The Transit of Venus, Or, The Cranes of Kepler

Kepler, in 1618, on his {Harmonices Mundi} It may be that my book will wait
for a hundred years for a reader. Has not God waited 6,000 years for an
observer?"
The first recorded sighting of the transit of Venus was the product of
three young followers of Kepler in 1630's England. They all died young, and
their suppressed work was finally published two decades later by Hevelius. This
Polish astronomer also obtained Kepler's papers, and came under intense scrutiny
from the British Royal Society. When his observatory was destroyed by arson, the
papers of Kepler, and Hevelius himself, survived - to the dismay of some in
England.
The recent transit of Venus was as lawful as the cranes of Ibykus, famous
from Schillers poem. Previously, in researching the provenance of Keplers
manuscripts and the gap of over two centuries before his papers were published,
I had established the role of Leibniz in his grand strategy for Kepler. One
hundred years after Keplers {Harmonices Mundi}, Leibniz dared to re-organize
the Austro-Hungarian Empire around a Kepler-publishing project of which more
below. However, the boldness of this project takes on an even more massive
character when the brawl over those manuscripts first century of obscurity
becomes known.
Last Tuesdays transit of Venus called out the name of Horrocks! to me,
the young Keplerian who first sighted the transit of Venus, and who mysteriously
died at the age of 22. That his papers and memory were revived two decades later
by Huyghens (and later, Leibnizs) associate, Johann Hevelius; that this same
Hevelius was key to the transmission of Keplers manuscripts to Leibniz; and
that Keplers works survived premature deaths and arson all this provided a
whole new dimension to Leibnizs bold strategic adventure.
Keplers cranes cry out approximately twice every century or so. Perhaps
2012 is a good time to figure out what they are saying.
In 1629, Kepler published in Leipzig, with the editorial aide of his sonin-law, Jacob Bartsch, his predictions in his "De raris mirisque Anni 1631[1]:
a transit of Mercury could be observed in November, and a transit of Venus could
be observed in December, most easily in America. Kepler advised the Europeans
that they should still be on their guard. Kepler died a year before the
sightings. Bartsch died of the plague, three years after Kepler.
On November 7, 1631, right on schedule, Gassendi in Paris made the first
ever recording of a transit of Mercury. Unfortunately, the transit of Venus
occurred during pre-dawn hours in Paris. He promptly published the exciting
news.[2] One of Keplers important collaborators, Wilhelm Schickart who had
worked with Kepler on a calculating machine[3] responded to the news with his
"Pars responsi ad epistolas P. Gassendi de Mercurio sub Sole viso". Schickart
had also drawn the frontispiece design for Keplers publication of the
{Rudolphine Tables}[4], the Bible for astronomers. (It was named after the
Austro-Hungarian Emperor, Rudolph, the patron of Tycho Brahe and of Kepler in
their work at the observatory near Prague.)

In 1632, certainly the {Rudolphine Tables}, but probably also the other two works (of
Gassendi and Schickart) were being studied by a young Puritan, Jeremiah Horrocks, in the library
of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Jeremiah was only fourteen, sharing a birth year with Keplers
{Harmonices Mundi}. His grandfather, Thomas Aspinwall, had been a noted watchmaker, as was
his own father, James Horrocks. Jeremiah found the teaching at Cambridge boring, and spent most
of his time and energies reading the astronomical works at the library there, and in discussions with

fellow students, John Wallis and John Worthington. (Both would be instrumental in rescuing
Horrocks works from obscurity.) He described how he overcame the lack of scientific leadership
there: I am determined therefore that the tediousness of study should be overcome by industry. . .
and that instead of a master I would use astronomical books. Armed with these weapons I would
contend successfully; and having heard of others acquiring knowledge without greater help, I
would blush that any one should be able to do more than I. Jeremiah left Cambridge in 1635,
abjuring a degree.
It was Worthington[5], from Manchester, who, most likely, put Horrocks in
touch with William Crabtree, also of Manchester. Crabtree had never attended
university, but he had a good collection of astronomical works, including Kepler
and Hipparchus. The two corresponded for the next five years, working and
reworking Keplers {New Astronomy}, {Rudolphine Tables}, and, perchance, the
{Harmonices Mundi}. They determined that Keplers tables were the most accurate,
and spent much energy perfecting and extending them. (Further, they worked on
Keplerian topics e.g., the elliptical path of the moon, the lunar cause of
tides. On March 28, 1637, they arranged by letters to observe the Pleiades from
their separate residences.) By the time of his death, Kepler had only prepared
his Ephemerides up through the year 1636. But Horrocks had extended them, when
he found his happy surprise in 1639: The more accurate calculations of Rudolphi
very much confirmed my expectations; and I rejoiced exceedingly in the prospect
of seeing Venus.
On November 24, 1639, Horrocks, near Liverpool, and Crabtree, near
Manchester, carried out the simultaneous measurements of the Venus transit
whence the distance to the sun was increased to around a minimum of 60 million
miles (or, as Horrocks had put it, at least 15,000 semi-diamters of the
Earth). Though not our 93 million miles, it was a big improvement over previous
estimations. (Keplers was around 13 million miles. One still can be quite
impressed by Aristarchus of Samos 3rd century BC estimate of four million
miles.) This was the first measurement by any human of the transit of Venus.
In 1640, Horrocks wrote that Kepler was the most learned astronomer who
had ever lived His death [in 1630, when Horrocks was 12] was an event that must
ever have happened too soon; the science of astronomy received the lamentable
intelligence whilst left in the hands of a few trifling professors who had kept
themselves concealed like owls until the brightness of his sun has set. Within
months, the healthy Horrocks lay dead.
"Nos Keplari" - Horrocks, Crabtree, Gascoigne: All dead between ages 22-34

In that fall of 1640, perhaps inspired by the success of the transit of Venus, another
collaborator of Crabtree, William Gascoigne, made important breakthroughs in instrumentation,
promising major advances in astronomy. Gascoigne, then 27, made precision instruments. The story
is that, when he was working upon a Keplerian optical arrangmement, a spider had left a strand,
placed fortunately across a lens that Gascoigne was working on providing the inspiration for a
cross-hair. Gascoigne could engineer the pitch of a screw with enough precision to control the
cross-hair. Between August and December, 1640, Gascoigne corresponds with Crabtree over his
progress on his micrometer and his telescopic lens. Then, Crabtree visited Gascoigne's home, where
he was much excited by the possibilities of the instrumentation. Horrocks became enthused, simply
from Crabtrees written description. Crabtree wrote Gascoigne (12/28/1740): My Friend Mr.
Horrox professeth, that little Touch which I gave him of your Inventions, hath ravished his Mind
quite from it self, and left him in an Extasie between Admiration and Amazement. I beseech you,
Sir, stack not your Intentions for the perfecting of your begun Wonders. We travel with Desire till
we hear of your full Delivery. You have our Votes, our Hearts, and our Hands should not be

wanting, if we could further you. They styled themselves Nos Keplari. The collaboration was
going into high gear!
Horrocks wrote Crabtree (12/19/1640) that he would arrive there for their long-anticipated
meeting on January 4th, adding nisi quid praeter solitum impediat, me tunc expectes. However,
On January 3rd, the day of his departure, seemingly out of the blue, Jeremiah Horrocks died.
Crabtree related the news to Gascoigne: Mr. Jeremiah Horrocks letters to me for the years 1638,
1639, 1640 up to the day of his death, very suddenly, on the morning of the 3rd January; the
day he had arranged to come to me. Thus God puts an end to all worldly affairs. I have lost, alas,
my dear Horrocks. Hinc illa lachrimae [thus the tears fall]. Irreparable loss. The death of the 22year-old is otherwise passed over in silence, except that it is said he was quite healthy, and it is a
mystery.[6] Clearly, some professor is going to claim that Horrocks died of the Extasie reported
on 12/28/1640 however that was a report of an Extasie that had started at least two weeks prior;
so that professor is going to have to claim at least a three-week Extasie felled the young man.
Soldiers appeared at the home of Horrocks father in Toxteth. They proceeded to burn
Jeremiahs papers. (This is mentioned in passing as out-of-control marauders, somehow forgetting
that they are seizing valuables, and instead rounding up papers to burn.) Further, Jeremiahs
brother, Jonas, had taken some papers to Ireland, where, upon his death, they were lost. Crabtree
continued to work with Gascoigne, but the environment was increasingly hostile. Crabtree writes to
him (12/6/1641) about Horrocks, whose immature Death there is yet scarce a Day which I pass
without some pang of sorrow.
The 1642 outbreak of the English civil war ended the collaboration. Gascoigne, an officer
for Charles I, died in battle July 2, 1644. It is thought Crabtree died that same year, fighting on the
side of Parliament. It was the Dr. John Worthington, who had introduced Horrocks to Crabtree, who
rescued some of Crabtrees papers after his death.
Twenty years after Horrocks immature Death, Christian Huyghens presented a copy of
Horrocks work on Venus to Johann Hevelius. Huyghens had been a student of Hevelius
astronomical work, and, based upon that, had made dramatic discoveries between 1655-59
regarding the rings of Saturn. (They also shared interest in the development of the pendulum
clock.) Evidently, while in London in 1661, Sir Robert Moray had provided Huyghens with the
precious work, telling him that there was no prospect of them being published in England, and
might he find a publisher.[7] That there was no prospect was certainly a rather telling comment.
The 1640s and 1650s in England had been a rather turbulent period, but the short version of what
Ive been able to reconstruct regarding the provenance of the Nos Keplari manuscripts and papers
follows.
Dr. Worthington obtained two versions of Horrocks {Venus in Sole Visa} manuscript,
neither fully complete. These were found amongst Crabtrees papers when Worthington went to his
home after his death. At some point, Worthington had arranged for a friend to print the work, but
other business, it seems, would not permit him to go through with the work.[8] Perhaps the friend
was overworked or suffered from some innocent interruption; but this is also the way one refers to
outside pressure in such a climate. Regardless, by no later than 1659, Worthington had discussed
Horrocks with Samuel Hartlib; at which point, he loaned his two versions to him.
Worthington had attained, by 1650, the position of Master at Jesus College, Cambridge, and
in 1657, the Vice-Chancellor. Hartlibs intellectual circles had more than a little to do with Gresham
College and with the setting up of the Royal Society. The year after Hartlibs study of Hollocks
Venus work, the Royal Society was formally established (11/28/1660) on the premises of Gresham
College. Of the twelve in attendance, of note for our purposes were Roger Moray, William Neile

and William Brouncker, the 2nd Viscount. All had associations with Hartlib and Gresham College.
For example, Neiles father, Paul, was an astronomer who had provided Gresham College, in 1658,
with a 35-foot telescope. Neile himself worked with in the late 1650s with Wallis on analysis of the
paraboloid and Wallis, the old schoolmate of Hollocks, would later publish Hollocks collected
works.[9] Brouncker also took interest in these discussions. If Moray had not gotten the manuscript
directly from Worthington or Hartlib, any of these other three are likely candidates.
The Neiles also seemed to be aware of Towneleys collection of letters of the Nos Keplari.
One of Gascoignes collaborators, the astronomer Christopher Towneley, preserved Gascoignes
papers after his death at the battle of Marston Moore. Towneleys brother died on that same field of
battle with Gascoigne. His brothers 14-year-old son, Richard, would go on to perfect Gascoignes
micrometer. The Towneleys proved to be an early source for the papers of Nos Keplari.
Hevelius Takes Horrocks Seriously: Plans to Publish Kepler Next
Hevelius published Horrocks manuscript in Gdansk in 1662, along with a report that he
made on the 1661 transit of Mercury.[10] It certainly had its effect in breaking up the attack upon
nos Keplari or what the historians of science prefer today to call them, the north country
astronomers. During the first decade of the Royal Society, the 1660s, there was probably more
open discussion than the rest of its existence. Dr. Wallis headed up the project to collect together
what could be found of Horrocks writings, along with the correspondence of Horrocks, Crabtree
and Gascoigne.
Johann Hevelius father was a prosperous producer of beer. Johann worked in the family
business and served in the Gdansk government off and on. When a youth of sixteen, he studied in
Gdansk with one of Keplers students, Peter Kruger. Then from 1632-34, he toured Europe. In
Holland he established contact with the Huyghens family. In Paris, he met Gassendi shortly after
his 1631 confirmation of Kepler prediction of the transit of Mercury. In London, he met with John
Wallis and began a regular correspondence with him. Their meeting would have been while Wallis
was a student with Horrocks at Cambridge. Johann also met Hartlib there.
In 1639, Kruger, on his deathbed, extracted a promise from Hevelius that he had to live up
to the Keplerian training that they had worked together on, during his high school years. Beginning
around 1640, Hevelius initiated the construction of his observatory, called Sternenburg (Star
Castle). He provided it with a large Keplerian telescope, one with a 150-foot focal length![11] It
was fully complete by 1657. The year after his publication of Horrocks Keplerian work, Hevelius
decides to publish Keplers manuscripts. In 1663, Ludwig Kepler died, after having possession of
his fathers manuscripts for three decades. (He was a medical doctor in Koenigsberg, serving as the
personal physician to the elector of Brandenburg, and for some time to the king of Sweden.)
Curiously, back in 1635, Ludwig had moved briefly to Hevelius Gdansk, and Hevelius might have
seen Keplers papers at that point. (More curiously, Ludwig had traveled to Gdansk with the
English legate to Gdansk in tow. Presently, I have no idea as to what was going on there.) Ludwig
had stated his intention at various times over the three decades to publish his fathers manuscripts.
It is not clear what happened to prevent this. Regardless, Hevelius in 1663 initiated strenuous
efforts to purchase the Kepler manuscripts from Ludwigs heirs. Evidently, it took some time, and I
do not know when Hevelius succeeded, but in September, 1673, he announces to the Royal Society
that he has the manuscripts (he lists 29 titles) and he intends to publish them for the world.
All hell breaks loose. For the last dozen years of Hevelius life, he is subject to ridiculous
attacks from London, including the intentional burning down of his observatory in 1679. The poor

student of Hevelius will be treated to reams of nonsense from historians of science, who will
recount in detail the attacks by Robert Hooke the hard cop, and Flamsteed, the soft cop; and all
this without ever mentioning the Kepler manuscripts! Before I discovered Hevelius 1673
announcement, I had sorted through enough of this mythology to ascertain that it was in 1674 that
the level of hysteria kicked in. From that, Id inferred that the Kepler manuscripts had become the
issue at that point. Lo and behold, an extract of Hevelius (9/16/1673) Letter, lately written to the
Publisher, concerning the famous Keplers Manuscripts is published in the January 1, 1674
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
In brief, in 1668, upon the occasion of the publication of Hevelius Cometographia, Robert
Hooke began challenging his sightings and measurements. The issue, supposedly, is that Hevelius
should be using smaller telescopes with micrometers; that if he is not using what Hooke approves
of, then his measurements cannot be correct. (One of the sub-texts here is that the legacy of the nos
Keplari who, now that they could be discussed, are now known under their new name, the north
country astronomers - should NOT be Keplers method, but simply the cross-hairs of Gascoignes
telescope.) Hevelius knew that he was dealing with an amateur astronomer - compared to his own
decades of observational experience though, perhaps, a professional ideologue. He invited Hooke
to send him anything that would improve his work. That Hooke never did this did not stop Hooke
from casting aspersions and doubts.
By 1671, Hevelius expressed to Oldenburg, the Royal Society secretary (who suffered some
embarrassment from Hookes antics), his impatience with the man who was all words and no
deeds. In 1673, Hevelius actually published an account of his observatory, instruments and
methods thinking that this would end the contretemps. He was ready to move ahead with
publishing Keplers works. Wallis, who had been publishing Horrocks works, wrote to Oldenburg
(1/12/1674) that there was no reason to be displeased with Hevelius continued use of common
sights on measuring instruments, and that it was better for Hevelius to continue using the
instruments he was most familiar with.
However, nothing seems to satisfy Hooke. He escalates his attack with his 1674
{Animadversions}. Hevelius begins to think that there is more to this than just the edgy
personality of Hooke. He writes that, all the sudden, others of the Royal Society, including
Flamsteed, have already pronounced their verdict on [his] observations before they have seen
them, examined them or known anything at all of them. Hevelius asked his critics to at least
suspend judgment until after they had gained the necessary experience acquired through years of
observation; only then could they sufficiently address these issues. This was aimed at Hooke. He
made the further offer that if what he had displayed in the drawings and descriptions of his 1673
work did not satisfy, then the Royal Society should just send someone to observe him at work.
Wallis now thinks that Hooke should be cut off at the pass. He writes (1/11/1675) to
Oldenburg: I have now read ye whole of Mr. Hookes [Animadversions] against Hevelius, which I
think bears a little too hard upon him. Hee might have published his own way to as good advantage
as he pleased, without so frequent Reflections on Hevelius, as he hath at every turn. For Hevelius
hath deserved well. However, in 1675, Charles II appointed Flamsteed as the Royal Astronomer,
and Flamsteeds tone changes.[12] He actively becomes the soft cop. He wants to put Hookes
attitude to one side, if only Hevelius will pretend that there are really good faith questions being
put to him. Hevelius responded that Flamsteed was not acting in good faith in seizing upon two
small errors - the type of errors that he has made, that he will make in the future, and that all men
make - in order to question the quality of all of Hevelius work.

