Epicycles and eccentrics

Use in the book

The first relevant astronomical explanation is causal rather than computational. “Some say” that the sun’s Exentricity has come nearer to the earth since Ptolemy’s time, with declining plant powers and smaller human bodies as the supposed consequences. This follows other proposed causes, including ruling spirits and the influence of the Empyrean. Burton assembles rival explanations of natural variation; the solar claim is not a measured result supplied by the edition.

The longer controversy begins with penetrable heavens. Comets and intersecting planetary courses are offered against hard celestial barriers. Burton then calls the orbs of eccentrics monstrous and compares the alleged machinery with subordinate clock wheels. The force of the attack lies in “reall orbes,” “impenetrable and hard”: mathematical devices have been turned into physical structures. His sweeping attribution of this view to Ptolemy, Alhazen, Witelo, Peurbach, Magini, Clavius and their associates does not establish the exact position of every named writer.

The next comparison qualifies that rejection. Magini’s eleven heavens and Fracastoro’s seventy-two homocentrics multiply the structures needed to account for appearances, but Burton says that other hypotheses are inventions admitted for method and order, like the circles used in teaching astronomy. Tycho’s subdivisions of epicycles calculate and express the moon’s motion “as a supposition, and no otherwise.” The supplied note reads “not (as he holds)” as Tycho’s denial of hard bodies, not as Burton accusing Tycho of affirming them. Quiet, fluid and open heavens stand against impenetrable machinery; the same negative scope includes the alleged music.

The argument for a moving earth makes a stronger comparative claim: planetary motions can be calculated without epicycles or intricate eccentrics, more correctly and conveniently through one motion of the earth, and more reliably than by the Alfonsine tables. Burton reports this as the proponents’ case, with Lansbergen named inside it. The preceding paragraph distinguishes a threefold terrestrial motion from the supposedly more probable alternative of a rotating earth that remains central; the following paragraphs bring optical and physical objections back into view. The boast of dispensing with devices is not the article’s verdict on all historical moving-earth astronomy.

Replacement models bring the terms back. Fracastoro retains a stationary earth and supplies seventy-two homocentrics to avoid eccentrics and epicycles. Roeslin later criticizes the competing systems, then assigns eccentrics and epicycles to the seven planets in his own hypothesis. Burton calls these devices already rejected and completes the sentence with the fool who runs into the opposite fault and the tinker who stops one hole while making two. Read through that conclusion: the lexicon names both a modelling resource and a point of satirical accusation.

The solar-spot dispute gives “Concentrick” a particularly concrete object. Tarde’s alleged planets move regularly around the sun and near it. Burton contrasts this with Galileo’s spots or clouds and then Scheiner’s account of marks on the rotating solar surface. Concentric here describes the proposed relation of orbits to the sun; it does not certify the existence of those supposed planets. Elsewhere, the calculating of planetary eccentricities is praised as an astonishing learned recreation. Admiration for the inquiry coexists with ridicule of the disputants.

The vocabulary also leaves astronomy. Charity combines useful, pleasant and honourable love, and “love is the circle equant of all other affections.” The figure makes love an ordering principle for the other dispositions. It is not a mathematical demonstration, nor does the nearby reference to Aristotle authenticate this exact metaphor as Aristotle’s wording. The continuation identifies love of God and neighbour; an original margin compares them with the two supports of the world. Charity already explains the theological claim; the additional lexical focus here is the transferred equant image.

Related entries

Spheres and firmament: celestial regions, shells and physical barriers.

Hypothesis and supposition: calculation, provisional premises and claims to truth.

Paradox: the disputed earth’s motion and the satire of competing systems.

Axiom and aphorism: physical principles invoked in the objections.

Tables: the Alfonsine tables at table · tables · local use 3.

Music and harmony: the negated and playful celestial-music uses at music of the spheres.

Charity: Christian love and the existing record Charity.

Places to read

1. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 13–18competing explanations of natural variation and the supposed approach of the solar eccentric.
2. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 29–36penetrable heavens, solid clockwork, model circles and the carefully negated Tycho passage.
3. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 7–16the moving-earth argument, its claim to avoid devices, and the return of objections.
4. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 32–38replacement schemes and the completed Roeslin/tinker criticism.
5. Member 3. Air Corrected. With a Digression on Air · paragraphs 1–5sunspots, solar-centred orbits and the rival surface explanation.
6. Member 4 Exercise of Body and Mind Regulated · paragraphs 40–42, 1–4calculation and instruments as learned recreation.
7. Member 3 Charity Combining All Three Kinds of Love Pleasant Profitable and Honourable · paragraphs 16–19charity, the equant metaphor and the two supports of divine law.
8. E · paragraph 185“Excentricks and Epicicles exploded, 251”; 251 is the source’s own page pointer.

In this edition

The Table’s “Epicicles” becomes “epicycles”; “Excentricks” and body “excentrick” become “eccentrics” and “eccentric.” “Exploded” means rejected or discredited, not physically burst apart. These orthographic and semantic changes leave the source page reference and the distinction between the Table and the argument intact.

