Abstract
This chapter analyzes the mathematical astronomy in the printed annual Schreibkalender and prognostications authored by Simon Marius for the years 1601–1629. It considers how Marius determined the times of the new and full moons, eclipses, and Sun’s entry into the four cardinal points of the year and finds frequent discrepancies between his actual procedures (copying from published sources) and his descriptions of those procedures (independent computation). This chapter suggests that the highly competitive world of calendar production, especially in Nuremberg, may have prompted Marius to deploy combative rhetoric against other calendar makers and to exaggerate his own originality. And the chapter briefly examines Marius’s description, in his calendars, of his relationships with two contemporary astronomers, David Fabricius and Kepler. The goal of this chapter is to explore how Marius represented himself in the world of print calendars.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
No new editions have come to light over the past 70 years. See Zinner 1942, pp. 27–32. Digital copies of many of the editions are conveniently available at the Marius-Portal, http://www.simon-marius.net (accessed 1 July 2015). For an overview of Marius’s calendars, see Matthäus in this volume.
- 3.
For biographical details, see Gaab in this volume.
- 4.
“Questiones Sphaericae, Calendarium Ecclesiasticum [computus], Arithmetica, mit kindischen Demonstrationibus und dienlichen Exempeln.”
- 5.
Cf. Hamel in this volume.
- 6.
For a useful summary of Marius’s astronomical observations, see Zinner 1942, pp. 36–40.
- 7.
“Denn vnlaugbar, daß der Planeten lauff nicht allein in longitudinem, sondern auch in latitudinem, noch nicht gnugsam ergründet ist wie die täglich erfahrung bezeuget.”
- 8.
For 2 July 1596, Stadius listed the latitude of Venus as 2;26 “south,” a typographical error as the edition failed to mark when the latitude had shifted to north. Marius silently corrected this error in reporting his observation “south” of the ephemerides. Modern computation (JPL Horizon) gives Venus’s latitude for this date at 0;44 north. Marius here showed himself to be a careful critic of printed texts but a beginning observer, at least when measured against Tycho’s standards.
- 9.
“Ne nomen quidem Tychonis, multo minus hypothesis ipsius mihi cognita erat; quam tandem sequenti anno in Autumno delineatam vidi” (Marius 1614, sig. C3r; Marius 2019, 2. part, of the fifth). For a later catalog of books, including the sixteenth-century astronomical imprints, held in the Heilsbronn monastery library, see Hocker 1731, pp. 268–76. Nothing is known about Marius’s personal library.
- 10.
- 11.
Marius’s title page reads: “Verissimus antiquorum astrologorum ipsiusque Ptolemaei duodecim coeli domicilia distribuendi modus non tam restitutus, quam de nouo inuentus.”
- 12.
Marius also (silently) used Regiomontanus’s value for the obliquity of the ecliptic (23;30) although by 1600 most astronomers were using the more precise value of 23;31,30.
- 13.
“Ego tunc temporis velut αυτοδιδαχτοζ in hac facultate et geometricis demonstrationibus minus assuefactus, feci quod potui. Vix enim per biennium serio tunc astronomica tractaueram, omni carens praeceptore mathematico … Quis enim ante me tabulas erectionis et directionis Ptolomaico modo instituendae unquam publicavit?” See Gaab, this volume, at note 113; Klug 1906, pp. 404–405. Kremer a, forthcoming.
- 14.
Scholars have long assumed that Georg Friedrich drafted this letter. See Christianson 2000, pp. 319–321. The letter refers to unnamed “acquaintances” of Marius’s who had, on his behalf, previously approached Tycho. Concerning Marius’s abilities, it merely asserts that “he has already made a relatively good beginning in his studies and now especially can experience more of the art with you in front of others” (“er in solchem seinem studio allbereit einen ziemlichen guten Anfang habe vnd er jezo sonderlich der Art bei euch vor andern weisen mehrers erfahren kan”).
- 15.
Eriksen’s “astronomical heresies” probably refer to Kepler’s work that spring, writing at the behest of Tycho an attack on the astronomical hypothesis, published in 1588, of Nicolaus Raimarus Ursus. See Jardine 1984, pp. 9–28; Christianson 2000, pp. 272–273; Voelkel 2001, pp. 117–120. Tycho’s observing instruments had been installed at his house in Prague only in April 1601; the assistants recorded very few observations (solar altitudes, a few positions of Saturn and Jupiter) during the summer of 1601. See Brahe: Opera, Vol. XIII., 1926, pp. 253–285; Thoren 1990, p. 446.
- 16.
- 17.
Only the 1613 Prognosticon would be printed elsewhere, in Ansbach by Paul Böhem. After 1613, all of Marius’s publications would be published and printed by his father-in-law, Johann Lauer. Active since 1599 as a “Buchführer” in Nuremberg, Lauer had published (verlegt) all of Marius’s pre-1613 calendars. When in 1613 Lauer opened his own printing shop, the other Nuremberg printers raised legal complaints, which might explain the Ansbach printing of the 1613 Prognosticon. See Diefenbacher, Fischer-Pache 2003, No. 2745–2746, 2758–2759; Matthäus 1969, cols. 1099–1102; Matthäus, this volume; and Zinner 1942, p. 29.
- 18.
Marius’s Schreibkalender for 1602 until 1606 include, on the recto pages, the midday planetary longitudes. Since these data are given only to degrees, I cannot identify their sources.
- 19.
- 20.