Hevelius tries again to put an end to the ridiculous operation, writing to Oldenburg
(8/21/1676): You may believe, my friend, that I approach this little job with extreme reluctance:
not because I am unsure whether I have untied [Hookes] Gordion knots or laid myself open to
those darts he has been pleased so often to hurl at me, which I can certainly dodge by no means!
But because my mind (as, I judge, is proper in a candid and warm-hearted man) wholly abhors such
things, especially disputes with others and contentions in mere idle words against a Fellow of the
illustrious Royal Society I have urged no one to be my partisan, nor have I made efforts to
persuade anyone to relinquish his own point of view, which he might think the nearer to the truth;
much less have I so conducted myself as to presume to play the rle of dictator to free minds. In my
little works I never, by any means, tried to lay down laws for anyone or for posterity as though they
should follow in every detail in my footsteps, or as though that business was to be done thus and
not otherwise Hevelius proceeded to describe Hooke as a busybody, who labors in vain with
words and deeds, and was interested only in what others were doing, but never improved his own
work Yet how Mr. Hooke has treated me before(in almost every page of his Animadversions
where he reviles my observations and small labours, slights them and makes them of no account,
and myself he everywhere slanders, mocks and uses scornfully. . .
Finally, in May, 1679, the young Edmond Halley, who actually had worked on some star
measurements to compare with Hevelius[13], arrived at Hevelius observatory in Gdansk. He spent
two months living and working with Johann and Elizabeth Hevelius. (After his first wife died,
Johann met and married Elizabeth, a young enthusiastic astronomer, and she shared astronomical
duties with him.) He arrived as a sceptic of Hevelius methods, but found that his methods were
sound and his measurements could not be improved upon. He wrote as much in his report to
Flamsteed and left for England in July. This could have occurred anytime in the previous five years.
Hevelius observatory was destroyed by arson two months later. The Halley development
could not have pleased the anything-but-Kepler faction, and if a decision was made to torch
Hevelius observatory, with Keplers papers included, it was made then and carried into action over
the next two months. We may not be able to secure proof as to whether it was a lone arsonist or not;
however, Halley was played for a fool around the fire. First, the arson.
The simple version is that Hevelius suspected that arson was being planned. After it
happened on September 26th, 1679, he suspected that his servant, who had fled that night, had
deliberately set the fire. Hevelius daughter, the 13-year-old Katerina Elizabeth, courageously saved
the precious documents, including the Kepler treasure, by racing to the library room and throwing
them out the window. (What a marvelous young lady!) The observatory was completely destroyed,
including all the equipment. Many manuscripts and books were lost.
Hevelius reported to his patron, King Louis XIV[15], that on the previous night, he had felt
deeply troubled by unaccustomed fears (This might be a reference to his awareness of
operations afoot against him.) In order to lift his spirits, he wrote that he took his wife to their
country home on the 26th. We can follow the rest of the story, as Hevelius related it to a fellow
resident of Gdansk, one D. Capellus:
He bade his coachman return to the City with the horses before the gates were
closed and tell the domestics to guard carefully against fire. The coachman when
he had unharnessed and stabled the horses made as if to go to bed, about 9
o'clock, and whether by carelessness as some think, or with intent and of
purpose (as the very noble Hevelius himself concludes from the fact that he
never rescued from the flames four horses of choice breed and great value) left
a burning candle in the stable and set the whole place afire. The fire being

started he passed tiptoe through the front house without saying a single word
about it. This took place about half past nine in the evening.
Clearly, earlier in the evening, Hevelius had trusted his coachman with
the valuable horses, and with the instruction to guard carefully against fire.
(Later, the lone arson theorists will claim against Hevelius claim and with
no attempt to cite evidence - that the arsonist was a disgruntled former
coachman who had been dismissed from service.) And, more significantly, Hevelius
suspected that the next attack against him would be by fire. Another domestic
evidently saw the arsonist leave the house around 9:30. (Unless some one wishes
to produce the coachman that left Hevelius and his wife that evening, the one
who was in Hevelius employ until he ran off that evening, we wont discover
more from this angle except that lone arson theorists are desperate liars.)
The same report lists some of the writings that were destroyed:
Of the unbound books produced by Hevelius not a single leaf was saved from the
flames the titles of these are
1. Selenographia.
2. Cometographia.
3. Prodromus Cometicus.
4. Mantissa prodromi de nativa facie Saturni.
5. Mercurius in Sole visus.
6. Epistolae ad Gassendum, Ricciolum, Oldenburgium et alios.
7. Duae partes Machinae Coelestis, the latter of which only appeared in February
of this year 1679, and contained the observations of 49 years surely an
incredible loss to letters and posterity.
And which ones saved:
1. a good part of the bound books together with
2. MSS. of great importance a) specially the Catalogue of Fixed Stars, the work
of many years, and b) the new Globus Coelestis Correctus et Reformatus, which
was intended shortly to be published. Likewise
3. thirteen volumes of Letters of Hevelius's Correspondence with many men of the
learned world - most useful documents. There were preserved
4. all Kepler's MSS.[16] and
5. those which Hevelius in the second part of the Machina Coelestis promised he
would publish, (1) Uranographia (2) Prodromus Astronomicus (3) Annus
Quinquagesimus Observationum Uranicarum.
Capellus testifies that What I am narrating thus far I saw in part
myself, with others, in part I have gathered from the lips of Hevelius himself
and the trustworthy statements of neighbours. Capellus report goes on to make
clear that Hevelius is in need of aide in reconstructing his observatory and
the kings of Poland and France do respond. However, in Hamburg, the British
ambassador to the Hanseatic League, one Sir Peter Wyche, is interested to
provide a report to London on the situation. Capellus brother in Hamburg gets a
copy of the German-language report and prepares a Latin translation of it for
Wyche. It is Wyches report that is read by a Mr. Henshaw at the Royal Society,
later in 1679. However, no one from the Royal Society is interested in aid in
Hevelius reconstruction. At the age of 68, and without much of his lifes work,
he sets back to work, completing his new observatory over the next two years.
However, since his 1673 letter to a publisher, regarding the Kepler manuscripts,
he had been tied up in attacks. Hevelius is able to regain some of his work, but
the last dozen years of his life never afforded him the free energy to carry out
his Kepler offensive.

The 22-year-old Halley never recovers. If he was a young innocent before

the fire, afterwards, he gets quite a life-lesson. A British ambassador knows
fairly early on that Hevelius is alive and that the Kepler manuscripts survived,
and whoever hears from him is similarly informed. However, Halley hears a
version of the fire that includes the death of Hevelius. He fulfills a promise
to Elizabeth, regarding sending a dress from London, with a curious letter:
I quite realise that his heartbroken spouse must be wearing sad-coloured
apparel, yet for several reasons I have thought well to send the gown procured
for her ... because I am not yet certain her husband is dead, in which case I
judge nothing would be more unwelcome than delay ... since it is of silk and of
the newest fashion, I am confident it will highly please Mme Hevelius, if only
it should be granted to her to wear it ...
He goes on to describe its costs, and request payment in the form of a
parcel of three specific works authored by Hevelius. Whatever else was going on
in London, in October, 1679, Halley was being kept out of the know, and he was
somewhat suspicious of what he was hearing. However, if he came to figure out
that he was being played, he also figured out how the game was to be played;
and his innocence was gone. That he would publicly renounce the written
documents that he had made after testing Hevelius methods and measurements, is
a pretty good indication that he was put through some process of humiliation.
The games that were played, beginning in 1680, with who would get the fame
for the comet that bore his name, is a story that can be told another time. Of
note, for now, is that it was Halley, who in 1684, is pushing the project of
getting a mathematization of Keplers physical hypothesis of gravity, by
reducing it to an inverse-square law the project whereby he is sent to recruit
the recluse, Isaac Newton.
Hevelius will still send reports to the Royal Societys Philosophical
Transactions, but he now has his reports published in Leibnizs Acta
Eruditorum. When he discovered a new constellation in 1683, he named it
Sobieskis Shield, in honor of the Polish king who helped him rebuild his
observatory, King John III Sobieski and he announced the new constellation in
Leibnizs (August, 1684) Acta Eruditorum. About the time that he discovered
the new constellation, a new soul was born (9/22/1683) in Hevelius Gdansk,
named Michael Hansch, who would, two decades later, work with Leibniz on the
publication of the Kepler manuscripts.
On April 4, 1685, Hevelius sends to the Royal Society what will be his
last work, his {Annus Climactericus...}, referring to the year 1679. His
accompanying letter to Francis Aston, the Royal Society secretary, made it clear
that the naked eye was perfectly capable of seeing what had transpired:
Given this convenient opportunity, and having published my little work of observations,
namely Annus Climactericus, I did not want to neglect my duty any longer, but to offer it
duly to you and the Royal Society... Humbly asking that you will receive, in good spirit and in
love of truth, these little pages ... written in defense of my observations, and that you,
rnoreover, deem the author worthy of your protection against all envious persons and those
wishing me ill. In the said little work you will not only see discussed that controversy between
Hooke and me long ago conducted with mere words and [more recently] when Halley was here
[whom the Royal Society sent to me at the end of 1679] clearly and with the eye [itself], but
you will also find my observations of planets as well as occultations and eclipses, made by me
here in Gdansk in my new observatory, after that abominable misfortune of mine.

He followed this up, on July 17, 1685, by sending to individual members of the Royal
Society, including Wallis, Halley, and Flamsteed, copies of his work so that all England could
respond to it. Walliss made a public review of it, including: Mr. Hook published his
Animadversions. . . with much more of bitterness and boasting than there was reason for. Which
he thinks was done out of design to disparage Him, his Instruments, and his Observations (unsight
and unseen,) and to prepossess others with mean and slight thoughts of them, (even before they
were yet published;) and a high opinion of himself who (with so little charge and so small
Instruments) could do things so much more accurate than had hitherto ever been done, by any: thus
seeking to raise his own reputation by disparaging what is done by others, in things wherein
himself doth nothing. Halley instructed Towneley the man who had improved Gascoignes
micrometer and had been a source for key letters amongst Nos Keplari to simply ignore Wallis
defense of Hevelius!
Hevelius actions resulted in Hooke launching a whole new attack, this time upon the
deceased Royal Society secretary, Oldenburg, who evidently had broken party ranks back in the
1670s and dealt with Hevelius too honestly. Hevelius wrote to the Royal Society (4/17/1686),
objecting to Hookes calumnies. He took the occasion to announce that he would respond to such
actions by continuing with his plans to publish his Prodromus astronomiae and his Uranographia.
By this time, 1686, the Royal Society was committed to the Newton project. There was no longer
any question of following procedure and publishing such communications. Written across the top of
Hevelius letter is: do not Print this - - - - - -.
Hevelius was dead within a year. His friends and associates were convinced that the bitter
attacks of his last dozen years shortened his life. His widow, Elizabeth, did publish her husbands
works. She died in 1693. The Kepler manuscripts, quite properly, went to Katerina Elizabeth, who
14 years earlier had saved them from the fire. In 1696, she married the Gdansk senator, Ernst
Lange, and the manuscripts were part of the dowry. By 1706, the baby that had been born in
Gdansk back in 1683, Hevelius new constellation year, was now collaborating with Leibniz; and
by 1707, they had the Kepler manuscripts. Stay tuned for part II.
Katerina Elizabeth (1666Lange

), in 1696, married a councilor of Gdansk, Ernst

APPENDIX
The English translation of the Latin version of D. Capellus report of the fire,
as prepared for Ambassador Wyche for British authorities. This version is based
upon E F MacPikes {Hevelius, Flamsteed, Halley}, Appendix I. Taylor and
Francis, London, 1937:
The very noble and famous Hevelius, feeling himself oppressed with great and
unaccustomed troubles, as if presaging some disaster to himself, withdrew with
his much loved spouse (but to his great misfortune) on the 16 September to a
garden not far from the City Gate of Gdansk, in order that he might refresh and
restore his fatigued and weary self. He bade his coachman return to the City
with the horses before the gates were closed and tell the domestics to guard
carefully against fire. The coachman when he had unharnessed and stabled the
horses made as if to go to bed, about 9 o'clock, and whether by carelessness as
some think, or with intent and of purpose (as the very noble Hevelius himself
concludes from the fact that he never rescued from the flames four horses of
choice breed and great value) left a burning candle in the stable and set the
whole place afire. The fire being started he passed tiptoe through the front
house without saying a single word about it. This took place about half past

nine in the evening. After he left, a hall servant noticing an unusual smell of
smoke, went hastily to the rear portion of the house where he found the house
and stable burning with a steady blaze, the fire fanned by a strong Southerly
wind creeping further every moment, catching up everything adjacent before it
could be stopped. So the three front structures of the house quickly began
burning. These Hevelius occupied and on these he had erected that famous and
incomparable observatory. His Museum indeed was broken open by friendly hands
hastening to assist and save what they could from the flames, and the bound
books were thrown down from the windows. But not a few purloined at the hands of
unscrupulous men never returned to their owner.
Of the unbound books produced by Hevelius not a single leaf was saved from the
flames the titles of these are
1. Selenographia.
2. Cometographia.
3. Prodromus Cometicus.
4. Mantissa prodromi de nativa facie Saturni.
5. Mercurius in Sole visus.
6. Epistolae ad Gassendum, Ricciolum, Oldenburgium et alios.
7. Duae partes Machinae Coelestis, the latter of which only appeared in February
of this year 1679, and contained the observations of 49 years surely an
incredible loss to letters and posterity.
Of the latter part of the Machina Coelestis scarce ten copies had been sold, so
that no more survive anywhere in the world, save the few that their
distinguished author presented and transmitted to sovereigns, princes, or
friends. Of all the great and excellent instruments made of metal, and of which
we read the description in Part 1 of the Machina Coelestis, simply nothing has
been saved from this sad conflagration. The photic (or, if one prefer it, optic
or perspective) tubes of which one was 140 and another 60 feet long, not to
mention the rest, all the glasses too and sights appropriate to this subject,
have so perished that nothing at all is left. All that optical plant for
polishing and turning, and numerous "forms" specially suited for bringing remote
objects under the eye-from the smallest up to those we knew of a diameter up to
100 feet, together with globes ready to be made into "concava ", all have
perished.
That most splendid printing office itself and its types, brass and wooden
presses and other requisites, as well as a huge and very great mass of most
choice and elegant paper, stored up for the approaching publication of the
Prodromus Astronomiae.
Nor of the many mechanical instruments used in horologic and gnomonic art and
for engraving on brass. Nothing at all of all these remained, not anything of
the steel mirrors or other things of value in the Observatory, which all were
burnt before any human effort could bring help. In so sad a case wicked men were
found who under guise of assisting, broke open cabinets and made off with no
small sums in gold and silver coin, with other precious things, among them three
clocks of silver, with their cases, which were very dear to Hevelius for the
reason that he had engraved and embellished them with his own hands.
If one reckon up the immobile property lost, he mourns for three large ornate
front houses, handsomely built and with walls calculated to resist fire, upon
which was placed the greater observatory, near to which was another, smaller, in
which were housed the greater sextant, of metal, as well as the horizontal
quadrant, with many other smaller instruments. He lost also the two rear houses
and two others lately erected, hi which one saw the printing office, with the
octagonal observatory and that great and elaborate azimuthal quadrant specially
adapted to meridian altitude observations. And so seven buildings were destroyed
by the fire, completely and razed to the ground. The walls exposed to the fire
for the greater part collapsed, except the three fronts of the front houses.

Pictures, silver vessels, ornaments of gold and silver, linen woollen and silken apparel, also the vessels of copper and tin and other such household things
have so disappeared that scarce any of the metal remaining could be extracted
from the ruins. From this lamentable fire there was saved, by the grace of God,
(1) a good part of the bound books together with
(2) MSS. of great importance (1) specially the Catalogue of Fixed Stars, the
work of many years, and (2) the new Globus Coelestis Correctus et Reformatus,
which was intended shortly to be published. Likewise
(3) thirteen volumes of Letters of Hevelius's Correspondence with many men of
the learned world - most useful documents. There were preserved
(4) all Kepler's MSS. and
(5) those which Hevelius in the second part of the Machina Coelestis promised he
would publish, (1) Uranographia (2) Prodromus Astronomicus (3) Annus
Quinquagesimus Observationum Uranicarum.
Hevelius hopes too that he will be able, with the benevolent aid of the highest
patrons of the learned world, to erect his "Urania" anew, and he desires above
all the restoration of his printing office, since the copper plates rescued from
the fire, which he himself engraved with his own hand and art, are, thanks to
God, still extant for the service of new editions of the works-a thing which he
esteems not the smallest part of his happiness.
What I am narrating thus far I saw in part myself, with others, in part I have
gathered from the lips of Hevelius himself and the trustworthy statements of
neighbours. May the Almighty mercifully grant our eyes may never see another
such fire, so grievous and so horrible. It can scarce be told, the way the air
was filled with flying papers driven by the wind-about eighty hundredweight. And
had not God commanded the wind to blow from another quarter extreme danger
threatened the Old City of Gdansk.
About 11 o'clock at night Hevelius returned into the City through the unlocked
gate, but when alas all was already consumed by the fire. This is a very brief
narrative of a most sad disaster, so bitter, so sudden, so widespread, and in
the fact that the Incomparable Man did not succumb to it we admire not only the
constancy of a truly heavenly soul, but we declare the Divine Mercy also, and we
implore It long to preserve for the glory of Its Name an excellent scholar and
interpreter of heavenly things, reinforced with new strength and possessions,
the most brilliant ornament and star of our age. With which prayer, moved by the
deepest sense of sympathy, I conclude.