The whole “Eccentre Epicycles deferentes” becomes “eccentric circles carrying epicycles.” Eccentre contributes eccentric, Epicycles contributes epicycles, and the Latin participle deferentes contributes carrying; circles is supplied to make the compressed construction readable. A component lookup for deferentes must not assign it the meaning of the entire phrase. “Homocentricks” is unpacked as “concentric spheres,” while “Planets Concentrick with the Sun” is explained through orbits centred on the sun.

“circles equant” becomes “equant circles” in the mechanical catalogue, and “circle equant” becomes “equant circle” in the love metaphor. Word-order modernization does not make the two passages perform the same task. Likewise, the scope of “without” in the calculating boast and “not” in the Tycho passage must remain visible even in a short vocabulary quotation.

epicycle

A circle whose centre is carried around on another circle, used in a model for representing celestial motion.

Grammar: Plural noun; printed Epicycles and Table variant Epicicles.

Original text: “subdivisions of Epicycles in Epicycles”. In the modern column: “subdivisions of epicycles within epicycles”. Nested circular devices calculate and represent the moon’s motion. Burton attributes these constructions to Tycho, with the disparaging I know not how many. As a supposition, and no otherwise denies that calculation entails hard bodies; note reads Tycho as sharing that denial. In becomes within; epicycles is the device, not the entire calculation.

Original text: “without Epicycles, intricate Eccentricks”. In the modern column: “without epicycles, intricate eccentric circles”. Devices the reported moving-earth argument claims it can dispense with. This continues the proponents’ claims in 075-12; it is not an independently established history of the elimination of epicycles. Without governs both nouns; intricate qualifies Eccentricks, not all possible uses of epicycles.

Original text: “to avoid that supposition of Eccentricks and Epicycles”. In the modern column: “to avoid the supposition of eccentrics and epicycles”. The devices are the stated alternative avoided by Fracastoro’s homocentric scheme. Burton reports Fracastoro’s stationary earth and seventy-two homocentrics, rather than proposing his own scheme. The whole noun construction aligns; to avoid states the model-builder’s aim.

Original text: “Eccentricks, and Epicycles to the seven Planets”. In the modern column: “eccentrics and epicycles to the seven planets”. Circular devices reintroduced in Roeslin’s planetary account. Roeslin is the agent; which hath been formerly exploded marks Burton’s objection. Read through the Horatian verse and tinker rebuke at 075-38. Epicycles is coordinated with eccentrics, both objects of ascribes/assigns.

Original Table: “Excentricks and Epicicles exploded, 251”. In the modern column: “Eccentrics and epicycles rejected. 251”. The Table’s variant spelling points back to the astronomical rejection. An unnumbered Table entry, not a second running-body argument or a newly observed astronomical event. Epicicles becomes epicycles; exploded means rejected. The numeral is a historical page pointer.

eccentric

An off-centre circle or arrangement in a celestial model; adjectivally, having a displaced centre.

Grammar: Substantivized plural noun and adjective: Eccentricks, Excentricks, excentrick.

Original text: “those monstrous Orbes of Eccentricks”. In the modern column: “those monstrous spheres of eccentrics”. Off-centre devices attacked when treated as hard celestial machinery. The sentence continues the comet argument and rejects real impediments above the moon; it is not a neutral rejection of every calculating device. Orbes supplies spheres; Eccentricks supplies eccentrics; monstrous is the polemical modifier.

Original text: “excentrick, concentrick, circles equant”. In the modern column: “eccentric, concentric, equant circles”. The adjective distinguishes displaced-centre arrangements from shared-centre ones. Burton calls the asserted real, hard, impenetrable spheres absurd. His list of authorities is not separately verified for each writer. Excentrick maps only to eccentric, not to the neighbouring concentric or equant terms.

Original Table: “Excentricks and Epicicles exploded, 251”. In the modern column: “Eccentrics and epicycles rejected. 251”. A spelling variant used by the historical Table. The Table summarizes the polemic at source page 251, without preserving every later qualification. Excentricks becomes Eccentrics; the other coordinated noun is epicycles.

eccentricity

The off-centre arrangement or displacement of a celestial path, considered as a feature of a model or object of calculation.

Grammar: Singular and plural nouns: Exentricity; excentricities.

Original text: “the Exentricity of the Sun is come neerer to the earth than in Ptolomies time”. In the modern column: “the sun’s eccentric path has come nearer to the earth than in Ptolemy’s time”. The supposed approach of the solar arrangement is offered as a cause of weakened plants and smaller people. Some say introduces this explanation; the Coimbra influence and Bodin’s spirits are adjacent rival accounts, not a single verified causal chain. The modern sun’s eccentric path unpacks Exentricity of the Sun as the path or scheme, not a numerical measure of an ellipse.

