Was Copernicus a pythagorean?

| ISIS Rosen, e. 1962 AN INTERNATIONAL ‘REVIEW DEVOTED TO AND ITS THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE CULTURAL INFLUENCES FOUNDED b> BY GFORGE SARTON Arnica Tu. W., A reply lo Prof Rosen : Isis LITI 1962 509, | CL. ci-dessous Vi 6 bg Ar 5 Ofen Des panna — un —— nn 63 -., Rosen Epw., Was Copernicus a Pythagorean ? Isis LIDI 1962 504-508, Lo Contre la position de Th. W. Africa. on si AS À N. ‘renga’BIETEER dévclef le Fir ista of Elance and (7 asha tira Asn bridge, /ESS. Narıare72 res VY 6695 VOLUME 53 + 1962 OFFICIAL QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE SOCIETY

NOTES CORRESPONDENCE RESEARCH IN ANCIENT INDIAN MATHEMATICS AND ASTRONOMY IN INDIA By R. Ballabh * Research in ancient Indian mathematics and astronomy was initiated in the Department of Mathematics, Lucknow University, in the year 1941 by the late Dr. A. N. Singh, joint-author of History of Hindu Mathematics, in order to investigate the contributions of ancient Indian mathematics to mathematics and astronomy. The program is now being conducted under the general supervision of Professor R. Ballabh. The contributions made by the ancient Indians to mathematics have been made known from time to time through the researches of H. T. Colebrooke, E. Burgess, S. Dvivedi, S. B. Dikshit, P. C. Sengupta, B. Datta, A. N. Singh, and other scholars working in Indian mathematics and astronomy. Datta and Singh's History of Hindu Mathematics, of which Parts I and II were published in 1935 and 1938 respectively, gives a detailed account of the contributions of Indian mathematicians in arithmetic, algebra, and other branches of mathematics on the basis of works then known. The works on Indian mathematics and astronomy consulted by Datta and Singh were listed by them at the end of Part I of their History of Hindu Mathematics. Collecting manuscripts has since continued, and the Department of Mathematics, Lucknow University, is now in possession of seventy manuscripts of about fifty unpublished works. As a result new authors and new sources of information have come to light. Of the newly discovered works, those of Sridharacarya,Sumati, Bhaskara I, and Vatesvara deserve mention here. Sridharacarya was perhaps the greatest Indian mathematician. He lived sometime between A. D. 850 and A. D. 950, and wrote two works on arithmetic and mensuration. His smaller work, called Trigatikd (" A collection of 300 rules and examples "), was edited by Sudhakara Dvivedi in 1899 A. D. Sudhakara'sedition was incomplete in so far as it did not contain 300 rules and examples. The Department of Mathematics has collected six manuscripts of this work. These manuscripts have been studied by Mrs. Usha Asthana and the results of her study submitted in the form of a dissertation to Lucknow University in 1960. The Department of Mathematics has also acquired an incomplete manuscript of Sridharacarya'slarger work on arithmetic and mensuration (known at Patiganita). This was edited with an historical introduction, English translation, relevant notes, and comments by Dr. K. S. Shukla in 1959. * Lucknow University. ISIS, 1962, VOL.53, PART4, NO. 174.