FOOTNOTES
1. Full title: "De raris mirisque Anni 1631. Phaenomenis, Veneris put & Mercurii in Solem
incursu, Admonitio ad Astronomos, rerumque coelestium studiosos."
2. In 1632, Gassendi published his "Mercurius in sole visus, et Venus invisa Parisiis Anno
1631: Pro voto, & Admonitione Keppleri: Cujus heic sunt ea de re Epistol Du cum
Observatis quibusdam alijs".
3. Blaise Pascal and Leibniz himself were early developers of the Kepler/Schikart initiative.
4. Kepler had XXX Hebenstreit compose the poem for it. A later Hebenstreit, YYY, composed
the introduction for the publication of one of Keplers associates astronomical work, that of
David Gans. The work was first published (1742) in Dessau by the rabbi of young Moses
Mendelssohn. Hebenstreit himself, a Leipzig professor, was a godfather to one of J. S.
Bachs sons.

5. John Worthington was called a Cambridge Platonist who studied with Joseph Mead and
Benjamin Whichcote. He married Whichcotes niece, Mary Whichcote. He would later
achieve notoriety as a correspondent of Samuel Hartlib (1655-62).
6. The painting one sees - at NASA's site, or elsewhere - of Horrocks recording the first transit
of Venus, was a 19th-century fiction, making Horrocks into a tall, frail figure.
7. Nicholas Kollerstroms William Crabtrees Venus transit observation in the 2004 Transit
of Venus: New Views of the Solar System and Galaxy Proceedings IAU Colloquium No.
196. Kollerstrom represented the Science and Technology Studies Department, University
College, London. Kollerstrom adds that he received a private communication from R H van
Gent, that Huyghens was at a dinner at Gresham College (4/11/1661) with Moray, where the
Horrocks case may have been discussed.
8. Hartlib to Dr John Worthington(4/20/1659): Do you remember your promises concerning
the astronomical observations of Venus made by the late Mr Horox? I wish I had them; the
sooner the better. Worthington to Hartlib (4/28/1659): I have, as you desire, have sent you
Mr. Horrox. his discourse called {Venus in Sole Visa}. Here are two copies of it, but neither
writ to the end. I lent them some years hence to a friend, who promised out of both to make
out one, and then to print it: but other business, it seems, would not permit him to go
through with the work These papers of his I found in the study of one Mr Crabtree, and I
bought them after his death. Found in ZZZZ
9. There are two letters of Huyghens (9/21/1661 and 11/9/1661) to Hevelius which may shed
more light on the transmission of Horrocks text, though Ive not yet examined them.
10. {Mercurius in sole visus Gedani, anno MDCLXI, d. III Maji, st. n. cum aliis quibusdam
rerum coelestium observationibus rarisque phaenomenis: Cui annexa est Venus in Sole
pariter visa, anno 1639, d. 24 Nov. st. v. Liverpoliae, a Jeremia Horroxio, nunc primum
edita notisque illustrata. Quibus accedit Historiola, novae illius, ac mirae stellae in collo
Ceti.}
11. For Hevelius' 1673 woodcut, see:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Telescope_140_foot_Johann_Heveliu
s.jpg
12. In 1670/1, Flamsteed spent time studying Nos Keplari and was most impressed by them,
including their estimations of the distance of the solar system to the stars, and to the
Pleiades, in particular. But, by 1672, his knees buckle. Hes horrified that Horrocks
explanation as to why the moon experiences libration (involving the sun acting upon the
moons overall orbit) is framed from Keplers groundless notions
13. Halley had left Oxford without getting his degree. He left (on an East India Company ship)
for two years to make astronomical observations in the south Atlantic. Without actually
publishing anything, upon his return, the 22-year-old was, within seven months, made a
member of the Royal Society, granted an Oxford degree by the intercession of King Charles
II, and sent off to Gdansk. Powerful people certainly thought the young man owed them
something in return.
14. Halleys language: He was surprizd to see so near an agreement in the distances
measured with Hevelius sextant and dare[s] no more doubt of [Hevelius] Veracitye.
(Later, he would attempt to impugn his own statement.) In a second document that he left
for Hevelius, he said he was abundantly satisfied of the use and certainty of your
instruments and observations and that he would offer himself a voluntary witness (of the

almost-incredible certainly of those his instruments) against all who shall for the future call
your observations in question.
15. Hevelius publication of Horrocks work in 1662 had caught the attention of Colbert, who
recommended to Louis XIV that he provide annual support to Hevelius.
16. This would stick in the craw of British intelligence. The Edinburgh intelligence officer, Sir
David Brewster - writing in the 19th century, but still before the Kepler manuscripts were
published discusses the 1679 fire and lists items saved from the fire, based upon this
report; but he has to omit item #4, the Kepler manuscripts!
Hansch
9/22/1683 Muegge Hall, Gdansk
Father: Michael Hansch, priest and deacon. Attending high school in Gdansk. 1702 enrolled in
summer semester at the University of Leipzig, on 12/03/1702 Bachelor, Master on 08.02.1703.

Anna-Maria Weinholtz
Hevelius daughters
1. Katerina Elizabeth (1666- ), in 1696, married a councilor of Gdansk, Ernst Lange
2. Julia Renata (1668- ) married in 1694 Dietrich Mathis dHeinrichson
3. Flora Constania (1672-1734), married. 1694 with
Adolf Karl Ferber
Ernst Lange, 1691, appointed judge in Gdansk; 1694,
senator. His father, Matthias Lange was in the Gdansk
Senate (1650s?)
Ernst Lange, son of Matthias visited, a Gdansk high school . He then became
secretary in Gdansk. In this office he was appointed to the Polish court in
Warsaw . 1691 he went back to Gdansk, where he was a volunteer judge , was
but three years later councilor . In 1696 he married a daughter of the
astronomer Johannes Hevelius .
1698 Long traveled to the Netherlands . Upon his return, he turned in Danzig
Mennonites and Pietists to. This was the reason that quarrels arose with
Lutheran clergyman, and went so far that took place in the city disputes. At an
early age wrote a long, but only published late. He died in 1727 at the age of
77.
1708 Long published his work rewrites the songs of Luther, in which he tried to
rework the songs of Luther. In 1711 he finally published his own hymns, 61,
and the number was due to his age at that time. Placed on the verses Psalms ,
he published in 1713, where he took melodies from the reformed France. In
1720 he revised the work so far, that it served the Lutheran tunes.

Other songs were in Long Johann Anastasius Freyling Stockhausen published

spirit-rich songbook, part two, 1714. It has been suggested that
Freylinghausen had received the songs by hand.
The poet Albert Knapp commented on the basis of long works, he was a noble,
profound man full of spirit and strength. Bode argues, however, in his
evidence about the source of the Hanoverian hymnal songs, poems Long after
his thought and expression not of prime importance.
Despite the conflicting Urteilungen Long songs were common and were not
the end of the 19th Century to be found in hymnals. The best-known song is
one among the large estates, which are allotted to Christ, which is also known
under the titles of those under / all large estates

The Psalms of David, translated into Melodeien reformed, and the Queen of Prussia
appropriated

Vermeinet attempt at singing devotional poetry improved, particularly in it to bring

Luther's songs into something purer verse (Danzig 1708)

A gottgeheiligte and sixty hours, in so many songs (Danzig 1711)

The Lutheran Melodeyen on German songs translated into CL. Psalms, to the glory of
God and devotion due to the revival (Danzig 1720)
The following songs by Lange appeared in Hymns of Wernigerode :

The joy does not make it that you sing at times

People are looking for science

O God of Light, before the light of day

God's true love

Lord Jesus Christ, drawing us to You

My sighing breaks herfr

Seyd glad her immaculate sense

Among those large estates which are allotted to Christ

Perfection of the gifts you are the main

L. Ernst, was a poet of spiritual songs, on 3 Born in Danzig in January 1650 and
died on 20 ibid August 1727th After completion of his studies, he took first in
his native city employment as a secretary and lived in the same capacity for
several years at the Polish court in Warsaw. In the year 1691 he returned as
alderman of the town back to Gdansk and was out in the year 1694 Mr. Rath.
He married in 1696 a daughter of J. Johannes Hevelius , see Vol XII S. 341st
Later he lived, after he had made in the year 1698 a trip to the Netherlands, to
the Danzig Mennonites and Pietists, making him into disputes with the
Lutheran clergy involved and even led to riots in the city. Only in his old age
he published his hymns, first in 1708, "Updating of Luther's hymns, which he"
put in something purer verses tried "; to the J. 1711 61 songs of their own,
according to the number of his years. Then he gave in 1713 a German
paraphrase out of the Psalms, which he set up first in French-reformed
melodies, but afterwards reworked so that they were singing in Lutheran

chorale melodies, 1720. In addition to the existing in these collections has

Freylinghausen in the second part of his hymnal of 1714, yet informed by some
other songs by him, it is supposed that L. gave it to him sent by hand. The
judgment of his songs is very different; while Knapp L. says he was "a noble,
profound man full of spirit and strength," says Bode, his poems were "after
thought and expression not of prime importance." Anyway, they have found
appreciative reception and some of them still encountered today in church
hymnals. The best known and most widely used of his songs is want the price
of love: "[changed often: those or all] Among the large estates, which are
allotted to Christ." While fishing in the revised edition of Bunsen has taken
none of his hymnal songs (for that would p 729, No. 144 is attributed to
Joachim Lange), for example, contains a draft hymnal for the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of the Kingdom Saxony, Leipzig, 1881, two more songs from
him, namely, as a special addition to the above-mentioned also two verses of a
song Long Whit's a song.

1632-35 Puritan Jeremiah Horrocks/Horrox (1618-1/3/1641), grandson of Thomas

Aspinwall, watchmaker, and son of James Horrocks, watchmaker, he studies at
Cambridge. Works on K's Rudolphine Tables, at the library. Associates there:
John Wallis and John Worthington (1618-71) - the latter arranged for
correspondence of Horrocks and William Crabtree, Manchester (1610-44).

Wilbur Applebaum, Between Kepler and Newton: The Celestial Dynamics of Jeremiah Horrocks, Actes du XIIIe
Congrs
International d Histoire des Sciences 5 (1971) 292-299; Wilbur Applebaum and Robert A. Hatch, Boulliau,
Mercator, and Horrocks Venus in Sole Visa: Three Unpublished Letters, Journal for the History of Astronomy
October 14 (1983): 166-179; John E. Bailey, Jeremiah Horrox and William Crabtree, Observers of the Transit of
Venus, 24 Nov., 1639, The Palatine Note-Book 2 (1882): 253-266; V. Barocas, Jeremiah Horrocks (1619-1641),
Journal of the British Astronomical Association 79, no. 3 (1969): 223-226; Allan Chapman, Jeremiah Horrocks, the
Transit of Venus, and the New Astronomy in Early Seventeenth-Century England, The Quarterly Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society 31 (1990): 333-357; Allan Chapman, Three North Country Astronomers; S.B.
Gaythorpe, Jeremiah Horrocks: Date of Birth, Parentage and Family Associations, Transactions of the Historic
Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 106 (1954): 23-33; H.C. Plummer, Jeremiah Horrocks and His Opera
Posthuma, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 3 (1940): 39-52; Colin Ronan, Jeremiah Horrocks
and Astronomy in his Time, Journal of the British Astronomical Association 86 (1976): 370-378; and Whatton,
Memoir of the Life and Labors of the Rev. Jeremiah Horrox.

Plummer: At the time of Keplers death the seeds which he had sown had to all
appearances fallen on barren soil more favourable for the cultivation of a
crop of weeds. Yet at the same, time, certainly before the Principia was
written, these precious seeds had been rescued, their true value had been
recognized, at least in England, and a wonderful harvest was on the point
of being reaped.162

we know which books he owned because they are listed in his work;167 and preserved in the library
of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, is one of his own textbooks in which he listed his astronomical
influences including Tycho Brahe and Kepler
Quote from Bailey: The relationship probably originated through Dr. John Worthington of Manchester, who is thought
to have known Horrocks in Cambridge, and later attempted to rescue Crabtrees papers after his death.

The Crabtree-Horrocks correspondence began in 1636 with a letter from Horrocks to

Crabtree.182 Crabtree, who was several years older than Horrocks, shared a common interest in
astronomy and had already established a lively scientific correspondence with others, before
he began helping Horrocks.183 In the first few letters, Crabtree and Horrocks corresponded over
the errors of Lansburg in the Tabulae Motuum, which gave rise to the substantial body of
correspondence which passed between them over the next five years. . . . Their correspondence
revolved around three general topics: planetary theory, the lunar orbit, and instrumentation.184
After determining that Keplers tables were the most accurate, their aim became to improve on
those tables, and they were forever comparing positions predicted in the tables with observed
positions.
on March 28, 1637, when they observed the Pleiades together.185 The last letter to Crabtree from
Horrocks is dated December 19, 1640, and in it Horrocks mentioned his intended visit to his friend
and colleague on January 4 of the following year, adding, nisi quid praeter solitum impediat, me
tunc expectes.186
August, 1640 first letter from Crabtree to Gascoigne, in response to earlier letter from Gascoigne.
From August to Dec, Gascoigne is working on the micrometer and the telescopic lens.
12/28/40 C to G: My Friend Mr. Horrox professeth, that little Touch which I gave him of
your Inventions, hath ravished his Mind quite from it self, and left him in
an Extasie between Admiration and Amazement. I beseech you, Sir, stack
not your Intentions for the perfecting of your begun Wonders. We travel
with Desire till we hear of your full Delivery. You have our Votes, our
Hearts, and our Hands should not be wanting, if we could further you.
Crabtree: Mr. Jeremiah Horrocks letters to me for the years 1638, 1639, 1640 up to
the day of his death, very suddenly, on the morning of the 3rd January; the
day he had arranged to come to me. Thus God puts an end to all worldly
affairs. I have lost, alas, my dear Horrocks. Hinc illa lachrimae [thus the
tears fall]. Irreparable loss.
In a letter to Gascoigne dated December 6, 1641, Crabtree lamented for Horrocks, whose
immature Death there is yet scarce a Day which I pass without some pang of sorrow.
Horrocks father lived in Toxteth. Soldiers went there and burned at least some
of Jeremiahs papers. Brother Jonas took some papers to Ireland, where, upon his
death, they were lost.

Crabtree died in 1644, thought to be a victim of the Civil War that had broken
out in 1642, and thought to be on Parliament's side. Gascoigne definitely died
in battle, as a military officer for King Charles, on 7/2/1644.
Christiaan Huyghens located Horrocks' manuscript and, in 1661, provided a copy
to Johann Hevelius. Previously, Huyghens had studied Hevelius' published works,
and certainly knew of Hevelius' gigantic Keplerian telescope. And Huyghens came
to Hevelius' attention no later than 1655, as they exchanged work on the ring of
Saturn. Huyghens also greatly appreciated Huyghens 1658 work on the pendulum
clock.
No later than 1635, Kepler's son, Ludwig, moved briefly to Gdansk (now Gdansk),
bringing Kepler's papers with him. Ludwig was working with the English legate to
Gdansk. Hevelius might have had some contact with Ludwig and the papers during
this period. (At some point, Ludwig sold the journal of Tychonic observations to
the Danish king.) Ludwig became a medical doctor, and worked mainly in
Koenigsberg, including as the personal physician to the elector of Brandenburg,
and to the king of Sweden. He died in 1663; and after much effort, Hevelius
arranged a large payment to his heirs for Kepler's papers.
It was Hevelius' two-year tour through Europe from 1632 to 1634 that cemented
most of his early relationships with colleagues and led to a continued
correspondence with them in later decades. While in Holland, he had some
dealings with the Huyghens family. In London, he met John Wallis and Samuel
Hartlib among others. Paris is where he met Gassendi and Ismael Boulliau. In
Avignon, he called on Athanasius Kircher.
Hardcover reprint of the original 1753 edition. An Extract Of Monsieur
Hevelius's Letter, Lately Written To The Publisher, Concerning The Famous
Kepler's Manuscripts; Together With Some Considerations Of His, About The Use Of
Telescopic Sights In Astronomical Observations: Royal Society Of London, 1753.

