De revolutionibus orbium coelestium

De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is the seminal work on
the heliocentric theory of the Renaissance astronomer
Nicolaus Copernicus (14731543). The book, rst
printed in 1543 in Nuremberg, Holy Roman Empire, offered an alternative model of the universe to Ptolemy's
geocentric system, which had been widely accepted since
ancient times.

the motion of the Earth with the perceived motions of the

planets easily, with fewer motions than were necessary in
the Alfonsine Tables, the version of the Ptolemaic system
current at the time. In particular, the heliocentric Copernican model made use of the Urdi Lemma developed in
the 13th century by Mu'ayyad al-Din al-'Urdi, the rst
of the Maragha astronomers to develop a non-Ptolemaic
model of planetary motion.[2]
Observations of Mercury by Bernhard Walther (1430
1504) of Nuremberg, a pupil of Regiomontanus, were
made available to Copernicus by Johannes Schner, 45
observations in total, 14 of them with longitude and
latitude. Copernicus used three of them in De revolutionibus, giving only longitudes, and erroneously attributing them to Schner. Copernicus values diered slightly
from the ones published by Schner in 1544 in Observationes XXX annorum a I. Regiomontano et B. Walthero
Norimbergae habitae, [4, Norimb. 1544].

History

A manuscript of De revolutionibus in Copernicus own

hand has survived. After his death, it was given to his
pupil, Rheticus, who for publication had only been given
a copy without annotations. Via Heidelberg, it ended up
in Prague, where it was rediscovered and studied in the
19th century. Close examination of the manuscript, including the dierent types of paper used, helped scholars construct an approximate timetable for its composition. Apparently Copernicus began by making a few astronomical observations to provide new data to perfect
his models. He may have begun writing the book while
still engaged in observations. By the 1530s a substantial
part of the book was complete, but Copernicus hesitated
to publish.
In 1539 Georg Joachim Rheticus, a young mathematician from Wittenberg, arrived in Frauenburg (Frombork)
to study with him. Rheticus read Copernicus manuscript
and immediately wrote a non-technical summary of its
main theories in the form of an open letter addressed
to Schner, his astrology teacher in Nrnberg; he published this letter as the Narratio Prima in Danzig in 1540.
Rheticus friend and mentor Achilles Gasser published a
second edition of the Narratio in Basel in 1541. Due to
its friendly reception, Copernicus nally agreed to publication of more of his main workin 1542, a treatise
on trigonometry, which was taken from the second book
of the still unpublished De revolutionibus. Rheticus published it in Copernicus name.

Heliocentric model of the solar system in Copernicus' manuscript

Copernicus initially outlined his system in a short, untitled, anonymous manuscript that he distributed to several
friends, referred to as the Commentariolus. A physicians
library list dating to 1514 includes a manuscript whose
description matches the Commentariolus, so Copernicus
must have begun work on his new system by that time.[1]
Most historians believe that he wrote the Commentariolus Under strong pressure from Rheticus, and having seen
after his return from Italy, possibly only after 1510. At that the rst general reception of his work had not been
this time, Copernicus anticipated that he could reconcile
1

3 AD LECTOREM

unfavorable, Copernicus nally agreed to give the book

to his close friend, Bishop Tiedemann Giese, to be delivered to Rheticus in Wittenberg for printing by Johannes
Petreius at Nrnberg (Nuremberg). It was published just
before Copernicus death, in 1543.

their periodicity. Chapters 12-14 give theorems for

chord geometry as well as a table of chords.
Book II describes the principles of spherical astronomy as a basis for the arguments developed in the
following books and gives a comprehensive catalogue of the xed stars.