ANCIENT INDIAN MATHEMATICS AND ASTRONOMY Sumati was an astronomer who lived in Nepal and wrote in 880 A. D. He is the author of two works on astronomy, the Sumati-mahdtantra and the Sumati-karana. The existence of this author was revealed in a commentary written in the Ninth Century at Quilon. After extensive search, manuscripts of the above works were discovered in Nepal. The importance of the works of Sumati lies in the fact that they are based on the old SiryaSiddhanta, which is now lost. Bhaskara I is a different person from his namesake of the Twelfth Century A. D., the author of the Siddhinta-siromani and Lilavati, etc. He lived in the Seventh Century of the Christian era and was a contemporary of Brahmagupta (628 A. D.). He wrote three works on astronomy: (1) the Mah&-Bhaskariya,(2) the Laghu-Bhiskariya, and (3) a commentary on the Aryabhatiya of Aryabhata I. Bhaskara I was not an original astronomer. His fame rests on his being a sincere and successful expounder of the astronomical teachings of Aryabhata I. His works provide us with a detailed exposition of the astronomical methods taught by Aryabhata I and throw light on the development of astronomy during the Sixth and early Seventh Centuries in India. Several manuscripts of his works have been acquired by the Department of Mathematics. These manuscripts have been studied by Dr. K. S. Shukla, and the results of his study are in the process of publication. Vatesvara (904 A. D.) is another distinguished Indian astronomer. He came from Anandapura (modern Barnagar) and is known to have written two works on Astronomy, Vatesvara-siddhdntaand Karana-sdra.Two manuscripts of the former have been acquired by the Department. The latter work was mentioned by Albrfini, but no manuscript of this work has been discovered so far. Manuscripts of mathematical and astronomical works are also available in the various libraries and private collections in India. In order to get a complete picture of Indian achievements in the fields of mathematics and astronomy, it is necessary to go through these manuscripts. This is really a great task and one beset with many difficulties. The greatest difficulty lies in deciphering these manuscripts, those already done being generally erroneous and defective. Moreover, works contained in them are in verse and in the form of a statement of the bare rules, containing neither an explanation of the rules nor any indication of the subject dealt with in the various verses. The result is that the deciphering of these manuscripts and identifying the contributions of individual authors is an uphill task. The Department of Mathematics has therefore undertaken to edit and publish the important works on Indian mathematics and astronomy under a series called Hindu Astronomical and Mathematical Texts Series. Three works, the Sirya-siddhdnta, the PdtigaNita of Sridharacarya and the Mahd-Bhdskariya of Bhaskara I) have already been published. It is hoped that at least one work will be published every year. The publications of this proposed series will contain: (1) A general introduction, containing discussions on

R. BALLABH (i) the manuscripts used in the preparation of the text and their authenticity (ii) the data and the origin of the work (iii) the importance of the work and its contents (iv) the commentaries on the work and their authors, etc. The edited text of the original together with a commentary on it, (2) if possible (3) An English translation of the original text along with critical and explanatory notes, etc. (4) Appendices: (i) list of quotations found in the commentary (ii) list of references to names and places (iii) list of quotations from the text found in later works (iv) glossary of technical terms with equivalents in English (v) index In addition to the above editorial work a history of Hindu astronomy is planned, but at present there is no work being done on this subject. WAS COPERNICUS A PYTHAGOREAN? By Edward Rosen * "Let no one suppose that I have gratuitously asserted, with the Pythagoreans, the motion of the earth." Copernicus, Commentariolus, Assumptions. legitimately be imputed retroactively to Copernicus. Having reminded ourselves that Copernicus' mentality was quite different from Galileo's and Kepler's, let us In a recent article Professor Thomas now see whether the statements quoted that W. Africa maintained Copernicus from them by Professor Africa mean saw his thesis "as the foundation of that Copernicus intended to restore a Pythagorean Restoration." 