In 1641, in Gdansk/Gdansk, shortly after Horrocks' death, the 30-year-old

Hevelius had built an observatory, called "Sternenburg" ("Star Castle"),
provided with a large Keplerian telescope, one with a 150-ft focal length!
[Hevelius' 1673 woodcut:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Telescope_140_foot_Johann_Hev
elius.jpg]
4/20/1659 Hartlib to Dr John Worthington: Do you remember your promises
concerning the astronomical observations of Venus made by the late Mr Horox? I
wish I had them; the sooner the better.
4/28/1659 I have, as you desire, have sent you Mr. Horrox. his discourse called
{Venus in Sole Visa}. Here are two copies of it, but neither writ to the end. I
lent them some years hence to a friend, who promised out of both to make out
one, and then to print it: but other business, it seems, would not permit him to
go through with the work These papers of his I found in the study of one Mr
Crabtree, and I bought them after his death.
From 1655-59, the young Huyghens, having studied Hevelius, delved into Saturns
irregularities and discovered the rings of Saturn. In 1661, both Hervelius and
Huyghens took the opportunity to map the transit of Mercury. In 1662, Hevelius
published his results - and took the opportunity to display to the world the
suppressed 1639 report of Horrocks, with the title {Mercurius in sole visus

Gedani, anno MDCLXI, d. III Maji, st. n. cum aliis quibusdam rerum coelestium
observationibus rarisque phaenomenis: Cui annexa est Venus in Sole pariter visa,
anno 1639, d. 24 Nov. st. v. Liverpoliae, a Jeremia Horroxio, nunc primum edita
notisque illustrata. Quibus accedit Historiola, novae illius, ac mirae stellae
in collo Ceti.}
Christiaan Huygens attended the event, during which he got to hear about a certain
manuscript of Jeremiah
Horrocks, together with some fragments of correspondence with Crabtree. There was, he
was informed by Sir Robert Moray, no prospect of them being published in England, and
might he find a publisher?27
27 On 11 April, 1661, Huygens had dinner at Gresham College with Robert Moray, Lord William
Brouncker and others, when the publication of the Horrocks papers could have been discussed
(private communication by R.H. van Gent).
28 Letters of Huygens to Hevelius (Nos 892 and 917), 21 September and 9 November 1661, in
Christiaan Huygens Oeuvres Compl`etes The Hague 1890, vol. 3, pp. 334-335 and 385-386. This
correspondence indicates that Moray had earlier received the manuscript from Paul Neile.
Neile, astronomer, at November 28, 1660 Gresham College mtg with Moray, where Royal Society was
founded.
2/17/1664 Neile at RS, pushing the manuscripts of Horrocks. Write to Mr. Towneley.

Sometime in the 1660's, Hevelius comes into possession of the Kepler

manuscripts, bought from the heirs of Kepler's son, Ludwig. What happens between
this event, and the occasion of the intentional burning down of his observatory
in 1679, is a matter of some mythology.

The story is that, in 1668, upon the occasion of the publication of Hevelius Cometographia, Robert
Hooke escalated to open attacks against Hevelius challenging his sightings and measurements.
This was almost undoubtedly the first publication by Hevelius after acquiring the Kepler
manuscripts.
By 1671, Hevelius expressed to Oldenburg his impatience with the man who was all words and no
deeds as Hooke had never sent Hevelius one of the vaunted smaller telescopes.
1673 Hevelius publication of his observatory and its instruments
1/12/1674 Wallis to Oldenburg: There was no reason to be displeased with Hevelius continued
use of common sights on measuring instruments, and that it was better for Hevelius to continue
using the instruments he was most familiar with.
1674 as Hooke escalates with his {Animadversions}: Hevelius also argued how other
astronomers (including Flamsteed) have already pronounced their verdict on [his] observations
before they have seen them, examined them or known anything at all of them.110 Hevelius asked
his critics to at least suspend judgment until after they had gained the necessary experience
acquired through years of observation; only then could they sufficiently address these issues aimed at Hooke.
1/11/1675 Wallis to Oldenburg: I have now read ye whole of Mr. Hookes against Hevelius, which
I think bears a little too hard upon him. Hee might have published his own way
to as good advantage as he pleased, without so frequent Reflections on
Hevelius, as he hath at every turn. For Hevelius hath deserved well.

February 11, 1675 Boulliau defended Hevelius against Hooke at the Royal Society. Leibniz: I have seen Hookes
attack on Hevelius apparatus; I am not sufficiently versed in astronomical observation to dare put my oar in. Mr.
Boulliau seems to stand by Hevelius; Cassini and Picard think that telescopes are not to be neglected (Leibniz to
Oldenburg, 20 March 1675)

8/21/1675 Hevelius to Oldenburg: You may believe, my friend, that I approach this little job with
extreme reluctance: not because I am unsure whether I have untied [Hookes]
Gordion knots or laid myself open to those darts he has been pleased so
often to hurl at me, which I can certainly dodge by no means! But
because my mind (as, I judge, is proper in a candid and warm-hearted
man) wholly abhors such things, especially disputes with others and
contentions in mere idle words against a Fellow of the illustrious Royal
Society.
I have urged no one to be my partisan, nor have I made efforts to persuade
anyone to relinquish his own point of view, which he might think the
nearer to the truth; much less have I so conducted myself as to presume to
play the rle of dictator to free minds. In my little works I never, by any
means, tried to lay down laws for anyone or for posterity as though they
should follow in every detail in my footsteps, or as though that business
was to be done thus and not otherwise. . . .142
Hevelius proceeded to describe Hooke as a busybody, who labors in vain with words and
deeds, and was interested only in what others were doing, but never improved his own work
Yet how Mr. Hooke has treated me before(in almost every page of his Animadversions where he
reviles my observations and small labours, slights them and makes them of no
account, and myself he everywhere slanders, mocks and uses scornfully. . .
When, in 1675, Flamsteed was appointed by Charles II as Royal Astronomer, he changed his tone
with Hevelius arguing more picayune legal points. Hevelius responded that Flamsteed was not
acting in good faith in seizing upon two small errors in order to question the quality of all of
Hevelius work.
the late 1660's or early 1670s, Hevelius was drawn in to what became a
heated controversy with John Flamsteed and Robert Hooke. Hooke's main issue was
that Hevelius' astronomical measurements should be questioned, because he
included 'naked eye' measurements. The young Halley is sent to Gdansk to check
out Hevelius' work, and, shortly afterwards, the observatory, and most of
Hevelius' papers, books and instruments are destroyed in a deliberately set
fire, set by a 'disloyal' servant. However, omitted from the story is that
Hevelius had Kepler's manuscripts, and that they were, fortunately, not
destroyed.
It has all the markings of misdirection. First, Flamsteed would be a
champion of the work of the 'Nos Keplari'. In 1670, he was studying Hevelius
edition of Horrocks, and was attempting to obtain a look at the manuscripts of
Horrocks, which were now at the Royal Society being edited by Dr. Wallis. (In
particular, he had heard that Horrocks had an estimate of the distance from our
solar system to the stars.) Within a year, Flamsteed concluded that the
collaboration of Horrocks, Crabtree and Gascoigne was most impressive. (And here
he was most impressed by Gascoigne estimation of the distance of Pleiades.)

Later, as Newton's career was launched, Flamsteed still refused to back off his
support of them as the true English astronomers. Flamsteed, whatever else his
strengths and weaknesses were, was Newton's inveterate enemy. In 1662, and
afterwards, Flamsteed may have differed with Hevelius to the extent that
Flamsteed was happy to promote Horrocks' work, with the stress upon Gascoigne's
micrometer technology; and perhaps less interested in directly opening up the
full Kepler file. [By 1672, Flamsteed is horrified that Horrocks takes his
thinking from Kepler. Horrocks explanation as to why the moon experiences
libration (with the sun acting upon the moons overall orbit) is framed from
Keplers groundless notions. Horrocks ascribed the lunar inequality called
evection to variations in the value of the eccentricity and in the direction of
the line of apses, at the same time correctly assigning the disturbing force of
the Sun as the cause.] Further, in 1676, Flamsteed caused some concern to
Hevelius, as he seemed to be weighing in on the side of Hooke but this was
temporary, and was smoothed over.
Second, Hooke might have been much more upset about Hevelius' work. His
1674 attack upon Hevelius was rather nasty. Hevelius responded by simply
suggesting that the Royal Society send a neutral observor to judge his methods.
Hooke seemed desirous of casting doubt upon its accuracy; but if that were the
whole case, Halley was the wrong person to send - as he gave Hevelius a clean
bill of health on his methods and procedures. The underlying cause for the
attacks upon Hevelius must have been connected with the clear intent by Hevelius
to publish and to revive Kepler.
Which brings us to the fire. Halley was a young, talented astronomer, who
had not succeeded in getting his degree from Oxford. In short order, in the
months before the Royal Society deployed him to Hevelius, Halley was made a
member of the Royal Society and then, with the direct intercession of the King,
was granted an Oxford degree. Shortly after this, he arrived at Hervelius home
in Gdansk on May 26, 1679. He left on July 18th, having only found cause for
admiration for Hervelius methods and accuracy.
The Royal Society and the King, who had taken a personal interest in
young Halleys career - must have had their report from Halley by August, enough
time to arrange the September 26th arson. Halleys report would have ended the
Hooke complaints, and left the naked issue of the Kepler manuscripts.

Halley sent a letter to Flamsteed wherein he expressed his astonishment at the accuracy
of Hevelius measurements that had been repeated several times, and although he reserved
judgment as to the exactnesse of the Observation[s] of the Meridian Altitudes, he was
surprizd to see so near an agreement in the distances measured with Hevelius sextant and
dare[s] no more doubt of [Hevelius] Veracitye.199 At Hevelius request, Halley left behind a
testimonial letter that attested his high esteem for the accuracy of Hevelius open-sight
observations.200 In the letter, Halley stated that he was abundantly satisfied of the use and
certainty of [Hevelius] instruments and observations, and he wondered why he had ever doubted
the accuracy of observations by open sights, readily offer[ing] himself a voluntary witness, (of the
almost-incredible certainty of those his instruments) against all who shall for the
future call [Hevelius] observations in question.
199 He

later retracted this statement (7 June 1679, FC, I, 694; see also MacPike, Correspondence and Papers of
Edmond Halley, 43; Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London, III, 488; and Folkes, Memoir, in
MacPike, Correspondence and Papers of Edmond Halley, 4). Although there were discrepancies between the two
sets of observations, Halley wrote that the differences were negligible (Simms, William Molyneux of Dublin, 25).

Dated 8/18 July 1679. Halley eventually regretted leaving written testimony behind, especially
since Hevelius eventually printed it in his Annus climactericus.
200

The simple story is that Hevelius suspected that arson was being planned.
Afterwards he suspected that his servant had deliberately set the fire, and on a
night where Hevelius and wife were both away. Hevelius daughter, who was fifteen
or younger, rescued Keplers manuscripts, along with some other of Hevelius
papers. Whatever the young Halley was before the fire, afterwards he appears to
have become a wholly-owned commodity. To begin with, even though the Royal
Society had an ambassadors report that Halley was alive, the story was
circulated in England that Hevelius had died in the fire. Halley was compromised
by, rather strangely, sending the widow a very expensive silk dress of course,
only to wear after she came out of mourning.
In some more detail: Hevelius reported to his patron, King Louis XIV,
that, the previous night, he had felt deeply troubled by unaccustomed fears
and, to lift his spirits, he had taken his wife to their country home on
September 26th, 1679. (Louis XIV of France had provided a yearly grant to
Hevelius. After Hevelius 1662 publication of Horrocks work, Colbert had
recommended such to the King.) His unaccustomed fears very likely were
occasioned by his awareness of operations afoot against him.
Hevelius relates his story to a fellow Gdansk resident, one D. Capellus:
He bade his coachman return to the City with the horses before the gates were
closed and tell the domestics to guard carefully against fire. The coachman when
he had unharnessed and stabled the horses made as if to go to bed, about 9
o'clock, and whether by carelessness as some think, or with intent and of
purpose (as the very noble Hevelius himself concludes from the fact that he
never rescued from the flames four horses of choice breed and great value) left
a burning candle in the stable and set the whole place afire. The fire being
started he passed tiptoe through the front house without saying a single word
about it. This took place about half past nine in the evening.
Clearly, Hevelius trusted his coachman with the valuable horses, and with
the instruction to guard carefully against fire. (Later, the lone arson
theorists will claim that the arsonist was a disgruntled former coachman who had
been dismissed from service.) And, more significantly, Hevelius anticipated that
the next attack against him would be by fire. Another domestic evidently saw the
arsonist leave the house around 9:30.
The fire destroyed all of Hevelius observatory, his print shop, his
equipment and Of the unbound books produced by Hevelius not a single leaf was
saved from the flames the titles of these are
1. Selenographia.
2. Cometographia.
3. Prodromus Cometicus.
4. Mantissa prodromi de nativa facie Saturni.
5. Mercurius in Sole visus.
6. Epistolae ad Gassendum, Ricciolum, Oldenburgium et alios.
7. Duae partes Machinae Coelestis, the latter of which only appeared in February
of this year 1679, and contained the observations of 49 years surely an
incredible loss to letters and posterity.
Fortunately, one of his daughters (who could not have been older than
fifteen) courageously grabbed some of the works and threw them out the window,
saving: 1. a good part of the bound books together with
2. MSS. of great importance a) specially the Catalogue of Fixed Stars, the work
of many years, and b) the new Globus Coelestis Correctus et Reformatus, which
was intended shortly to be published. Likewise
3. thirteen volumes of Letters of Hevelius's Correspondence with many men of the
learned world - most useful documents. There were preserved
4. all Kepler's MSS. and
5. those which Hevelius in the second part of the Machina Coelestis promised he
would publish, (1) Uranographia (2) Prodromus Astronomicus (3) Annus
Quinquagesimus Observationum Uranicarum.

Capellus explained that What I am narrating thus far I saw in part

myself, with others, in part I have gathered from the lips of Hevelius himself
and the trustworthy statements of neighbours. Capellus report goes on to make
clear that Hevelius is in need of aide in reconstructing his observatory and
the kings of Poland and France respond. However, in Hamburg, the British
ambassador to the Hanseatic League, one Sir Peter Wyche, is interested to
provide a report to London on the situation. Capellus brother in Hamburg gets a
copy of the report and prepares a Latin translation of it for Wyche. It is
Wyches report that, among other places, is read at the Royal Society, later in
1679.
1685 His last work {Annus Climactericus...} - the fire, the dispute with Hooke
Given this convenient opportunity, and having published my little work of observations,
namely Annus Climactericus, I did not want to neglect my duty any longer, but to offer it
duly to you and the Royal Society... Humbly asking that you will receive, in good spirit and in
love of truth, these little pages ... written in defense of my observations, and that you,
rnoreover, deem the author worthy of your protection against all envious persons and those
wishing me ill. In the said little work you will not only see discussed that controversy between
Hooke and me long ago conducted with mere words and [more recently] when Halley was
here [whom the Royal Society sent to me at the end of 1679] clearly and with the eye [itself],
but you will also find my observations of planets as well as occultations and eclipses, made by
me here in Gdansk [Gdansk] in my new observatory, after that abominable misfortune of
mine.

4/4/1685 letter to Francis Aston, secretary of the Royal Society, providing his Annus
Climactericus meaning 1679 - detailing Halleys visit, his own accuracies, and the fire. He
specifically requested in the letter that his work and observations be defended if necessary against
all who might be envious or malicious in the assessment of his work and he even referred to the
controversy with Hooke.
On July 17, 1685, Hevelius sent the Royal Society and several of its members, including, Wallis,
Halley, and Flamsteed copies of his work so that all England could respond to it.
Walliss review of AC: Mr. Hook published his Animadversions. . . with much more of
bitterness and boasting than there was reason for. Which he thinks was done out of design
to disparage Him, his Instruments, and his Observations (unsight and
unseen,) and to prepossess others with mean and slight thoughts of them,
(even before they were yet published;) and a high opinion of himself who
(with so little charge and so small Instruments) could do things so much
more accurate than had hitherto ever been done, by any: thus seeking to
raise his own reputation by disparaging what is done by others, in things
wherein himself doth nothing.
Halley told Towneley to ignore Wallis defense of Hevelius.

4/17/1686: Hevelius letter to RS, objecting to Hookes calumnies against the deceased Oldenburg:
For his own part, Hevelius will continue with his plans to publish his Prodromus astronomiae
together with his Uranographia that will, in their own way, discredit Hooke. This was such a
sensitive issue for the Royal Society that they wrote at the top of Hevelius letter, do not Print this
- - - - - -.