After 1609, the Schreibkalender apparently were printed in two versions, one with the daily longitudes and the other with either a historical chronicle of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century events in the Margraviate Brandenburg-Ansbach or a table of daily times of sunrise and sunset. Too few exemplars are preserved, however, to confirm this pattern, and I have not specified here which edition of a given Schreibkalender I consulted. See Matthäus, this volume, Section 1.
- 21.
In his Prog. 1602, sig. A3r Marius explicitly mentioned that he had published a Schreibkalender and Prognosticon auf 1601.
- 22.
- 23.
“Dise vngleichheit der Astronomischen rechnung in motu Solis hab ich der vrsachen halben alhier setzen wöllen, damit gemeine Leut sich nicht ärgern ob den vngleichen, ja offt gar widerwertigen vrtheilen, so von den Astronomis oder Calendarschreibern gefallen. Denn einer disen, der an der jenen calculum vor den besten helt. Vnter disen vier widerwertigen rechnungen, nach außweissung täglicher observation ist die beste vnd gewisseste Tychonis Brahe, wie solchs weitleufftig zu erweisen wehre, vnd sonderlich mit dem aequinoctio verno voriges 1600 Jars, da ich durch einen gerechten messi[n]gen quadrantem befunden, das die Sonn den ersten Punct deß Widers erreichet hat, den 10 tag Martij zwischen 6. und 7. uhr vor mittag, damit gentzlich vbereinstimmet calculus Tychonis, deme ich dißmals vnd vorthin folgen wil.” Using Tycho’s solar theory as presented in the Progymnasmata (1602), I compute the Sun’s entry into Aries on 10 March 1600 at 6:30 a.m. for the meridian of Uraniborg.
- 24.
“Nach einer gewissen, eigentlichen vnd vnfehlbaren rechnung, so durch langwiriges observirn, vngleublich mühe, fleis vnd arbeit, vnnd vber grossen vnkosten dermal eines von dem Edlen vnd weitberümbten Herrn Tychone Brahe durch Gottes hilff ist in das werck gesetzt vnd herfür bracht worden. Nach welchem gewissen vnd eigentlichen calculo in motu solis vil trefflicher Astronomi so vil hundert Jar groß verlangen gehabt haben. Dafür den, wie auch vor andere sein vortreffliche opera Mathematica, mit mir alle Mathematici, wie auch tota futura posteritas, nechst Gott, ewiges lob vnnd danck sagen sollen.”
- 25.
- 26.
See Kremer 2006.
- 27.
- 28.
At the end of his latest extant Prognosticon, written in 1624 for the year 1629, Marius admitted that his predictions for eclipses 5 years hence might be flawed. “From my solar observations I cannot yet conclude anything with certainty, who knows meanwhile what might happen with the observations” (“Also kann ich auch auß meinen observationibus solaribus noch nichts gewisses schliessen, wer weiß was vnterdessen sich mit den observationibus begeben möchte”, Prog. 1629, sig. D3r).
- 29.
I thank Lars Gislen for sharing with me his initial spreadsheet of Tycho’s solar and lunar tables, as presented in the 1602 Progymnasmata, that we together debugged. The spreadsheet looks up values in the tables, interpolates, and follows the same procedures that a pencil-and-paper computation would follow.
- 30.
The 1585 Prutentic Tables list Nuremberg as 17 minutes west of Copenhagen (Uraniborg was not named), Stadius’s ephemerides as 17 minutes west, Everaert’s as 18 minutes west, and Origanus’s as 1 minute east of Copenhagen. Origanus’s 1609 ephemerides specify Nuremberg as 5 minutes west of Hven.
- 31.
If I compute Tychonic mean rather than apparent times for 1601 Cancer, 1602 Libra, 1608 Capricorn, 1609 Capricorn, and 1612 Libra, the differences approach Marius’s announced meridian for Heilsbronn of 7 minutes west.
- 32.
Later Marius explicitly noted that Ansbach is 0;02h west of Nuremberg: “Sequuntur nunc tabulae ipsae, supputatae ad meridianum Onoldinum, quià Noriberga versus occasum distat duobus minutis unius horae” (Marius 1614, sig. F3v; Marius 1614/1916/2019, last lines before the tables).
- 33.
Origanus’s table of places lists Frankfurt/Oder as 38 minutes west of Königsberg, the meridian of the Prutenic Tables. If I drop two outliers (deviations of 49 and 55 minutes), I find for the remaining 23 syzygies of 1601 that Origanus’s syzygy times are shifted by an average of 38 minutes from my Prutenic computed times for Königsberg, with a standard deviation in the differences of 2.9 minutes. The differences range from 34 to 46 minutes, which indicates something about the precision Origanus achieved in his Prutenic computations.
- 34.
“Nach der ersten restitution in motu Lunae, wie sie ist durch D. Melchiorem Jostellum publicirt worden. Weil aber solche restitutio der sachen noch nicht allerdings genug gethan, als ist von Tycho Brahe vnd den seinigen ein andere gemacht worden, nach welcher hypothesi vnnd fundamento diese jetztige Zeit entspringt, fleissige obseruatores wollen achtung darauff haben, wie dise wirde zutreffen.” See Jöstel 1599. Copies (VD16 ZV 8685) are known in Dresden, Jena, Hannover, Vienna and Columbia, South Carolina.
- 35.
