested by Ptolemy in his Planetary hypotheses. 146
8. THE RENAISSANCE ALTERNATIVE TO ARISTOTLE
It was on a voyage from Constantinople in 1437 that Nicholas of Cusa

(Cusanus) made the discovery of the principle of learned ignorance,
which became the fundamental concept of his philosophy and provided
the title for his major work, De docta ignorantia. In his view truth was
indivisible and, in its complete form, unattainable for finite beings,
though it could be approached asymptotically, as a polygon, by
continued division of its sides, approaches a circle without ever becoming
a circle. 147 This idea of a positive, though incomplete knowledge of the
natural world, a world of quantity in which everything is subject to the

92 E. J. AITON
distinction of more or less, is just one aspect of the doctrine of learned

ignorance. Another is the principle of the coincidence of opposites in the
infinite.14~ Consider, for example, a motion in a circle with infinite
velocity. Given any point on the circle, a body with such a motion will
always be in this point; that is, the body will be at rest. Hence rest and
infinite motion coincide. 14'1 These limiting forms, like those of any
concept involving quantity, are excluded from the natural world, so that
the universe, both as a whole and in its parts, is indeterminate. \,,11 It lacks
both a circumference and a centre. Since no body can be at rest in a
world of quantity (that is, have an absolute minimum of motion), the
Earth itself is in motion, though this motion is neither the diurnal not the
annual motion of Copernicus but a slow motion (the slowest of all the
heavenly spheres) about a constantly shifting centre. \'01
Cusanus sees no essential difference between the Earth and the Sun. If
the observer were situated outside the sphere of fire, then in his view the
Earth also would appear as a brilliant star.!" Again, since there is no
fixed centre, bodies cannot have a natural instinct to move towards or
around such a centre. All bodies, according to Cusanus, seek perfection,
and following the Platonic doctrine, this implies a tendency to form
spherical wholes, the sphere being the most perfect of geometrical
figures. ",,, Here it is the geometrical figure alone which makes the motion
natural and not, as for Aristotle, the nature of the spheres themselves.
Although Cusanus retains the elemental spheres, and even surrounds the
other heavenly bodies with such spheres, he clearly rejects the Aristotelian
cosmos and Aristotelian physics. ">!
Marsilio Ficino, the founder of the Platonic Academy in Florence,
saw himself as the descendant of a long line of Latin Platonists. This
is clear from a letter he wrote to a friend who had sought instruction
in Platonic philosophy.!" Among others, Ficino mentioned Augustine.
Dionysius the Areopagite, Proclus, Boethius, Calcidius and Cusanus. In
Ficino's view, the Sun regulates the circulations of the other planets, in
the sense that the planet is not permitted to complete its journey in the
epicycle before it has again (by a conjunction) met the Sun, which is as its
master.!" This idea of a heliocentrism of importance, as it may be called,
owed much to the influence of the Hermetic tradition', which Ficino
sought to absorb into what he called Platonism."?
Each sphere, according to Ficino, had its soul; not only the planetary
spheres and that of the fixed stars, but the Earth itself and even the
elemental spheres surrounding the Earth. Jr,~ He claims to be following the
Pythagoreans in supposing: that the ascent and descent of the elements is
the action of the souls of the elemental spheres, which attract separated

parts of their own spheres, as the magnet attracts iron. 1','1 In effect, Ficino
replaces the Aristotelian doctrine of natural place by the Platonic idea
that the elements "cleave to their own kindred" .'hll
The orientation of cosmology in Ficino is contrary to the process of
mechanization of the world picture and there is no tendency towards the
development of mathematical methods. Ihl Yet there is nothing in Ficino's
animism to preclude the possibility of a mathematical description. For
the souls of the celestial spheres do not act capriciously but in a perfectly
ordered manner. This is in accordance with their nature, which "may be
characterized as a serene wisdom, untroubled by discursive thought,
completely preoccupied with the performance of a single act, namely the
perfect, unchanging motions of their spheres. ' h2
Giovanni Gioviano Pontano (1426 - 1503), who was quoted by
Rheticus and whose work was known to Copernicus."? followed the
Neoplatonic interpretation, holding that the celestial bodies achieved
their movements and revolutions spontaneously, in virtue of an internal
power and without the assistance of external forces.!" He attempted to
justify his rejection of epicycles and eccentrics as real bodies by an appeal
to observation, arguing that, since the bodies of the stars themselves,
formed by condensation of their sphere (orbis) were visible, the circles
(circuli) that carried the planets, which would also have been formed by
condensation, should likewise be visible but they were not. Like Proclus,
he regarded the epicycles and eccentrics as having been invented simply
for the comprehension of the celestial motions. But Pontano seems also to
have rejected the concentric shells within which the planets moved. For
he declared:
I observe no lines in general, no separation of the spheres or
curvature of the circles, since indeed there are none; the stars do not
need them, and in fact these are moved by themselves, without the
help of external supports or deferent circles or revolving discs
[valutantium rata rum] . Ih',
Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples (Iacobus Faber Stapulensis, c. 1455 - 1537) not
only aimed to restore the original meaning of Aristotle which he believed
to be distorted in the medieval translations!" but also edited the collected
works of Cusanus.!'" He regarded the study of Aristotle only as a
preliminary that would enable the student "gradually to scale the heights
of contemplation, instructed by Cusanus and the divine Dionysius and
others like them". IIiK The work of the astronomer he saw' as one of
imagination and representation (imaginaria & effictrix). Iii" But this must
be considered in the context of the teaching of Cusanus, according to

94 E. J. AITON
whom complete knowledge of reality is unattainable. Echoing the

thought of Cusanus, Ficino and other Neoplatonists, Lefevre remarks
that, as God has produed the real heavens and their real motions by an
act of his intelligence, in a similar way, the human mind composes in
imitation some fictional heavens and motions, which are images of the
true ones. In these images, as if traces left by God, the human intellect
seizes hold of truth.!"
Lefevre does not single out the eccentrics and epicycles as fictitious
hypotheses, so that his remarks would seem to apply to all the models of
Peurbach which he describes. There is however no reason to believe that,
apart from the limitations of all knowledge implied in the teaching of
Cusanus, Lefevre did not regard the models he describes as a true
representation of "the heavens and the motions of the heavens", that is, as
an approximation to reality. Duhem 171 fails to make a distinction between
the hypothetical physics envisaged by Cusanus and Lefevre, which seeks
to approach physical reality, and the astronomical method employed in
'saving the appearances', where the object is to provide a geometrical
model without having regard to reality. A 'false' geometrical model can
hardly be regarded as an image of the true heavens.
9. PEURBACH, COPERNICUS AND RHETICUS
Georg Peurbach (1423 - 61), who became a close friend of Cusanus, 17"
wrote his Theoricae novae planetarum to replace the anonymous
Theoricae planetarum which had served to supplement the Sphere of
Sacrobosco. This work of Peurbach was an elementary textbook,
intermediate between the Sphere of Sacrobosco and the Almagest itself,
introducing the reader to the Ptolemaic geometrical models as embodied in
the physical realizations described by Ptolemy in the Planetary hypotheses
and later by Alhazen.17:l Peurbach's work was published in several
editions, including translations into French and It aliarr.!" and was the
subject of numerous commentaries.
Peurbach used the term 'orbis' to describe a spherical shell with two
surfaces. The Sun had three spheres forbes) of this kind, the two extremes
being of variable thickness and the middle one (the eccentric or solar
deferent, enclosing the Sun between its surfaces) of uniform thickness.
Peurbach explains that, since the convex surface of the highest and the
concave surface of the lowest have the same centre, which is the centre of
the universe, the entire sphere (tota sphaera} of the Sun, just as that of
any other planet, is said to be concentric with the world. m. Clearly, the
'rota sphaera' is also a spherical shell of uniform thickness and represents