Halley sent Elizabeta a silk dress in the latest fashion which cost 6-8s.-4d. equivalent to at least 1350 now)
I quite realise that [Hevelius's] heartbroken spouse must be wearing sadcoloured apparel, yet for several reasons I have thought well to send the gown
procured for her ... because I am not yet certain her husband is dead, in which
case I judge nothing would be more unwelcome than delay ... since it is of silk
and of the newest fashion, I am confident it will highly please Mme Hevelius, if
only it should be granted to her to wear it ...
Capellus in German to brother in Hamburg, who translated into Latin for Sir
Peter Wyche
1662 British Envoy Extraordinary to Russia
Mr. Henshaw presented the Royal Society the report from Wyche
Appealed for aide, but no response from Halley or Flamsteed. Polish and French
kings did help.
By 1681, H was publishing again, in Leibnizs Acta
1683 Hansch born in Gdansk
1684 Acta article
By 1685, Halley is critical of Hevelius
The fifth-smallest constellation in the sky, introduced in 1684 by the Polish astronomer Johannes
Hevelius under the title Scutum Sobiescianum, Sobieskis Shield. He named it in honour of King John III
Sobieski of Poland who helped Hevelius rebuild his observatory after a disastrous fire in 1679. Heveliuss
description and chart of the constellation first appeared in August 1684 in Acta Eruditorum,

A letter describing the fire which destroyed Hevelius's home and observatory at
Gdansk on 16 September 1679 (26 September on the new calendar) was sent to Peter
Wyche, the British Consul to the Hanseatic Cities, by D Capellus. We give a
version below based on Appendix I of E F MacPike, Hevelius, Flamsteed, Halley
(Taylor and Francis, London, 1937):
The very noble and famous Hevelius, feeling himself oppressed with great and
unaccustomed troubles, as if presaging some disaster to himself, withdrew with
his much loved spouse (but to his great misfortune) on the 16 September to a
garden not far from the City Gate of Gdansk, in order that he might refresh and
restore his fatigued and weary self. He bade his coachman return to the City
with the horses before the gates were closed and tell the domestics to guard
carefully against fire. The coachman when he had unharnessed and stabled the
horses made as if to go to bed, about 9 o'clock, and whether by carelessness as
some think, or with intent and of purpose (as the very noble Hevelius himself
concludes from the fact that he never rescued from the flames four horses of
choice breed and great value) left a burning candle in the stable and set the
whole place afire. The fire being started he passed tiptoe through the front
house without saying a single word about it. This took place about half past
nine in the evening. After he left, a hall servant noticing an unusual smell of
smoke, went hastily to the rear portion of the house where he found the house
and stable burning with a steady blaze, the fire fanned by a strong Southerly
wind creeping further every moment, catching up everything adjacent before it
could be stopped. So the three front structures of the house quickly began
burning. These Hevelius occupied and on these he had erected that famous and
incomparable observatory. His Museum indeed was broken open by friendly hands
hastening to assist and save what they could from the flames, and the bound
books were thrown down from the windows. But not a few purloined at the hands of
unscrupulous men never returned to their owner.

Of the unbound books produced by Hevelius not a single leaf was saved from the
flames the titles of these are
1. Selenographia.
2. Cometographia.
3. Prodromus Cometicus.
4. Mantissa prodromi de nativa facie Saturni.
5. Mercurius in Sole visus.
6. Epistolae ad Gassendum, Ricciolum, Oldenburgium et alios.
7. Duae partes Machinae Coelestis, the latter of which only appeared in February
of this year 1679, and contained the observations of 49 years surely an
incredible loss to letters and posterity.
Of the latter part of the Machina Coelestis scarce ten copies had been sold, so
that no more survive anywhere in the world, save the few that their
distinguished author presented and transmitted to sovereigns, princes, or
friends. Of all the great and excellent instruments made of metal, and of which
we read the description in Part 1 of the Machina Coelestis, simply nothing has
been saved from this sad conflagration. The photic (or, if one prefer it, optic
or perspective) tubes of which one was 140 and another 60 feet long, not to
mention the rest, all the glasses too and sights appropriate to this subject,
have so perished that nothing at all is left. All that optical plant for
polishing and turning, and numerous "forms" specially suited for bringing remote
objects under the eye-from the smallest up to those we knew of a diameter up to
100 feet, together with globes ready to be made into "concava ", all have
perished.
That most splendid printing office itself and its types, brass and wooden
presses and other requisites, as well as a huge and very great mass of most
choice and elegant paper, stored up for the approaching publication of the
Prodromus Astronomiae.
Nor of the many mechanical instruments used in horologic and gnomonic art and
for engraving on brass. Nothing at all of all these remained, not anything of
the steel mirrors or other things of value in the Observatory, which all were
burnt before any human effort could bring help. In so sad a case wicked men were
found who under guise of assisting, broke open cabinets and made off with no
small sums in gold and silver coin, with other precious things, among them three
clocks of silver, with their cases, which were very dear to Hevelius for the
reason that he had engraved and embellished them with his own hands.
If one reckon up the immobile property lost, he mourns for three large ornate
front houses, handsomely built and with walls calculated to resist fire, upon
which was placed the greater observatory, near to which was another, smaller, in
which were housed the greater sextant, of metal, as well as the horizontal
quadrant, with many other smaller instruments. He lost also the two rear houses
and two others lately erected, hi which one saw the printing office, with the
octagonal observatory and that great and elaborate azimuthal quadrant specially
adapted to meridian altitude observations. And so seven buildings were destroyed
by the fire, completely and razed to the ground. The walls exposed to the fire
for the greater part collapsed, except the three fronts of the front houses.
Pictures, silver vessels, ornaments of gold and silver, linen woollen and silken apparel, also the vessels of copper and tin and other such household things
have so disappeared that scarce any of the metal remaining could be extracted
from the ruins. From this lamentable fire there was saved, by the grace of God,
(1) a good part of the bound books together with
(2) MSS. of great importance (1) specially the Catalogue of Fixed Stars, the
work of many years, and (2) the new Globus Coelestis Correctus et Reformatus,
which was intended shortly to be published. Likewise
(3) thirteen volumes of Letters of Hevelius's Correspondence with many men of
the learned world - most useful documents. There were preserved
(4) all Kepler's MSS. and

(5) those which Hevelius in the second part of the Machina Coelestis promised he
would publish, (1) Uranographia (2) Prodromus Astronomicus (3) Annus
Quinquagesimus Observationum Uranicarum.
Hevelius hopes too that he will be able, with the benevolent aid of the highest
patrons of the learned world, to erect his "Urania" anew, and he desires above
all the restoration of his printing office, since the copper plates rescued from
the fire, which he himself engraved with his own hand and art, are, thanks to
God, still extant for the service of new editions of the works-a thing which he
esteems not the smallest part of his happiness.
What I am narrating thus far I saw in part myself, with others, in part I have
gathered from the lips of Hevelius himself and the trustworthy statements of
neighbours. May the Almighty mercifully grant our eyes may never see another
such fire, so grievous and so horrible. It can scarce be told, the way the air
was filled with flying papers driven by the wind-about eighty hundredweight. And
had not God commanded the wind to blow from another quarter extreme danger
threatened the Old City of Gdansk.
About 11 o'clock at night Hevelius returned into the City through the unlocked
gate, but when alas all was already consumed by the fire. This is a very brief
narrative of a most sad disaster, so bitter, so sudden, so widespread, and in
the fact that the Incomparable Man did not succumb to it we admire not only the
constancy of a truly heavenly soul, but we declare the Divine Mercy also, and we
implore It long to preserve for the glory of Its Name an excellent scholar and
interpreter of heavenly things, reinforced with new strength and possessions,
the most brilliant ornament and star of our age. With which prayer, moved by the
deepest sense of sympathy, I conclude.
David Brewster knows of Murr's account of Hervelius (including Kepler papers)
but makes NO mention of them, including when he says what was saved from the
fire.
Horrocks on his university experience

There were many hindrances. The abstruse nature of the study, my

inexperience, and want of means dispirited me. I was much pained not to
have any one to whom I could look for guidance, or indeed for the
sympathy of companionship in my endeavours. . . . What then was to be
done? I could not make the pursuit an easy one, much less increase my
fortune, and least of all, imbue others with a love for astronomy. . . . I am
determined therefore that the tediousness of study should be overcome by
73
industry. . . and that instead of a master I would use astronomical books.
Armed with these weapons I would contend successfully; and having
heard of others acquiring knowledge without greater help, I would blush
that any one should be able to do more than I. . . .142
Wilbur Applebaum, Between Kepler and Newton: The Celestial Dynamics of Jeremiah Horrocks, Actes du XIIIe
Congrs
International d Histoire des Sciences 5 (1971) 292-299; Wilbur Applebaum and Robert A. Hatch, Boulliau,
Mercator, and Horrocks Venus in Sole Visa: Three Unpublished Letters, Journal for the History of Astronomy
October 14 (1983): 166-179; John E. Bailey, Jeremiah Horrox and William Crabtree, Observers of the Transit of
Venus, 24 Nov., 1639, The Palatine Note-Book 2 (1882): 253-266; V. Barocas, Jeremiah Horrocks (1619-1641),
Journal of the British Astronomical Association 79, no. 3 (1969): 223-226; Allan Chapman, Jeremiah Horrocks, the
Transit of Venus, and the New Astronomy in Early Seventeenth-Century England, The Quarterly Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society 31 (1990): 333-357; Allan Chapman, Three North Country Astronomers; S.B.

Gaythorpe, Jeremiah Horrocks: Date of Birth, Parentage and Family Associations, Transactions of the Historic
Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 106 (1954): 23-33; H.C. Plummer, Jeremiah Horrocks and His Opera
Posthuma, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 3 (1940): 39-52; Colin Ronan, Jeremiah Horrocks
and Astronomy in his Time, Journal of the British Astronomical Association 86 (1976): 370-378; and Whatton,
Memoir of the Life and Labors of the Rev. Jeremiah Horrox.

Plummer: At the time of Keplers death the seeds which he had sown had to all
appearances fallen on barren soil more favourable for the cultivation of a
crop of weeds. Yet at the same, time, certainly before the Principia was
written, these precious seeds had been rescued, their true value had been
recognized, at least in England, and a wonderful harvest was on the point
of being reaped.162
we know which books he owned because they are listed in his work;167 and preserved in the library
of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, is one of his own textbooks in which he listed his astronomical
influences including Tycho Brahe and Kepler
Crabtree had works of Kepler, Hipparchus, etc
Quote from Bailey: The relationship probably originated through Dr. John Worthington of Manchester, who is thought
to have known Horrocks in Cambridge, and later attempted to rescue Crabtrees papers after his death.

The Crabtree-Horrocks correspondence began in 1636 with a letter from Horrocks to

Crabtree.182 Crabtree, who was several years older than Horrocks, shared a common interest in
astronomy and had already established a lively scientific correspondence with others, before
he began helping Horrocks.183 In the first few letters, Crabtree and Horrocks corresponded over
the errors of Lansburg in the Tabulae Motuum, which gave rise to the substantial body of
correspondence which passed between them over the next five years. . . . Their correspondence
revolved around three general topics: planetary theory, the lunar orbit, and instrumentation.184
After determining that Keplers tables were the most accurate, their aim became to improve on
those tables, and they were forever comparing positions predicted in the tables with observed
positions.
on March 28, 1637, when they observed the Pleiades together.185 The last letter to Crabtree from
Horrocks is dated December 19, 1640, and in it Horrocks mentioned his intended visit to his friend
and colleague on January 4 of the following year, adding, nisi quid praeter solitum impediat, me
tunc expectes.186
August, 1640 first letter from Crabtree to Gascoigne, in response to earlier letter from Gascoigne.
From August to Dec, Gascoigne is working on the micrometer and the telescopic lens.
12/28/40 C to G: My Friend Mr. Horrox professeth, that little Touch which I gave him of
your Inventions, hath ravished his Mind quite from it self, and left him in
an Extasie between Admiration and Amazement. I beseech you, Sir, stack
not your Intentions for the perfecting of your begun Wonders. We travel
with Desire till we hear of your full Delivery. You have our Votes, our

Hearts, and our Hands should not be wanting, if we could further you.
Crabtree: Mr. Jeremiah Horrocks letters to me for the years 1638, 1639, 1640 up to
the day of his death, very suddenly, on the morning of the 3rd January; the
day he had arranged to come to me. Thus God puts an end to all worldly
affairs. I have lost, alas, my dear Horrocks. Hinc illa lachrimae [thus the
tears fall]. Irreparable loss.
In a letter to Gascoigne dated December 6, 1641, Crabtree lamented for Horrocks, whose
immature Death there is yet scarce a Day which I pass without some pang of sorrow.
Christopher Towneley
Catholic family. In addition to Gascoigne, Charles Towneley, Richard Towneleys father, also died at Marston Moor,
while Christopher Towneley, Richards uncle, had been captured and imprisoned [C. Webster, Richard Towneley
(1629-1707), the Towneley Group and Seventeenth-Century Science, Transactions of the Historic Society of
Lancashire and Cheshire 118 (1966): 61-62].

Gascoigne: When he fell at Marston Moor in 1644, he was in

the company of the Towneleys Charles, who died with him, and Christopher, who fortunately
survived. Because of the efforts of Christopher Towneley and his nephew Richard, at least some
of the papers of the three north-country astronomers survived. Christopher Towneley was
personally acquainted with Horrocks, Crabtree, and Gascoigne, and collected many of their
papers after their deaths.
Jonas Moore began corresponding with the Towneley. Moore taught gentlemen mathematics in
London. [From Bailey: Moore gained access to Christopher Towneleys library in Lancashire
where he came into possession of Crabtrees version of the Rudolphine Tables.]
Wallis to Oldenburg, 6 April 1664, OC, II, 164: Wallis

claimed that Wren had seen the Horrocks papers in

Moores possession. This was eventually announced to the Royal Society who, desirous of
Horrocks astronomical tables, asked Aubrey to intercede on its behalf and ask Moore to turn the
tables over to the group.[202 Willmoth, Models for the Practice of Astronomy: Flamsteed, Horrocks, and Tycho,
in Flamsteeds Stars: New Perspectives on the Life and Work of the First Astronomer Royal (1646-1719), ed. Frances
Willmoth (St. Edmundsbury, Suffolk, UK: The Boydell Press, 1997), 53-54. Willmoths article recounts in greater
detail how Horrocks work survived over the years. Worthington attended the same college as Horrocks (Emmanuel
College, Cambridge) in roughly the same years (1632-1635) (as had Wallis and Foster, later Gresham Professor of
Astronomy) ] Apparently, however, Richard Wroe (1641-1718) was also able to trace

some of Horrocks other papers and tables to John Worthington (a northerner from Manchester),
who was subsequently asked to turn over what he had of Horrocks to the Royal Society. 203 The
two main published works attributed to Horrocks are his Venus in sole visa and the Opera
posthuma. Hevelius first published the Venus in sole visa in 1662, which surprised Flamsteed
because he found Horrocks work not exact enough and too outdated to be published.204 Other
papers were received by Sir Paul Neile (1637-1670) who indicated that he would show this work
to the Royal Society at the meeting of February 17, 1664. The work was eventually turned over
on March 16 instead, and subsequently, the Royal Society loaned the material to Wallis so that he
could inspect the contents. The material was published collectively in 1672 as Horrocks
Opera posthuma.

The material that Christopher Towneley had in his possession eventually fell into the
hands of his nephew Richard Towneley who was freely allowed to show the letters and papers to
visitors. Unlike his uncle, Richard was involved in astronomical matters and he even improved
Gascoignes filar micrometer his improvement became known as the Townelian micrometer.206
About the same time Flamsteed cultivated his acquaintance with his future benefactor, Sir Jonas
Moore, Flamsteed also performed observations with Richard Towneley, and in visiting Richard,
accessed some of the papers and letters of Crabtree, Horrocks, and Gascoigne. The visit in the
summer of 1671 was of particular importance to Flamsteed, and he mentioned to Oldenburg that
he had been lately to Lancashire visiting Richard Towneley who hath put some letters of Mr
Gascoigne to Mr Crabtree with the answers into [Flamsteeds] hands.207 Flamsteed believed
that Moore had more papers in his possession, and he asked Collins to assist him in procuring the
material. Flamsteed was also excited to see a copy of Cassinis Ephemerides mediceorum
syderum (1668) at Towneleys.208 Richard Towneley confirmed Flamsteeds visits to Oldenburg
the following year and added that on several occasions, Flamsteed had studied the papers of
Horrocks and Crabtree, and had copied some work on dioptrics by Gascoigne earlier that year
(1672).209 Unfortunately, many of these papers were subsequently destroyed in a fire shortly
after Flamsteed had an opportunity to examine them.2
Crabtree corresponded with both Gascoigne and Horrocks, although the latter two never
corresponded directly with each other; Crabtree also corresponded with Christopher Towneley
who eventually acquired the surviving papers of Crabtree, Gascoigne, and Horrocks; Christopher
Towneley, in turn, corresponded with Moore and passed down the surviving papers to his
nephew Richard Towneley; Richard Towneley became acquainted with John Flamsteed, and
Moore became Flamsteeds patron
John Wallis who Hevelius had met in the 1630s - published in London, also in 1672, {Jeremiae
Horrocci Liverpoliensis Angli ex Palinatu Lancastri: Opera posthuma, viz. Astronomia Kepleriana,
defensa & promota, Excerpta ex epistolis ad Crabtraeum suum, Observationum coelestium
catalogus, Lunae theoria nova/ accedunt Guilielmi Crabtraei Observationes coelestes; in calce
adjiciuntur Johannis Flamstedii De temporis aequatione diatriba, Numeri ad Lunae theoriam
Horroccianam}. The work was reprinted twice, in 1673 and 1678.
Nicholas Kollerstroms 2004 work
Heraclides of Pontas, 388-310 BC, pupil of Plato
It were more reasonable for Mercury and Venus to orbit the Sun, not
the earth.
And diurnal rotation of heavens may be due to axial spin of earth.

