Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
In 1556, Robert Recorde (1510?-1558) provided the English reading public with the first significant reference to the heliocentric theories of Nicholas Copernicus. In a brief passage in his elementary text on astronomy, The Castle of Knowledge, Recorde introduced the fact that Copernicus
This statement, preceded by a review of other ancient astronomers who held similar views, and followed by a promise to the reader that the subject would be examined later in greater detail, constituted the complete reference to Copernicus and his theories. It was neither an endorsement nor a repudiation of the revolutionary theories advanced by Copernicus. Given his reputation as a competent and thorough scholar, one may legitimately ask, first, why did Recorde limit himself to such a short statement? and, second, how can his attitude toward the heliocentric theories be established with greater certainty? Because Recorde elected not to commit himself further in The Castle of Knowledge, any discussion of his attitude toward the new theories must be based on indirect evidence. The point to be demonstrated is that Recorde was influenced by a particular philosophy that enabled him to view favorably the theories advanced in Copernicus's great work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Celestium. The first part of this study examines some probable causes for Recorde's reluctance to expand upon his reference to Copernicus, while the remainder examines his philosophical views.
1 Recorde, Robert, The Castle of Knowledge (London, 1556), sig. 0.iiijv.Google Scholar
2 This was an understandable sixteenth-century attitude, given the weight of authority; the terrestial base of astronomical observations; and the lack of instruments with which to prove or disprove contending theories.
3 See, Johnson, Francis R., and Larkey, Sanford V., “Robert Recorde's Mathematical Teaching and the Anti-Aristotelian Movement,” Huntington Library Bulletin, VII (April, 1935), 59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for discussion of Recorde as a writer and teacher.
4 Recorde, Castle of Knowledge, sig. O.iiijv.
5 Ibid.
6 Patterson, Louise D., “Recorde's Cosmography, 1556,” Isis, XLII (Oct. 1951), 218.Google Scholar
7 Johnson, Francis R., Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England (Baltimore, 1937), 132–33.Google Scholar
8 Ibid., 125-26.
9 Arber, Edward (ed.), The First Three English Books on America (Birmingham, 1885), xl.Google Scholar
10 The following discussion is based on Johnson, Astronomical Thought, and Dillenberger, John, Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Nashville and New York, 1960).Google Scholar
11 Johnson, , Astronomical Thought, 93ff.Google Scholar
12 Recorde, Castle of Knowledge, sig. a.iiij.r
13 Ibid., sig. a.iiij.r–v
14 Ibid., sig. a. iiij.v
15 Recorde, Robert, The Grovnd of Artes Teachyng the worke and practise of Arithmetike (London, 1542), sig. a.iiii.rGoogle Scholar
16 Recorde, Robert, The pathway to Knowledg, Containing the First Principles of Geometrie (London, 1551), sig. 3.i.vGoogle Scholar
17 Recorde, Robert, The whetstone of witte, whiche is the seconde parte of Arithmetike (London, 1557), sig. b.j.r–vGoogle Scholar
18 Recorde, Grovnd of Artes, sig. a. v.v
19 Recorde, whetstone of witte, sig. b.ii.r
20 “John Dee his Mathematical! Preface,” Billingsley, Henry, The Elements of Geometrie of the most auncient Philosopher Euclide of Megara (London, 1570), sig. *.j.rGoogle Scholar
21 Recorde, whetstone of witte, sig. b.i.r
21 Recorde, whetstone of witte, sig. b.i.r