Contents

Book III describes his work on the precession of the

equinoxes and treats the apparent movements of the
Sun and related phenomena.
Book IV is a similar description of the Moon and its
orbital movements.
Book V explains how to calculate the positions of
the wandering stars based on the heliocentric model
and gives tables for the ve planets.
Book VI deals with the digression in latitude from
the ecliptic of the ve planets.
Copernicus argued that the universe comprised eight
spheres. The outermost consisted of motionless, xed
stars, with the Sun motionless at the center. The known
planets revolved about the Sun, each in its own sphere,
in the order: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. The Moon, however, revolved in its sphere around
the Earth. What appeared to be the daily revolution of
the Sun and xed stars around the Earth was actually the
Earths daily rotation on its own axis.
For philosophical reasons, Copernicus clung to the belief that all the orbits of celestial bodies must be perfect circles[4] and to a belief in the unobserved crystalline
spheres. This forced Copernicus to retain the Ptolemaic
systems complex system of epicycles, to account for the
observed deviations from circularity and to square his calculations with observations.

Title page, 2nd edition, Basel, Ocina Henricpetrina, 1566

The book is dedicated to Pope Paul III in a preface that

argues that mathematics, not physics, should be the basis
for understanding and accepting his new theory.

Despite Copernicus adherence to these aspects of ancient astronomy, his radical shift from a geocentric to a
heliocentric cosmology was a serious blow to Aristotle's
scienceand helped usher in the Scientic Revolution.

Ad lectorem

Rheticus left Nrnberg to take up his post as professor in

De revolutionibus is divided into six books (sections or
Leipzig. The Lutheran preacher Andreas Osiander had
parts), following closely the layout of Ptolemys Almagest
taken over the task of supervising the printing and publi[3]
which it updated and replaced:
cation. In an eort to reduce the controversial impact of
Book I chapters 1-11 are a general vision of the he- the book, Osiander added his own unsigned letter (titled
liocentric theory, and a summarized exposition of Ad lectorem de hypothesibu huius operis.) printed in front
his cosmology. The world (heavens) is spherical, as of Copernicus preface which was a dedicatory letter to
is the earth, and the land and water make a single Pope Paul III and which kept the title Praefatio authoglobe. The celestial bodies, including the earth, have ris (to acknowledge that the unsigned letter was not by
regular circular and everlasting movements. The the books author).
earth rotates on its axis and around the sun. An- Osianders letter stated that Copernius system was mathswers to why the ancients thought the earth was cen- ematics intended to aid computation and not an attempt
tral. The order of the planets around the sun and to declare literal truth:

3
and depart this study a greater fool than when
he entered.[5]
As even Osianders defenders point out, the Ad lectorem
expresses views on the aim and nature of scientic theories at variance with Copernicus claims for his own
theory.[6]
Many view Osianders letter as a betrayal of science and
Copernicus, and an attempt to pass his own thoughts o
as those of the books author. An example of this type
of claim can be seen in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which
states Fortunately for him [the dying Copernicus], he
could not see what Osiander had done. This reformer,
knowing the attitude of Luther and Melanchthon against
the heliocentric system ... without adding his own name,
replaced the preface of Copernicus by another strongly
contrasting in spirit with that of Copernicus.[7]

Title page, 3rd ed., Amsterdam, Nicolaus Mulerius, publisher,

1617

it is the duty of an astronomer to compose

the history of the celestial motions through
careful and expert study. Then he must conceive and devise the causes of these motions
or hypotheses about them. Since he cannot in
any way attain to the true causes, he will adopt
whatever suppositions enable the motions to be
computed correctly ... The present author has
performed both these duties excellently. For
these hypotheses need not be true nor even
probable. On the contrary, if they provide a
calculus consistent with the observations, that
alone is enough ... For this art, it is quite clear,
is completely and absolutely ignorant of the
causes of the apparent [movement of the heavens]. And if any causes are devised by the
imagination, as indeed very many are, they are
not put forward to convince anyone that they
are true, but merely to provide a reliable basis for computation. However, since dierent
hypotheses are sometimes oered for one and
the same ... the astronomer will take as his
rst choice that hypothesis which is the easiest
to grasp. The philosopher will perhaps rather
seek the semblance of the truth. But neither of
them will understand or state anything certain,
unless it has been divinely revealed to him ...
Let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as
the truth ideas conceived for another purpose,

