Rienk Vermij, “Johannes Phocylides Holwarda and the Interpretation of New Stars in the Dutch Republic,” in Change and Continuity in Early Modern Cosmology, ed. Patrick J. Boner (New York: Springer, 2011).
Response
The attention Kepler and Galileo paid to novae in the early-seventeenth century was the exception, not the norm, in an astronomical community which was at that time more inclined to ignore celestial irregularities or to notice and dismiss them on the assumption that irregularities tell us nothing of an essentially ordered cosmos. So when Kepler noticed a nova in the Whale 1604, and Fabricius the same in 1609, it generated no audible murmurings in the contemporaneous Dutch astronomical community. When Johannes Phocylides Holwarda “discovered” this Mira Ceti nearly 30 years later, naturally, he believed in the novelty of his observation. Sometime between and because of Mira Ceti’s two discoveries, novae had ceased to be curiosities of idle speculation and began to be considered legitimate subjects of philosophical speculation. Holwarda’s Mira Ceti treatise propelled this conversation and introduced variable stars (whose appearance presents with a periodicity and were included, even, in Descartes’s Principia Philosophiae).
The incorporation of novae into philosophical astronomical discourse, and especially through Holwarda and Mira Ceti, participated in an evolution in cosmological understanding and approach. Holwarda’s stance well represents this evolution. Holwara was motivated not by the eschatological significance of the nova, but instead by a desire to attack Aristotelianism (and to self-aggrandize). In so doing and unimpressed by philosophical argument and dogmatism, he shifted the standard of proof toward observation and discovery. Holwarda did away with the distinction between sub- and supralunar phenomena, but his polemics were less revolutionary than this might seem to indicate: he retained exhalations, simply considering celestial bodies (like comets and novae) to be the product of celestial, rather than terrestrial, exhalations. It would be easy, then, from our retrospective vantage, to minimize Holwarda’s proposals as half-hearted. His insistence on the epistemic authority of telescopic discoveries, parallax measurements, and the Copernican model at the expense of philosophical authorities should not be underestimated. Those insistences mirror and contribute to the empiric turn in the history of astronomy.
Notes
-
135 – “In this essay, I propose to study what Dutch scholars wrote concerning new stars and what this tells us about their general views on the universe, especially the question of ‘cosmological continuity.’ (Consequently, my essay will be largely confined to questions of natural philosophy and pay only scant attention to observational or mathematical astronomy). In particular, I will compare the reactions to Kepler’s nova of 1604 with the reactions to the discovery (or rediscovery) by Johannes Phocylides Holwarda of a new star in the Whale.”
-
136 – “Unlike the situation in some other places in Europe, in the Dutch Republic the new star of 1604 did not give rise to public debate. In fact, we do not know of any contemporary public utterance upon the event.”
-
137 – “What deserves special notice is that neither Lansbergen nor Mulerius appear to have regarded the star as an object of astronomical study. In part, this may have been due to its extraordinary character: if the star was outside the ordinary course of nature, it could tell us little about the constitution of the universe. On the other hand, both Mulerius and Lansbergen were mathematical astronomers who stood in a humanist tradition. They were looking for order and harmony in the world, not for new physical principles.”
-
“Mulerius and Lansbergen were quite happy with the ancient philosophical traditions on the cosmos, so they had little reason to study the nova as an indication that those traditional views required a general overhaul.”
-
“Mulerius’ and Lansbergen’s attitude would seem to reflect a general lack of interest in a new celestial physics among Dutch astronomers and philosophers of this period. The various comets which appeared in the sky between 1577 and 1618 were also hardly commented upon in print. New stars were not among the ‘philosophical’ topics normally discussed in an academic setting. Incidentally, however, they were mentioned in student disputations.”
-
138 – “The lack of interest in new stars in this period of the Dutch Republic was perhaps more representative of European astronomers in general than the avid attention paid to them by Kepler or Galileo.”
-
139 – “The star [Mira Ceti] itself drew no further attention, but in February 1609, Fabricius, much to his surprise, saw it again. The star remained visible until March and then again disappeared. Kepler looked for it in August of the same year but could not find it. Although a remarkable discovery, nobody seems to have felt the need to continue observing the area where the star had now appeared twice. There appear to have been a few other isolated observation in the next 30 years, though nobody attached much significance to them. The star in the Whale was allowed to sink into oblivion and when Holwarda saw it in 1638, he felt that he had made a new discovery.”