the planetary sphere as envisaged by Aristotle. Apart from its use in this
context, however, the term 'sphaera' is employed by Peurbach to mean a
sphere with one surface only. Thus the moon has four spheres (orbes) and
one small sphere (sphaerula}, which is also called 'epicyclus' .176 The term
'orbis' on the other hand, is also used to denote a circle, as in the
expression 'orbis signorum"!"
Regiomontanus, in his Epitome of the A lmagest, takes 'orbis' to mean
circle, in application to the deferents and epicycles of Ptolemy's
mathematical models, while 'sphaera' is used in connection with the
sphere of the fixed stars and the planetary spheres, though occasionally
the planetary spheres are described as 'orbes' .178
Lefevre d'Etaples, in his Introductorium astronomicum, where the
models of Peurbach are described, quotes and comments on some
definitions of Josse Clichtove. For example, 'orbis solidus' is defined as a
sphere with one surface, and 'orbis concavus' as a sphere with two
surfaces; that is, a spherical shell.!" These definitions are repeated in
Michael Maesrliri's Epitome astronomiae.t'" with the clarification that
solid here means three-dimensional. Maestlin also remarks that 'sphaera'
properly means 'orbis solidus' but in astronomy is often used in the sense
of 'orbis concavus': in referring to the spheres of the planets, for example.
The term 'orbis', Maestlin adds, is also used in the sense of circle.
Pedro Nunez (1502 - 78), in his Regulae & instrumenta artis
navigandi, remarked that, because Copernicus employed eccentric
spheres (orbes), it would be necessary for him to employ others so as to
complete the spheres (sphaerae) of the planets concentric with the
world. lSI In his commentary on Peurbach, he explains that the sphere
(sphaera) of the Sun consists of three contiguous spheres (orbes), and he
adds that the complete sphere (tota sphaera) of the Sun is concentric with
the universe. 18~
Sebastian Munster, in his Rudimenta mathematica, 18' gives definitions
of 'sphaera' and 'orbis' according to which 'sphaera' describes a sphere
with one surface and 'orbis' a spherical shell with two surfaces, adding
that it is the second kind that the planets have. In the preface of this
work, he consistently writes only of the 'orbes' of the planets. but as we
have seen, the term 'sphaera' was commonly used by other writers to
describe the concentric complete spheres of the planets (the 'totae
sphaerae' which, according to Munster's definitions are 'orbes') and in
this context, 'orbis' and 'sphaera' were often used as synonyms.
Copernicus himself reveals very little concerning how he arrived 'at his
new ideas. It now seems probable that he derived some inspiration for his
lunar theory from Ibn al-Shatir. 184 Documentary evidence of a link

96 E.]. AITON
between the two is still lacking, but Willy Hartner!" has discovered
evidence indicating Copernicus's acquaintance with the work of the
Persian astronomer Nasir al-Din al- Tusi: Copernicus shows a diagram of
the Tusi-couple with lettering identical to that of al- Tusi's manuscript.
Copernicus possessed copies of Regiomontanus's Epitome of the Almagest
and Ptolemy's work itself, though curiously, Peurbach's Theoricae novae
planetarum is missing from his library list as known today. 186
Noel M. Swerdlow!" has advanced the hypothesis that Copernicus was
led to the heliostatic system by his analysis of Ptolemy'S eccentric model
for the second anomaly, mentioned only briefly by Ptolemy but described
in detail by Regiomontanus. The basis of the argument is a page of
manuscript notes in Copernicus's hand in Uppsala.!" from which
parameters in the Commentariolus were evidently taken. The final step,
admitted by Swerdlow to be pure speculation, is the supposition that
Copernicus took the decision to let the Earth move around the Sun in
order to avoid an intersection of material spheres.!" Swerdlow has no
doubt that Copernicus believed his planetary models to be combinations
of "material spheres responsible for the apparent planetary motions" .1911
In support of this he mentions Copernicus's reference to the increasing
period of the planetary motions with distance, "just as if the size of the
spheres slowed down these revolutions". 191
Swerdlow's views have been criticized by Edward Rosen. 192 The point at
issue is not whether Copernicus adopted a realist position (of this there
can be no doubt!") but whether the physical requirements of material
spheres were of such primary importance to him as to influence his choice
of geometrical models. The overwhelming impression created by his
writings is that they were not. Rosen emphasizes this point when he
remarks that Copernicus's use of the words 'circulorum ipsorum' in his
announcement that he would give the "lengths of the radii of the spheres
in the explanation of the circles themselves"!" shows that the circles were
foremost in his astronomical thinking.
In De revolutionibus, Bk I, ch. 10, Copernicus uses the term 'orbis'
explicitly to mean a spherical shell with two surfaces. The 'orbes' thus
described are the complete spheres (totae sphaerae) of the planets, as
envisaged by Peurbach, for example. Copernicus explains:
the space remaining between Venus's convex sphere [convexum

orb em] and Mars's concave sphere [concavem] must be set apart as
also a sphere or spherical shell [orbem quoque sive sphaeram], both
of whose surfaces are concentric with those spheres. This sphere
receives the Earth together with its attendant, the Moon, and

whatever is contained within the Moon's sphere. 1%

Apart from this instance, Copernicus gives no indication that the spheres
he describes are anything other than geometrical constructions.
Of the words 'orbium coelestium' in the title of Copernicus's work,
Rosen!" comments that, whether or not they were added by Osiander,
they were unobjectionable, for Copernicus (like Rheticus) believed the
visible celestial bodies to be embedded in invisible spheres. But it should
be emphasized that the only invisible spheres (orbes) referred to by
Copernicus were the 'totae sphaerae', that is, the concentric shells of
uniform thickness within whose convex and concave boundaries the
deferent circles and epicycles were contained.
In both the Commentariolus and De revolutionibus, 'orbis' is used as a
synonym for 'circulus', usually meaning the deferent circle. Thus, in the
opening section of the Commentariolus, Copernicus wrote that the
ancients assumed a large number of celestial spheres (orbium caelestium)
but he remarks that Eudoxus and Callippus could not explain all
planetary appearances by concentric circles (per concentricos circulos). 197
In the first axiom - "Omnium orbium caelestium sive sphaerarum unum
centrum non esse"!" - the term 'orbis' could be interpreted as a spherical
shell, but it is also possible that he simply intended to include in his
formal statement the two terms in common use for the description of the
celestial spheres. In the preface of De revolutionibus, 'orbis' is used in the
sense of the world, where Copernicus writes of the world's spheres
(sphaerae orb is), 199 while in Bk. I, ch. 6, he writes of the whole sphere
(tota sphaeraj2°o of the heaven.
Rheticus also used 'orbis' and 'sphaera' as synonyms. Thus he used both
terms for the sphere of the fixed stars (sphaera stellarum fixarum and
firmamentum seu orbem stellarum)?" The Earth he described as like a
ball (tanquam sphaerularni?"
At first sight it may seem contradictory that the 'circles themselves'
should be foremost in the thinking of someone who adopted a realist
position in astronomy. It is easy to see how this could lead to the
supposition that Copernicus must have envisaged his circles as
mathematical representations of solid (material) spheres (orbes) of the
type described by Peurbach. Recently, however, Fritz Krafft?" has
adduced quite convincing evidence for an alternative resolution of this
difficulty. According to this interpretation Copernicus annulled the
separation of hypothetical astronomy and real physics by his axioms, so
that the traditional distinction became for him largely irrelevant. 20~
Copernicus's first axiom in the Commentariolus-- "There is no one

98 E. J. AITON
centre of all the celestial circles or spheres" - is essentially the axiom of

Sosigenes. The similarity is even more striking in De revolutionibus where
Copernicus writes: "Motion round the midpoint must therefore be
accepted more generally, and as satisfactory, provided that each motion
is motion about its own midpoint. "205 Other similarities between
Copernicus and Sosigenes are that (1) in the Commentariolus, the axiom
follows a synopsis of astronomical theories, as in Sosigenes.!" (2) in De
revolutionibus, Copernicus writes exactly as Sosigenes, that his theory is
more true (firmiores demonstrationes) than that of Ptolemy.'?' and (3)
Copernicus, like Sosigenes, desired uniform circular motion as Aristotle's
physics required.!" In Krafft's view, 209 it is hard to think that these
agreements depend only on accident.
Copernicus need not have read Simplicius in Greek or Latin, for as we
have seen, the theory of Sosigenes was not unknown and in particular had
been described by Aquinas, who did not however mention the source.
Sosigenes did not construct a physical theory in detail but regarded his
task simply as that of showing the possibility of such a theory. If
Copernicus fulfilled the conditions in the sense of Sosigenes, then it was
not necessary for him to commit himself to solid (material) spheres. It was
sufficient that the celestial bodies, whatever their precise nature, were
moved in accordance with the axiom of Aristotle, as modified by
Sosigenes; that is, in accordance with an accepted principle of physics.
10. THE WITTENBERG CIRCLE
Rheticus was exceptional among the disciples of Melanchthon in

accepting the Copernican theory of the motion of the Earth. The
principal tenet of what Robert Westman?" has called the Wittenberg
interpretation of the Copernican theory was that the new theory could be
trusted only within the domain where it made predictions about the
angular position of a planet, while certain parts of the theory were to be
adopted and preferred as consistent with the foundations of astronomy
(notably those parts which dispensed with the equant), if interpreted
within a geostatic framework.
Philipp Melanchthon (1497 - 1560) encouraged the study of
astronomy, for he believed that God had guided a few intelligent men to
pursue this science in order to reveal his handiwork to the many. Among
those who had, in his view, significantly widened the sphere of
astronomical knowledge, Melanchthon named Peurbach, Blanchinus,
Cusanus, Regiomontanus and Copernicus."! In his Initia doctrinae
physicae, however, he quoted the traditional physical and biblical