While Osianders motives behind the letter have been

questioned by many, he has been defended by historian
Bruce Wrightsman, who points out he was not an enemy of science. Osiander had many scientic connections including Johannes Schoner, Rheticuss teacher,
whom Osiander recommended for his post at the Nurnberg Gymnasium; Peter Apian of Ingolstadt University;
Hieronymous Schreiber...Joachim Camerarius...Erasmus
Reinhold...Joachim Rheticus...and nally, Hieronymous
Cardan.[6]
The historian Wrightsman put forward that Osiander did
not sign the letter because he was such a notorious
[Protestant] reformer whose name was well-known and
infamous among Catholics,[6] so that signing would have
likely caused negative scrutiny of the work of Copernicus
(a loyal Catholic canon and scholar). Copernicus himself had communicated to Osiander his own fears that
his work would be scrutinized and criticized by the 'peripatetics and theologians,[6] and he had already been in
trouble with his bishop, Johannes Dantiscus, on account
of his former relationship with his mistress and friendship
with Dantiscuss enemy and suspected heretic, Alexander Scultetus. It was also possible that Protestant Nurnberg could fall to the forces of the Holy Roman Emperor and since the books of hostile theologians could
be burned...why not scientic works with the names of
hated theologians axed to them?[6] " Wrightsman also
holds that this is why Copernicus did not mention his top
student, Rheticus (a Lutheran) in the books dedication to
the Pope.[6]
Osianders interest in astronomy was theological, hoping for improving the chronology of historical events
and thus providing more accurate apocalyptic interpretations of the Bible... [he shared in] the general awareness
that the calendar was not in agreement with astronomical
movement and therefore, needed to be corrected by devising better models on which to base calculations. In an
era before the telescope, Osiander (like most of the eras
mathematical astronomers) attempted to bridge the fundamental incompatibility between Ptolemaic astronomy

4
and Aristotlian physics, and the need to preserve both,
by taking an 'instrumentalist' position. Only the handful of Philosophical purists like the Averroists... demanded physical consistency and thus sought for realist
models.[6]
Copernicus was hampered by his insistence on preserving the idea that celestial bodies had to travel in perfect spheres he was still attached to classical ideas
of circular motion around deferents and epicycles, and
spheres.[8] This was particularly troubling concerning
the Earth because he attached the Earths axis rigidly to
a Sun-centered sphere. The unfortunate consequence was
that the terrestrial rotation axis then maintained the same
inclination with respect to the Sun as the sphere turned,
eliminating the seasons.[8] To explain the seasons, he had
to propose a third motion, an annual contrary conical
sweep of the terrestrial axis.[8] It was not until the Great
Comet of 1577, which moved as if there were no spheres
to crash through, did the idea come under question. In
1609, Kepler xed Copernicus theory by stating that the
planets orbit the sun not in circles, but ellipses. Only after
Keplers renement of Copernicus theory was the need
for deferents and epicycles abolished.
In his work, Copernicus used conventional, hypothetical
devices like epicycles...as all astronomers had done since
antiquity. ...hypothetical constructs solely designed to
'save the phenomena' and aid computation.[6] Ptolemys
theory contained a hypothesis about the epicycle of Venus
that was viewed as absurd if seen as anything other than
a geometrical device (its brightness and distance should
have varied greatly, but they don't). In spite of this defect in Ptolemys theory, Copernicus hypothesis predicts
approximately the same variations.[6] Because of the use
of similar terms and similar deciencies, Osiander could
see little technical or physical truth-gain[6] between one
system and the other. It was this attitude towards technical astronomy that had allowed it to function since antiquity, despite its inconsistencies with the principles of
physics and the philosophical objections of Averroists.[6]
Writing Ad lectorem, Osiander was inuenced by Pico
della Mirandola's idea that humanity orders [an intellectual] cosmos out of the chaos of opinions.[6] From
Picos writings, Osiander learned to extract and synthesize insights from many sources without becoming the
slavish follower of any of them.[6] The eect of Pico on
Osiander was tempered by the inuence of Nicholas of
Cusa's and his idea of coincidentia oppositorum. Rather
than having Picos focus on human eort, Osiander followed Cusas idea that understanding the Universe and its
Creator only came from divine inspiration rather than intellectual organization. From these inuences, Osiander
held that in the area of philosophical speculation and scientic hypothesis there are no heretics of the intellect,
but when one gets past speculation into truth-claims the
Bible is the ultimate measure. By holding Copernicianism was mathematical speculation, Osiander held that it
would be silly to hold it up against the accounts of the