Original text: “their magnitudes, apogeums, perigeums, excentricities”. In the modern column: “their sizes, apogees, perigees, eccentricities”. A feature to examine and calculate in astronomy as learned recreation. Burton admires mathematical inquiry here, despite the earlier satire of rival systems. The list does not define modern orbital eccentricity. The plural excentricities becomes eccentricities; the surrounding named measurements remain distinct.

concentric; homocentric

Sharing a centre; as a plural noun, spheres constructed with a common centre rather than an off-centre arrangement.

Grammar: Adjectives concentrick, Concentrick; substantivized plural Homocentricks.

Original text: “excentrick, concentrick, circles equant”. In the modern column: “eccentric, concentric, equant circles”. A shared-centre arrangement appears among the devices treated as solid machinery. Burton attacks their alleged physical hardness, not the geometrical meaning of having a common centre. Concentrick corresponds only to concentric.

Original text: “Fracastorius 72. Homocentricks”. In the modern column: “Fracastoro makes seventy-two concentric spheres”. Spheres sharing a centre, attributed to Fracastoro. Seventy-two is Burton’s reported count, not a fresh reconstruction of Fracastoro. The supplied makes unfolds the elliptical clause; concentric spheres supplies the substantivized Homocentricks.

Original text: “he hath coined 72. Homocentricks, to solve all apparances”. In the modern column: “he has devised seventy-two concentric spheres to explain all appearances”. Common-centre spheres are presented as a replacement for eccentrics and epicycles. The subject is Fracastoro. His retained stationary earth is not the same as the moving-earth alternatives that follow. Coined becomes devised; solve all apparances becomes explain all appearances.

Original text: “Planets Concentrick with the Sun, and not far from him with regular motions”. In the modern column: “planets moving regularly in orbits centred on the sun and not far from it”. Tarde interprets the apparent solar marks as planets moving around the sun. Tarde, not Galileo, advances the orbiting-planet account here. The words “neither spots nor clouds” reject Galileo’s account within this report; Scheiner’s surface-spot view follows. Planets supplies planets; Concentrick with the Sun is explicated as in orbits centred on the sun; regular motions supplies moving regularly.

circles equant

Circles associated with the equant device: angular motion is represented as uniform with respect to a designated point.

Grammar: Plural noun phrase, with postpositive adjective equant.

Original text: “circles equant”. In the modern column: “equant circles”. One item in the list of astronomical constructions Burton attacks when taken for hard physical machinery. The geometrical explanation is supplied in editorial note; Burton himself gives a list and a clock-wheel analogy, not a technical construction. The modern reverses adjective and noun order; equant is not translated by all the other circle types in the catalogue.

Eccentre Epicycles deferentes

Eccentric circles carrying epicycles; a compressed and grammatically difficult description of the carrying construction.

Grammar: Mixed astronomical construction: Eccentre, Epicycles; Latin plural present participle deferentes.

Original text: “Eccentre Epicycles deferentes”. In the modern column: “eccentric circles carrying epicycles”. The carrying circle supplies motion to an epicycle’s centre within the model. The phrase remains under exploding and monstrous in Burton’s attack on physical orbs. Note the accompanying note supplies the deferent explanation and explicitly leaves the systems of individual named authors unresolved. At construction level the modernization supplies circles. Eccentre contributes eccentric, Epicycles contributes epicycles, and deferentes contributes carrying. The printed syntax is not silently repaired into a different Latin sentence.

circle equant: love

A regulating or ordering circle: love is figured as the principle that brings the other affections into an ordered relation.

Grammar: Singular metaphorical noun phrase.

Original text: “love is the circle equant of all other affections”. In the modern column: “love is the equant circle of all other affections”. The astronomical term supplies an image of ordering for the account of charity. Burton’s Christian-charity argument includes useful, pleasant and honourable love and restricts proper practice to a regenerate Christian. The astronomy is a metaphor, not a literal orbit of emotions. Circle equant becomes equant circle; love is the subject and all other affections supplies the extent of the relation.

Earlier explanation: tables

Earlier explanation: table · tables · local use 3

For tables, the passage, see Tables.

Context passages: the passage. These are reading contexts, not additional occurrences of the cited form.

Reference scope: The Alfonsine tables remain an existing tables attestation; this family explains the circular devices and the claim to dispense with them, not a new discovery of the table passage.

Earlier explanation: musick

Earlier explanation: music of the spheres

For musick, the passage, see Music and harmony.

Context passages: the passage, the passage, the passage, the passage, the passage. These are reading contexts, not additional occurrences of the cited form.

Reference scope: The denial of celestial music at 074-35 remains with Music and harmony; the present record explains epicycles and their hypothetical status.

Earlier explanation: Charity

Earlier explanation: Charity

For Charity, see Charity.

Context passages: the passage, the passage. These are reading contexts, not additional occurrences of the cited form.

Reference scope: Charity already explains the theological sense at 111-17. The circle-equant metaphor is a complementary lexical focus in the same occurrence, not a new charity record.