I have not tried to recompute Marius’s computation of the 1601 eclipses; but his times do vary significantly from those in the ephemerides he compared for the spring equinox, and I do not doubt that he (or his source) independently computed the 1601 eclipses. For the 29 November 1601 lunar eclipse, Marius set the mid-eclipse time at 7:03 p.m.; shifted to the Heilsbronn meridian, Stadius’s time would be 6:39 p.m., Origanus’s 6:41 p.m., and Everaert’s 6:08 p.m. (cf. Fig. 11.1). Note also that Jöstel’s treatise does not include Tycho’s equation of days. If Marius’s access to Tycho’s solar theory were solely via Jöstel, he would have needed to use some other equation of days to compute the times of the cardinal points, which might explain the pattern of deviations visible in Table 11.1.
- 36.
“Alten obseruationibus (die viel in solchen sachen thun, vnnd in deß Herrn Caesij järlichen Pratiken wol gespürt wirdt).”
- 37.
See Caesius, Prog. 1601, for literally dozens of references to historical and weather events from the last century, correlated with planetary configurations. For Caesius, see Kempkens in this volume.
- 38.
“Vnd ist gewiß wenn schon einer auff das allerfleissigst auß den biß daher gebräuchlichen Tabulis calculirt, das gleichwol die Kunst so weitleufftig vnnd schwer (welches obangeregte allzu gelehrte Astrologi wol nit verstehen) das es leichtlich einem fehlen kan, wil geschweigen, das es vielmals geschicht, wann die jetzigen tabulae etwan ein conjunction, opposition oder andere Aspecten der Planeten setzen, solches je zimblich weit im Himmel fehlet. Darumb denn hoch zuwinschen were, daß die correctio tabularum usitatarum, mit welcher auß verlegung hoher Potentaten jetziger Zeit etliche verneme vnnd berühmte Astronomi vmbgegangen, folgend were zu end gebracht, vnnd durch ihren tödlichen abgang das Werck nicht gesperret worden, da hette man als dann bessere vnnd gewissere tabulas, vnnd auß denselbigen Ephemerides schreiben vnd gewissere Practiken, denn jetzt geschehen kan, stellen können, sintemal ein wenig Minuten, wil etlicher Grad geschweigen, bald durchauß ein andern positum sonderlich der geschwinden Planeten, machen können.”
- 39.
At one point, (Prog. 1602, sig. B3r) Marius mentioned that he had never seen so many planetary aspects grouped together over a two-day period, “and also cannot find such in ephemerides since 1499” (“kan auch in Ephemerides von 1499 an, biß hierher keine finden”), suggesting that he had access to all the printed ephemerides of the sixteenth century. An eighteenth-century catalog of books in the Heilsbronn monastery library lists some, but not all, of these ephemerides. See Hocker (1731, pp. 268–271).
- 40.
Marius rounded 17 of the 25 values, listing the others to the nearest minute.
- 41.
Already in his 1596 comet tract, Marius reported his observation of a solar eclipse in May 1593, visible “a good part slower” than the Prutenic prediction by Stadius (Marius 1596, sig A4v).
- 42.
“Hierauß ist nun zu sehen, wie diese newe restitutio curriculi Solaris & Lunaris also gewiß ist, dergleichen man vor niemals gehabt.” By converting the mid-eclipse times announced in the Prutenic ephemerides of Origanus and Magini to the meridian of Heilsbronn, using meridians listed in these ephemerides, I find predicted times of 1:35 p.m. and 1:22 p.m., respectively. Marius followed his sources correctly.
- 43.
For a study of the rhetorical structures of sixteenth-century prognosticatory literature, see Bauer 1994.
- 44.
Either 24 or 25 syzygies occur each year. Marius’s syzygy times in his Schreibkalender from 1605 to 1609 match Origanus’s values, minus 18 minutes, verbatim at least 20 times per year; in 1610, the verbatim match drops to 16 times.
- 45.
Times for 10 December 1604, 9 March 1605 (the prognosticon value of 3;36 h is Tychonic; the Schreibkalender value of 3;04 is copied from Origanus), and 24 March 1605.
- 46.
Tycho’s tables give the lunar longitude in the plane of that body’s orbit; an additional computation is required to shift this longitude to the plane of the ecliptic. Marius here did not shift the longitudes. But note that he correctly implemented Tycho’s procedures, in the lunar theory, for replacing the “equation of days” with an annual equation, called in the Progymnasmata the “equation of time” (maximum 0;9,56 h). For these idiosyncrasies in Tycho’s model, see Swerdlow 2009, pp. 24–31.
- 47.
[…] sich die gemeinen Astronomi darinnen vben, vnd denselben calculum ihnen bekandt machen, darzu denn diese meine supputatio etwas behülfflich seyn kan. Allein die wegen hohes Alters vnnd anderer Geschäfft halben solchen subtilen sachen nit können abwarten, seyn leichtlich entschuldiget. Aber den andern ist es ein grosse schande nur also an den Ephemeridibus hangen, vnnd dieser herzlichen restitutionis novae curriculi Solis & Lunae, nach der alle Mathematici von anfang der Welt mit so grossem ernst vnd verlangen gestrebet vnd doch nicht erlanget, wegen vermeinter difficultet oder auß faulheit nicht achten.” For Marius’s “Supputatio ecclipsis solaris” see sig. D4v–E2r. For a later example of Marius explicitly computing eclipses from Tycho’s tables, see Prog. 1608, sig. D4v–D5v.
- 48.
I should add that Marius here corrected the lunar longitudes to the plane of the ecliptic, an extra computational step that he would not always take (see footnote 46).
- 49.