3 AD LECTOREM
Bible.
Picos inuence on Osiander did not escape Rheticus,
who reacted strongly against the Ad lectorem. As historian
Robert S. Westman puts it, The more profound source
of Rheticuss ire however, was Osianders view of astronomy as a disciple fundamentally incapable of knowing
anything with certainty. For Rheticus, this extreme position surely must have resonated uncomfortably with Pico
della Mirandolas attack on the foundations of divinatory
astrology.[9]
In his Disputations, Pico had made a devastating attack
on astrology. Because those who were making astrological predictions relied on astronomers to tell them where
the planets were, they also became a target. Pico held that
since astronomers who calculate planetary positions could
not agree among themselves, how were they to be held as
reliable? While Pico could bring into concordance writers like Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, Averroes, Avicenna,
and Aquinas, the lack of consensus he saw in astronomy
was a proof to him of its fallibility alongside astrology.
Pico pointed out that the astronomers instruments were
imprecise and any imperfection of even a degree made
them worthless for astrology, people should not trust astrologists because they should not trust the numbers from
astronomers. Pico pointed out that astronomers couldn't
even tell where the sun appeared in the order of the planets as they orbited the earth (some put it close to the
moon, others among the planets). How, Pico asked, could
astrologists possibly claim they could read what was going on when the astronomers they relied on could oer
no precision on even basic questions?
As Westman points out, to Rheticus it would seem that
Osiander now oered new grounds for endorsing Picos
conclusions: not merely was the disagreement among astronomers grounds for mistrusting the sort of knowledge
that they produced, but now Osiander proclaimed that astronomers might construct a world deduced from (possibly) false premises. Thus the conict between Piconian
skepticism and secure principles for the science of the
stars was built right into the complex dedicatory apparatus of De Revolutionibus itself.[9] According to the notes
of Michael Maestlin, Rheticus...became embroiled in
a very bitter wrangle with the printer [over the Ad lectorem]. Rheticus...suspected Osiander had prefaced the
work; if he knew this for certain, he declared, he would
rough up the fellow so violently that in future he would
mind his own business.[10]
Objecting to the Ad lectorem, Tiedemann Giese urged the
Nuremberg city council to issue a correction, but this was
not done, and the matter was forgotten. Jan Broscius, a
supporter of Copernicus, also despaired of the Ad lectorem, writing Ptolemys hypothesis is the earth rests.
Copernicus hypothesis is that the earth is in motion. Can
either, therefore, be true? ... Indeed, Osiander deceives
much with that preface of his ... Hence, someone may
well ask: How is one to know which hypothesis is truer,

5
the Ptolemaic or the Copernican?"[6]
Petreius had sent a copy to Hieronymus Schreiber,
an astronomer from Nrnberg who had substituted for
Rheticus as professor of mathematics in Wittenberg
while Rheticus was in Nrnberg supervising the printing.
Schreiber, who died in 1547, left in his copy of the book
a note about Osianders authorship. Via Michael Mstlin,
this copy came to Johannes Kepler, who discovered what
Osiander had done[11][12] and methodically demonstrated
that Osiander had indeed added the foreword.[13] The
most knowledgeable astronomers of the time had realized
that the foreword was Osianders doing.

which had hitherto been the Alpha and Omega of

astronomers.[19] Erasmus Reinhold hailed the work in
1542 and by 1551 had developed the Prutenic Tables
(Prussian Tables"; Latin: Tabulae prutenicae; German:
Preuische Tafeln) using Copernicus methods. The
Prutenic Tables, published in 1551, were used as a basis for the calendar reform instituted in 1582 by Pope
Gregory XIII. They were also used by sailors and maritime explorers, whose 15th-century predecessors had
used Regiomontanus' Table of the Stars. In England,
Robert Recorde, John Dee, Thomas Digges and William
Gilbert were among those who adopted his position;
in Germany, Christian Wurstisen, Christoph Rothmann
and Michael Mstlin, the teacher of Johannes Kepler; in
Italy, Giambattista Benedetti and Giordano Bruno whilst
Franciscus Patricius accepted the rotation of the earth.
In Spain, rules published in 1561 for the curriculum of
the University of Salamanca gave students the choice
between studying Ptolemy or Copernicus.[20][21] One of
those students, Diego de Ziga, published an acceptance
of Copernican theory in 1584.[22]

