On the Provenance of a Prague Copy of Copernicus's De Revolutionibus

Abstract

Edward Rosen's defense of Tycho Brahe (hereafter: Defense) was published in 1981 in Archive for history of exact sciences.' In the last sentence of the opening paragraph, Rosen wrote: At the top of this flyleaf [i.e. the flyleaf of Prague 3 copy of Copernicus's De revolutionibus currently in the Clementinum in Prague2] a third hand wrote some entries, which were ignored by [Editio] Cimelia [Bohemica],3 although they throw valuable light on the history of this copy....4In its closing paragraphs Defense conceded - indirectly - that such a positive claim was not entirely free from doubt. Nevertheless, it maintained that 'This unknown individual may be a guardian of Wittich's nephew. If so, he wrote these entries shortly after his second marriage in October 1593, while Wittich's library was under the control of the nephew's guardians.5 But Defense did not document this asserted generic identity - nor the other claims put forward in that sentence - by presenting facts from the private lives of Paul Wittich, other members of his family (his nephew, in particular), and of the annotator side by side. Yet the presentation of the latter was made (purposefully, though somewhat inaccurately) by Defense on page 264. This page presumably cites an inscription (in English translation) from the top of the flyleaf preceding Cimelia's title page. One need not be an expert philologist to see at a glance that Rosen's English rendering of the original inscription is flawed and no doubt different in its meaning from the original Latin text in Cimelia.To test this claim let us look at the translation. On page 264 Rosen says6The top of the flyleaf preceding Cimelia's title page carries an inscription arranged in two columns. The left-hand column concerns a male's professional career, and the right-hand column his marital career:At the beginning of the month of March in both1568 in the senate, [?!]1588 to the magistracy[15]66 in October I married my first wife[15]90 in the month of October she died[15]93 in the month of October I married my second wifeObviously, Rahvitz is the culprit here. Probably, it should have read Ratsitz, i.e. (City) Council-seat in German. To be sure, we reproduce in Figure 1 the original Latin inscription from the flyleaf of the Prague 3 copy of De Revolutionibus (omitted in Cimelia), followed by its transliteration, and a corrected English translation.Sub initium mensis Martij utrumq-;A° 1568. in senatum electy 1588. ad CapitaneatumAt the beginning of the month of March in both1568 elected into the senate [i.e. city council]1588 to the office of shire reeve7 [Landeshauptmannschaft]A° 66. in octob. pr. uxor ductA° 90. mense octobri mortuaA°. 93. mens, octob. altera g ducta giunx[=coniunx][15]66 in October I married my first wife[15]90 in the month of October she died[15]93 in the month of October I married my second wifeNow, contrary to Rosen's description of the annotator's identity in Cimelia (unknown individual, maybe a guardian of Wittich's nephew8), the above items of information, modest though they are, make it possible to accurately identify the annotator, although not his relation to Wittich's family.This is possible owing to the fact that for Wroclaw (formerly Breslau) enough sources have been preserved to establish the identities of all its chief city officers since the late thirteenth century.9 In particular, we have the list of all its councillors. From that list we learn that the only new member of the Council to have been elected into its ranks in March 1568 was one Abraham Jenckwitz.10 This in fact happened on 3 March, i.e. at the beginning of that month. We learn further that Jenckwitz continued on the council until his death in 1606. Meanwhile, in March 1588, he was appointed president of the council,12 which effectively made him capitaneas, i. …