“[…] nach rechter astronomischer rechnung, vnd nach den wahren restitution Tychonis Brahe in curriculo Solis et Lunae (wie ich denn alle Finsternuß, eingang des Sonnen inn die vier puncta cardinalis mit den vorhergehenden New oder Vollmon, inn meinen järlichen practices, nit auß den Ephimeridibus nehme, sondern mit besonderm fleiß vnd mühe auß den tabulis novis Tychonis vermittelst der doctrina triangulorum rechne, welcher andere Practicanten entweder propter difficultatem, oder viel mehr propter ignorantium calculi nit achten).”
- 50.
If I do not correct the lunar longitudes to the plane of the ecliptic (see footnote 46) and add Tycho’s equation of time, my times differ from Marius’s (i.e., his meridian) by 9, 14, 8, and 7 minutes.
- 51.
This year Marius again did not correct the lunar longitudes to the ecliptic plane but did not add Tycho’s equation of time. My times differ from Marius’s by 6, 7, 8, 10, and 8 minutes, for 9 December 1607 and 6 March, 2 June, 31 July, and 14 Sept 1608.
- 52.
“[…] die wahre restitution Tychonis, welche nach meiner vnd anderer fleissiger vnd berhümbter Astronomorum observation, die beste ist, vnd solte billich den faulen vnd groben Calender machern, das Handwerck verbotten werden, dieweil sie dennoch bey dem alten vnd irrigen calculo bleiben vnd der neuen vnd eygentlichen Correctur, auß vnwissenheit nit achten, da man doch so lange zeit nach einer rechten Restitution geschrien vnd gewünschet hat, will jetzt nit gedencken deß Monds lauff, der auch nun mehr, Gott lob, so wol corrigirt ist, der gleichen niemals gewesen, denn der sehr geringe defect, so etwan noch vorhanden, nit zu schätzen ist, gegen den grossen Irrthumen, so fleissige Observatores in andern calculis vermercken. Ich begere keiner Herrschaft etwas vorzuschreiben, sondern ich klage über die grosse vnwissenheit vnd faulheit etlicher Calenderschreiber ins gemein, die sich vor stattlich Astronomus außgeben, vnnd aber in warheit nit ein triangulum zu solviren wissen.”
- 53.
I lack space here to discuss the various legal charges raised against Marius’s calendars. For the best-known case, a 1610 legal battle between Marius and another local calendar maker, Georg Halbmaier, see Matthäus 1969, cols. 1099–1102; Diefenbacher, Fischer-Pache 2003, No. 2215–2219. The Nuremberg town council impounded all 11,000 copies (!) of Marius’s 1610 Prognosticon, demanding that its offensive first quire be reprinted. The council’s archives do not reveal whether this recall occurred. The copy of the 1610 Prognosticon I have examined (WLB Stuttgart HBF 3708) probably contains the uncorrected first quire, for it scurrilously attacks an unnamed author who had translated Latin medical books: “great abuse and damage arises when idiots come behind such German or German-translated trick books; unfortunately it is more than true that many people not only are corrupted but also may even die when common people who can only read … without understanding and doubt write out the common recipe without correct knowledge of the disease and thus dare to cure people” (… grossen mißbrauchs vnd schadens … entstehet, wenn Idioten hinter solche Teutsche oder verteutschte Kunstbücher kommen, wie das leyder mehr als wahr ist, daß viel Leut nit allein verderbt werden, sondern auch wol gar vmb das leben kommen, inn deme gemeine Leut die nur lesen können … vnnd ohn allen verstand vnd bedencken, gemeine recept, ohn rechte erkandtnuß der Kranckheit, herauß schreiben, vnd also die Leut zu Curirn sich vnterfangen, sig. A2v).
- 54.
Tycho described both of these instruments in the Progymnasmata. See Brahe: Opera, Vol. II, 1915, pp. 330–352.
- 55.
In his Prog. 1608, sig. B4r, Marius again wrote of Tycho “whose instruments I not only saw but also used myself.”
- 56.
“Bey der wahren restitution deß Edlen Tychonis Brahe, welche mit den rechten vnd eigentlichen observationibus auff daß geneuest ubereinstimmet, nit allein zu diser vnsrer zeit, sondern auch albereit vor 16 Jaren von dem vortrefflichen Landgräffischen Mathematico, Christophoro Rothmanno vor gewiß vnd eigentlich ist erfunden worden.” A decade later, Marius displayed less confidence, writing that “Tycho’s doctrine or calculation is, according to him, currently the best available even if it has not reached its perfection, as can be noticed in eclipses.” He provided no examples, however, so we cannot here learn the standards of accuracy Marius expected from astronomical computation. See Prog. 1621, sig. A4r.
- 57.
In his Prog. 1621, sig. C1r, Marius quoted a 1615 letter from Fabricius indicating that the latter’s observations showed no solar parallax and noting that Fabricius’s 1618 Prognosticon (no longer extant) predicted the spring equinox two hours before Tycho’s time. But Marius did here did not question the adequacy of Tycho’s solar theory.
- 58.
“Welches den sonderlich auß der Eccentricitate Solis herführet, wie solches ich auch in Marte vermercket. Dessen gedenckt Tycho Brahae in seinen Epistolis, wie ich solches nach wider kunfft auß Italia darinn gelesen, vnnd dessen auch in Prag Anno 1601 von den damals anwesenten Studiosis Tychonis bin berichtet worden. Vollkommenern bericht wollen wir geliebtes Gott, von dem vortrefflichen Käyserlichen Mathematico Iohanne Kepplero in kurtzem vernemen, sintemal sein commentaria über den motum Martis jetziger zeit zu Heydelberg getruckt werden.”