Heraclea beset with famine; he went to Delphi to bribe Pythia to help, and that the city should
award him a gold crown while alive, and proclaim him a hero when dead. But he suffered a stroke
at the same time the Pythia was bitten by a snake.
Heraclides' father was Euthyphron,[3] a wealthy nobleman who sent him to study at the Platonic
Academy in Athens under its founder Plato and under his successor Speusippus. According to
Suda, Plato, on his departure for Sicily in 361/360 BC, left the Academy in the charge of

Heraclides. Heraclides was nearly elected successor to Speusippus as head of the academy in
339/338 BC, but narrowly lost to Xenocrates.[4] Like the Pythagoreans Hicetas and Ecphantus,
Heraclides proposed that the apparent daily motion of the stars was created by the rotation of the
Earth on its axis once a day.
Aristarchus of Samos, cerca 250 B, measured sun as 5 million miles,
based upon an 87 degree angle (with moon at ).

The Commentationes in motum Terrae diurnum & annuum by Philip Landsberg (1561-1632) is
published at Middelburg, 1630. (1608 telescopes in Middleburg, from lens-grinders.
Dutch astronomer, Philip Landsbergs Tables ( I 63I, I 632).I6
These were simpler than Kepler's; they were based on the traditional
circular orbits and their author made extravagant claims for their
accuracy which were at first accepted by many of his contemporaries.
They were, in fact, much less accurate than Kepler's. Landsberg was
familiar with Kepler's main works and frequently made use of his data,
but dismissed his theories as absurd.'' His tables were widely used
during the 163o's, but thereafter fell more and more out of favour;
he was even accused of having deliberately falsified some of his data
in order to fit his theories.''
In 1613, The fifty-two year old Lansbergen decided to move to Middelburg to devote himself to
astronomical research. He did that until the end of his life. This is five years after Lipperheys
telescope patent rejection.

Archbishop Laud
By 1622 Alexander Ross had been appointed, through William Laud's influence, one of Charles I's
chaplains. He was concerned to defend Aristotle and repel the Copernican theory, as it gained
ground. In 1634 he published a work on the immobility of the earth, attacking Nathanael Carpenter
and Philip Landsberg. Commentum de Terrae Motu Circulari Refutatus (1634) . Also, The New
Planet, no Planet, or the Earth no Wandering Star, against Galilaeus and Copernicus, (1640)

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0007-0874%28196406%292%3A1%3C1%3AKLOPM1%3E2.0.CO
%3B2-Q
Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion: 1609-1666
J. L. Russell
The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 2, No. 1. (Jun., 1964), pp. 1-24.

One of the earliest readers of Astronomia Nova was the English

astronomer and mathematician, Thomas Hariot, who received a copy
soon after publication and recommended it to another mathematician
and pupil of his, William Lower. We know of Lower's reaction from
a letter which he wrote to Hariot in February 1610.' He clearly found
the work almost intolerably difficult, but at the same time intensely
stimulating. He readily accepted many of Kepler's ideas, including the
elliptical orbits, but felt that he needed further help from Hariot. 'Indeed
I am so much delighted with his booke, but he is so tough in manie
places as I cannot bite him. I pray write me some instructions in your
next, how I may deale with him to ouermaster him for I am readie to

..

take paines
.' It appears from Lower's letter that Hariot himself
accepted Kepler's ideas, at least in substance, though he does not seem
to have published anything on the subject.
In 1612 the Italian savant, Federico Cesi, a friend and patron of
Galileo and fellow-member of the Lyncean Academy, in a letter written
almost certainly to Galileo himself, mentioned Kepler's theory of planetary
ellipses with approval.9 This is important as showing that Galileo must
have been aware of the theory, although he never mentioned it in his
writings and certainly did not accept it. More important support came
in 1615 when Giovanni Magini, Professor of Mathematics at Bologna,
published his Supplementum Ephemeridum in which he used Kepler's laws
in calculating ephemerides for Mars. However, apart from a general
acknowledgement that he was applying Kepler's theory, he gave no
details as to what the theory was.
Kepler had, however, at least one disciple during the
early 1620's : Philip Muller, Professor of Mathematics at Leipzig University.
Muller does not seem to have published anything on the subject,
but his general acceptance of his ideas is shown both in his letters to
Kepler and in his correspondence with Peter Cruger, to be discussed later.
There is some evidence that Willebrord Snel (I 59I -1626) also accepted
the ellipses.
I am wholly occupied with trying to understand the foundations upon which the
Rudolphine rules and tables are based, and I am using for this purpose the
Epitome of Astronomy previously published by Kepler as an introduction
to the tables. This epitome which previously I had read so many times and
so little understood and so many times thrown aside, I now take up again
and study with rather more success seeing that it was intended for use with

the tables and is itself clarified by them . . I am no longer repelled by the

elliptical form of the planetary orbits; Kepler's proofs, in his Commentaria
de Marte [i.e. Astronomia jlrova] have convinced me.

Jeremiah Horrox, started in 1633 by using Landsberg's tables, but by 1637 had become so dissatisfied with them
that, on the advice of his friend William Crabtree, he turned to Kepler.
From then on he, like Crabtree, became an enthusiastic disciple, accepting
not only the Rudolphine Tables but the physical theories as well. Horrox,
before his early death in 1641 at the age of 24, was working on a book
in which Kepler's theories and tables were strongly supported and
Landsberg's equally strongly criticized. In it, the first and third laws

were correctly stated, but the second was given only in its qualitative
form, though Horrox probably used the area law in his calculations.
This book was unfinished at his death and was not published until
some 30 years later in 1673 under the title: Astronomia Kepleriana defensa
et promota
in 1662, Johann Hecker
published a volume of ephemerides at Danzig, based on Kepler's
physical theories and the Rudolphine Tables

HECKEJRO, HANNM: otuum caelestium ephemerides ab anno .

ad MDCLXXX. Ex observationibus correctis nobilissimi Tychonis

. . MDCLXVI

Brahaei, & Joh. Kepleri hypothesibus physicis, tabulisque Rudolphinis

. . . Gedani, 1662.
Count Pagan (1657) was an extreme exponent of the
purely geometric approach, taking credit to himself for being the first
to eliminate physical causes completely from planetary theory. He
accepted the first law and the equant form of the second la-iv. He was
aware that this did not agree perfectly with the available data, but
assumed it was the observations which were at fault, not his theory.
Pagan's work enjoyed some reputation for a few years, but then dropped
out of sight.
PAGANB, LAISEF RANFOIDS E: La thCorie des planktes du Comte de Pagan,
oh tous les orbes cClestes sont geomktriquement ordonnez, contre
le sentiment des astronomes. Paris, 1657.

I have looked at some

I 5 almanacs for I 641, of which one, by Arthur Sofford, referred explicitly
to the Rudolphine Tables and one, by Vincent Wing, to Landsberg's.
The others gave no indication of the source of their data. Wing's subsequent
progress can be traced in some detail. In his almanac for 1643
he was still using Landsberg's tables. In 1647 he had apparently abandoned
them and was using partly Kepler's and partly those of the Italian
astronomer Andreas Argoli. By 1649 Argoli had dropped out and he was
referring only to the Rudolphine Tables. Finally, in I 65 I, he published
a full-length treatise on planetary theory-the Harmonicon Coeleste-in
which his conversion to Kepler was complete. In it he referred to Kepler
as 'the most subtile mathematician that ever was' (Preface). And later :
'That most admirable mathematician John Kepler, by the help of
Tycho's observations, did make the most admirable and best restauration
of Astronomy, of any that ever did precede him' (p. 158
In 1653 Jeremy Shakerley published a volume of astronomical tables based
upon the theories of Kepler and Boulliau. In it he said: 'Some things
we have set down according to the opinion of Bullialdus, but in most
things we have credited Kepler' (p. 26). In the same year Seth Ward,
Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, wrote a short work in which
he criticized certain aspects of Boulliau's theory, while making it clear
that he accepted Kepler's ellipses. Three years later he expounded them
in more detail in his influential Astronomia Geometrica (1656). Ward
accepted the equant law and was apparently the first to use it in practice.

In 1657 John Newton published Astronomia Britannica, in which he also

used ellipses and the equant law. The area law was enunciated, perhaps
for the first time in England, by John Wallis, Savilian Professor of
Geometry at Oxford. This was at the end of a short treatise on the
properties of the cycloid, published in 1659, in which he demonstrated,
inter alia, an improved method for applying the area law in practice.
Wallis remarked in the course of it that he had discovered this method
'olim', which suggests that his interest in Kepler's ideas went back at
least to the early 1650's.
HORROCKS BIO: Peter Aughtons {The Transit of Venus}
Aughton knows of the 1883 Palatine article, but
a) Omits massacre at Bolton: assault on Elisabeth Horrocks, and death of her husband, with the call O that
we had Rev Alexander Horrocks. Instead, it is just, the Cavliers knew the Rev as that p14
b) Has Huyghens getting the manuscript from Hartlib, without any evidence
c) Claims that hes gotten the Horrocks family tree done but JEBs 1883 article has a chunk
d) P52 Pythagoras active around 580 BC
Hipparchus, 2nd century BC in Rhodes. Moon 60 earth radii away. Precession of the equinox! Solar year of 365.25
days was too long by 1/300 day (leading to correction every 400 years).
Peter Aspinwall, cousin on mothers side, 1612-?, to America

Mothers uncle, Edward Aspinwall, leading watchmaker, had a protg, Richard Mather as a young
schoolteacher in Toxteth, 1612-? Mather was the preacher at Toxteth, 1618-1635. Experienced
trouble for rejecting all forms of ceremony (e.g., wearing the surplice). n August-November 1633
he was suspended for nonconformity in matters of ceremony; and in 1634 was again suspended by
the visitors of Richard Neile, archbishop of York, who, hearing that he had never worn a surplice
during the fifteen years of his ministry, refused to reinstate him and said that "it had been better for
him that he had begotten seven bastards."He had a great reputation as a preacher in and about
Liverpool; but, advised by letters of John Cotton and Thomas Hooker, he was persuaded to join the
company of pilgrims in May 1635 and embarked at Bristol for New England.
Son, Increase.
Summary of new info:
Grew up with Richard Mather, Cotton Mathers grandfather, as his preacher and likely teacher.
1630-1635 developments with Cotton and Mather vs Arch-bishop
Father joined the Horrocks and Aspinwalls. His cousin, Elisabeth, married John Cotton. Another
cousin, Rev Alexander Horrocks, well-known Puritan, targetted in Civil War.
Father died, March, 1641!
1662: Hartlibs library burned. He died in March, about when Hevelius wife died.
3rd cousin, Thomas Horrocks, 1614- ?, to America
[Thomas A. Horrocks holds a doctorate in American History from the University of Pennsylvania
and is Associate Librarian of Houghton Library for Collections at Harvard University. His
fascinating collection of President William McKinley ephemera.}

Fathers cousin Elizabeth marries Rev John Cotton. She died in 1631. She was grandmother of
Cotton Mather! John Cotton to Boston, 1633. Close associate of John Winthrop.
1606 a fellow in Emmanuel College, Cambridge, then a stronghold of Puritanism
1612 to Lincolnshire until 1633.
May, 1618 Keplers harmonic law; about a week before 30 Years War opens at Prague
1628 Charles I sent troops to La Rochelle in aid of Huguenots
1629 Charles I dissolved Fourth Parliament begins personal rule
1630 The Divine Right to Occupy the Land sermon, before John Winthrop, Thomas Dudley,
William Pynchon, Simon Bradstreet, Anne Bradstreet etc before they sailed from Southamptom.

.
1632 Legal problems from High Commission Court, as he had gone more and more with Puritans
1633 To First Church of Boston
During the Antinomian Controversy involving many of his own parishioners (1636-38), Cotton eventually
distanced himself from Anne Hutchinson, John Wheelright, and Gov. Henry Vane, but offered to resign and
to return to England. When the separatism of Roger Williams (later founder of Rhode Island) became a
threat to the Bay Colony, Cotton opposed Williams break with the Church of England and maintained that
even though church and state were two separate entities, the magistrates acted as the protectors of the
church. In 1642, he declined an invitation from England to represent New Englands interest at the
Westminster Assembly in London. John Cotton and Thomas Hooker also turned down an invitation to
attend the Cambridge Synod (1646-49) to represent the Independents in the debate over the framing of a
new model of church government in England. In his stead, Cotton sent his Way of the Congregational
Churches Cleared (1648) to speak on New Englands behalf. Four years later, while preaching at Harvard
College, Cotton caught pneumonia and died in late 1652. Cottons widow married the Rev. Richard
Mather, whose son Increase in turn married Cottons daughter Maria, who became the mother of Cotton
Mather in 1663.

Royal Greenwich Observatory: original manuscripts, including notebooks Astronomical Exercises and
Philosophical Exercises and his original-English poems (before they were published in Latin and re-translated
back into English by Whatton).
1/17/1615 Rev Alexander Horrocks performs wedding (at church of Deane, in the Bolton area of Lanchashire) of
James and Mary Aspinwall. They went to Marys Toxteth Park area.
1616 John Cotton weds Elisabeth Horrocks
1630 Cottons speech for Winthrops groups departure
[Another James Hs cousin, Rev Alexander Horrocks, cited as nonconformist by Archbishop Laud, who was
chastising Bishop Bridgeman.]
1631 Fathers cousin, Elisabeth Cotton, died.
1632 Jeremiahs entrance into Emmanuel College, as John Cotton goes into hiding. (John Cotton had begun
Emmanuel at age 13.) Emmanuel had sent students to live and study with Cotton. JH travels w/ 3 rd cousin,
Thomas H, to Cambridge. 21 students at Emmanuel: 3 fellows; 10 pensioners, including Wallis; 8 sizars, who
wait on fellows, empty bedpans, etc., incl JH and Worthington.

Library had Euclid, Ptolemys Almagest and Durers Institutiones Geometricae in Emmanuels
library, but JH could have gotten into other libraries there. (Wallis reports on getting other math
books)

De Morgan found a book that had belonged to JH, with a list of books from the library:
Lansbergii Progymn. de motu so
Ks. Longomontani Astron. Danica.
Magini Secunda MobHia.
Mercatoris Chronologia
Plinii Hist. Natiiralis.
Ptolemaei Magntim Opus.
Regiomontani Epitome.
Torquetmn.
Observata.
Albategnius.
Alfraganus.
J. CapitoKnus.
Clavii Apolog. Cal. Rom.
Clavii Comm. in Sacroboscum.
Copernici Eevolunitiones.
Cleomedes.
Julius Firmicus.
Gassendi Exerc. Epist in
Phil. Fluddanam.
Gemmae Frisii Radius Astronomicus.
ComeHi Gemmae Cosmocritice.
Herodoti Hjstoria.
J. Kepleri Astron.
Optica.
Epit. Astron. Copern
. Com. de motu Martis.
Tabulae Rudolpbinae.
Rheinoldi Tab. Prutenicas.
Com. in Theor. Purbacbii.
Theonis Comm. in Ptolom.
Tyc. Brabaei Progymnasmata.
Epist. Astron.
Waltheri Observata.
1634 Brought Edward Aspinall with him, who enrolled as a pensioner. (Grandson of mothers uncle, Edward.)

May, 1635 departure of Cotton for Bristol and America. Thomas H might have been part of this
group.
Samuel Foster
Crabtree in touch with Samuel Foster at Gresham College. Foster, a 1616 grad of Emmanuel
College, succeeded Gellibrand as Gresham Prof of Astronomy, 3/2/1636. Gave lectures for Charles
Scarburghs/Jonathan Goddards group in London. Scarburgh was student of William Harvey and
tutor of Christopher Wren. RS met at Goddards in early 1661. John Wallis received Fosters
theorem on spherical triangles, in 1646.