arguments against the Earth's motion.!" Rejecting Aristotle's starting

point with the elements, he preferred to begin with "the first efficient
cause and the heavenly bodies, as Plato in the Timaeus"."" Indeed he
departs from Aristotle's physics whenever this is in disagreement with
Christian doctrine.!" As far as astronomy is concerned he describes the
Ptolemaic system but regards the spheres (orbes) and epicycles devised by
the mathematicians simply as geometrical fictions for the purpose of
reducing the motions to order. 215 This remark applies only to such devices
as eccentrics and epicycles; for he adds, "it is agreed that there are some
spheres [orbes]". 2I6 In an earlier passage, having rejected the attribution
of intelligence to the planets (partly on theological grounds),
Melanchthon concluded that they are carried by the motion of their
spheres (orbes), as Aristotle judged to be probable, adding in further
justification that it would be absurd to suppose the heavens to be divided
by the motion of the planets, as water by fish swimming in it. 217
Concerning the incorruptible nature of the super-lunary region,
Melanchthon was content to quote the usual opinions, though he thought
the term 'aether' might be derived from aitho, that is, 'flagro et splendeo'
(blazing and transparently bright), so that the heaven is called aether
because it is clear (Lucida). Quoting Genesis, he compared aether with
light, and in this he was following the Neoplatonic traditiorr.!" He
accepted the Aristotelian concept of the elemental spheres. 219
Commenting on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, he declared that there is certainly
a force which extends itself from the heavens
to the elements which are below the Moon; to fire and air, which are
set in motion by the motions of the heavens, and which encompass
the remaining lower elements and thus influence earth and water,
plants and animals. 220
Erasmus Reinhold (1511 - 53) became professor of astronomy in 1536
and in 1542 published a commentary on Peurbach's Theoricae novae
planetarum. In the preface": he envisaged the possibility that the planets
had in themselves a certain power, given by God, which enabled each to
follow its own motion without the assistance of the spheres (orbes)
introduced by the astronomers to explain the observed non-uniform
motion of the planets. For this purpose, he remarked, astronomers had
introduced the eccentricity of the deferent circles and a multiplicity of
spheres and motions. While he regarded these devices as mathematical
fictions, he claimed (like Proclus) that they were necessary for the
reduction of the planetary motions to order, and moreover, that this
could only be achieved by the assumption of uniform circular motion.

100 E. J. AITON
Although the notion of uniform circular motion thus seems to have been
for Reinhold a geometrical rather than a physical axiom, ~~~ he did not
commit himself to the fictitious nature of all the spheres. In the
Wittenberg edition of his commentary on Peurbach, published in 1553,
Reinhold states explicitly that the celestial bodies do not move of
themselves but are carried, as Aristotle explains in De caelo. Echoing a
remark of Melanchthon, he declares that the planets do not wander
randomly like fish in water and birds in air but are carried constantly and
regularly around inside certain boundaries. m
Caspar Peucer, Reinhold's student and Melanchthon's son-in-law,
accepted the Aristotelian dichotomy; the aether, he remarked, was
created from light (nativa luce}, 2~4 while the planets were the denser
parts of the spheres by which they were carried. "', The spheres (orbes) of
the planets and fixed stars described by Peucer, eight in number, were
evidently the concentric spheres which enclosed the deferents and
epicycles. He regarded the eccentrics and epicycles themselves as having
been introduced to save the appearances. ~~fi
Ariel Bicard, another disciple of Melanchthon, held similar views. In
his commentary on the Sphere of Sacrobosco, he gives the following
definition of astronomy:
Astronomy is therefore the teaching, which through geometry and
arithmetic examines divinely and shows the various motions,
magnitudes and distances of the heavenly bodies, and which saves all
the diversities and alterations in the appearances of the planets and
other stars. 227
In answer to the question whether the spheres are real, he replies:
In reality such spheres [orbes] do not exist in heaven; but they are
merely invented for learners, as in this way the motions of the
heavenly bodies can be saved. 22~
Bicard, however, quoted (evidently with approval) the two definitions of
'cosmos' given in the De mundo of Pseudo-Aristotle ,2.'" which he interprets
in terms of a pseudo-musical harmony between heaven and earth.'?" and
from his discussion of the universe in terms of the Aristotelian concepts of
substance and accident, it is clear that he regarded only the eccentrics
and epicycles as fictitious. The concentric planetary spheres and the
sphere of fixed stars (which are revealed to our eyes) and the ninth and
tenth introduced by more recent astronomers, he regarded as real.
Again, he remarked that each simple body could only have one motion per
se, but this could be brought about per accidens by many diverse

motions.f" This makes explicit a position which has been encountered

several times already and indicates the way in which it was possible to
believe simultaneously in the reality of the concentric spheres of the
Aristotelian cosmos and in the fictitious nature of the eccentrics and
epicycles. The first was concerned with substance, the essence of the
universe, while the second was only concerned with accidents, that is,
things which are not essential to our conception of the real. However, the
concentric spheres themselves had not long to survive.
11. OPTICS, COMETS AND HYPOTHESES
Jean Pena, one of the collaborators of Ramus, in the preface to his edition
of Euclid's Optics, published in 1557, rejected the solid spheres and also
the sphere of fire, because the existence of such spheres was inconsistent
with the teaching of optics. For in his view, optics show that the medium
between us and the fixed stars was air. 232 This he deduced from the
observations of Gemma Frisius who, in his De radio astronomico et
geometrico fiber (1545), recorded that measurements with his radius
astronomicus showed the separation of two neighbouring stars to be the
same in all altitudes.i" The absence of refraction, Pena claimed, proved
that there was a single medium extending to the fixed stars. Gemma's
observations, as Keplerf" later remarked, had failed to detect the
difference in the separations on the horizon and at culmination which
Tycho Brahe's instruments had revealed. Yet Pena deserves credit for
rejecting the spheres on the basis of optical theory and the best
observational data available to him. Optics, according to Pena, also
disproved the Scholastic doctrine that comets were always in the region
below the Moon. For in his view, comets moving slower than the Moon
were outside this region.F" Pena also deduced from optics that the comets
could not be fiery, but were globes of transparent matter, as could be
adduced from the reasoning of Apian, Gemma and others. The tail was a
burning caused by the Sun. He compared it to the effect of the concourse
of the Sun's rays by refraction in glass globes full of water, whereby they
excited burning on the opposite side. Most significant was Perra's
recognition of the optical equivalence of the Copernican and Ptolemaic
systems.!"
Firm empirical evidence against the Aristotelian concept of the spheres
was provided by Tycho Brahe's observations of the super-nova of 1572.
The absence of any detectable parallax proved that this star was in the
region of the fixed stars.f" Further evidence of change in the heavens
came from the observations of the comet of 1577, which showed it to be

102 E. J. AITON
above the Moon. 238 Tycho explicitly rejected the solid spheres - "Nullos
enim in coelo esse orbes solidos'v" - in his Astronomiae instauratae
progymnasmata.
Petrus Ramus (Pierre de la Ramee) not only rejected the solid spheres
but even called for an astronomy without hypotheses. Eudoxus, he
remarked, had been the first to devise false hypotheses and Proclus the
first to prove that the hypotheses of the astronomers were false. 240 Ramus
advocated an astronomy based only on the observations, like that of the
Babylonians and Egyptians. The search for periodic variations in the
motions of the planets would reveal constant cycles, if these existed, and
if such cycles did not exist, then a true knowledge of the motions of the
planets, in the view of Ramus, was unattainable.
Ramus first approached Rheticus with the suggestion of an astronomy
without hypotheses and then Tycho Brahe, who replied that the celestial
phenomena could not be understood without the use of circles and other
figures to represent the apparent rnotions.v" A general challenge to produce
an astronomy without hypotheses was issued by Ramus in 1569 in his
Scholae mathematicae.i" Having compared Melanchthon to Plato for his
encouragement of mathematics, Ramus expressed the hope that the
schools of Germany might produce a mathematician and philosopher
ca pable of responding to his challenge.
Astronomers, as J. L. Russellt" has remarked in his perceptive analysis
of the situation, might well have adopted the method advocated by
Ramus. For, with the dissolution of the spheres, the axiom of uniform
circular motion (embodying the last vestige of a physical theory) was
without foundation. The danger lay in the fact that, in all probability, a
mathematical astronomy completely divorced from the physics could not,
at that time, have led towards the discovery of the law of universal
gravitation. Kepler saved astronomy from this fate, paradoxically by
accepting Ramus's challenge.
Although he claimed to have satisfied the demands of Ramus, Kepler's
interpretation of the challenge was different from Ramus's intention. For
he supposed that Ramus asked only for the rejection of fictitious
hypotheses; that is, hypotheses that did not correspond to physical
reality. True hypotheses, Kepler believed, must be built upon and
confirmed by observations, and besides describing physical reality must
also explain the causes of the planetary motions.f" By his "transfer of the
whole of astronomy from fictitious circles to natural causes", Kepler
effected a revolution in astronomical method, whereby the distinction
between physical and mathematical astonomy completely disappeared.i"
It was this new method, in which physical and mathematical reasoning

