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 Schiller’s poem. Previously, in researching the provenance of Kepler’s 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 Kepler’s {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 Tuesday’s 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, Leibniz’s) associate, Johann Hevelius; that this same Hevelius was key to the transmission of Kepler’s manuscripts to Leibniz; and that Kepler’s works survived premature deaths and arson – all this provided a whole new dimension to Leibniz’s bold strategic adventure.

Kepler’s 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 son-in-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 Kepler’s 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 Kepler’s 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 Kepler’s {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 Kepler’s {New Astronomy}, {Rudolphine Tables}, and, perchance, the {Harmonices Mundi}. They determined that Kepler’s 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. (Kepler’s 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 Crabtree’s 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; theday 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 22-year-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 Jeremiah’s 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, Jeremiah’s 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 Crabtree’s 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 1640’s and 1650’s in England had been a rather turbulent period, but the short version of what I’ve 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 Crabtree’s 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. Hartlib’s intellectual circles had more than a little to do with Gresham College and with the setting up of the Royal Society. The year after Hartlib’s 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, Neile’s father, Paul, was an astronomer who had provided Gresham College, in 1658, with a 35-foot telescope. Neile himself worked with in the late 1650’s 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 Towneley’s collection of letters of the ‘Nos Keplari’. One of Gascoigne’s collaborators, the astronomer Christopher Towneley, preserved Gascoigne’s papers after his death at the battle of Marston Moore. Towneley’s brother died on that same field of battle with Gascoigne. His brother’s 14-year-old son, Richard, would go on to perfect Gascoigne’s 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 1660’s, 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 Kepler’s 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 Kepler’s manuscripts. In 1663, Ludwig Kepler died, after having possession of his father’s 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 Kepler’s 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 father’s manuscripts. It is not clear what happened to prevent this. Regardless, Hevelius in 1663 initiated strenuous efforts to purchase the Kepler manuscripts from Ludwig’s 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, I’d 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 Kepler’s 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 Kepler’s method, but simply the cross-hairs of Gascoigne’s 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 Hooke’s 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 Kepler’s 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. Hooke’s [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 Flamsteed’s tone changes.[12] He actively becomes the ‘soft cop’. He wants to put Hooke’s 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 [Hooke’s] 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 rôle 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 Kepler’s 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 won’t 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 Wyche’s 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 life’s 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 Kepler’s 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 Society’s “Philosophical Transactions”, but he now has his reports published in Leibniz’s “Acta Eruditorum”. When he discovered a new constellation in 1683, he named it Sobieski’s Shield, in honor of the Polish king who helped him rebuild his observatory, King John III Sobieski – and he announced the new constellation in Leibniz’s (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. Wallis’s 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 Gascoigne’s 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 1670’s and dealt with Hevelius too honestly. Hevelius wrote to the Royal Society (4/17/1686), objecting to Hooke’s 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 husband’s 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 (1666- ), in 1696, married a “councilor” of Gdansk, Ernst Lange

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 MacPike’s {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 silk-en 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 Kepler’s associate’s 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. Bach’s sons.

5. John Worthington was called a Cambridge Platonist who studied with Joseph Mead and Benjamin Whichcote. He married Whichcote’s 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 Kollerstrom’s “William Crabtree’s 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 I’ve 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_Hevelius.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. He’s horrified that Horrocks’ explanation as to why the moon experiences libration (involving the sun acting upon the moon’s overall orbit) is “framed from Kepler’s 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. Halley’s language: He was “surpriz’d 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!

Hansch9/22/1683 Muegge Hall, GdanskFather: 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’ daughters1. Katerina Elizabeth (1666- ), in 1696, married a “councilor” of Gdansk, Ernst Lange2. Julia Renata (1668- ) married in 1694 Dietrich Mathis d’Heinrichson3. 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 (1650’s?)

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 herfür 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 CongrésInternational 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 AstronomyOctober 14 (1983): 166-179; John E. Bailey, “Jeremiah Horrox and William Crabtree, Observers of the Transit ofVenus, 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, theTransit of Venus, and the ‘New Astronomy’ in Early Seventeenth-Century England,” The Quarterly Journal of theRoyal 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 HistoricSociety of Lancashire and Cheshire 106 (1954): 23-33; H.C. Plummer, “Jeremiah Horrocks and His OperaPosthuma,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 3 (1940): 39-52; Colin Ronan, “Jeremiah Horrocksand 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 Kepler’s death the seeds which he had sown had to allappearances fallen on barren soil more favourable for the cultivation of acrop of weeds. Yet at the same, time, certainly before the Principia waswritten, these precious seeds had been rescued, their true value had beenrecognized, at least in England, and a wonderful harvest was on the pointof 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 Crabtree’s papers after his death.”