1 In supPythagoreanism. Kepler referred to port of this contention Professor Africa "Pythagoras, grandfather of all Cowhatever. no evidence offered Instead, This little joke proclaims he cited Kepler and Galileo. But both pernicans." a remote ancestral intellectual relationborn were of these great Copernicans between Pythagoras and Coperdecades after Copernicus died. Galileo ship it does not ascribe to made a number of egregious errors nicus;intention to restore Copernicus any Pythagoreanregarding Copernicus.2 Although Kep- ism. By the same token, Galileo ler did have access to some of Coperni- labeled the belief in " the earth's mocus' correspondence which is no longer a Pythagorean opinion." But in available to us, his thinking was far bility this entirely correct label, Galileo using from a carbon copy of Copernicus'. did not attribute to Therefore no opinion of Kepler may intention to restore Copernicus any Pythagoreanism. * According to Professor Africa (p. 404), City College of New York. " Copernicus' Relation to Aristarchus and "Copernicus insisted that his system the lost doc52: 403. was . . . the revival of... 1961, Isis, Pythagoras," 2 Edward Rosen, "Galileo's Misstatements trine of Pythagoras." If a doctrine is about Copernicus," Isis, 1958, 49: 319-330; lost, how can it be revived? When and reprinted as Massachusetts Institute of Techwhere did Copernicus insist that he was nology, Publications in the Humanities, no. reviving a doctrine that could not be

WAS COPERNICUS A PYTHAGOREAN? revived? No citation to this effect ap- how are we to tell whether this parpears in the fifty-seven footnotes accom- ticular assumption was unwarranted? panying Professor Africa's seven-page Professor Africa somehow neglected to tell us what the unwarranted assumparticle. Professor Africa asserted (p. 406) tion was. In addition to gratuitously accusing that " in the manuscript of De revolutionibus, Copernicus frankly professed one of the greatest astronomers in manPythagoreanism as he conceived it, but kind's history of not thinking straight, deleted the passage." Actually, in the Professor Africa undertook to sit in deleted passage Copernicus did not pro- judgment on Copernicus' personality fess Pythagoreanism. On the contrary, as a scientist. Thus Professor Africa he discussed it without professing it. has decided (pp. 403-404) that "CoNor is it true that here "Copernicus pernicus lacked . . . concern for data associated Aristarchus and Philolaus and method." He has aimed this grave with a view of the earth's motion other indictment at the man whose first disthan the traditional Pythagorean ciple, having worked with him nearly scheme" (p. 407). Copernicus' lan- three years, reported that guage provides no basis for distinguishteacher always has before his eyes the ing between the older and later Pytha- my observations of all ages together with his own, himAfrica Professor schemes. gorean assembled in order as in catalogues; then self declared (p. 408) that Copernicus when some conclusion must be drawn or con" felt that he was restoring the Pytha- tribution made to the science and its prinhe proceeds from the earliest observagorean astronomy in its purity." Pro- ciples, his own, seeking the mutual relafessor Africa then proceeded to mis- tions to which harmonizes them all; the retionship translate a statement by Copernicus' sults thus obtained by correct inference under first disciple, whose reference to "the the guidance of Urania he then compares hypotheses of Ptolemy and the Pythagoreans" was altered by Profes- with the and having made a most careful sor Africa to "Pythagoras." Professor ancients; of these hypotheses, he finds that examination Africa printed this incorrect version in astronomical requires their rejection; he such a way as to imply that the error assumes new proof hypotheses, not indeed without occurs in Edward Rosen's Three Co- divine inspiration and the favor of the gods; applying mathematics, he geometrically pernican Treatises, which Professor by the conclusions which can be drawn Africa cited according to the first establishes correct inference; he then harfrom them edition, instead of the second and monizes the byancient observations and his own with the hypotheses which he has adopted; enlarged edition.3 performing all these operations he Having translated the deleted pas- and after writes down the laws of astronomy.4 sage (after a fashion), Professor Africa finally maintained (pp. 407-408) that it "reThe foregoing passage occurs in vealed Copernicus' conviction that ... (Narratio Plato shared the scientific views of Rheticus' First Report Africa Professor To (p. 403), prima). deleted the But Philolaus." passage " the tone of Rheticus' Narratio prima that It does such no say thing. says that Copernicus' attitude to"according to Plato, there were only suggests a few philosophers who at that time ward other scientists was generally . . knew how to explain the motions of contempt." Let us look at the First the planets." Just before this strange Report's attitude toward other "sciendistortion of Copernicus' simple Latin, tists: Domenico Maria Novara is very Professor Africa charged (p. 407) that learned "; Copernicus "knows that working with the utmost care, "Copernicus drew an unwarranted Ptolemy, ... accurately investigated the motions assumption from Plato's notion that of the sun and the moon and estab' true' astronomy rested on intuitive them lished correctly, so far as he reason." Did Copernicus ever draw " an assumption, warranted or unwar- could "; Surely students hereafter will the other ranted, from a notion? If he ever did, see the value of Ptolemy andwill recall ancient writers, so that they 3 New York: 1959. Dover; London: Constable, 4 Three Copernican Treatises, p. 163.

