Thus, from the first, this classic work was neglected. It was only translated in 1929 into German by Max Caspar. Even Great Books of the Western World ignored it in favor of excerpts from the Epitome and Harmonices mundi. Owen Gingerich announced in his article on Kepler in The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (1973) that he and a colleague were working on a translation of the New Astronomy, but that never materialized. And so we are grateful that William Donahue has taken up the project and heroically stayed with it, despite the fact that it "required somewhat more time than Kepler took" (xv). Its contents are of interest to more than Kepler scholars, who presumably can read the Latin, although the ambiguities and neologisms in it make it difficult for them as well. But people interested in the history of science or in the creative process who have been curious about how Kepler arrived at his radical conclusions have too long been denied access to the book that seemed to describe his odyssey.
The most commonly accepted interpretation of Nova Astronomia is Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers (1959), which took Kepler's description literally and suggested that he blindly fell into his conclusions. Now Donahue's translation shows us that Koestler's version was a doctored description of how Kepler discovered those laws. This reinforces Bruce Stephenson's suggestion in Kepler's Physical Astronomy (1987) that Kepler knew how incredible his ideas would appear to his contemporaries and so wrote the New Astronomy as a rhetorical piece to convince them that his conclusions were inescapable. Donahue tried to duplicate all of Kepler's calculations and found that not all of them worked. Nor were the chapters written in the order that the work was done, for some of the earlier chapters contained information that could only have come from Kepler's later work.
Donahue's introduction describing the background to Kepler's writing the New Astronomy and some of the problems it entailed is inadequate for such an important and neglected work. A glossary explains the nuances of Kepler's language and its translation, but in the knotty case of species Donahue writes, "I have . . . thrown up my hands, admitted defeat, and declined to translate it at all" (24). Indeed, the translations Donahue had available are inadequate; too bad he didn't have Stephenson's "image." The notes give some commentary on the text, but they too are inadequate. Fortunately, Donahue has indicated that a companion volume will be forthcoming.
Donahue's excellent translation sticks close to the Latin original, even duplicating the italicized portions and the marginal glosses. And his English is readable, that is, as readable as could be without cutting three-quarters of the text.
SHEILA J. RABIN St. Peter's College
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Rabin, Sheila J.|
|Article Type:||Book Review|
|Date:||Mar 22, 1996|
|Previous Article:||The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire.|
|Next Article:||Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture.|