The Crabtree-Horrocks correspondence began in 1636 with a letter from Horrocks toCrabtree.182 Crabtree, who was several years older than Horrocks, shared a common interest inastronomy and had already established a “lively scientific correspondence with others,” beforehe began helping Horrocks.183 In the first few letters, Crabtree and Horrocks corresponded overthe errors of Lansburg in the Tabulae Motuum, “which gave rise to the substantial body ofcorrespondence which passed between them over the next five years. . . . Their correspondencerevolved around three general topics: planetary theory, the lunar orbit, and instrumentation.”184

After determining that Kepler’s tables were the most accurate, their aim became to improve onthose tables, and they were forever comparing positions predicted in the tables with observedpositions.

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, metunc 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 ofyour Inventions, hath ravished his Mind quite from it self, and left him inan Extasie between Admiration and Amazement. I beseech you, Sir, stacknot your Intentions for the perfecting of your begun Wonders. We travelwith Desire till we hear of your full Delivery. You have our Votes, ourHearts, 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 tothe day of his death, very suddenly, on the morning of the 3rd January; theday he had arranged to come to me. Thus God puts an end to all worldlyaffairs. I have lost, alas, my dear Horrocks. Hinc illa lachrimae [thus thetears fall]. Irreparable loss.”

In a letter to Gascoigne dated December 6, 1641, Crabtree lamented for Horrocks, “whoseimmature 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 Jeremiah’s 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_Hevelius.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 Saturn’s 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 JeremiahHorrocks, together with some fragments of correspondence with Crabtree. There was, hewas informed by Sir Robert Moray, no prospect of them being published in England, andmight he find a publisher?27

27 On 11 April, 1661, Huygens had dinner at Gresham College with Robert Moray, Lord WilliamBrouncker 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, inChristiaan Huygens Oeuvres Compl`etes The Hague 1890, vol. 3, pp. 334-335 and 385-386. Thiscorrespondence 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 instruments1/12/1674 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. Hooke’s against Hevelius, which I think bears a little too hard upon him. Hee might have published his own wayto as good advantage as he pleased, without so frequent Reflections onHevelius, 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 Hooke’s 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 [Hooke’s]Gordion knots or laid myself open to those darts he has been pleased sooften to hurl at me, which I can certainly dodge – by no means! Butbecause my mind (as, I judge, is proper in a candid and warm-heartedman) wholly abhors such things, especially disputes with others andcontentions in mere idle words against a Fellow of the illustrious RoyalSociety.”

“I have urged no one to be my partisan, nor have I made efforts to persuadeanyone to relinquish his own point of view, which he might think thenearer to the truth; much less have I so conducted myself as to presume toplay the rôle of dictator to free minds. In my little works I never, by anymeans, tried to lay down laws for anyone or for posterity as though theyshould follow in every detail in my footsteps, or as though that businesswas to be done thus and not otherwise. . . .142

Hevelius proceeded to describe Hooke as a “busybody,” who “labors in vain with words anddeeds,” 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 noaccount, 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 moon’s overall orbit) is “framed from Kepler’s 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 Halley’s career - must have had their report from Halley by August, enough time to arrange the September 26th arson. Halley’s 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 accuracyof Hevelius’ measurements that had been repeated several times, and although he reservedjudgment “as to the exactnesse of the Observation[s] of the Meridian Altitudes,” he was“surpriz’d 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 atestimonial letter that attested his high esteem for the accuracy of Hevelius’ open-sightobservations.200 In the letter, Halley stated that he was “abundantly satisfied of the use andcertainty 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 thefuture call [Hevelius’] observations in question.”

199 He later retracted this statement (7 June 1679, FC, I, 694; see also MacPike, Correspondence and Papers ofEdmond Halley, 43; Birch, The History of the Royal Society of London, III, 488; and Folkes, “Memoir,” inMacPike, Correspondence and Papers of Edmond Halley, 4). Although there were discrepancies between the twosets of observations, Halley wrote that the differences were negligible (Simms, William Molyneux of Dublin, 25).200 Dated 8/18 July 1679. Halley eventually regretted leaving written testimony behind, especially since Hevelius eventually printed it in his Annus climactericus.

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 Kepler’s 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 ambassador’s 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 Wyche’s 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 Halley’s 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.