EDWARD ROSEN these men who have been until now like an inheritance. ... It is well known that excluded from the schools, and restore they observed all these phenomena with great care and expert skill, and bequeathed to us them, like returned exiles, to their many famous and praiseworthy discoveries.8 ancient place of honor "; " How modestly and wisely Aristotle speaks on the On the one hand, Professor Africa held subject of the celestial motions can be that "Copernicus frankly professed seen everywhere in his works "; "Pliny Pythagoreanism " where he did not proset down an excellent and accurate fess it, whether frankly or not. On the statement"; "Plato and the Pytha- other hand, Professor Africa concluded goreans, the greatest mathematicians of that "Copernicus was not entirely that divine age "; " that wise statement frank" because he chose to put a parof Socrates." 5 Where in the First Re- tial statement in its proper place. In port is the tone which suggested to order to be able to determine whether Professor Africa " that Copernicus' another human being was or was not attitude toward other scientists was entirely frank, the self-appointed judge should first try to acquire some undergenerally . . . contempt "? Professor Africa (p. 406) proposed standing of his victim's character and "vanity " as a possible motive for one thought. of Copernicus' most significant actions. It might also be helpful if he learned But Rheticus tells us that Copernicus about his victim's career and associates. "promised that he would draw up Professor Africa referred (p. 405) to a astronomical tables with new rules and teacher of philosophy as Copernicus' that if his work had any value he would "colleague at Ferrara," where Copernot keep it from the world."6 Does nicus never taught. And Professor Africa (p. 405) spoke of "Cordus that sound like "vanity"? Professor Africa (p. 403) referred to Urceo," when he meant Antonio Urceo, "Copernicus' imperious Letter against who playfully adopted the nickname Werner." Let us see how imperious "Codro " (the pauper) .9 A would-be judge might likewise be it is: " Faultfinding is of little use and Hence I fear that I expected to inform himself about his scant profit. ... may arouse anger if I reprove another victim's reputation. According to Prowhile I myself produce nothing better. fessor Africa (pp. 403-404), "Coper... It is one thing to snap at a man nicus lacked the concern for data and and attack him, but another thing to method which partly prevented Tycho set him right and redirect him when Brahe from accepting the Copernican he strays." 7 Is this letter " imperious," system." This ungrammatical verdict seems intended to convey the idea that that is, arrogant or haughty? According to Professor Africa (p. Brahe had a low opinion of Copernicus' 405), in the dedication of the Revo- " concern for data and method." Since lutions "Copernicus was not entirely Professor Africa again failed to provide frank, for his obligation to the ancients us with a citation, let us listen to included more than simple suggestions Brahe's famous oration: of the earth's mobility." But in the Copernicus may not undedication Copernicus had occasion to In our timebeNicholas called a second Ptolemy. Through deservedly describe only this part of his obliga- observations made by himself he discovered tion to the ancients. Elsewhere he de- certain gaps in Ptolemy, and he concluded scribed other parts. For instance, in that the hypotheses established by Ptolemy something unsuitable in violation of the Letter against Werner, which Pro- admit the axioms of mathematics. Moreover, he fessor Africa termed "imperious," Co- found the Alfonsine computations in disagreepernicus wrote with regard to the ment with the motions of the heavens. Thereancient mathematicians: fore, with wonderful intellectual acumen he we must follow in their footsteps and hold fast to their observations, bequeathed to us 5 Op. cit., pp. 111, 126, 132, 141, 144, 147, 168. GOp. cit., p. 192. 7 Op. cit., p. 93. sop. cit., pp. 99-100. 9 Edward Rosen, "Copernicus' Quotation from Sophocles," in Didascaliae, Studies in Honor of Anselm M. Albareda, ed. Sesto Prete (New York: Rosenthal, 1961), p. 372.