Owen Gingerich[14] gives a slightly dierent version: Kepler knew of Osianders authorship since he had read
about it in one of Schreibers annotations in his copy of De
Revolutionibus; Maestlin learned of the fact from Kepler.
Indeed, Maestlin perused Keplers book, up to the point
of leaving a few annotations in it. However, Maestlin already suspected Osiander, because he had bought his De
revolutionibus from the widow of Philipp Apian; examining his books, he had found a note attributing the introVery soon, nevertheless, Copernicus theory was atduction to Osiander.
tacked with Scripture and with the common Aristotelian
Johannes Praetorius (15371616), who learned of Os- proofs. In 1549 Melanchthon, Luthers principal lieuianders authorship from Rheticus during a visit to him tenant, wrote against Copernicus, pointing to the thein Krakw, wrote Osianders name in the margin of the orys apparent conict with Scripture and advocating that
foreword in his copy of De revolutionibus.
severe measures be taken to restrain the impiety of
[23]
All three early editions of De revolutionibus included Os- Copernicans. The works of Copernicus and Ziga
the latter for asserting that De revolutionibus was comianders foreword.
patible with Catholic faithwere placed on the Index of
Forbidden Books by a decree of the Sacred Congregation
of March 5, 1616 (more than 70 years after its publica4 Reception
tion):
Even before the 1543 publication of De revolutionibus,
rumors circulated about its central theses. Martin Luther
is quoted as saying in 1539:
People gave ear to an upstart astrologer
who strove to show that the earth revolves, not
the heavens or the rmament, the sun and the
moon ... This fool wishes to reverse the entire
science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells
us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the
sun to stand still, and not the earth.[15]
When the book was nally published, demand was low,
with an initial print run of 400 failing to sell out.[16]
Copernicus had made the book extremely technical, unreadable to all but the most advanced astronomers of the
day, allowing it to disseminate into their ranks before stirring great controversy.[17] And, like Osiander, contemporary mathematicians and astronomers encouraged its audience to view it as a useful mathematical ction with no
physical reality, thereby somewhat shielding it from accusations of blasphemy.[18]

This Holy Congregation has also learned

about the spreading and acceptance by many
of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether
contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth
moves and the sun is motionless, which is also
taught by Nicholaus Copernicus De revolutionibus orbium coelestium and by Diego de
Zigas In Job ... Therefore, in order that this
opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has
decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus [De revolutionibus] and Diego de Ziga
[In Job] be suspended until corrected.[24]

De revolutionibus was not formally banned but merely

withdrawn from circulation, pending corrections that
would clarify the theorys status as hypothesis. Nine sentences that represented the heliocentric system as certain
were to be omitted or changed. After these corrections
were prepared and formally approved in 1620 the reading of the book was permitted.[25] But the book was never
reprinted with the changes and was available in Catholic
Among some astronomers, the book at once took its jurisdictions only to suitably qualied scholars, by special
place as a worthy successor to the Almagest of Ptolemy, request. It remained on the Index until 1758, when Pope

8 NOTES

Benedict XIV (174058) removed the uncorrected book

from his revised Index.[26]