Wallis’s 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 designto disparage Him, his Instruments, and his Observations (unsight andunseen,) 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 muchmore accurate than had hitherto ever been done, by any: thus seeking toraise his own reputation by disparaging what is done by others, in thingswherein himself doth nothing.”

Halley told Towneley to ignore Wallis’ defense of Hevelius.

4/17/1686: Hevelius’ letter to RS, objecting to Hooke’s 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 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 ...

Capellus in German to brother in Hamburg, who translated into Latin for Sir Peter Wyche1662 British Envoy Extraordinary to RussiaMr. 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 Leibniz’s “Acta”…1683 Hansch born in Gdansk1684 “Acta” articleBy 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, Sobieski’s 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. Hevelius’s 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 silk-en 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, myinexperience, and want of means dispirited me. I was much pained not tohave any one to whom I could look for guidance, or indeed for thesympathy of companionship in my endeavours. . . . What then was to bedone? I could not make the pursuit an easy one, much less increase myfortune, and least of all, imbue others with a love for astronomy. . . . I amdetermined therefore that the tediousness of study should be overcome by73industry. . . and that instead of a master I would use astronomical books.Armed with these weapons I would contend successfully; and havingheard of others acquiring knowledge without greater help, I would blushthat 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 CongrésInternational 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 AstronomyOctober 14 (1983): 166-179; John E. Bailey, “Jeremiah Horrox and William Crabtree, Observers of the Transit ofVenus, 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, theTransit of Venus, and the ‘New Astronomy’ in Early Seventeenth-Century England,” The Quarterly Journal of theRoyal 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 HistoricSociety of Lancashire and Cheshire 106 (1954): 23-33; H.C. Plummer, “Jeremiah Horrocks and His OperaPosthuma,” 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 Kepler’s death the seeds which he had sown had to allappearances fallen on barren soil more favourable for the cultivation of acrop of weeds. Yet at the same, time, certainly before the Principia waswritten, these precious seeds had been rescued, their true value had beenrecognized, at least in England, and a wonderful harvest was on the pointof 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 Crabtree’s papers after his death.”

The Crabtree-Horrocks correspondence began in 1636 with a letter from Horrocks toCrabtree.182 Crabtree, who was several years older than Horrocks, shared a common interest inastronomy and had already established a “lively scientific correspondence with others,” beforehe began helping Horrocks.183 In the first few letters, Crabtree and Horrocks corresponded overthe errors of Lansburg in the Tabulae Motuum, “which gave rise to the substantial body ofcorrespondence which passed between them over the next five years. . . . Their correspondencerevolved around three general topics: planetary theory, the lunar orbit, and instrumentation.”184

After determining that Kepler’s tables were the most accurate, their aim became to improve onthose tables, and they were forever comparing positions predicted in the tables with observedpositions.

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, metunc 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 ofyour Inventions, hath ravished his Mind quite from it self, and left him inan Extasie between Admiration and Amazement. I beseech you, Sir, stacknot your Intentions for the perfecting of your begun Wonders. We travelwith Desire till we hear of your full Delivery. You have our Votes, ourHearts, 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 tothe day of his death, very suddenly, on the morning of the 3rd January; theday he had arranged to come to me. Thus God puts an end to all worldlyaffairs. I have lost, alas, my dear Horrocks. Hinc illa lachrimae [thus thetears fall]. Irreparable loss.”

In a letter to Gascoigne dated December 6, 1641, Crabtree lamented for Horrocks, “whoseimmature Death there is yet scarce a Day which I pass without some pang of sorrow.”

Christopher TowneleyCatholic family. In addition to Gascoigne, Charles Towneley, Richard Towneley’s father, also died at Marston Moor, while Christopher Towneley, Richard’s 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 inthe company of the Towneleys – Charles, who died with him, and Christopher, who fortunatelysurvived. Because of the efforts of Christopher Towneley and his nephew Richard, at least someof the papers of the three north-country astronomers survived. Christopher Towneley was personally acquainted with Horrocks, Crabtree, and Gascoigne, and collected many of theirpapers after their deaths.”

Jonas Moore began corresponding with the Towneley. Moore taught ‘gentlemen’ mathematics in London. [From Bailey: “Moore gained access to Christopher Towneley’s library in Lancashire where he came into possession of Crabtree’s version of the Rudolphine Tables.”]