WAS COPERNICUS A PYTHAGOREAN? established different hypotheses. He restored the science of the heavenly motions in such a way that nobody before him had a more accurate knowledge of the movements of the heavenly bodies.10 Brahe's reasons for rejecting Copernicanism had nothing to do with "data and method." He found the new system in conflict with "not only the principles of physics but also the authority of Holy Scripture." 11Brahe's biographer and editor of his collected works tells us that Tycho never mentioned Copernicus' name "without some expression of admiration." 12 The aforementioned deleted passage was characterized by Professor Africa as being "incongruous in an astronomical tract" (p. 407). Why did Copernicus write the passage in the first place, and why did he later delete it? He had to explain why he kept his treatise hidden so long. For this purpose he recalled the Pythagoreans' practice of communicating their knowledge only to friendly persons. When he was finally persuaded to release his manuscript to a printer, he drafted the dedication to the pope. In the dedication he related that he had debated with himself for a long time whether to publish his treatise or "follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others." His discussion of their example made the earlier passage redundant, and consequently he deleted it. But, despite Professor Africa, it was never incongruous. On the contrary, either it or some equivalent was indispensable to account for Copernicus' long delay in publishing his book. According to Professor Africa (p. 403), Copernicus' "hesitation in publishing the Revolutions has often been ascribed to fear of ecclesiastical opposition, but the theme of sacerdotal oppression is difficult to maintain in view of demonstrated papal favor. In 1536 Pope Paul III extended encouragement to Copernicus through Cardinal von Sch6nberg." How was the papal favor 10 Tychonis Brahe dani opera omnia (Copenhagen, 1913-1929), I, 149: 22-30. 1 See pp. 326-327 of the article cited in n. 2, above. 12 J. L. E. Dreyer, Tycho Brahe (Edinburgh, 1890), p. 125. 507 demonstrated? What is the basis of Professor Africa's pronouncement that "in 1536 Pope Paul III extended encouragement to Copernicus through Cardinal von Schonberg"?' Certainly the cardinal's letter of 1536 to Copernicus said nothing about papal encouragement or favor. Nor did Copernicus, in dedicating the Revolutions to Pope Paul III, say anything about any papal encouragement or favor in 1536 or any other year. Copernicus gave the first place in the Revolutions to the cardinal's letter. Next came the dedication to the pope. Here a bishop was singled out as having frequently exhorted Copernicus to publish. Amid all this impressive parade of ecclesiastical dignitaries, Copernicus made no mention of any papal encouragement or favor. Had he ever received any, would he not have displayed it as conspicuously as possible? Has the argument from silence ever been more eloquent? We have now seen that there is absolutely no historical foundation for Professor Africa's allegation about Copernicus' receiving papal favor or encouragement. Let us next consider how well Professor Africa understood why Copernicus hesitated to publish the Revolutions. " His hesitation . . . has often been ascribed to fear of ecclesiastical opposition." To this correct remark, Professor Africa added: " but the theme of sacerdotal oppression is difficult to maintain" (p. 403). Is the "fear of ecclesiastical opposition" identical with " sacerdotal oppression "? Copernicus felt an acute " fear of ecclesiastical opposition." But, having delayed the publication of the Revolutions thirty-six years, he escaped feeling " sacerdotal oppression." He died a natural death, before he could be burned at the stake, like Giordano Bruno, or sentenced to life imprisonment, like Galileo. Professor Africa introduced a further confusion in his discussion of this highly important matter by talking about Copernicus' "timidity at the professional opposisition of rival astronomers" (p. 403).13 13 If "Copernicus' attitude toward other scientists was generally . . . contempt," and if he wrote an "imperious Letter against Wer-