- 59.
“Nit allein in perigno eventrici [sic eccentrici] et epicycli, der alten meinung nach, sondern auch nach meiner Tychonis Brahe, vnd Röselini Hypothesibus den Erden viel hundert mal neher, als sonsten in orten des Himels, wenn er der Sonnen nit entgegen stehet.” For Röslin’s discussion of how planetary sizes vary in his geo-heliocentric arrangement, see Granada 2012, p. 443.
- 60.
As noted above, in the 1614 publication of his telescopic observations of Jupiter’s moons, Marius claimed to have independently invented the geo-heliocentric hypothesis. Here Marius’s assertion is more reserved. For one of the earliest publications of diagrams of the five competing systems (Ptolemy, Copernicus, Ursus, Röslin, Tycho), see Röslin 1597, pp. 53–55.
- 61.
All of Marius’s calendars privilege the Julian (alte) calendar, placing its dates, starting 1 January, before the Gregorian (newe) dates, starting 11 January. Before he died in 1624, Marius managed to draft calendars for the years 1625–1629. His printer apparently prepared a posthumous, second edition of the 1628 calendar, in octavo, giving only the Gregorian dates and truncating all the times to hours. For the octavo 1628 Schreibkalender and prognostica, see Stadtarchiv Nürnberg, Av 2584.8; for the quarto 1628 imprints, see WLB Stuttgart, HBF 3726.
- 62.
For whatever reason, Marius in 1618 shifted the meridian by 18 minutes. A table of Tycho’s “Aequationis temporis” was provided by Origanus 1609, Vol. 1, p. 101, the “Aequationis dierum naturalium” on p. 100.
- 63.
For 3 April 1615, reading 8;44 for Origanus’s 8;04; for 28 August 1615, reading 0;01 for Origanus’s 6;01.
- 64.
For 27 April and 25 June 1629
- 65.
Referring to a device Fabricius had invented to measure distances to clouds, Marius expressed a desire to use the instrument and report his findings back to Fabricius and thus “to continue the collegiality and friendship and begun in Prague.” However, an unpublished Fabricius manuscript refers, in 1599, to receiving a report from “Marius” about a storm in Heilsbronn. If this Marius is our Marius, the two men might have been in correspondence before meeting in Prague. See Bunte 1885, p. 112.
- 66.
See Reeves and van Helden 2010.
- 67.
Apelt attempted to reconstruct Fabricius’s planetary theory. See Kremer b, forthcoming.
- 68.
“Der Herr Simon Marius, Medicus vnd Astronomus zu Ansbach … dessen fleiß vnnd besondere geschickligkeit in diesen Künsten ich für der zeit selbst gesehen vnd erfahren, als wir zu Prag für etlichen jahren, eine zeitlang beym seligen Herrn Tychone Brahen, bey einander gewesen.” Note that Fabricius in his 1607 Prognosticon computed the cardinal point times from Tycho’s solar theory in the Progymnasmata, without shifting the meridian or converting to apparent times. By 1615, Fabricius gave syzygy times only to days. For such features, Fabricius’s calendrical computations were less demanding than were Marius’s.
- 69.
Fabricius’s dedication is dated 1 June 1614; apparently he had not yet seen Marius’s Mundus Iovialis, the dedication to which is dated 18 February 1614 and which was also printed by Lauer.
- 70.
“… aberriret der Calculus alhie 2. gantze gr[adus] in loco Mars a veritate, daß also in motu Mars juxta communes tabulas ein grosse vnrichtigkeit stecket […] wie dann auch der hoch erfahrne vnd fleissige Astronomus zu Onoltzbach, D. Simon Marius in seinem Prognostico über dz 1610 Jar, solcher grossen differenz vnd vnrichtigkeit gedencket, welche er ex propriis observationibus zum offternmal im Mars befunden.”
- 71.
Interestingly, these aspects feature only the superior planets. Perhaps he had not yet completed tables for the inferior planets? Or perhaps he emphasized the superior planets because Saturn and Mars carry especially ominous astrological meanings?
- 72.
Kepler’s correspondence shows that he had seen Marius’s Tabula directionum novae (1599) by 1600 and had been informed of Marius’s arrival in Prague in 1601. See Gaab, this volume, n. 113, and above.
- 73.
Apart from his letters to Kepler, very little is known about Vicke. Four large codices document his legal actions in 1603–1610 against an official of the cathedral chapter in nearby Halberstadt, Niedersächsisches Landesarchiv, Wolfenbüttel, 1 Alt 5 No. 102a, b, c, and d, material I have not seen.
- 74.
Marius would briefly report his telescope observations in his 1612 (dated 1 March 1611) and 1613 (dated 30 June 1612) prognostica before publishing his Mundus Iovalis in 1614 (dated 18 February 1614).
- 75.
Kepler’s first Ephemerides novae … ex observationibus Tychonis, hypothesibus physicis, et tabulis Rudolphinis for the years 1617–1620 would be printed irregularly from 1617–1619. His Rudolphine Tables would not be printed until 1627.
- 76.
Note that Marius also referred to Kepler as “my good friend” in Marius 1619, sig. B2v. See Gaab, this volume, n. 336.
- 77.