Census of copies

Arthur Koestler described De revolutionibus as "The Book

That Nobody Read" saying the book was and is an alltime worst seller, despite the fact that it was reprinted
four times.[27] Owen Gingerich, a writer on both Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler, disproved this after a 35-year project to examine every surviving copy
of the rst two editions. Gingerich showed that nearly
all the leading mathematicians and astronomers of the
time owned and read the book; however, his analysis of the marginalia shows that they almost all ignored
the cosmology at the beginning of the book and were
only interested in Copernicus new equant-free models
of planetary motion in the later chapters. Also, Nicolaus
Reimers in 1587 translated the book into German.
Gingerichs eorts and conclusions are recounted in The
Book Nobody Read, published in 2004 by Walker & Co.
His census[28] included 276 copies of the rst edition (by
comparison, there are 228 extant copies of the First Folio of Shakespeare) and 325 copies of the second.[29] The
research behind this book earned its author the Polish
governments Order of Merit in 1981. Due largely to
Gingerichs scholarship, De revolutionibus has been researched and catalogued better than any other rst-edition
historic text except for the original Gutenberg Bible.[30]

Editions

On the Revolutions; translation and commentary by

Edward Rosen, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-8018-4515-7. (Foundations of Natural History. Originally published in
Warsaw, Poland, 1978.)
On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, translated by C.G. Wallis, Annapolis, St Johns College
Bookstore, 1939. Republished in volume 16 of the
Great Books of the Western World, Chicago, Encyclopdia Britannica, 1952; in the series of the same
name, published by the Franklin Library, Franklin
Center, Philadelphia, 1985; in volume 15 of the
second edition of the Great Books, Encyclopdia
Britannica, 1990; and Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus
Books, 1995, Great Minds SeriesScience, ISBN
1-57392-035-5.

8 Notes
[1] Gingerich 2004, p. 32
[2] Saliba (1979).
[3] Dreyer, John L E (1906). History of the planetary systems
from Thales to Kepler. p. 342.
[4] Gingerich 2004, p. 23
[5] David Luban (1994). Legal Modernism. University of
Michigan.
[6] Andreas Osianders Contribution to the Copernican
Achievement, by Bruce Wrightsman, Section VII, The
Copernican Achievement, ed. Robert S. Westman,
University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1975

1543, Nuremberg, by Johannes Petreius

[7] Nicolaus Copernicus. Catholic Encyclopedia.

1566, Basel, by Henricus Petrus

[8] William Tobin (2003). The Life and Science of Lon Foucault: The Man who Proved the Earth Rotates. Cambridge
University Press.

1617, Amsterdam, by Nicolaus Mulerius

1854, Warsaw, with Polish translation and the authentic preface by Copernicus.

[9] Robert S. Westman (2011). The Copernican Question:

Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

1873, Thorn, German translation sponsored by the [10] Galsgow University Library Special Collections Departlocal Coppernicus Society, with all Copernicus texment, Book of the Month, Nicolaus Copernicus De Revotual corrections given as footnotes.
lutionibus Nuremberg: 1543 Sp Coll Hunterian Cz.1.13.

Translations

English translations of De revolutionibus have included:

On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, translated with an introduction and notes by A.M. Duncan, Newton Abbot, David & Charles, ISBN 07153-6927-X; New York, Barnes and Noble, 1976,
ISBN 0-06-491279-5.

[11] Edward Rosen: Three Copernican Treatises: The Commentariolus of Copernicus, The Letter Against Werner, The
Narratio Prima of Rheticus, Dover Publications, 2004,
ISBN 0-486-43605-5, p. 24.
[12] Koestler, 1959, p. 169
[13] Robert Westman, Three Responses to Copernican Theory, in Robert Westman, ed., The Copernican Achievement, 1975.
[14] Gingerich, O. (2004). The book nobody read. Heinemann, London. pp. 159164.

[15] Quoted in Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution,

Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,
1957, p. 191.
[16] Philip Ball, The Devils Doctor: Paracelsus and the
World of Renaissance Magic and Science, ISBN 978-009-945787-9, p. 354.
[17] Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, p. 185.
[18] Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, pp. 18687.
[19] Dreyer & 1906 345
[20] Deming, David (2012). Science and Technology in World
History, Volume 3: The Black Death, the Renaissance, the
Reformation and the Scientic Revolution. McFarland &
Company. p. 138. ISBN 9780786461721.
[21] Gilbert, William (1998). Chapter 23: The Beginning of
the Scientic Revolution. The Renaissance and The Reformation. Carrie. OCLC 817744956.
[22] Dreyer & 1906 346-352
[23] Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution, p. 192. Kuhn
writes that Melanchthon emphasized Ecclesiastes 1:4-5
(The earth abideth forever ... the sun also ariseth, and the
sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose).
[24] Original Latin text and an English translation. Also mentioned by W. R. Shea and M. Artigas in Galileo in Rome
(2003), pp. 8485, ISBN 0-19-516598-5.
[25] "Nicolaus Copernicus", Catholic Encyclopedia.
[26] "Benedict XIV", Catholic Encyclopedia.
[27] Koestler 1959, p194
[28] Gingerich 2002