EDWARD ROSEN But it was not professional astronomers who burned Bruno at the stake or condemned Galileo to life imprisonment. Professor Africa was confident that Copernicus delayed the publication of the Revolutions "not through fear of rack" (p. 409). But the rack was one of the most persuasive arguments in the armamentarium of the theologians. By showing Galileo the rack and other instruments of torture, the theologians persuaded him to abjure Copernicanism. And Kepler has preserved that portion of a letter to Copernicus in which his correspondent advised him to mollify the " theologians, whose opposition you fear." 14 Copernicus began his dedication to the pope by expressing his certainty that "certain persons," as soon as they heard what his book was all about, would immediately shout that he must be hissed off the stage. Toward the close of the dedication he anticipated attacks on his book by people who knew nothing about mathematics but presumed to meddle in it " on account of some passage in Scripture." That is why Copernicus coined his single most renowned utterance: " Mathematics is written for mathematicians." He implied that it was not written for theologians who had no competence in the mathematical sciences. Now we are in a position to understand Copernicus' conduct with regard to Aristarchus. He retained his references to Aristarchus' determinations of the obliquity of the ecliptic and the length of the year. But it was not for these strictly mathematical results that it was " thought that the Greeks ought to bring charges of impiety against Aristarchus." 15 Those charges would have been based on Aristarchus' conception of a moving earth. That was precisely what Copernicus suppressed in the deleted passage. According to ner," a well-known mathematician and astronomer, when did he undergo the personality change that made him feel "timidity at the professional opposition of rival astronomers"? 14 Three Cop. Tr., p. 23. 15 Plutarch, The Face in the Moon, 923. Professor Africa (p. 406), his motive in so doing was " either vanity, 'Pythagorean' scruples, or both." Actually Copernicus had no wish to inform or remind anybody that a great astronomer could have been prosecuted for impiety. If Aristarchus was indeed " the ancient Copernicus," Copernicus had no desire to become the modern Aristarchus. It is time to delimit the sense in which Copernicus may be said to have been a Pythagorean. He was indebted to the Pythagoreans for his basic conception, the moving earth. Little else of their astronomy was known to him. What he prized was their prudence in intellectual matters. In the letter from which Professor Africa quoted Kepler's jest about " Pythagoras, grandfather of all Copernicans," the great reformer of Copernicanism went on to advise the teacher who had introduced him to the Copernican astronomy: Let us imitate the Pythagoreans even in their customs. If anybody approaches us privately, let us tell him our opinion frankly. Publicly let us be silent. Why go and ruin astronomy by means of astronomy? The whole world is full of men of the type who are ready to throw all of astronomy, if it sides completely with Copernicus, off the earth, and to forbid the specialists an income. But specialists cannot live off themselves or on air. Therefore let us act in astronomical affairs in such a way that we hold on to the supporters of astronomy and do not starve.16 The Pythagorean prudence recommended by the extrovert Kepler in a private letter exhibited more explicitly the intense fear justifiably felt by Copernicus the introvert. What is commonly called the Copernican Revolution was not completed by Copernicus, but commenced by him. To speak, as does Professor Africa (p. 409), of " the Copernican Revolution, to which Copernicus was not party" is to perform Hamlet without the prince of Denmark. 16 Johannes Kepler Gesammelte Werke, XIII (Munich, 1945), 231: 505-512.

A REPLY TO PROFESSOR By Thomas W. Africa Recently, Professor Rosen has excoriated numerous scholars in Centaurus (7: 152-156) and Journal of the History of Ideas (21: 431-441; 22: 386-388) - some deservedly; others not. Much of his criticism of my paper is aimed at nonexistent points. The "Copernican Revolution in which Copernicus had no part" was clearly indicated as the philosophic effect of displacing man from the center of the universe. Obviously, "lost" (particularly non-existent) arcana cannot be revived (my note 18). The "frankly professed Pythagoreanism" was deleted as too revealingl Copernicus' " contempt " (too strong, but surely not humility toward contemporaries) naturally did not apply to the ancients. The date of Kepler's interesting letter might help for comparative purposes. My passing remark on Tycho Brahe said simply that Tycho was a greater observer than Copernicus and as such felt that his own system was more scientific; because of his religious scruples, I added " partly." (I hope that Kepler has not misled me on this). Professor Rosen's footnote 13 eludes me. "Cordus" Urceo is as legitimate as "Plato" or " Caligula "; Pomponazzi was " his colleague" (Urceo's), teaching philosophy at another university (Professor Rosen should