Wallis to Oldenburg, 6 April 1664, OC, II, 164: “Wallis claimed that Wren had seen the Horrocks papers in Moore’s 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 Flamsteed’s 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. Willmoth’s 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 ofAstronomy) ] Apparently, however, Richard Wroe (1641-1718) was also able to tracesome 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 Thetwo main published works attributed to Horrocks are his Venus in sole visa and the Operaposthuma. Hevelius first published the Venus in sole visa in 1662, which surprised Flamsteedbecause he found Horrocks’ work not “exact enough” and too outdated to be published.204 Otherpapers were received by Sir Paul Neile (1637-1670) who indicated that he would show this workto the Royal Society at the meeting of February 17, 1664. The work was eventually turned overon 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 thehands 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 improvedGascoigne’s filar micrometer – his improvement became known as the Townelian micrometer.206

About the same time Flamsteed cultivated his acquaintance with his future benefactor, Sir JonasMoore, 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 thesummer of 1671 was of particular importance to Flamsteed, and he mentioned to Oldenburg thathe had been lately to Lancashire visiting Richard Towneley “who hath put some letters of MrGascoigne to Mr Crabtree with the answers into [Flamsteed’s] hands.”207 Flamsteed believedthat Moore had more papers in his possession, and he asked Collins to assist him in procuring thematerial. Flamsteed was also excited to see a copy of Cassini’s Ephemerides mediceorumsyderum (1668) at Towneley’s.208 Richard Towneley confirmed Flamsteed’s visits to Oldenburgthe following year and added that on several occasions, Flamsteed had studied the papers ofHorrocks 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 shortlyafter Flamsteed had an opportunity to examine them.2

Crabtree corresponded with both Gascoigne and Horrocks, although the latter two nevercorresponded directly with each other; Crabtree also corresponded with Christopher Towneleywho eventually acquired the surviving papers of Crabtree, Gascoigne, and Horrocks; ChristopherTowneley, in turn, corresponded with Moore and passed down the surviving papers to hisnephew Richard Towneley; Richard Towneley became acquainted with John Flamsteed, andMoore became Flamsteed’s patron

John Wallis – who Hevelius had met in the 1630’s - 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 Kollerstrom’s 2004 work

Heraclides of Pontas, 388-310 BC, pupil of PlatoIt 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 ½).

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 Landsberg’s Tables ( I 63I, I 632).I6

These were simpler than Kepler's; they were based on the traditionalcircular orbits and their author made extravagant claims for theiraccuracy which were at first accepted by many of his contemporaries.They were, in fact, much less accurate than Kepler's. Landsberg wasfamiliar with Kepler's main works and frequently made use of his data,but dismissed his theories as absurd.'' His tables were widely usedduring the 163o's, but thereafter fell more and more out of favour;he was even accused of having deliberately falsified some of his datain 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 Lipperhey’s 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: 1609-1666J. L. RussellThe 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 Englishastronomer and mathematician, Thomas Hariot, who received a copysoon after publication and recommended it to another mathematician

and pupil of his, William Lower. We know of Lower's reaction froma letter which he wrote to Hariot in February 1610.' He clearly foundthe work almost intolerably difficult, but at the same time intenselystimulating. He readily accepted many of Kepler's ideas, including theelliptical orbits, but felt that he needed further help from Hariot. 'IndeedI am so much delighted with his booke, but he is so tough in manieplaces as I cannot bite him. I pray write me some instructions in yournext, how I may deale with him to ouermaster him for I am readie to

take paines . . .' It appears from Lower's letter that Hariot himselfaccepted Kepler's ideas, at least in substance, though he does not seemto have published anything on the subject.

In 1612 the Italian savant, Federico Cesi, a friend and patron ofGalileo and fellow-member of the Lyncean Academy, in a letter writtenalmost certainly to Galileo himself, mentioned Kepler's theory of planetaryellipses with approval.9 This is important as showing that Galileo musthave been aware of the theory, although he never mentioned it in hiswritings and certainly did not accept it. More important support camein 1615 when Giovanni Magini, Professor of Mathematics at Bologna,published his Supplementum Ephemeridum in which he used Kepler's lawsin calculating ephemerides for Mars. However, apart from a generalacknowledgement that he was applying Kepler's theory, he gave nodetails as to what the theory was.

Kepler had, however, at least one disciple during theearly 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 toKepler and in his correspondence with Peter Cruger, to be discussed later.There is some evidence that Willebrord Snel (I 59I -1626) also acceptedthe ellipses.