“Wie männiglich bewust ist. Mein günstiger Herr vnd guter Freund Joh. Kepler wird es am besten wissen nach seinen Tabulis so er ex observationibus et fundamentis Tychonis mit grosser mühe perficirt hat, were zu wünschen das solche, oder auß denselben von dem Autore deducirte Ephemerides publicirt würden, wie er vor 10. Jahren zu thun willens gewesen, wie ich von ihm zu Regenspurg verstehen können, so könte er, wie denn billich ist, eine stattliche Ergetzligkeit seiner gehabten Mühe vnd Arbeit haben, vnd dennoch seine Tabuln nicht gemein warden.” In Prog. 1626, sig. D2r Marius also urged “my good friend” Kepler to publish “his labors on planetary motions,” noting how far the observed place of Mercury differed from the Prutenic prediction.
- 78.
Cf. Fabricius to Kepler, 27 February 1608, Kepler, GW, Vol. XVI, 1954, pp. 127–128, who already then found Kepler’s hypothesis “so perplexing and laborious that it can frighten someone off even at first glance” (transl. in Voelkel 2001, p. 208).
- 79.
“[…] caetera vates invisus et audax et plus quam prognostes, ut quidem et fatetur. Habeat sibi res suas seorsim; ne gravis sit amicis.” Cf. Wohlwill, 1926, Vol. 2, p. 404; Klug 1906, p. 400. For Marius’s various views on the origin of comets, including a speculation that they arise “per adunationem, vel potius conglobationem” from sunspots, see Marius 1619, sig. C2v–C3r. Clearly, Kepler was reading Marius’s latest publications (the dedication of his cometary tract is dated 16 April 1619)!
- 80.
In the prognostica for 1616–1625, the phrase becomes “… Mathematicus und Medicus.”
References
Apelt, Ernst Friedrich (1852): Die Reformation der Sternkunde: Ein Beitrag zur Deutschen Culturgeschichte. Jena: Friedrich Mauke 1852
Bauer, Barbara (1994): Sprüche in Prognostiken des 16. Jahrhunderts. In: Haug, Walter; Wachinger, Burghart (eds.): Kleinstformen der Literatur. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1994, pp. 164–204
Biagioli, Mario (1993): Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Age of Absolutism Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1993
Bialas, Volker (2004): Johannes Kepler. München: Beck 2004
Brahe, Tycho: Opera Omnia, ed. J. L. E. Dreyer. 15 vol. Copenhagen: Libraria Gyldendaliana 1913–1929
Bunte, Bernhard (1885): Über David Fabricius. Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für bildende Kunst und vaterländische Altertümer zu Emden 6/2 (1885), pp. 91–128
Büttner, Heinrich-Christoph (1813): Franconia: Beiträge zur Geschichte, Topographie und Litteratur von Franken. 2 vol. Ansbach: Gassert 1813
Caesius, Georg (1601): Prognosticon astrologicon [...] auf das Jahr MDCI. Nürnberg: Valentin Fuhrmann, 1601
Caspar, Max (1993): Kepler. Translated by C. Doris Hellman. New York: Dover 1993
Christianson, John Robert (2000): On Tycho’s Island: Tycho Brahe and His Assistants, 1570–1601. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000
Diefenbacher, Michael; Fischer-Pache, Wiltrud (eds.) (2003): Das Nürnberger Buchgewerbe: Buch- und Zeitungsdrucker, Verleger und Druckhändler vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Nürnberg: Selbstverlag des Stadtarchivs Nürnberg 2003
Dreyer, John Louis Emil (1890): Tycho Brahe. Edinburgh: A. & C. Black 1890
Everaert, Marten (1597): Ephemerides novae et exactae: Ab Anno Incarnationis Domini 1590, ad Annum 1610. Ex novis Tabulis Belgicis Authoris Supputatae. Ad longitudidem 24.0 graduum, latitudinem 51.30 Graduum. Leiden: J. C. van Dorp 1597
Fabricius, Johannes (1611): Joh. Fabricii Phrysii De Maculis in Sole observatis, et apparente earum cum Sole conversione, narratio. Wittenberg: Borner & Rehefeld 1611
Folkerts, Menso (1990): Marius (Mayr), Simon (1573–1624). In Neue Deutsche Biographie 16 (1990), p. 217f.