-
“This time, however, Holwarda’s ‘discovery’ did not remain an incidental observation. Holwarda prepared a book on his discovery, even before he was aware of the variable nature of the star. Moreover, he saw the star reappear after its period of invisibility and was in time to include this fact in an appendix to the book.”
- “Holwarda’s treatise on the new star put philosophers on the alert. New stars now suddenly became a topic at the Dutch universities.”
- 140 – “Descartes included a section on new stars in his Principia Philosophiae of 1644, wherein he even discussed variable stars. Thus, Holwarda’s discovery was certainly not lost, but rather incorporated into textbook knowledge.”
- “In short, something seems to have changed in the Netherlands between 1604 and 1640. Novae were no longer regarded merely as curiosities but had become objects of philosophical speculation. This suggests that they had acquired a new meaning and were seen in a different way; or, rather, that philosophy now posed different questions: the explanation of new stars had become relevant in the light of wider cosmological issues. These cosmological issues were explicitly discussed by Holwarda. His treatise is by far the most elaborate statement on the meaning of Mira Ceti, and I shall discuss it at some length.”
- 141 – “Holwarda must there have been pleased when he hit upon yet another opportunity to draw attention to himself. While looking into the sky for the lunar eclipse of 1638, Holwarda observed an unknown light.”
- “Holwarda’s reasons for studying the new star were quite distinct from the views expressed by Mulerius or Lansbergen. Unlike those older astronomers, Holwarda did not raise the question of the star’s ominous significance. Apparently, that question had lost its relevance for him. . . . On the other hand, Holwarda emphasized that we should study the new star as a natural phenomenon. He ridiculed philosophers who saw it as miraculous . . ..”
- 142 – “Holwarda’s reason for paying so much attention to the new star appears not to be its ominous nature, but the fact that it allowed him to attack Aristotelian philosophy.”
- “In refuting these opinions, Holwarda made it clear that he was not impressed by any philosophical argument. The science of the heavens must be based on observation, and he sharply refuted dogmatic philosophers.”
- 143 – “Having refuted his various opponents, Holwarda came to his own views of the universe, for which indeed he largely referred to the various new observations and discoveries of the last half-century. Holwarda felt that the old distinction between the celestial and terrestrial worlds could no longer be upheld.”
- “Instead of a distinction between sublunar and supralunar phenomena, Holwarda made a distinction between luminous and dark bodies.”
- 145 – “After his violent polemic against the philosophers, Holwarda’s own position on new stars may come as something of an anticlimax to the modern reader, since he kept many traditional philosophical elements. The role of exhalations is taken from Aristotle’s physics. . . . Holwarda accepted that both comets and new stars were celestial bodies. He therefore preferred to see them as the result of celestial rather than terrestrial exhalations.”
- “Thus, the alternatives Holwarda proposed, both in his treatise on the new star and in some later works, to the Aristotelianism he so emphatically rejected were, from our present point of view, half-hearted and unconvincing. Holwarda was a Copernican, but he still held to the idea of a finite, ordered universe, and even took it for probable that the sphere of the fixed stars was turning around the sun.”
- “However, the term ‘eclectic,’ in so far as it suggests a bookish learning which weighs and selects authoritative texts, does not seem to do Holwarda full justice. In fact, his work appears rather representative of an important tendency which developed in Dutch thinking during the period, independent of the dominant humanist scholarship. This new view was not so much based on the reading of philosophical authorities, but rather tried to account for the new discoveries and observations in science and astronomy: Galileo’s telescopic discoveries, parallax measurements of comets and new stars, and of course the Copernican system.”
- [FOCUS ON HOLWARDA’S REJECTION OF PORTENTIOUSNESS OF CELESTIAL PHENOMENA]
- 147 – “The novelty of Holwarda’s work was not in the ideas themselves, but in the fact that he introduced such physical and cosmological speculations into academic thinking. They moved thereby from the marginal to the mainstream.”