I am wholly occupied with trying to understand the foundations upon which theRudolphine rules and tables are based, and I am using for this purpose theEpitome of Astronomy previously published by Kepler as an introductionto the tables. This epitome which previously I had read so many times andso little understood and so many times thrown aside, I now take up againand 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 theelliptical form of the planetary orbits; Kepler's proofs, in his Commentariade 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, acceptingnot 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 bookin which Kepler's theories and tables were strongly supported andLandsberg's equally strongly criticized. In it, the first and third lawswere correctly stated, but the second was given only in its qualitativeform, 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 defensaet promota

in 1662, Johann Heckerpublished a volume of ephemerides at Danzig, based on Kepler'sphysical theories and the Rudolphine Tables

HECKEJRO, HANNM: otuum caelestium ephemerides ab anno . . . MDCLXVIad MDCLXXX. Ex observationibus correctis nobilissimi TychonisBrahaei, & Joh. Kepleri hypothesibus physicis, tabulisque Rudolphinis

. . . Gedani, 1662.

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

I have looked at someI 5 almanacs for I 641, of which one, by Arthur Sofford, referred explicitlyto the Rudolphine Tables and one, by Vincent Wing, to Landsberg's.The others gave no indication of the source of their data. Wing's subsequentprogress can be traced in some detail. In his almanac for 1643he was still using Landsberg's tables. In 1647 he had apparently abandonedthem and was using partly Kepler's and partly those of the Italianastronomer Andreas Argoli. By 1649 Argoli had dropped out and he wasreferring only to the Rudolphine Tables. Finally, in I 65 I, he publisheda full-length treatise on planetary theory-the Harmonicon Coeleste-inwhich his conversion to Kepler was complete. In it he referred to Kepleras 'the most subtile mathematician that ever was' (Preface). And later :'That most admirable mathematician John Kepler, by the help ofTycho's observations, did make the most admirable and best restaurationof Astronomy, of any that ever did precede him' (p. 158

In 1653 Jeremy Shakerley published a volume of astronomical tables basedupon the theories of Kepler and Boulliau. In it he said: 'Some thingswe have set down according to the opinion of Bullialdus, but in mostthings we have credited Kepler' (p. 26). In the same year Seth Ward,Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, wrote a short work in whichhe criticized certain aspects of Boulliau's theory, while making it clearthat he accepted Kepler's ellipses. Three years later he expounded themin more detail in his influential Astronomia Geometrica (1656). Wardaccepted the equant law and was apparently the first to use it in practice.In 1657 John Newton published Astronomia Britannica, in which he alsoused ellipses and the equant law. The area law was enunciated, perhapsfor the first time in England, by John Wallis, Savilian Professor of

Geometry at Oxford. This was at the end of a short treatise on theproperties 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 atleast to the early 1650's.

HORROCKS BIO: Peter Aughton’s {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 evidencec) Claims that he’s gotten the Horrocks’ family tree done – but JEB’s 1883 article has a chunkd) 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 mother’s side, 1612-?, to America

Mother’s uncle, Edward Aspinwall, leading watchmaker, had a protégé, 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 Mather’s grandfather, as his preacher and likely teacher.1630-1635 developments with Cotton and Mather vs Arch-bishopFather 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: Hartlib’s 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.}

Father’s 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 – Kepler’s ‘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 Puritans1633 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 England’s 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 England’s behalf. Four years later, while preaching at Harvard College, Cotton caught pneumonia and died in late 1652. Cotton’s widow married the Rev. Richard Mather, whose son Increase in turn married Cotton’s 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 Mary’s Toxteth Park area.1616 John Cotton weds Elisabeth Horrocks1630 Cotton’s speech for Winthrop’s group’s departure[Another James H’s cousin, Rev Alexander Horrocks, cited as nonconformist by Archbishop Laud, who was chastising Bishop Bridgeman.]1631 Father’s cousin, Elisabeth Cotton, died.1632 Jeremiah’s 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/ 3rd 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, Ptolemy’s Almagest and Durer’s Institutiones Geometricae in Emmanuel’s 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 soKs. Longomontani Astron. Danica.

Magini Secunda MobHia.Mercatoris ChronologiaPlinii 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 mother’s uncle, Edward.)May, 1635 departure of Cotton for Bristol and America. Thomas H might have been part of this group.