CELESTIAL spHERES AND CIRCLES 103
played complementary roles at every stage, that led Kepler to the

discovery of his three laws of planetary motion.
REFERENCES
I. P. Duhem , To save the phenomena, translated by E. Doland and C. Maschler
(Chicago and London, 1969).
2. O. Neugebauer, A history of ancient mathematical astronomy (Berlin. Heidelberg-
and New York, 1975), l.
3, O. Gingerich. "Kepler's place in astronomy", Vistas in astronomy, xviii (1975),
261 - 78, pp. 261 - 2.
4. Aristotle, De caelo, 269 a 32.
5. De caelo, 270 b 24. Cf. Plato, Cratylus, 410 B.
6. Aristotle, Meteorologica, 340 b 24 - 33.
7. De caelo, 289 a 20 . 34.
8. De caelo, 293 a 5.
Y. Ue caelo, 290 a 28.
10. De caelo, 292 a 22.
I I. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1072 a24.
12. Plato, Republic, 616 C - 617 A.
13. The interpretation of Plato's text presents difficulties: see D. R. Dicks, Early Greek
astronomy to Aristotle (London, 1970), 236, footnote 150.
14. H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiher (6th ed. reprinted
Dublin and Zurich, 1974), 28 A 37. CI commentary, vol. i , p. 242. Cicero
interpreted stephane as 'coronae similern'. L. Taran, Parmenides (Princeton,
1965), 232 - 3.
15. Plato, Timaeus, 36 D.
16. Timaeus, 38 D . E.
17. On the problematical question whether Plato was aware of the stations and
retrogressions of the other planets, see P, Duhern , Le systeme du monde (Paris,
1913 - 59), i, 110.
18, Timaeus, 34 A.
19, Timaeus, 40 B.
20. Gorgias, 451 C.
21, Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1073 b 17 . 33, Cf. F. Lassere, Die Fragment e des Eudoxos
von Knidos (Berlin, 1966), 15 (Greek and German).
22. J. L. Heiberg (ed.), Commentaria in Aristotelem Craeca, vii (Berlin, 1894),492·7.
Cf. Lassere, op. cit. (ref. 21), 67 . 73 (fragment 124). See also Duhem , op. cit.
(ref. 17), i, III - 23; Neugebauer, op. cit. (ref. 2), 624 . 30 and 677 - 85; R. C.
Riddell, "Eudoxan mathematics and Eudoxan spheres", Archive for history of
exact sciences, xx (1979), I . 19.
23. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1073 b 3,
24. Aristotle, Physics, 194a8 - 13.
25. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1073 b 17, On problems of interpretation of this passage,
see Dicks, op. cit. (ref. 13), 178 - 81; V. E, Thoren, "Anaxagoras, Eudoxus and
the regression of the lunar nodes" ,journalfor the history ofastronom». ii (1971),
23 - 28.
26. According to Simplicius, this idea had arisen from the observation that, at the

104 E.J. AITON
solstices, the Sun did not always rise from the same points of the horizon.
Heiberg, op, cit. (ref. 22), 493. Cf. Lassere, op. cit. (ref. 21), 68.
27. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1074 a I.
28. Heiberg, op. cit. (rd.22), 488, line 23. 'Regular' here means 'in one direction'.
29, Ibid., 488, line 13.
30. Ibid., 493, lines 2 - 3.
31. Duhem, op. cit. (ref. 1),5. C], Duhern, op. cit. (ref. 17), i , 102 - 6.
32. Timaeus, 56 A.
33. Ibid., 46 D - E.
34. Heiberg, op. cit. (ref. 22), 488. Cf. Lassere , op. cit. (ref. 21), 67 (fragment 121).
The passage is translated in F. Krafft, "Physikalische Realirar oder
mathematische Hypothese?", Philosophia natura/is, xiv (1973),243 - 75, p. 250.
35. J. Mittelstrass, Die Rettung der Phdnomene (Berlin, 1962); Neuzeit und
Aufkldrung (Berlin, 1970), 250 - 63.
36. Plato, Laws, 821 E - 822 A.
37. J. Mittelstrass, Neuzeit und Aufkldrung (ref. 35), 255.
38. See L. Wright, "The astronomy of Eudoxus: Geometry or physics?", Studies in
history and philosophy ofscience, iv (1973), 165 - 72.
39. Lassere, op. cit. (ref. 21), 200. -
40. Diels and Kranz, op. cit. (ref. 14),59 B 21a.
41. F. Krafft, "Johannes Keplers Beitrag zur Hirnmelsmechanik", in F. Krafft, K.
Meyer and B_ Sticker (eds), Internationales Kepler-Symposium Weil der Stadt
I97I (Arbor scieruiarum, Reihe A, Bd I) (Hildesheim, 1973), 55 - 139,64 - 5,
footnote 22.
42. E. Maula, "Eudoxus encircled", Ajatus, Yearbook of the Philosophical Society of
Finland, xxxiii (1971), 201 - 53; Studies in Eudoxus' homocentric spheres
(Commentationes humanarum litterarum, I; Helsinki, 1974); E, Kasanen, "An
algebraic view of Eudoxus' method", andJ. K. Mattila, "On some mathematical
properties of Plato's 'Great Harmonia' ", in J. K. Mattila and A. Siitonen (eds),
Analysis, harmony and synthesis in ancient thought (Acta Universitatis
Ouluensis, Ser. B, Humaniora 6, Historia 3; Oulu, 1977).
43. E. Maula, "The spider in the sphere: Eudoxus' arachne", Philosophia (Athens),
5 - 6 (1975 - 76), 225 - 58. There is an account in Finnish, with illustrations of a
reconstruction or'the arachne and the temple, in IBM Katsaus (Helsinki), xvii
(1978),4 - 24.
44. Aristotle, De caelo, 292 a 5 - 20.
45, The general belief that Heraclides of Pontus introduced an epicycle to explain the
appearances of Venus is based on a misinterpretation. Neugebauer, op. cit. (ref.
2), 694 - 6 and 758. C]. G. J. Toomer, in C. Gillispie (ed.), Dictionary o]'
scientific biography (New York, 1970 - 80), xv, 202 - 5. There is evidence that
Heraclides proposed a rotation of the Earth on its axis. Proclus, Commentaire
surle Timee, translated by A, J. Festugiere (Paris, 1966 - 68), iv, 176.
46. Neugebauer, op. cit. (ref. 2), 263 - 4 and 949 - 50.
47. Again our source is Simplicius, in his commentary on Aristotle's Physics. H. Diels
(ed.), Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, ix (Berlin, 1882), 291 - 2. This
passage is translated in Krafft, op. cit. (ref. 34), 254 - 5 and Duhern , op. cit.
(ref. I), 10 - 11.
48. Krafft, op. cit. (ref. 34), 256 - 9,
49. Sosigenes lived in the second century A.D. and should not be confused with the

calendar reformer of the first century B.C.

50. M. Schramm, Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik (Wiesbaden, 1963), 15 - 63.
51. Heiberg, op. cit. (ref. 22), 505, lines 1 - 9. The date of Sosigenes's book must be
later than A.D. 164. Despite the failure of homocentric astronomy to 'save the
appearances', attempts to revive the theory were made in the sixteenth century
by G. B. Amici, De Motibus corporum coelestium (Venice, 1536) and G.
Fracastoro, Homocent rica (Venice, 1538).
52. Heiberg, ap. cit. (ref. 22), 509, line 30 - 510, line 3. Cf. Schramm, op. cit. (ref.
50),57.
53. Heiberg. ap. cit. (ref. 22), 510, lines 3 - 8. Cf. Schramm, op. cit. (ref. 50), 60.
Sosigenes held the circular motions to be uniform: Heiberg, 488, lines 3 - 24. Cf.
Krafft, op. cit. (ref. 34), 250.
54. Sosigenes is here referring to the diurnal motion.
55. Heiberg, op. cit. (ref. 22), 510, lines 15 - 19. Cf. Schramm, op. cit. (ref. 50), 61.
and Duherri, op. cit. (ref. 17), ii, 67.
56. Heiberg, op. cit. (ref. 22), 510, lines 19 - 24.
57. Duhem, op. cit. (ref. 17), ii, 67, misinterprets this passage.
58, Schramm, op. cit. (ref. 50), 62.
59. Neugebauer, op. cit. (ref. 2), 834 - 5.
60. This work consists of two books. Only the first part of Book I is extant in Greek but
the whole work is extant in Arabic. The Greek text together with German
translation of this and Book II of the Arabic version have been published in J. L.
Heiberg, Claudii Ptolemaei opera quae exstant omnia (Leipzig, 1907), vol. ii.
An English translation of the remaining part of Book I, together with a facsimile
of the complete Arabic text, have been published by B. R. Goldstein. "The
Arabic version of Ptolemy'S Planetary hypotheses", Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, n.s., Ivii (1967), Pt 4. See also Duhem, op. cit.
(ref. 17), ii, 86 - 99 (the concluding part of Book 1 was unknown to Duhern):
O. Pedersen, SuTt'ey of the Almagest (Odense. 1974),391 - 7 (Pedersen confuses
the two Sosigenes): Neugebauer, op. cit. (ref. 2), 917 - 26; R. Palte-r, "An
approach to the history of early astronomy". Studies in history and philosophy 0/
science, i (1970), 93 - 133. Izydora Dambska has suggested that the models of the
Planetary hypotheses were envisaged by Ptolemy simply as a teaching aid.
I. Dambska, "L'Epistemologie de Ptolemee". in Amllt, avec, apres Copcnuc
(Paris, 1975),31 - 37. Yet this seems inconsistent with Ptolemy's supposition that
the spheres are contiguous, because it is inconceivable that a vacuum should
exist in nature, See Goldstein, op. cit. (ref. 60), 8.
61. Heiberg, op. cit. (ref. 60), 73.
62. Goldstein, op, cit. (ref. 60), 7; Ptolemy, Handbuch der Astronomic, translated by
K. Manitius (reprinted Leipzig, 1963), ii, 93 (Translation of the Almagest).
63. Goldstein, op. cit. (ref. 60), 8. On the influence of Ptolemy'S theory of planetary
distances among the Arabs, see W. Hartner, "Medieval views on cosmic
dimensions and Ptolemy's Kitab al-Manshurat". in Oriens-occidens (Hildesheim,
1968),319 - 48.
64. Heiberg, ap. cit. (ref. 60), III - 13.
65. Plato, Republic, 616 D.
66. Heiberg, ap. cit. (ref. 60), 114.
67. Ibid., 120. Cf. 131. Here Ptolemy speaks of the planets each possessing a force to
produce "in its own place and about its own centre a motion of uniform