Heilbron, J.L.: The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals

as Solar Observatories. Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Harvard University Press, 1999 ISBN 0-674-854330
Koestler, Arthur (1959). The Sleepwalkers. Hutchison.
Swerdlow, N.M., O. Neugebauer: Mathematical astronomy in Copernicus De revolutionibus. New York
: Springer, 1984 ISBN 0-387-90939-7 (Studies in
the history of mathematics and physical sciences ;
10)
Vermij, R.H.: The Calvinist Copernicans: The Reception of the New Astronomy in the Dutch Republic, 1575-1750. Amsterdam : Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 2002 ISBN
90-6984-340-4
Westman, R.S., ed.: The Copernican achievement.
Berkeley : University of California Press, 1975
ISBN 0-520-02877-5
Zinner, E.: Entstehung und Ausbreitung der coppernicanischen Lehre. 2. Au. durchgesehen und
erg. von Heribert M. Nobis und Felix Schmeidler.
Mnchen : C.H. Beck, 1988 ISBN 3-406-32049-X

10 External links
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, from Harvard
University.

[29] Gingerich 2004, p. 121

De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, from Jagiellon

University, Poland.

[30] Peter DeMarco. "Book quest took him around the globe".
Boston Globe. April 13, 2004

De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, from Rare

Book Room.

References
Gassendi, Pierre: The Life of Copernicus, biography
(1654), with notes by Olivier Thill (2002), ISBN 159160-193-2 ()
Gingerich, Owen (2002). An annotated census
of Copernicus De revolutionibus (Nuremberg, 1543
and Basel, 1566). Leiden: Brill (Studia copernicana. Brills series; v. 2). ISBN 90-04-11466-1.
Gingerich, Owen (2004). The Book Nobody Read
: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus.
New York : Walker. ISBN 0-8027-1415-3.
Hannam, James (2007). Deconstructing Copernicus. Medieval Science and Philosophy. Retrieved
2007-08-17. Analyses the varieties of argument
used by Copernicus.

On the Revolutions, from WebExhibits.

translation of part of Book I.

English

River Campus Libraries, Book of the Month December 2005: De revolutionibus orbium coelestium

11

11
11.1

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

De revolutionibus orbium coelestium Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium?oldid=675998992