Folkerts, Menso (2000): Der Astronom David Fabricius (1564–1617): Leben und Wirken. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 23 (2000), pp. 127–142
Gingerich, Owen; Westman, Robert S. (1988): The Wittich Connection: Conflict and Priority in Late Sixteenth-Century Cosmology. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 78/7 (1988), pp. 1–148
Granada, Miguel A. (1996): El Debate cosmológico en 1588: Bruno, Brahe, Rothmann, Ursus, Röslin. Neapel: Instituto Italiano per gli Studi Filosofici 1996
Granada, Miguel A. (ed.) (2000): Helisaeus Röslin, De Opera Dei creationis seu De Mundo hypotheses, aurifodina philosophica. Lecce: Conte Editore 2000
Granada, Miguel A. (2002): Sfere solide e cielo fluido: Momenti del dibattito cosmologico nella seconda metà del cinquecento. Milan: Edizioni Angelo Guerini e Associati SpA 2002
Granada, Miguel A. (2012): Helisaeus Röslin contre Raymarus Ursus après la publication du De Astronomicis hypothesibus: ses lettres à Herwart von Hohenburg de 1597. In: Noirot, Caroline (ed.): Omnia in uno: Hommage à Alain-Philippe Segonds. Paris: Les Belles Lettres 2012, pp. 425–451
Green, Jonathan (2012): Printing the Future: The Origin and Development of the ‘Practica’. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 67 (2012), pp. 1–18
Heller, Joachim (ed.) (1548): Epitome totius astrologiae, Conscripta a Ioanne Hispalensi [John of Seville] Hispani astrologo celeberrimo, ante annos quadringentos, Ac nunc primum in luce edita. Cum Praefatione Ioachimi Helleri Levocopetriaei, Contra astrologiae aduersarios. Nürnberg: Johann Montanus & Ulrich Neuber 1548
Herbst, Klaus-Dieter (ed.) (2012): Astronomie – Literatur – Volksaufklärung: Der Schreibkalender der Frühen Neuzeit mit seinen Text- und Bildbeigaben. Jena: HKD 2012
Hocker, Johann Ludwig (1984): Bibliotheca Heilsbronnensis. Nürnberg: Monath 1731
Jardine, Nicholas (1984): The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler’s A Defense of Tycho against Ursus with Essays on its Provenance and Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1984
Jardine, Nicholas (2008): La Guerre des Astronomes: La querelle au sujet de l’origine du système géo-héliocentrique à la fin du XVI e siècle. 2 vol. Paris: Les Belles Lettres 2008
Jöstel, Melchior (1599): Lunae deliquium ad hunc Christi annum 1599 […] Ex generosi et magnifici viri Tychonis Brahe hypothesi et tabulis supputatum. Wittenberg: Zacharias Lehmann 1599
Kennedy, E. S. (1994): Ibn Mu'ādh on the astrological houses. Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 9 (1994), pp. 153–160
Kepler, Johannes: Gesammelte Werke, 21 vol. München: C.H. Beck, 1937–2009
Klug, Josef (1906): Simon Marius aus Gunzenhausen und Galileo Galilei. Abhandlungen der mathematisch-physikalischen Classe der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 22 (1906), pp. 385–526
Krabbe, Johannes (1605): Newe astronomische observationes der zweyen obern Planeten Saturni und Iovis, wie auch Martis, Solis, Veneris und Mercurii, sampt eim Bericht von der Grossen Coniunction Saturni und Iovis, Anno 1603. Erfurt: Beck 1605
Kremer, Richard L. (2006): Copernicus among the Astrologers: A Preliminary Study. In: Folkerts, Menso; Kühne, Andreas (eds.): Astronomy as a Model for the Sciences in Early Modern Times (= Algorismus; 59). Augsburg: Rauner 2006, pp. 225–252
Kremer, Richard L. (2010): War Bernard Walther, Nürnberger astronomischer Beobachter des 15. Jahrhunderts, auch ein Theoretiker? In: Wolfschmidt, Gudrun (ed.): Astronomie in Nürnberg. Hamburg: tredition science 2010, pp. 156–183
Kremer, Richard L. (2012): Mathematical Astronomy and Calendar-Making in Gdańsk from 1540 to 1700. In: Herbst 2012, pp. 477–492
Kremer, Richard L. (n.d.-a) What was new in Simon Marius’s Tabulae directionum novae of 1599?” forthcoming
Kremer, Richard L. (n.d.-b) Kepler’s competition: Longomontanus and Fabricius on the theory of Mars,” forthcoming
Lang, Karl Heinrich (1811): Neuere Geschichte des Fürstenthums Baireuth, vol. 3. Nürnberg: Monath und Kußler 1811
Longomontanus, Christen Sørensen (1622): Astronomia Danica. Amsterdam: Wilhelm Caesius 1622
Magini, Giovanni Antonio (1599): Ephemerides coelestium motuum ab anno 1598 usque ad annum 1610 secundum Copernici observationes accuratissime supputatae & correctae ad longitudinem inclytae Venetiarum urbis. Venedig: Damian Zenaro 1599
Marius, Simon (1596): Kurtze und eigentliche Beschreibung des Cometen oder Wundersterns. Nürnberg: Paul Kauffmann 1596
Marius, Simon (1599): Tabulae Directionum Novæ. Nürnberg: Christoph Lochner 1599
Marius, Simon (1614): Mundus Iovialis Anno M.DC.IX. Detectus Ope Perspicilli Belgici. Nürnberg: Johann Lauer 1614
Marius, Simon (1619): Astronomische vnd astrologische beschreibung deß Cometen […] 1618. Nürnberg: Johann Lauer 1619
Marius, Simon (1614/1988): Joachim Schlör, Mundus Iovialis – Die Welt des Jupiter. Gunzenhausen: Johann Schrenk 1988
Matthäus, Klaus (1969): Zur Geschichte des Nürnberger Kalenderwesens: Die Entwicklung der in Nürnberg gedruckten Jahreskalender in Buchform. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 9 (1969), cols. 965–1396
Norlind, Wilhelm (1970): Tycho Brahe: En levnadsteckning med nya bidrag belysande hans liv och verk. Lund: Gleerup 1970
North, John D. (1986): Horoscopes and history. London: Warburg Institute 1986
Origanus, David (1599): Ephemerides novae annorum XXXVI, incipientes ab anno 1595, quo Ioannis Stadii maxime aberrare incipiunt, et desinentes in annum 1630, 2 vol. Frankfurt (Oder): Andreas Eichhorn 1599