106 E.]. AITON
rotation". Plato had envisaged axial rotation. Timaeus, 39 D - E. C( Proclus,

op. cit. (ref. 45), iv, 164.
68. Heiberg, op. cit. (ref. 60), 141.
69. Ibid., 142. Since nothing hinders it, the aether moves with the primitive motion;
that is, the diurnal motion of the outermost sphere.
70. Ibid., 117.
71. Also influential were the writings attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite , which
contain a thinly disguised version of Proclus's doctrines. On the Dionysian
problem see E. N. Tigerstedt , The decline and Jail of the Neoplatonic
interpretation oj Plato (Comrnentationes humanarurn lttterarum, Iii; Helsinki,
1974).21 - 22.
72. Proclus. Hypotyposis astronomicarum positionum, translated by K. Manitius
(Leipzig 1909).220 - 1.
73. Neugebauer, op. cit. (ref. 2), 918.
74. Proclus, op. cit. (ref. 45), iv, 85.
75. Proclus, op. cit. (ref. 72), 222 - 3.
76. Ibid., 236 - 9.
77. Proclus, op. cit. (ref. 45). iv, 125. Cf iv, 79,164 and iii, 308.
78. Ibid., iv, 79 and 125.
79, IMd., iv, 164.
80. Ibid., iv, 189. Cf 125.
81. On the Arabic translations ~f the Almagest and the Latin translations based on
these, see P. Kunitzsch, Del' Almagest. Die Syntaxis Mathematica des Claudius
Ptolemdus in arabisch-lateinischer Uberlieferung (Wiesbaden. 1974), 15 - 112,
See also P, Kunitzsch, "New light on al-Battani's Zij", Centaurus, xviii (1974),
270 - 4. For a general survey, see E. Rybka, "Mouvement des planetes dans
l'astronomie des peuples de l'Islam", in Convegno internazionale. Oriente I'
occidente nel medioevo:JilosoJia e scienze (Rome, 1971), 579 - 94.
82. M. Steinschneider, "Die arabischen Ubersetzungen aus dem Griechischen",
Zeitschrift del' deutscheti morganliindischen Gesellschaft, 1 (1896), 161 - 219,
and 337 - 417, p. 211. Cf Schramm, op. cit. (ref. 50),16.
83. F. J. Carmody, The astronomical works of Thabit b. Qurra (Berkeley, 1960), 19.
84. M. Maimonides, Le guide des egares, translated by S. Munk (Paris, 1856 - 66;
reprinted Osnabriick, 1964), ii, 189 - 90 and iii, 100; Albertus Magnus, Opera
omnia. (Archendorff, 1971), v, pt 1, 28 - 30,
85. See W. Hartner in Dictionary ojscientific biography (ref. 45), i, 51!.
86. For editions and translations, see A. I. Sabra in Dictionary of scientific biography
(ref. 45), iv, 541 - 5, p. 544. On al-Fargani, see also H. Suter, Die Mathematiker
und Astronomen del' Araber und ihre Werke (Leipzig, 1900; reprinted New
York and London, 1972), 18 - 19 and A, Mieli, La science arabe (Leiden, 1938),
82 - 88.
87. al-Battani, Opus astronomicum, ed. and trans. by C. A. Nallino (Milan,
1899 - 1903; reprinted Frankfurt-am-Main, 1969), Pt I, 120 - 124.
88. The reconciliation through Alhazen of the traditional astronomy and optics with
Aristotle's physics is the central theme of Schramm's book (ref. 50). For other
accounts of Alhazeri's astronomy, see W. Hartner, "The Mercury horoscope of
Marcantonio Michie! of Venice". in Oriensoccidens (ref. 63). 440 - 495, pp.
480 - 3andDuhem, op. cit, (ref. 17), ii, 119 - 29.
89. W. Hartner remarks thatfalak corresponds to sphrura, sphaera or orlns and da 'ira

CELESTIAL SPHERES AND CIRCLES" 107
to kuklos or circulus, but authors in any of the three languages seldom aim at
perfect consistency. See his article on falak in the Encyclopedia of Islam,
reprinted in Oriens-occidens (ref. 63), 265 - 7,11. 266.
90. K. Kohl, "Uber den Aufbau der Welt nach Ibn al Haitam'' (translation of the third
part of Alhazen's work), Sitzungsberichte der physikalisch-'medizinischen
Societdt in Erlangen, liv-Iv (1922 - 23), 140 - 79, pp. 150 - I. Cf the Latin
translation in J. M. Millas Vallicrosa, Las traducciones orientales en los
manuscritos de la Biblioteca Catedral de Toledo (Madrid, 1942), 285 - 312,
p.287.
91. Kohl, op. cit. (ref. 90), 157.
92. Kohl interprets this as "die ahnlich gelagerte Sphare", meaning that its centre and
axis coincide with those of the ecliptic; ibid., 153 - 4. Cf Hartner's description
"assimilated; i.e. concentric or parecliptic", Hartner, op. cit. (ref. 88), 481.
93. Kohl, op. cit. (ref. 90), 148.
94. E. Wiedemann, "Ibn al Haitam, ein arabischer Gelehrter", in Festschrift fur
J. Rosenthal (Leipzig, 1906), 149 - 78, p. 164.
95. Kohl, op. cit. (ref. 90), 142 - 3. The authenticity of the appendix is confirmed by
its agreement with Alhazeri's On the light of the Moon. See the commentary by
Schramm, op. cit. (ref. 50), 67 - 69 and 130 - 41. Cf A. I. Sabra, "The physical
and mathematical in Ibn al-Haytharn's theory of light and vision",
Commemoration volume of Biruni International Congress in Tehran (Tehran,
1976), 439 - 78. (The author kindly sent me a corrected post-print.)
96. See A. I. Sabra in Dictionary of scientific biography (ref. 45), vi, 189 - 210, p. 198
and p. 207.
97. E. C. Sachau, Alberuni's India (London, 1888; reprinted Delhi, 1964). ii , 69.
98. Hartner, op. cit. (ref. 63), 347 and op. cit. (ref. 79), 267. The Arabic text IS
printed in Goldstein, op. cit. (ref. 60).
99. There is a German translation of the astronomical part in H. Ethe, Zakarija ben
Muhammed Mahmud el-Kazunni's Kosmographie (Leipzig, 1868),31 - 181.
100. There is a German translation: G. Rudloff and A. Hochheim, "Die Astronomie
des ... al-Gagmini", Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldruiischen Gesellschaft,
xlvii (1893),213 - 75.
101. Ibid., 235.
102. Aristotelis opera cum Averrois commentariis (Venice, 1562 - 74; reprinted
Frankfurt-am-Main, 1962), vol. viii, f. 329v, col. 1 (Comment on Metaphysics,
1073bI7).
103. Cf Aristotle, De caelo, 286 a 15.
104. Averroes, op. cit. (ref. 102), vol. v, f. 118v, col. 1 (Comment on De caelo, 288 a 13).
105. Ibid., f. 116r, col. 1 (Comment on De caelo, 287 b 15). Cf F.]. Carmody, ''The
planetary theory oflbn Rushd", Osiris, x (1952), 556 - 86, pp. 583 - 4.
106. Averroes, op. cit. (ref. 102), vol. viii, f. 329v, col. 2. Quotations from Averroes in
French translation may be found in Duhem, op. cit. (ref. 17), ii, 133 - 9, and in
English translation in Carmody, op. cit. (ref. 105).
107. This is hearsay quoted by Maimonides. See al-Bitruji, On the principles of
astronomy, translated by B. R. Goldstein (New Haven and London, 1971), i, 4.
108. Ibid., Cf Carmody, op. cit. (ref. 105),558.
109. Alpetragius objects to Ptolemy that, since the eccentric and epicycle lie in the
interior of a single (concentric) sphere, the motions imply that this sphere would
have to be fluid. al-Bitruji, op. cit. (ref. 107), i. 60.