Contributors: Ahoerstemeier, Djnjwd, Charles Matthews, EALacey, Omegatron, Lumos3, Donarreiskoer, Giftlite, Alan W, Fastssion, Jacob1207, Matthead, Toytoy, Antandrus, Piotrus, Pmanderson, MakeRocketGoNow, Discospinster, Stbalbach, Joanjoc~enwiki, Alansohn,
Nik42, Ricky81682, JoaoRicardo, Logologist, Kocio, Super-Magician, Sciurin, Angr, Mindmatrix, TigerShark, Camw, WadeSimMiser,
Eilthireach, Jan van Male, Quiddity, FlaBot, Kvas, JYOuyang, RexNL, Intgr, Krun, TeaDrinker, King of Hearts, Jaraalbe, Volunteer Marek,
Gwernol, Bambaiah, Sceptre, Hairy Dude, RussBot, NawlinWiki, Wiki alf, Schlay, Mlouns, Molobo, Zwobot, Whobot, Appleseed, DVD
R W, Finell, SmackBot, Unyoyega, C.Fred, Zaqarbal, HalfShadow, Commander Keane bot, JCSantos, Persian Poet Gal, SchftyThree,
Neo-Jay, Colonies Chris, Darth Panda, Chlewbot, Leoboudv, Iblardi, Grommel~enwiki, John, Rigadoun, Mathiasrex, Shlomke, Ckatz, Fernando S. Aldado~enwiki, Caiaa, Iridescent, Maestlin, Chris55, CmdrObot, Drinibot, Outriggr, AndrewHowse, Road Wizard, Reywas92,
Michael C Price, Gimmetrow, Thijs!bot, N5iln, Oliver202, Hmrox, Luna Santin, AstroLynx, Anatomatic, Nthep, TAnthony, Acroterion,
VoABot II, KConWiki, Gun Powder Ma, MartinBot, Wowaconia, David J Wilson, J.delanoy, NewEnglandYankee, Heyitspeter, Juliancolton, Useight, Hugo999, VolkovBot, Black raven2525, Aesopos, Mahal11, JhsBot, Rjm at sleepers, Orestek, Seraphita~enwiki, Thony
C., Newbyguesses, Nihil novi, BotMultichill, Gerakibot, Antonio Lopez, Pika ten10, Zharradan.angelre, Techman224, Escape Orbit,
Randy Kryn, ImageRemovalBot, Sfan00 IMG, ClueBot, Snigbrook, Plastikspork, Arakunem, Mild Bill Hiccup, Alexbot, John Nevard,
Lartoven, Jawsdesai, NuclearWarfare, Cenarium, Al-Andalusi, Versus22, Qwfp, Johnuniq, SoxBot III, SilvonenBot, Good Olfactory, Addbot, BecauseWhy?, John Chamberlain, Quietmarc, Ppole, Oota~enwiki, Uuda, Mmnaw, Ssaalon, Bootyy, Daatass, Ttassr, Sseedaf, Tide
rolls, Bguras puppy, Bbggae, Zorrobot, Noumenon, Wweert, Bbisdo, Mmuusda, Randomness2, Ttasterul, Yobot, Senator Palpatine,
Abasass, Houutata, Teammoto, Clubbota, Placcjata, Apptas, Bliduta, Wheenguta, Limttado, Plannatas, Drootopula, Vittsadaf, Givbataska,
Toutafada, Portutusd, Wortafad, Givbatad, Heastada, Shogartu, Bludyta, ArthurBot, Drosdaf, Haidata, Namtiota, Lobtutu, Awyhuito,
Loodotuyfa, Coutasji, Civjaty, Leabnm, Iamcvb, Bandgjl, Thijhgf, Drojuas, Maiatues, Nexeuitas, Leadusata, Teadegui, Spiretas, Haputdas, Necirsad, Linburats, Pordaguit, Plabogayu, Yeagykiol, Errpudaeqi, Suitawqs, Glafyjk, Voigfdsa, Unigfjkl, Platewq, Maygytr, Briwqio,
Inferno, Lord of Penguins, Dayubcpd, Yeafvnl, Binky555, Eidjcb, ^A^.Alders, FrescoBot, Aristofane di bisanzio, Tom.Reding, MastiBot,
Mukogodo, EmausBot, John of Reading, WikitanvirBot, GoingBatty, Solomonfromnland, ZroBot, John Cline, Xanchester, ClueBot
NG, Jack Greenmaven, Kuguar03, MelbourneStar, Benjamin9832, Frietjes, Helpful Pixie Bot, Popcorndu, BG19bot, George Ponderevo,
ProfessorBaylock, Mintydan, KasparBot and Anonymous: 94

11.2

Images

File:De_Revolutionibus_manuscript_p9b.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/De_Revolutionibus_

manuscript_p9b.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: www.bj.uj.edu.pl Original artist: Nicolas Copernicus
File:De_revolutionibus_1617_Astronomia_instaurata.png
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/
De_revolutionibus_1617_Astronomia_instaurata.png License: Public domain Contributors: http://books.google.com/books?id=
GxEOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#PPA13,M1 Original artist: Nicolaus Copernicus
File:De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/De_revolutionibus_
orbium_coelestium.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: www.aip.de Original artist: Ex Ocina Henricpetrina
File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Rei-artur Original artist: Nicholas Moreau

11.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0