Whatton: Having escaped from the empiricism by which his expanding genius had so long been
circumscribed, Horrox sought out the writings of Kepler, which Lansberg had stigmatized as " falsa
et erronea, imo absurda, et inter se pugnantia." He instantly perceived their value. He found that
instead of being composed of fanciful speculation, or arbitrary assertion, as he had been led to
believe, they contained discoveries of such importance as to constitute a new era in the history of
astronomy ; and he received with transport the elucidation of general laws which were evidently the
conclusions of a patient and legitimate induction. He also fully appreciated the merits of the
Rudolphine tables, and considered them incomparably superior to those of Lansberg, as the
ypotheses were well established, and reconcilable with one another. He then worked at perfecting
Keplers Tables with new measurements. His sagacious intellect clearly apprehended the truth of
Kepler's doctrines, the universal acceptation of which he sought to promoteAt the close of the
year 1637 he commenced a treatise entitled ^'Jeremice Horroccii Anti-Lanshergianus^ sive
disputationes in astronomiam F. Lansbergii, quihus perspicue demonstratur^ hypotheses suas nee
ccelo nee sibi conseniirey Having completed upwards of four disputations, he changed his plan, and
re-modelling the whole, entitled it ''^ Astronomice Lanshergiance censura et cum Kepleriana
corrvparatioy Of this he wrote three copies agreeing with each other as to their object and
arguments, but differing in the mode of discussion, and in their respective lengths: of the first copy
he only finished one chapter, of the second nearly four, and of the third upwards of five. This
favourite tract appears again in another dress, being designated as ^'' Explicatio hrevis et perspicua
diagrammatis Hipparchi et Lanshergii erroris^^ but it is in substance the same as the former ones.
Kepler had supposed them to be whirled round by the action of magnetic fibres, by which, as he
thought, a mutual influence was exercised similar to that of the poles of loadstones ; but being
unable to reconcile the rotation of the sphere upon its axis with this supposition, he had recourse to
the singular idea of the exterior only of the planet being endued with rotatory motion. Horrox states
at some length his objection to this hypothesis, and having mentioned difficulties which Kepler
himself had not perceived, he proceeds thus: "To say, as he doth, Haec contemporatio pertinet ad
consilium creatoris,' which I understand to be, so is the will of God, if it had come sooner might
have saved a labour of all troublesome inquirys, for it is most true that the will of God is the cause
of all things, but resting in generalitys is the death of philosophy. I must have another cause of that
ovall figure, which it is most certain all the planets do affect. This will not satisfy me." He then
gives his own views, and says that, as the laws of nature are everywhere the same, there can be no
doubt that the true principle of the ellipse may be illustrated by means of movements upon the
surface of the earth, as for example, the throwing of a stone into the air, the rotation of which does
not impede its progress. (Whatton, on Rigauds advice, derives Newton from this)
June, 1636 C writes JH, and they begin working together. JH complains of Lansbergs errors, and C
recommends Ks Rudolphine Tables. C comes to view Ptolemy as pagan: the puerile fictions of the
pagan Ptolemy and Ks course from {Venus:
The clouds which once obscured our mental sight/ Are gone for ever; great Copernicus,/
Sent from above, lays open to our view/ The arduous secrets of wide heavens domain/
Turn hither then your grateful steps, for here/ Are wondrous mysteries that you may learn,/
Open to all whom, freed from baser thoughts/ The love of truth impels, and whom no cry/
Of vulgar men can scare from what is right/ Nor fear oppress, O child, of ignorance!/
Nor fabling oracles once deemed divine.

Aughton thinks Horrocks theology is so alike to Usshers!?? p 85

P86 K disagreed with Ussher on one point creation in the summer, not autumn of 4004 BC
JHs Phil Exercises refers to the Great Period 1944 [3 to the 5th x 2 to the 3rd]
1637 JHs treatise: Jeremiae Horroccii anti-Landsbergianus, sive disputations in Astronomiam
First rewrite: Astronomiae Lansbergianae censura et cum Kepleriana comparitio
Second rewrite, including Hipparchus diagram of Landsberg
1638 Intense observations: K right on Mercury, Venus, Mars but problems with Jupiter and Saturn, due to their
gravitational interaction..
June 1638 Horrocks visit with Crabtree in Broughton [? Per Sheehan/Westfall p 82]
12/1/0/1638 eclipse of moon. Horrocks co-ordinated with Thomas Horrocks in America (son of fathers cousin, a
nephew of Rev Alexander Horrocks).

June 1639-April 1640 in Hoole.

8/7/1639 C to G: Bringing Horrocks and Towneley to see you. If I can, I will bring him along with
Mr. Townley and myself to see Yorkshire and you. You shall also have my observations of the sun's
last eclipse here at Broughton, Mr. Horrox's between Liverpool and Preston, and Mr. Foster's in
London.
JH: " It seemed to me," he says, " that nothing could be more noble than to contemplate the
manifold wisdom of my Creator, as displayed amidst such glorious works; nothing more delightful
than to view them no longer with the gaze of vulgar admiration, but with a desire to know their
causes, and to feed upon their beauty by a more careful examination of their mechanism."
JH in {Venus} after examining the phases and crescents of Venus, acting toward the Sun the way
the Moon acts towards Earth, he celebrates his new (1638) telescope:
This preying tube too shews fair Venus form/ Clad in the vestments of her borrowed light,
While the unworthy fraud her crescent horn/ Betrays. Though bosomed in the solar beams
And by their blaze oerpowered, it brings to view/ Hermes and Venus fom concealed retreats;
With daring gaze it penetrates the veil/ Which shrouds the mighty ruler of the skies,
And searches all his secret laws. Of power/ Alone that rivalest Promethean deeds!
Lo, the sure guide to truths ingenuous sons! Whereer the zeal of youth shall scan the heavens,
O may they cherish thee above the blind/ Conceits of men, and the wild sea of error
Learning the marvels of this mighty Tube!
Oct, 1640 JH to C about the uncertainty of his affairs.
November 1640-August 1641 Long Parliament: Charles I needs money to fight vs Scot
Presbyterian

12/12/1640 H to C: if I were not kept by a great necessity, by which I am either unwillingly detained at home,
or compelled to journeys less pleasing, I would long since have hastened to you at Broughton, that I might more
fully know what new matters you are giving your mind to.
Another year at Toxteth, hed find out many things. Work on tides, e.g. As for yourself, continue your
observations, and I will prepare to enter into them again as soon as I have settled my business (mea negotia)
12/19/1640 H to C: A definite time will have to be fixed for me to visit you. If you can fit in the 4th of January it
will not be a problem for me. I think I will be free then. Unless something out of the ordinary gets in the way, you
can expect me.

Ws version of JHs death: It is to be regretted that the particulars of his decease are nowhere
recorded, and that we are left to mere conjecture upon a point of so much interest ; but there can be
little doubt that whatever may have been the immediate cause, his incessant labours by night and by
day materially contributed to hasten it.
[1883 The Palatine note-book article by John E Bailey
One portion of Horroxs papers was burnt by a company of soldiers who entered his fathers house at Toxteth in
search of plunder. Others were in the hand of his brother Jonas Horrox, who took them with him to Ireland, where
on his death they were lost. This is from Wallis, 1672. Sir James Allanson Picton, Liverpool architect, is the
source for the counter-claim that Jonas, along with a James Chorleton, appears in records in 1653 as a surveyor in
Liverpool and hence stayed in Liverpool. END OF BAILEY]

Ws version: " Letters of Mr. Jeremiah Horrox to me, of the years 1638, 1639, 1640, -until his death
on the morning of the 3rd of Januar}', when he expired very suddenly, the day before he had
proposed coming to me. Thus God puts an end to all worldly affairs ! and I am, alas ! bereaved of
my dearest Horrox. Irreparable loss ! Hence these tears ! ''
March? 1640 C to G: Letters from Mr Jeremiah Horrocks to me dating from the years 1638, 1639, 1640 up to
the day of his very sudden death on the morning of 3rd January, the day before he had decided to come and see
me. Thus God sets an end to all earthly things. Ah departed friends (alas, the sadness of it all). O Horrocks most
dear to me! Ah, the bitter tears this has caused! What an incalculable loss!
[1. Obviously, C sent copies of letters to G. 2. Evidently, this portion of this was copied for the collected edition;
but the rest of the letter does not survive were letters from Gascoigne collection, including Towneleys, burned
in the 1666 fire?]

May 1, 1641 Father, James Horrocks, dies. On back of C to G letter, Flamsteed wrote: Mr
Horrox died May 3 1641: griefe for his sonnes hastening his own death St. Nicholas parish record
gives burial for James Harrocks, watchmaker as May 1, 1641. Jonas, 20, took papers to Ireland.
Name appears in Liverpool municipal records a few years later. [Either Flamsteed wrong about
sonnes or Aughton wrong about Jonas death date]
W on provenance: Thus one portion of them, which had been hastily concealed on account of the
troubles of the times, was discovered and committed to the flames by a company of soldiers who
entered his father's house in search of plunder. Another portion was appropriated by his brother
Jonas, who carried them over to Ireland, where he died far from home and friends, and the papers
were never afterwards recovered. A third fell into the hands of Jeremiah Shakerley, and was made
use of by him in the compilation of the British tables published in the year 1653. He subsequently
went out to the East Indies; but before his departure entrusted his literary effects to one Nathaniel

Brooks, a London book- seller, in whose possession they remained until they were burnt in the
great fire of September 1666.
5/28/1644 Massacre at Bolton. The royalist attackers cried out: O that we had that old Rogue
Horrocks that preaches in his grey cloak. Probably said as they killed a Mr. Horrocks. His wife,
Elisabeth Horrocks, a woman of good quality was inhumanly treated by the soldiers. Rev
Alexander Horrocks 1650 will, re Elisabeth: my carefull Nice and Nource with whom I live, his
watch, etc. (Not his sister nor the other niece, Elisabeth, daughter of brother James.)
Worthington purchases from Crabtrees heirs his collection.
1653 Jeremiah Shakerly had some of Horrocks manuscripts, which he used for astrological charts
for Cromwells Parliamentarians. [Were these manuscripts from the soldiers raid?] When he left
for the West Indies, he left them with Nathaniel Brooks, London bookseller, and they were burned
up in the 1666 fire.
4/28/1659 [Aughton mistakenly has 1658] Worthington to Hartlib: I have, as you desire, sent you
Mr. Horrox, his discourse called Venus in sole visa. Here are two copies of it, but neither writ to
the end. I lent them some years since to a friend who promised out of both to make out one, and
then to print it; but other business it seems would not permit him to go through with the work. In
some other loose papers I perceive that the author began his tract again and again (so curious was
he about it), but these seem to be his last, written with his own hand. He lived at Toxteth Park near
Liverpool, in Lancashire, was some time of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, admitted the same
year I was. These papers of his, with many others of astronomical observations, I found in the study
of one Mr. Crabtree (a Lancashire man, and his great correspondent in these studies), and I bought
them after his death. By sending to some friend about Liverpool or Toxteth, it may be known
whether any of Mr. Horroxs kindred have any of his papers.
3/16/1660 Rev John Beale to Hartlib re Horrox, Hevelius and Huyghens (amongst about 15 names)
5/28/1660 Worthington to Hartlib re: Horrocks. Hartlib should make a copy and send back the
originals. (Hartlibs library, in 1662, burned down; and the Horrocks manuscripts had been saved
with some difficulty!)
9/3/1661 Hartlib writes to Winthrop about Hevelius
1662 Hevelius: How greatly does my Mercury exult in the joyous prospect that he may shortly
fold within his arms Horroxs long-looked for, and beloved Venus.
Early 1662 a household fire destroyed some of his papers.
March 10, 1662, Monday Hartlib dies.
May, 1662, three months after receiving manuscript, Hevelius sends Huygens the printed version:
You have doubtless heard, much honored friend, of the severe domestic calamity by which I was
prevented from more quickly fulfilling my promise; and I am sure you will not only readily excuse

me, but sympathize with me in this trial, when you understand how grievous an affliction has
befallen me. I have sent you by Dr. Peltrius my Mercury, produced amidst great mental anxiety,
together with Horroxs Venus, happily risen for the public good; whilst alas, my own beautiful
Venus has set, to my infinite sorrow! I pray you to consider them carefully, until I am able to send
you something better. The learned world is particularly indebted to you for bringing Horroxs Venus
to light, thus having cheerfully bestowed a gift so excellent and acceptable as to demand the thanks
of the latest posterity. When you have read the book, I beg you will give me your opinion of its
merits, which I shall esteem a great kindness, and in turn you will always find me desirous of
serving you.
7/25/1662 Huygens to Hevelius: The illustrious Bullialdus informed me of the great affliction
you have sustained by the death of your dearest wife, on which account I feared that this little work,
which was then in hand, would be delayed. But you have acted rightly in not suffering your private
loss to become a public misfortune; for I cannot say how highly astronomy is indebted to you for so
accurate a description of your beautiful observation. Posterity cannot adequately repay you with its
thanks. Touching the posthumous work of Horrox, now brought to light, it is more satisfactory that
it should have been undertaken by you, than by me
1662 Christopher Wren, Oxford prof of astronomy, consulted. RS had trouble with the over sixty
million miles earth-sun calculation; and the assertion that Jupiter and Saturn were much greater
than the earth.
1663 Wren and Wallis examined collected manuscripts of nos Keplari. Wallis reported that they
considered the Latin pieces to be extremely valuable, and well worthy of preservation. Wallis was
hereupon requested to gratify the learned world by digesting and preparing such of the manuscripts
as he approved, a task which he gladly undertook, and which he was admirably qualified to fulfil.
The plan that he adopted was as follows : By judiciously arranging the various tracts and
dissertations put into his hands by the society, including especially those against Lansberg and
Hortensius, with others already mentioned, he compiled a perfect treatise, entitled '' Astronomia
Kepleriana defensa et promotay This is divided into seven disputations, with an introduction
instituting a comparison between the merits of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Lansberg, Kepler, and others.
The first dissertation is upon various hypotheses, and the formation of tables of the heavenly
motions ; the second upon the fixed stars ; the third upon the obliquity of the Zodiac ; the fourth
upon the semi-diameter of the sun ; the fifth upon the diagram of Hipparchus ; the sixth upon the
movements of the stars ; and the seventh contains an answer to the cavils of Hortensius against
Tycho.
Wallis in 1672 Collected: I cannot help being displeased that this valuable observation,
purchasable by no money, elegantly described, and prepared for the press, should have laid hid for
two-and-twenty years, and that no one should have been found to take charge of so fair an offspring
at its fathers death, to bring to light a treatise of such importance to astronomy, and to preserve a
work for our countrys credit and for the advantage of mankind.

1670/1? Flamsteeds trip to Towneleys, and purchase of Horrocks on eclipse of moon, etc. This is
what ended up at Greenwich. At this point, most of Horrocks identified papers locked up in the
Tower of London, maintained by Jonas Moore.
W sets JHs paragraph vs. Newtons. But JH argues against Descartes, not against Kepler; and that
used to justify Newton on the mathematicians business to find the numbers of the balancing point:
"It is surely conceded by all that the motion of the planetary bodies is neither perfectly circular, nor
perfectly uniform ; for observations shew, beyond dispute, that the figure of the planetary orbits is
elliptical or oval, and different from a circle : and the motion of a body in this ellipse is irregular
being increased or diminished according to its distance from the sun. Physical causes are not
wanting to shew that this movement is described by a sort of geometrical necessity. We may satisfy
ourselves of the truth of this by an appeal to nature; for as a planet is moved by a magnetic impulse,
why may not the same principle be exercised in other ways ? A weight is thrown into the air : at
first it rises quickly, then moves slowly, until at length it is stationary, and falls back to the earth
with a velocity which continually increases. It thus describes a libratory movement. This movement
arises from the impetus in a right line which has been imparted to it by your hand, together with the
magnetic influence of the earth, which attracts all heavy things to itself, as a loadstone does iron.
There is no need to dream of circles in the air, and I know not what, when we have the natural
cause before our eyes ; and as regards the motion of the planets which are subject to similar
influences, what reason, I ask, is there to barter an explanation, the truth of which is comfirmed by
so many examples in nature, for a fictitious dream of circles?" ~Jer. Sot. Op. Fosth. Disp. VL Cap.
I.
Newton: If the force were less than it is, it would not cause her to deviate from a rectilineal course
sufficiently : if it were greater, it would cause her to deviate too much, and draw her from her orbit
towards the earth. It is therefore required to be of an exact amount ; and it is the business of
mathematicians to find the force which can accurately retain a body with a given velocity in any
given orbit.
Quotes Dr. Tatham on JH as forerunner of Newton: He was principally instrumental in calling
philosophy out of the regions of fictitious invention, and putting her on the investigation of the
physical causes of things from experiments and observations
He speaks of Kepler as the "Prince of astronomers to whose discoveries alone all who understand
the science will allow that we owe more than to those of any other person:" He says that he
venerates his sublime and enviably happy genius, and if necessary would defend to the utmost the
Uranian citadel of the noble hero who has so far surpassed his fellows;" and he adds, 'no one while
I live shall insult his ashes with impunity." At the same time he took nothing upon trust, but
carefully examined every theory that was pro- pounded. Thus he writes, "The calculations of
Lansberg and Longomontanus are false. Their principles and numbers are false. Kepler's
hypotheses are true, and he seldom fails in his numbers."
{Venus} has comparison of Copernicus via Reinhold, Longomontanus and Landsberg with Kepler:
The Calculation of Kepler