108 E.]. AITON
110. A similar device had also been used by al-Zarqallu to explain the imaginary
trepidation of the equinoxes. B. R. Goldstein, "On the theory of trepidation",
Centaurus, x (1964), 232 - 47. On al-Zarqallu, see]. M. Millas Vallicrosa,
Estudios sobre Azarquiel (Madrid and Grenada, 1943 - 50).
111. al-Bitruji, op. cit. (ref. 107), 8 - 9.
112. Duhem, op. cit. (ref. 17), ii , 156.
113. Ch. xi of this work has been translated into French by Carra de Vaux, in
P. Tannery, Recherches sur l'histoire de l'astronomie ancienne (Paris, 1893),
337 - 61. See also W. Hartner, "Nasir ai-Din al-Tusi's lunar theory", Physis, xi
(1969), 287 - 304 (which includes a critical analysis of Carra de Vaux's
interpretations); ]. W. Livingston, "Nasir ai-Din al-Tusi's al-Tadhkirah",
Centaurus, xvii (1973),260 - 75; G. Saliba, "The first non-Ptolemaic astronomy
at the Maraghah school", Isis, Ixx (1979),571 - 6.
114. E. S. Kennedy and V. Roberts, "The planetary theory of Ibn al-Sharir", Isis, I
(1959), 227 - 35; E. S. Kennedy, "Late medieval planetary theory", Isis, Ivii
(1966), 365 - 78; F. Abbud, "The planetary theory of Ibn al-Shatir", Isis, liii
(1962),492 - 9; G. Rosinka, "al-Tusi and al-Shatir in Cracow?", Isis, lxv (1974),
239 - 43. Copernicus (and indeed al-Tusi) may have obtained the so called
Tusi-couple from a similar device of Proclus. I. N. Veselovsky, "Copernicus and
Nasir al-Din al-J"'usi".]ournalfor the history of astronomy, iv (1973),128 - 30.
C! Proclus, Les commentaires sur le premier livre des Elemens d'Euclide, transl.
by P. vel' Eecke (Bruges, 1948),96.
115. See W. Hartner, "Trepidation and planetary theories", in Convegno internazionaie
(ref. 81), 609 - 32, esp. 610 - 14.
116. Tannery, op. cit. (ref. 113), 355 - 7. In fact, al-Tusi refers explicitly only to
Alhazen's attempt to account for the motions in latitude.
I 17. Carra de Vaux describes this scheme as "l'idee bien etrange" of Alhazen; ibid., 357.
al- J"'usi also used the couple, projected on to a spherical surface enclosing the
epicyclic sphere (in the fashion of the polar circles of Alpetragius) to explain the
oscillation of the plane of the epicycle needed by Ptolemy in his latitude theory;
ibid:, 357 - 9. On Ptolemy's theory. see Pedersen, op. cit. (ref. 60), 359 - 61.
ll8. F.]. Carmody, al-Biiruji: De motibus celorum (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1952).
On Michael Scot, see C. H. Haskins, Studies in the history of mediaeval science
(New York, 1960), 272 - 98. On the influence of the Arabs, see W. Petri,
"Tradition und Fortschritt in der Astronomie des Mittelalters", in Convegno
internazionale (ref. 81), 633 - 44; M. Cimino, "L'astronomia arab a e Ie sua
diffusione", ibid., 647 - 74.
ll9. "Compotus Roberti Grossecapitis", in R. Bacon, Opera hactenus inedita, ed. by
R. Steele (Oxford, 1909 - 40), fasc. vi, 282. Grosseteste reasoned that the stars
and their spheres could not be of the same nature. "De generatione stellarurn",
in L. Baur, Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste (Beitrdge zur
Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittelalters, ix, Munster, 1912). 32 - 36, p. 32.
On the complementary roles of reason and experience in Grosseteste's
methodology, see A. C. Crombie, Robert Grosseteste and the origins of
experimental science (Oxford, 1953), esp. 87 - 90.
120. Bacon, op. cit. (ref. ll9), fasc. iv, 437 - 8.
121. See Aristotle, Physics, 261 b 29 - 262 a 1.
122. Bacon, op. cit. (ref. ll9), fasc. iv, 419.
123. Ibid., 429. This objection had also been stated by Grosseteste. "De motu

supercaelestium", in Baur, op. cit. (ref. 119),99.

124. Bacon, op. cit. (ref. 119),430.
125. Ibid., 434 - 5. Cf 437 - 9.
126. H. Bate, Speculum dioinorum et quorundum naturalium, Pt 22, ch. 16: "Expositio
Sosigenes in praemissis iuxta Callippum". This chapter exists only in manuscript.
The first fasc. only of a critical edition of the Speculum by G. Wallerand
appeared in Louvain in 1931. The first two volumes of a new critical edition by
E. van de Vyner have been published in the series Philosophes medieoaux
(Louvain and Paris), iv (1960) and x (1967). Moerbeke's translation of
Simplicius's commentary on De caelo was first printed in Venice in 1540.
127. St Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia (Rome, 1882 - ), iii, 186.
128. Ibid., 187.
129. Aquinas had in mind chiefly Aristotle's counteracting spheres.
130. Ibid., 188.
131. Ibid., 11. Cf T. Litt, Les corps celestes dans l'uniuers de Saint Thomas d'Aquin
(Philosoph es medieoaux, vii, Louvain and Paris, 1963),352.
132. Aquinas, op. cit. (ref. 127), iii, 188. Cf. Litt, op. cit. (ref. 131),354, footnote 6.
133. Campanus of Novara, Theorica planetarum, trans. by F. S. Benjamin and
G. J. Toomer (Madison, Milwaukee and London, 1971), 180 - 5. From section
iv, line 302, it is clear that the epicycles and deferents were regarded as circles.
134. Ibid., 34. Another possible source is De sphqera of Robert Grosseteste, in Baur, op.
cit. (ref. 119), 10 - 32.
135. For an English translation by O. Pedersen, see E. Grant (ed.), A source book in
medieval science (Cambridge, Mass., 1974),451 - 65.
136. L. Thorndike, The Sphere of Sacrobosco and its commentators (Chicago, 1948),
77. The definition of Euclid also implies that a sphere has one surface.
137. Ibid., 145. He also considers whether the celestial spheres are continuous or
contiguous. cj. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1069 a 3.
138. Thorndike, op. cit. (ref. 136), 77 - 78. By accident the sphere is divided into the
right sphere and the oblique sphere. See Neugebauer, op. cit. (ref. 2), 31.
139. Thorndike, op. cit. (ref. 136),79.
140. Aristotle, Meteorologica, 339 a 33 - 339 b 16
141. Thorndike, op. cit. (ref. 136),78.
142. Bernardus de Virduno, Tractatus super totam astrologiam, ed. by Polykarp
Hartmann (Franziskanische Forschungen, xv; Wed, 1961). There is a translation
of an extract on the necessity of epicycles and eccentrics and their embodiment
in solid spheres, in E. Grant, op. cit. (ref. 135), 520 - 4.
143. J. Buridan, In Metaphysicen Aristotelis quaestiones (Paris, 1518: reprinted
Frankfurt-am-Main, 1964), f. 73r, col. 2. An extract (ff.73r-74r) is translated
in E. Grant, op. cit. (ref. 135),524-9. See also Duhem, op. cit. (ref. 17), iv, 124-42.
144. See Duhem, op. cit. (ref. 17), iv, 161 - 2.
145. Le livre du ciel et du monde, ed. by A. D. Menut and A. J. Denomy (Madison,
Milwaukee and London, 1968),581.
146. Questiones Marsilii super quattuor libros sententiarum (1501, reprinted
Frankfurt-am-Main, 1966), f. 243r, col. I. Cf. Duhern, op. cit. (ref. 17), iv, 167.
147. P. Wilpert (ed.), Nikolaus von Kues Werke (Berlin, 1967; reprint of the Strasbourg
edition of 1488), i, 5.
148. The principle may have been inspired by Plotinus. P. Duhern, Etudes slir Leonard
de Vinci (reprinted Paris, 1955), ii, 128. The idea of a coincidence of opposites is