Origanus, David (1609): Novae motuum coelestium ephemerides Brandenburgicae, annorum LX, incipientes ab anno 1595, & desinentes in annum 1655, calculo duplici luminarium, Tychonico & Copernicaeo, reliquorum planetarum posteriore elaboratae, 3 vol. Frankfurt/Oder: Johannes Eichhorn 1609
Pasachoff, Jay M. (2015): Simon Marius’s Mundus Iovialis: 400th Anniversary in Galileo’s Shadow. Journal for the history of astronomy 46 (2015), pp. 218–234
Programme de la Société Hollandaise des Sciences a Harlem pour l’année 1898. Archives néerlandaises des sciences exactes et naturelles, 2d. ser., 2 (1899), pp. 1–7
Reeves, Eileen and van Helden, Albert (2010): Galileo Galilei & Christoph Scheiner: On Sunspots. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 2010
Regiomontanus (1490): Tabulae directionum profectionumque. Augsburg: Ratdolt 1490
Röslin, Helisaeus (1597): De opera Dei creationis, seu de mundo hypotheses. Frankfurt a.M.: Claude de Marne und Johann Aubry 1597
Schofield, Christine (1989): The Tychonic and semi-Tychonic world systems. In: Taton, René; Wilson, Curtis (eds.): Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics. Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton (= The General History of Astronomy; 2A). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989, pp. 33–44
Schöner, Johannes (1544): Scripta clarissimi mathematici M. Ioanis Regiomontani. Nürnberg: Johann Montanus & Ulrich Neuber 1544
Seethaler, Josef (1982): Das Wiener Kalenderwesen von seinen Anfängen bis zum Ende des 17. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Buchdrucks. Dissertation, Universität Wien 1982
Stadius, Johann (1585): Ephemerides secundùm Antuerpiae longitudinem ex tabulis Prutenicis supputate ab anno 1583 usque ad annum 1606. & ad S D. N. Gregorij XIII. anni reformationem accuratißimè accommodatae. Lyon: Philip Tinghi 1585
Stöffler, Johann; Pflaum, Jacob (1499): Almanach nova plurimis annis venturis inservientia. Ulm: Joannis Reger 1499
Swerdlow, Noel M. (2004): Tycho Brahe’s Early Lunar Theory and the Lunar Eclipse of 31 January 1599. Centaurus 46 (2004), pp. 1–40
Swerdlow, Noel M. (2009): The Lunar Theories of Tycho Brahe and Christian Longomontanus in the Progymnasmata and Astronomia Danica. Annals of science 66 (2009), pp. 5–58
Swerdlow, Noel M. (2010): Tycho, Lonomontanus, and Kepler on Ptolemy’s Solar Observations and Theory, Precession of the Equinoxes, and Obliquity of the Ecliptic. In: Jones, Alexander (ed.): Ptolemy in Perspective: Use and Criticism of His Work from Antiquity to the Nineteenth Century (= Archimedes; 23). Berlin: Springer 2010, pp. 151–202
Thoren, Victor E. (1990): The Lord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990
Vergara, Roberto Caffarelli (ed.) (1992): Il compasso geometrico e militare di Galileo Galilei: Testi, annotazioni e disputa negli scritti di G. Galilei, M. Bernegger e B. Capra. Pisa: ETS 1992
Voelkel, James R. (2001): The Composition of Kepler’s Astronomia Nova. Princeton: Princeton University Press 2001
Wattenberg, Diedrich (1964): David Fabricius. Der Astronom Ostfrieslands (1564–1617) (= Archenhold-Sternwarte, Vorträge und Schriften; 19). Berlin-Treptow: Archenhold-Sternwarte 1964
Weidler, Johann Friedrich (1741): Historia astronomiae. Wittenberg: Schwartz 1741
Wilson, Curtis (1989): Predictive Astronomy in the Century after Kepler. In: Taton, René; Wilson, Curtis (eds.): Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics. Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton (= The General History of Astronomy; 2A). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1989, pp. 161–206
Wohlwill, Emil (1909/1926): Galilei und sein Kampf für die copernicanische Lehre. 2 vol. Leipzig: Leopold Voss 1909/1926
Zinner, Ernst (1942): Zur Ehrenrettung des Simon Marius. Vierteljahrsschrift der Astronomischen Gesellschaft 77 (1942), pp. 23–75
Acknowledgments
Projects like this can thrive only with collaboration at many levels. With gratitude, I thank the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, the Württembergische Landesbibliothek, and the Staatsarchiv Nürnberg for permitting publication of their images and staff at those libraries plus the Bibliothek des Germanisches Nationalmuseums, Niedersächsische Landesarchiv-Staatsarchiv Wolfenbüttel, Marienbibliothek in Halle, Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen, and the Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt for their kind assistance. Owen Gingerich, James Voelkel, J.R. Christianson, Lars Gilsen, and Noel Swerdlow provided valuable advice on astronomical questions. Eileen A. Reeves, Jonathan Green, Christoph Mackert, and Michael Shank helped with the translations. Pietro Daniel Omodeo and Christian Heitzmann offered bibliographical suggestions. The materials assembled by Pierre Leich and colleagues at the Marius-Portal (http://www.simon-marius.net) greatly facilitated access to the sources. For sharing their rich knowledge of Marius and the world of early modern calendars, I am deeply indebted to Klaus Matthäus, Hans Gaab, and Klaus-Dieter Herbst. And I thank the Max Planck Institute for History of Science in Berlin for hosting me as I wrote this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kremer, R.L. (2018). Simon Marius as a Tychonic Calendar Maker. In: Gaab, H., Leich, P. (eds) Simon Marius and His Research. Historical & Cultural Astronomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92621-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92621-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-92620-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-92621-6
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)