Samuel FosterCrabtree 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 Scarburgh’s/Jonathan Goddard’s group in London. Scarburgh was student of William Harvey and tutor of Christopher Wren. RS met at Goddards in early 1661. John Wallis received Foster’s 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 Kepler’s Tables with new measurements. ‘His sagacious intellect clearly apprehended the truth of Kepler's doctrines, the universal acceptation of which he sought to promote…At 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 Rigaud’s advice, derives Newton from this…)

June, 1636 C writes JH, and they begin working together. JH complains of Lansberg’s errors, and C recommends K’s Rudolphine Tables. C comes to view Ptolemy as pagan: “the puerile fictions of the pagan Ptolemy” and K’s 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 heaven’s 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 Ussher’s!?? p 85P86 K “disagreed with Ussher on one point” – creation in the summer, not autumn of 4004 BC

JH’s Phil Exercises refers to the Great Period 1944 [3 to the 5th x 2 to the 3rd]

1637 JH’s 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 theirgravitational 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 father’s 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 beamsAnd by their blaze o’erpowered, 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 truth’s ingenuous sons! Where’er the zeal of youth shall scan the heavens,O may they cherish thee above the blind/ Conceits of men, and the wild sea of errorLearning 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, he’d 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.”

W’s version of JH’s 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 Horrox’s papers was burnt by a company of soldiers who entered his father’s 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]

W’s 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 Crabtree’s heirs his collection.

1653 Jeremiah Shakerly had some of Horrocks’ manuscripts, which he used for astrological charts for Cromwell’s 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. Horrox’s 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. (Hartlib’s 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 Horrox’s 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 Horrox’s 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 Horrox’s 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 father’s death, to bring to light a treatise of such importance to astronomy, and to preserve a work for our country’s credit and for the advantage of mankind.”

1670/1? Flamsteed’s 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 JH’s paragraph vs. Newton’s. But JH argues against Descartes, not against Kepler; and that used to justify Newton on the mathematician’s 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 seersPortend 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 nowDeserving 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 Kepler’s 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 Gilbert’s magnetic theories and was involved in addressing Kepler’s 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)…”

Jupiter’s gain on Saturn (relative to Kepler’s 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

Newton’s thoughts about the apple…” p106. Then A repeats, without attribution, W’s citation of supposed ‘parallel passages’ in JA and

Newton. (Again, JA speaks of the sun’s 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 JH’s experiment for the RS in the 1660’s.

MoonGenerally, JH analyzed planets by the combination of the Sun’s 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 Kepler’s 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 Kepler’s tables… would alter the time of conjunction…” – meaning, he was relying upon his serious work in improving Kepler’s tables to make the 1639 prediction.

P135 from “Astronomical Exercises” – JH’s critique of Lansberg’s errors on Hipparchus’ method for measuring earth’s 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 Sun’s 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 Sun’s 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 Sun’s 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 JH’s method involved seeing from the Sun how the planets’ diameters were relative to their distance.

P150: Moon’s orbit at apogee is 30 E diameters, equaling the S. M/M’s orb = M’s orb/E’s orbSun sees M’s orb as E sees M.So, M’s orb/S’s distance = M/M’s distance. Hence, M’s orb is mean proportional between E’s orb and M (or M/M’s orb = M’s orb/E’s orb)E’s orb/S = M’s orb/M

P151: Hence, likely that fixed-stars-orb’s parallax/E’s orb = S/E. So that E/E’s orb = E’s orb/fixed-stars-orb. And M/S = S/E’s 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.”

Flamsteed’s 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 JH’s papers. 7/2/1644 Battle of Marston Moor, where Charles Towneley died8/1/1644 Crabtree buried. Crabtree’s 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.

1660’s 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, publish’d by the famous Johannes Hevelius together with his Mercurius in Sole visus: who if he had not been snatch’d 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 search’d 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 WCIII. Catalogue of astronomical observations, including his corrections for the eccentricity of

the eyeIV. Hypothesis of the moon, with Flamsteed’s version of the calculations

Also included: WC’s observations on Saturn, Jupiter, Mars and Venus; Flamsteed on the inequality of the solar day due to eccentricity of Earth’s orbit

3/7/1673 James Gregory to RS’s 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 Towneley’s place, a parallax for Mars – which would make the Sun on the order of 26,000 semidiameters away – three times farther than Flamsteed conceived; sohe didn’t publish. In Paris, Cassini and Picard did, and did publish.

P202 Accurate theory of Moon’s motions (within 1 minutes of arc) would allow for navigators to calculate longitude for their positions.

P203 PA: N’s 1684 genius on ellipse and inverse square might have been in part due to JH, EXCEPT that Newton’s apple hit him in 1665, not in 1670’s!! “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 Newton’s 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 Mather’s “ancient chapel”.