But I leave these patrons of circles and equality, these artificers of an useless labyrinth, and their
hypotheses which are faulty in their construction and incapable of amendment. For although the
measures of the eccentricities of the orbits, together with the mean motions, might be corrected so
as to resemble this and other observations; yet as the stars are governed by different laws from
those which they have invented, it is impossible by a complication of such circles to bring about an
entire agreement with appearances. I hasten therefore to that prince of astronomers, Kepler, to
whose discoveries alone, all who understand the science will allow that we owe more than to those
of any other person. I venerate with the greatest honor and admiration his sublime and enviably
happy genius; and if necessary, I would defend with my best efforts the Uranian citadel of the noble
hero who has so much surpassed his fellows, nor shall any one while I live, violate his ashes with
impunity. His death was an event that must ever have happened too soon; the science of astronomy
received the lamentable intelligence whilst left in the hands of a few trifling professors who had
kept themselves concealed like owls until the brightness of his sun had set.
Who, mighty shade, shall sing thy praises? Who,
Worthy so great a task, shall reach the stars?
Who now shall chant thy fate? The modern seers
Portend that heaven's disturbed by monsters which
Are unintelligible to mankind;
Perchance in pity thou dost still protect
The weaker minds of those whom thy decease
Hath robbed of nature's best interpreter.
Since such a guide is lost, what other now
Deserving to succeed, can take the reins?
Or should the stars rebel, who can restore
Them to their course, and bind with closer ties
Their wandering ways? Thou alone couldst take
The arduous guidance and shake the strong rein
To urge along the slothful retinue;
By thee restrained, the vulgar crowd
Dared not to climb the sacred car of heaven.
No devious course could cause thy thoughts to wander
In perplexity; fictitious circles
Could not enthrall thy loftier genius;
But thy mind, intent on the sublime, with
Faithful hand traced the motions which the God
Of nature hath decreed. While yet the power
Was thine to guide their way, true to thy rules
Each planet in its ordered path revolved,
And all rejoiced to follow in thy train.
But now deprived of thee science declines.
Sinking in antiquated errors; all

The stars are hurled as madness may devise,

And heaven's deformed by senseless violence!
Unhappy Germany! though torn by wars,
The sword alone will not effect thy ruin;
A heavier curse conspires to bring about
Thy mind's destruction. 'Tis this encourages
Hortensius to insult Pelides' dust;
By this the pompous Belgian, bolder grown,
Imposes on the world Perpetual Tables,
And spurns the embers which a powerful flame
Has sadly left; nor does he even fear
Lest his bold thefts should haply be detected,
Now that great Kepler's numbered with the dead.
Chaos is come again, the world's unhinged,
All things, in thee o'erpowered by fate, betray
The noblest art to trifling sycophants.

Corrections on Keplers measurements

I quite agree in the form of Kepler's hypotheses, and gladly receive both his annual and diurnal
motion of the earth. I am of opinion also that these motions do not arise from complicated fictions
of useless circles, but from natural and magnetic causes, and that they are owing to the rotation of
the Sun on its axis. He knows but little of astronomy who is ignorant that the figure of the orbit is
elliptical; that its centre is the body of the Sun, and not a fictitious point near it: that the motion of
the planet is really unequal; that the whole apparent inequality does not proceed from its
eccentricity alone; and finally, that the inclination of all the orbits to the ecliptic is not influenced
by the annual motion, but is fixed and constant.

John Kepler, the prince of astronomers, speaking of the relative proportion of the planets {Astr,
Cop. page 484), thinks it "quite agreeable to nature that the order of their magnitudes and of their
spheres should be the same; that is to say, that of the six primary planets. Mercury should be the
least, and Saturn the largest, inasmuch as the former moves in the smallest, and the latter in the
largest orbit." " But as the dimensions of their bodies may be regarded as threefold, either according
to their diameters, their superficies, or their bulk," he is doubtful which should be preferred. He
thinks the first proportion "to be beyond question contrary to original reasons, as well as to the
observations made on the diameters by means of the Belgian telescope." He advocates the second,
because the original reasons are preferable; whilst Remus Quietanus, a man well versed in practical
observations, defends the third; and with him Kepler at length agrees, retaining this proportion in
the Rudolphian tables. But as this was not found to be entirely satisfactory, he sought a proportion
in the density of the matter, whereby the bodies of equal magnitude may differ in weight, and vice
versa.

To give my opinion upon the subject, I am persuaded that the proportion of the globes and orbits of
the planets is the most accurate and certain, for such would appear the most agreeable to the Divine
Nature which formed all things by weight and measurement, and as Plato says, "aeternam exercet
geometriam." Moreover the proportion that obtains between the periods of the motions of the
planets and the semi-diameters of the orbits is most exact, as Kepler, who discovered it, very justly
remarks, and as I have accurately proved by repeated observation. Indeed there is not an error even
of a single second. Since therefore it is true that the Sun by its attractive power regulates the
motions of the six primary planets, I cannot conceive how it could adapt that power so perfectly to
their several distances, unless those moveable globes themselves were similarly proportioned. In
short, a well-conducted inspection of the diameters clearly warrants the same conclusion; neither is
it necessary with Kepler to have recourse to material density. What then, you will ask, is the
proportion of these orbits and bodies? I reply, that it is the first one which has reference to the
diameters, and which Kepler and others very inconsiderately reject; and this proportion is more
acceptable from its suitableness, and has been more corroborated by my own observation than that
of either superficies or bulk But on the other hand, what can be more appropriate than that the
diameters of the orbit and of the planet should be proportioned to one another? According to this
relation, both their superficies and magnitudes should be similarly proportioned.
JH also read Gilberts magnetic theories and was involved in addressing Keplers thinking on the
matter e.g., earth moving outside the circle, being pulled and pushed by the sun at the perigee and
apogee. JH: Himselfe confesseth it a strait that he is forced unto, and leaves it as an uncertain &
doubtful thing.
There are in ye body of ye planet fibrae magneticae which are the cause of its motion, but they are
not any such corporeall things as Kepler makes them, but all one wth that vertue which the Sun
infuse into them [rather] spiritual fibres (for so I will call them)
Jupiters gain on Saturn (relative to Keplers predictions)
Comets moving in elliptical paths, or something very close to elliptical
Brit line (Whatton and Aughton)
JH applied solar system dynamics to events on earth, which was the equivalent of
Newtons thoughts about the apple p106.
Then A repeats, without attribution, Ws citation of supposed parallel passages in JA and
Newton. (Again, JA speaks of the suns force in terms of magnetism and of physical causes behind
geometry and then dismisses abstract Cartesian geometry as needless circles drawn in the air (a
fictitious dream of circles). W and A, of course, think that this is a critique of Kepler! The Newton
quote is on the natural rectilinear motion being acted upon by the occult force, gravity. Then, it is
the business of mathematicians to work out the exact amount of gravitational force to distort the
rectilinear motion into an orbit) JUVENILE!
A goes on to criticize JH for not assuming the natural rectilinear, to which only one radial
force was needed instead JH pursues physical theories, including working with a pendulum bob,
initiated with a tangential force, resulting in an ellipse and with wind of a bellows forge included.
Hooke repeated JHs experiment for the RS in the 1660s.
Moon

Generally, JH analyzed planets by the combination of the Suns attraction and its rotation. He
applied such of both the earth and the sun to the moon (as the moon had complex cycles, including
a precession with a one-year period).
Good and evil
I will confesse myselfe not equally composed of good and bad, that myselfe may give eyther flesh
or spirit the upper hand; but rather wholly desirous to rest in my selfe, wholly averse from God, and
therefore justly deserve (as the fixed stars from the Sun) to be blown away from God in infinitum,
but that God by his Sons taking on him mans nature, and the undeserved inspiration of his spirit,
doth quicken this dulnes, nay deadnes of my nature, yet still; ah me! How doth it choke and weaken
those operations! If any one thinke all this but an idle conceit, I must tell him he doth too rashly
deride that booke of creation, that voice of the heavens which is heard in all the world, and wherein
without question god hath instamped more mysterys than the lazy witts of men, more ready to
slight than amend any speculation, are ordinarily aware of David accounted such cleare Emblems
of Gods glory that he goes from speaking of the light of the Sun, unto Gods law, as if the subject
were still the same For my part I must ever think that God created all other things, as well as man
in his own image, and that the nature of all things is one, as God is one, and therefore an
harmonicall agreeing of the causes of all things, if demonstrated, were the quintessence of most
truly naturall philosophy.
A: Newton was one of the devout Christians because he wrote millions of words on the
interpretation of the scriptures
A on Kepler, p120: much as Horrocks and others admired Keplers mathematics, he was a
complete disaster as an observational astronomer. Kepler claimed to have observed Mercury on the
face of the Sun, but he failed to recognize that in reality all he had seen was a sunspot. (A implies
K has messed up the 1631 siting! But the actual facts of the 1606? observation included K
explicitly recognizing that he had seen a sunspot!) What did JH write? Saturday, 10/26/39 to C for
the Sunday, 11/24/39 transit: a slight change in numbers in Keplers tables would alter the
time of conjunction meaning, he was relying upon his serious work in improving Keplers
tables to make the 1639 prediction.
P135 from Astronomical Exercises JHs critique of Lansbergs errors on Hipparchus method
for measuring earths shadow on the moon. Then, if parallax is way too small and sun farther
away than everyone, except Kepler thought we must imagine those things for wch we cannot
readily give a reason: for it is useful in Astronomys to preserve those embryous which have not a
perfect & compleat forme, since the issues of the cr[e]at[o]r are like bears whelps, that receive their
further shape by their dams licking of them.
P147/8 JH stated clearly that he intended to write a full treatise on the parallax of the Sun. It is a
tragedy that he never lived to complete this promised treatise. Then he quotes JH:
I had intended to offer a more extended treatise on the Suns parallax; but I prefer discussing it
in a separate treatise, De syderum dimensions which I have in hand. In this work, I examine the
opinions and views of others; I fully explain the diagram of Hipparchus by which the Suns parallax
is usually demonstrated, and I subjoin sundry new speculations; I also shew that the hypotheses of
no astronomer, Ptolemy not excepted, nor even Lansberg who boasts so loudly of his knowledge of

this subject, answer to that diagram, but that Kepler alone properly understood it, I shew in fact that
the hypotheses of all astronomers make the Suns parallax either absolutely nothing, or so small
that it is quite imperceptible, wheras they themselves, not understanding what they are about, come
to an entirely opposite conclusion, a paradox of which Lansberg affords an apt illustration. Lastly I
shew the insufficiency and uselessness of the common mode of demonstration from eclipses; I give
many other certain and easy methods of proving the distance and magnitude of the Sun, and I do
the same with regard to the rest of the planets, adducing several new observations.
Part of JHs method involved seeing from the Sun how the planets diameters were relative to their
distance.
P150: Moons orbit at apogee is 30 E diameters, equaling the S.
M/Ms orb = Ms orb/Es orb
Sun sees Ms orb as E sees M.
So, Ms orb/Ss distance = M/Ms distance. Hence, Ms orb is mean proportional between Es orb
and M (or M/Ms orb = Ms orb/Es orb)
Es orb/S = Ms orb/M
P151: Hence, likely that fixed-stars-orbs parallax/Es orb = S/E. So that E/Es orb = Es orb/fixedstars-orb. And M/S = S/Es orb
P 169 Thomas Horrocks emigrated with John Cotton, 1635. JH had him work on the June, 1635
lunar eclipse. He measured the end of the eclipse (the first re-appearance of the moon) as 65
minutes before sunrise in Quidnick in Rhode Island.
10/3/1640 JH reports to Gascoigne his measurements of the tides, as he notes greater tides when
Moon is at conjunction, e.g.
12/12/1640: The motion of the seas has indicated many rare things to me The observations so
far have continued for three months. However I hope that if I remain here for a whole year I may
discover many secrets which may openly prove the motion of the Earth. if I were not kept by a
great necessity, by which I am either unwillingly detained at home, or compelled to journeys less
pleasing, I would long since have hastened to you at Broughton, that I might more fully know what
new matters you are giving your mind to.
12/19/1640 A definite time will have to be fixed for me to visit you. If you can fit in the 4th of
January it will not be a problem for me. I think I will be free then. Unless something out of the
ordinary gets in the way, you can expect me.
Flamsteeds note on back of a C-to-G letter: Mr Horrox father died May 3 1641: griefe for his
sonnes hastening his own death. Burial records of church gives May 1st.
6/14/1644 looting after night of battle in Liverpool. PA has this as the occasion of the burning of
JHs papers.
7/2/1644 Battle of Marston Moor, where Charles Towneley died
8/1/1644 Crabtree buried.
Crabtrees associate, the elder Christopher Towneley of Carre Hall and his nephew, Richard. They
employed Jeremiah Shakerley to work on the manuscripts: 1649 Anatomy of Urania Practice,
1651 Almanac and 1653 Tabulae Britannicae with a focus upon astrology. His collaborator was

William Lilly of London, the official astrologer for Parliament. JS traveled to India in 1651 for a
transit of Mercury. He became disillusioned from the dishonesty of astrologers. He died shortly
afterwards (1653?) after five years of work.
1660s Flamsteed letter to John Collins: For besides the note on the back of the letters I find that in
a letter of Crabtrees to Gascoigne dated March 18 1640/41 hee much laments the death of Horrox
Delays in publishing from 1664 to 1672: {Jeremiae Horroccii Angli Opera Posthuma}
This Horrox is the same with him, that is the Author of that excellent Tract, called Venus in Sole
visa, publishd by the famous Johannes Hevelius together with his Mercurius in Sole visus: who if
he had not been snatchd away by an untimely death in the flower of his age, would certainly, by
his industry and exactness, which did accompany his great affection to Astronomy, have very
considerably advanced that Science. Now we have only left us these imperfect Papers, digested, not
without great care and labour, by that Learned Mathematician Dr. John Wallis; Wherein does occur,
First, the Keplerian Astronomy, asserted and promoted; which this Author undertook, after he had
spent much time, and taken great pains in acquainting himself with that Lansbergius, which he at
first embraced with to much eagerness and addition, that it was difficult to divorce him from it, till
at length, by the advertisements of William Crabtree, a sagacious and diligent Astronomer of that
time, he found, that neither the Hypotheses of Lansbergius were consistent among themselves, nor
his Tables agreed with Observations exactly made All which errors having bneen found at last by
our Author himself, and withal the writings of Kepler, and the Rudolphin Tables by him searchd
into, he saw cause far to prefer them to the Lansbergian, because grounded upon Hypothesis
consonant to Nature, and well agreeing with the Heavens: though he found cause by his accurate
Observations to amend even these Tables, yet without a necessity of changing the Hypothesis.
I.

Four works plus a few sheets of the fifth, which was about the Diagram of
Hipparchus Then, two more, of the Celestial bodies and their Motion and his
Answer to the Cavils Hortensius against Tycho.
II.
Latin translations of over forty letters from JH to WC
III.
Catalogue of astronomical observations, including his corrections for the eccentricity of
the eye
IV.
Hypothesis of the moon, with Flamsteeds version of the calculations
Also included: WCs observations on Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Venus; Flamsteed on the inequality
of the solar day due to eccentricity of Earths orbit
3/7/1673 James Gregory to RSs Collins: I received Horrocci posthuma, for which I must
acknowledge my selfe exceedinglie engaged to you: I have perused him & am satisfied with him
beyond measure; it was a great loss that he dyde so young; many naughtie fellows live till 80
Newton to Collins: I received the remainder of Mr Horrox I am very glad that the world will
enjoy the writings of the excellent astronomer Mr Horrox.
Sept, 1672 Flamsteed measured, at Towneleys place, a parallax for Mars which would make the
Sun on the order of 26,000 semidiameters away three times farther than Flamsteed conceived; so
he didnt publish. In Paris, Cassini and Picard did, and did publish.

P202 Accurate theory of Moons motions (within 1 minutes of arc) would allow for navigators to
calculate longitude for their positions.
P203 PA: Ns 1684 genius on ellipse and inverse square might have been in part due to JH,
EXCEPT that Newtons apple hit him in 1665, not in 1670s!! The notion that the force of the
Earth on the apple was the same as the force which held the Moon in orbit did not come from the
{Opera Posthuma}. The idea came to him in 1665 in his garden at Woolsthorpe.
P204 But Newtons math could never deal with the Moon [3-body problem]. he admitted that
the Moon was the only problem which made his head ache. In 1723, Thomas Hearn: Mr
Horrox had a very strange unaccountable genius His posthumous works were printed by Dr.
Wallis. They are now scarce.
P206 W R Whatton collected material for bio, but he died; and his son, Rev Arundell Blount
Whatton published in 1859. Later, a memorial to JH at Richard Mathers ancient chapel.