110 E. J. AITON
to be found in Heraclitus but there is no mention there of the infinite. Diels and
Kranz, op. cit. (ref. 14),22 B 60 and 22 B 103.
149. Wilpert, op. cit. (ref~147), i, 6.
150. Ibid., 39. Cf A. Koyre , From the closed world to the infinite universe (Baltimore,
1957),5·27.
151. On a manuscript of Cusanus relating to the celestial motions, see Duhern. op. cit.
(ref. 17), x, 313 . 19.
152. P. H. Michel has remarked that, in naming all four elements on the surface of the
Sun, Cusanus is seen to have observed sunspots. Le soleil Ii la Renaissance
(Bruxelles and Paris, 1965), 401.
153. Wilpert, op. cit. (ref. 147), ii, 583.
154. On the continuing influence of Aristotle, see E. Grant, "Aristorelianism and the
longevity of the medieval world view", History ofscience, xvi (1978), 93 . 106.
155. The letter is printed in R. Klibansky, The continuity of the Platonic tradition
during the Middle Ages (London, 1939),45 . 47.
156. De sole & lumine libri duo, ch. 4. Marsili Ficini Florentini opuscula (Venice, 1503),
sig. A iv r.
157. Ficino translated both Plato and the Hermetic writings.
158. Marsilio Ficino, Theologie platonicienne, trans. by R. Marcel (Paris, 1964 . 70), i,
151 ·2. Cf H. A. Wolfson, "The problem of the souls of the spheres from the
Byzantine commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to
Kepler", Dumbarton Oaks papers, no. 16 (Washington, 1962),65·93.
159. Ficino, op. cit. (ref. 158), i, 160.
160. Plato, Timaeus, 63 D.
161. Cf. Z. Horsky, "Le cosmologie de Marsile Ficin", Acta historiae rerum naturalium
necnon technicarum, Special Issue no. 2 (Prague, 1966),57·68, p. 63; "Le role
du Platonisme dans I'origine de la cosmologie moderne", Organon, iv (1967),
47·54.
162. Ficino, op. cit. (ref. 158), i, 162. C]. 166.
163. E.Rosen, Three Copernican treatises (New York, 1971), 143.
164. G. G. Pontano, Opera omnia (Venice, 1519), iii, f. 145v.
165. Ibid., f. 146r. Cf Duhem, op. cit. (ref. 1),54·56.
166. E. F. Rice, "Humanist Aristotelianism in France. Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples and his
circle", in A. H. T. Levi (ed.), Humanism in France at the end of the Middle
A{\esandintheearlyRenazssance(Manchester, 1970), 132·3.
167. E. Cassirer, Individuum un.d Kosmos in der Philosophic der Renaissance (Berlin,
1927; reprinted Darmstadt, 1969), 93. Lefevre's edition of Cusanus was the
third, not the first as Cassirer states.
168. Rice, op. cit. (ref. 166), 143.
169. lacobus Faber Stapulensis, Introductorium astronomicum, theorias corporum
coelestium duobus libris complectens (Paris, 1517), f. Iv (first published in 1503).
170. Ibid.
171. Duhem, op. cit. (ref. 1),56·59.
172. P. Schanz, Der Cardinal Nicolaus von Cusa als Mathematiker (1872, reprinted
Wiesbaden, 1967),2·3.
173. Peurbach's Theoricae novae planetarum was first completed in about 1472 by his
student Regiomontanus, who also completed and published an Epitome of the
A lmagest, started by Peurbach. Both are reprinted in facsimile in Regiomontanus,
Opera col/ectanea, ed. by F. Schmeidler (Osnabruck , 1972). Albertus de

CELESTIAL SPHERES AND CIRCLES III
Brudzewo wrote a commentary on Peurbach which was used in lecture courses at

Cracow in the time Copernicus was there. See E. Rybka, op. cit. (ref. 81), 579.
174. O. Fine, La theorique des cielz, mouvemens et termes practiques des sept planetes
(Paris, 1528); O. Toscannella, Le nuove teoriche de i pianeti di Georgie
Peurbachio (Venice, 1566).
175. Regiomontanus, op. cit. (ref. 173), 755 - 6.
176. Ibid., 758.
177. Ibid., 757.
178. Ibid., 99 and 192.
179. Iacobus Faber Stapulensis, op. cit. (ref. 169). Clichtove's definitions are given on
ff. 3r-3v and Lefevre's commentary on ff. 4r-5v.
180. M. MaestIin, Epitome astronomiae (Tiibingen, 1597), 12 - 15.
1.81. Petri Nonu Salaciensis opera (Basel, 1592), 106.
182. Ibid., 197.
183. S. Miinster, Rudimenta mathemattca (Basel, 1551),60.
184. Kennedy and Roberts, op. cit. (ref. 114). See also G. Rosinska, "L'Ecole
astronomique de Cracovie et la revolution Copernicienne", Avant, avec, apres
Copernic (ref. 60), 89 - 92.
185. W. Hartner, "Copernicus, the man and his work", Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, cxvii (1973),421 - 2. .
186. L. Jarzebowski, Biblioteka Mikolaja Kopernika (Torun, 1971).
187. N. M. Swerdlow, "The derivation and first draft of Copernicus' planetary theory.
A translation of the Commentariolus with commentary", Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, cxvii (1973),423 - 512, p. 425. A translation of
the passage in Regiomontanus is given on pp. 472 - 5. Cf. Regiomomanus,
op. cit. (ref. 173), 243 - 4. The translation of the Commentariolus by
H. Hugonnard-Roche, E. Rosen and J. P. Verdet, Introductions a l'astronomic
de Copernic (Paris, 1975): is recommended for reliability.
188. Facsimile and translation in Swerdlow, op. cit. (ref. 187), 428 - 9. According to
Swerdlow, the analysis of the second anomaly would lead to the Tychonic and
Copernican systems as alternatives.
189. See the diagram showing the intersections of the orbits of Mars and the Sun in
Tycho's system in J. L. E. Dreyer, A history of astronomy from Thall'S to Kepler
(1953),364.
190. Swerdlow, op. cit. (ref. 187),466.
191. Ibid.. 465. Cf L. Prowl", Nicolaus Coppemicus (Berlin, 1883 - 84), ii, 195.
192. E. Rosen, "Copernicus' spheres and epicycles", Archives internationales d'histoire
des sciences, xxv (1975), 82 - 9~; "Copernicus' axioms", Ce nt aurus, xx (1976),
44· 49; N. M. Swerdlow, "Pseudodoxia Copernicana", Archroes intornauonalcs
d'histoire des sciences, xxvi (1976), 108 - 58. The controversy is reviewed by
E. J. Aiton in Zentralblatt fur Mathematik, ccclvi (1978), 8 . 9. A major obstacle
to the understanding of the controversy is a lack of clarity which leaves the reader
uncertain as to just what positions are being defended or attacked. For example.
Swerdlow's diagram and explanation show that his solid sphere has one surface.
This is how Rosen interprets it. But in his reply, Swerdlow explains that his
solid spheres are what Miinster calls 'orbes', which is what he thinks Rosen means
by hollow spheres.
193. See, for example, Z. Horsky, "Mathernatique et physique dans l'astronomie de
Copernic", Avant, avec, apres Copernic (ref. 60), 119 - 23.