score poor syntax, not invincible ignorance). My paper assumed: (1) The intellectual climate of Renaissance Italy was heavy with "Platonism" and pseudoPythagoreanism; (2) Catholic bigotry did not restrain Copernicus from publishing his theories, which were not subversive until the Counter Reformation killed Bruno in 1600 and silenced Galileo in 1616 - two tragedies involving more than astronomy. Apparently, Professor Rosen does not share these opinions on the early Sixteenth Century, but many scholars do, not all of *University of Southern California. ROSEN * whom are hopelessly ignorant. Surely Bishop Giese and Rheticus did not want their friend burned alive when they advocated his publication. Professor Rosen dislikes my translation (" after a fashion ") of the deleted passage, but the key sentence still says that Aristarchus and Philolaus shared views which were not those Aristotle ridiculed. Copernicus found this notion in no classical writer, but he did believe that Philolaus had enlightened Plato (my note 44 and discussion in text). I suggest that the good canon felt he had recovered "lost" arcana and released it with "Pythagorean" selectivity. Professor Rosen feels that my interpretation of Copernicus as a " Pythagorean" elitist degrades the great scientist as "not thinking straight." I do not, nor does anyone who holds that the history of science is the study of men with ideas and techniques. Why did Copernicus delete Aristarchus and the Letter of Lysis from the Dedication? Other references to ancient advocates of the earth's mobility were not deleted. If the mere mention of Aristarchus would arouse the Inquisition,l he was cited three times in the text of De Revolutionibus. Both Copernicus and the Holy Office knew that Plutarch did not say Aristarchus had been indicted but only that one quarrelsome Stoic thought he ought to be. (Plato felt that Homer ought to be banned). Of course, Plutarch thought as little of the Stoics as Professor Rosen does of my paper. The only Greek martyr to astronomy was Anaxagoras, who was indicted for Medism as well. Professor Rosen does not have to accept my interpretation of Copernicus, but he has not refuted it. If it is erroneous, surely the good sense of the scholarly community will reject it. 1 In 1559, why did the ferocious Caraffa neglect Copernicus' book, which was not put on the Index until 1616?

QUERIES Queries Answers to queries appearing in Isis should be addressed to the author of the query, in care of the Editor. All answers will be forwarded to the author. Please mark the envelope: "Answer to query no.-." Query 166 - Correspondence of Robert Boyle: 1627-1691. Dr. R. E. W. Maddison, who has written many articles about Robert Boyle, has been awarded a Leverhulme Research Fellowship for the purpose of producing an annotated edition of the Boyle correspondence. He wishes to know if there are letters to or from Boyle that have not come to his notice, and will be glad to receive information about any items not listed in his Tentative Index (Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 1958, 13, 128-201). His address is 2 Alderney Avenue, Heston, Middlesex, England. defray the cost of photographing manuscripts and would, of course, return promptly any original material sent to him for photographing in Ithaca. Query 168 - Life of Henry G. J. Moseley. Bernard Jaffe (25 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn 38, New York), author of Crucible: The Story of Chemistry, is planning a book on the life of Henry G. J. Moseley, the discoverer of the Law of Atomic Numbers. He will appreciate receiving copies of letters, photographs, notes, and recollections about him from relatives, colleagues, and friends. * * * "Questiones Alani " To the Editor of Isis: In my article, " Questiones Alani, published in Isis, (1960), 51, 181-185, I was mistaken in saying that the work had not been attributed to Alanus de Query 167- Edition of Malpighi's Cor- Insulis, since it had been so briefly respondence. in Manitius's History of Latin MedieHoward B. Adelmann, Professor of val Literature (1931) III, 804, as ProHistology and Embryology at Cornell fessor Pearl Kibre discovered in workUniversity, Ithaca, New York, has be- ing on the revision of A Catalogue of gun work on a complete edition of the Incipits of Medieval Scientific Writings letters written by and to Marcello Mal- in Latin. Moreover, it seems to be the same pighi. He would be grateful for information concerning any such letters in text as that on the natures of animals private hands or in libraries (except attributed to Alanus de Insulis. for the libraries of Bologna and the LYNN THORNDIKE Royal Society). He is prepared to