112 E.]. AITON
194. Rosen. "Copernicus' spheres and epicycles" (ref. 192),85.

195. Copernicus, On the revolutions, translated by E. Rosen (Warsaw and London,
1978), 20. Cf De revolutionibus (facsimile reprint, New York and London,
1965), ff. 8v-9r. Rheticus relates this point in the Narratio prima, using the same
terminology. Johannes Kepler, Mysterium cosmographicum (Tubing-en, 1596),
appendix, 116.
196. Copernicus, On the reoolutions trei, 195),333 - 4.
197. Prowe, op. cit. (ref. 191), 184 - 5.
198. Ibid., 186.
199. Copernicus, De revolutionibus (ref. 195), f. iii v.
200. Ibid., f. 4r.
201. Kepler, op. cit. (ref. 195),99 and 116.
202. Ibid., 120.
203. Krafft, op. cit. (ref. 34), 264 - 72. Cf op. d. (ref. 41), 73 ·78. See also F. Krafft,
"Copernicus retroversus I", Colloquia Copernicana (Warsaw, 1975), 113 - 23:
"Progressus retrogradus", in A. Diemer (ed.), Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher
Revolutionen und die Geschichte der Wissenschaften (Meisenheim am Clan,
1977), 20 - 48.
204. On the extension of Osiander's interpretation to physical hypotheses, see
B. Wrightsman, "Andreas Osiander's contribution", in R. S. Westman (ed.),
The Copernican achievement (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 1975),
213 - 43, p. 241.
205. Copernicus, On the revolutions of the heavenly spheres, trans. by A. M. Duncan
(London and New York, 1976),46. Cf. Copernicus, De revolutionibus(ref. 195),
f. 7r.
206. Krafft, "Copernicus retroversus I" (ref. 203), 122.
207. Copernicus, De revolutionibus (ref. 195), f. iiii r.
208. Heiberg, op. cit. (ref. 22), 488, lines 3 - 24. Cf. Krafft, op. cit. (ref. 34), 250:
Rosen, op. cit. (ref. 163), 58 - 59. Copernicus wondered whether there could be
found a more reasonable arrangement of circles from which every apparent
inequality would be derived and in which everything would move uniformly
about its own centre, as the rule of absolute motion required.
209. Krafft, "Copernicus retroversus I" (ref. 203), 122.
210. R, S. Westman, "The Melanchthon circle, Rheticus and the Wittenberg
interpretation of the Copernican theory", Isis, lxvi (1975), 165·93, esp.
pp. 166 - 7. Cf. Westman, op. cit. (ref. 204), 285 - 345,
21 I. Letter to Georg and Hulderich Fugger, 1552. C. G. Bretschneider and H. E. Bindseil
(eds) , Corpus Reformatorum (Halle, 1834 - 60), vii, 951. For a survey of
Melanchthon's contributions to science, see Bernhardt, Philipp Melanchthon als
Mathematiker und Physiker (Wittenberg, 1865: reprinted Wiesbaden, 1973).
212. Bretschneider, op. cit. (ref. 211), xiii, 216 - 17. H. Blumenberg, Die Genesis der
kopernikanischen Welt (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1975), 384, points to differences
between the first (1549) and second (1550) editions, chiefly to a change of
emphasis in which the criticism of the Copernican theory acquires a didactic aim.
213. Bretschneider, op. cit. (ref. 21 I), xiii, 195. Cf. 222 - 3.
214. Bernhardt, op. cit. (ref. 211), 72.
215. Bretschneider, op. cit. (ref. 211), xiii, 244.
216. Ibid. Cf Melanchthon's remark "Our eyes see eight spheres", ibid., xiii. 224.
217. Ibid., xiii , 228.

218. Ibid., xiii, 223.

219. Ibid., xiii, 395.
220. Ibid., xviii, 12.
221. E. Reinhold, Theoricae novae planetarum Georgii Purbachii (Paris, 1553), ff.
1v.·2r.
222. Cf the marginal note in his copy of De revolutionibus: "The axiom of astronomy;
celestial motion is circular and uniform or made up of circular and uniform
parts". O. Gingerich, "From Copernicus to Kepler: Heliocentrism as model and
as reality", Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cxvii (1973),
513 - 22, p. 515. See also A. Birkenmajer, "Le commentaire inedit d'Erasmus
Reinhold sur le De revolutionibus de N. Copernic", in Etudes d'histoire des
sciences en Pologne(Warsaw, 1972), 761 - 62.
223. E. Reinhold, Theoricae novae planetarum Georgii Purbachii (Wittenberg, 1553),
f. 27v. These statements are added in the Wittenberg edition of 1553 following
the commentary on ff. 6v. -7r of the Paris edition of the same year. The
Wittenberg edition contains extensive new commentaries on the solar theory.
cj' R. S. Westman, "The astronomer's role in the sixteenth century: A
preliminary survey", History o] science, xviii (1980), 105 - 47.
224. C. Peucer , Elementa doctrinal' de circulis coelestibus (Wittenberg, 1551), sig. C 7v.
In the preface he gave a list of astronomers ending with Copernicus.
225. Ibid.,sig.C8v.
226. Ibid., sig. T2v.
227. Ariel Bicard, Quaestiones novae in libellum de Sphaera Ioannis de Sacro Bosco
(Paris, 1569), f. 5r.
228. Ibid.,f.66v.
229. Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo, 391 b 9 - 12.
230. Bicard, op. cit. (ref. 227), f. 10v.
231. Ibid., ff. 7r-7v.
232. Euclides optica et catoptrica ... eadem Latine reddita per I. Penam (Paris, 1557),
preface, aa iii r.
233. Gemma Frisius, De radio astronomico et geometrico liber (Antwerp, 1545), f. 29v.
Cf Le ray astronomique, in P. Apian, Cosmographie, corrigee et augmentee par
G. Frison avec ... autres traites (Antwerp, 1581). On Gemma Frisius, see
E. H. Waterbolk, "The 'reception' of Copernicus' teachings by Gemma Frisius",
LIAS: Sources and documents relating to the early modern history o( ideas,
i(1974), 225 - 42.
234. 1- Kepler, Gesammelte Werke (Munich, 1937 - ), iv, 335.
235. Pena , op. cit. (ref. 232), bb ii v .
236. Ibid., aa iv r. Kepler is rather unfair to Pena when he states that he "timidly
dismisses the motion of the Earth which Copernicus proved". Pena asserted
correctly that optics left the question undecided.
237. 1- L. E. Dreyer, Tychonis Brahi Dani opera omnia (Copenhagen, 1913 - 29), i. 27.
238. Ibid., iv, 1 - 378. Tycho also wrote a German treatise on the comet; ibid., 379 - 96.
There is an English translation in 1- R. Christianson, "Tvcho Brahes German
treatise on the comet of 1577", Isis, lxx (1979), 110 - 40. Cf C. D. Hellman, The
comet of 1577: Its place in the history ofastronomy (New York, 1971).
239. Dreyer, op. cit. (ref. 237), iii, Ill. In a letter to Rothman (14 January 1595), Tycho
refers to Perra's view that air extends to the heavens; ibid., vi, 320. Christianson
suggests that Tycho was influenced by Paracelsus. For later opinions on the

114 E.]. AITON
spheres, see W. H. Donahue, "The solid planetary spheres". in Westman (ed.).

op. cit. (ref. 204), 244 . 75.
240. P. Ramus, Scholaeinliberalesartes(Basel, 1578), 1033.
241. K. H. Burmeister, Georg joachim Rhetikus (Wiesbaden, 1967 - 68), iii. 173 - 81:
Dreyer, op. cit. (ref. 237), vi, 89.
242. P. Rami Scholarum mathematicarum (Basel, 1569),49 - 50 and 66.
243. ]. L. Russell, "Kepler and scientific method", Vistas in astronomy, xviii (1975),
733 - 45, p. 745.
244. E.]. Aiton, "Johannes Kepler and the astronomy without hypotheses" . [apanesc
studies in the history of science, xiv (1975), 49 - 71: "Johannes Kepler in the light
of recent research", History of science, xiv (1976), 77 - 100. See also N. Jardine,
"The forging of modern realism: Clavius and Kepler against the sceptics".
Studies in history and philosophy ofscience, x (1979),141 - 73.
245. Even Maestlin objected to Kepler's reasoning involving physical (efficient) causes.
E. ]. Aiton, "Johannes Kepler and the Mysterium cosmographicum ", Sudhoffs
Archie Ixi(1977), 173 - 94, p. 180.

Aiton Celestial Spheres

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Aiton Celestial Spheres

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aiton Celestial Spheres

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hist. Sci., xix (1981) Copyright © 1981 by E. J.

CELESTIAL SPHERES AND CIRCLES

Aristotle's crystalline spheres and the mathematical circles of Ptolemy's

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Renaissance, physics itself became hypothetical, in the sense that

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

follows that the motion of each planet is controlled by a number of

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

2. SAVING THE APPEARANCES.

The astronomical practice of 'saving the appearances' has usually been

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

influential works of Duhem." has only recently been brought into

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

'phenomena' provide a 'vision' of 'things that are obscure'. 40 In other

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

the astronomer seeks hypotheses on the basis of which the appearances

3. SOSIGENES ON ARISTOTLE'S SPHERES

Sosigenes, the teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias," offered a physical

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Ptolemy's Syntaxis mathematica (commonly known as the Almagest)

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Proclus (fifth century A.D.) was the last great representative of

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

7. THE SPHERES OF ARISTOTLE AND PTOLEMY IN THE LA TIN WEST

The system of Alpetragius entered the Latin west in the translation of

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

name. Indeed Bacon referred to the theory of solid planetary spheres as a

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

enclosed its inferiors spherically.!" Quoting Aristotle's Meteorologica.r"

8. THE RENAISSANCE ALTERNATIVE TO ARISTOTLE

It was on a voyage from Constantinople in 1437 that Nicholas of Cusa

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

distinction of more or less, is just one aspect of the doctrine of learned

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

whom complete knowledge of reality is unattainable. Echoing the

9. PEURBACH, COPERNICUS AND RHETICUS

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

the space remaining between Venus's convex sphere [convexum

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

whatever is contained within the Moon's sphere. 1%

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

centre of all the celestial circles or spheres" - is essentially the axiom of

10. THE WITTENBERG CIRCLE

Rheticus was exceptional among the disciples of Melanchthon in

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

arguments against the Earth's motion.!" Rejecting Aristotle's starting

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015

motions.f" This makes explicit a position which has been encountered

11. OPTICS, COMETS AND HYPOTHESES

Downloaded from hos.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 9, 2015