- Email: [email protected]
Problems and difficulties in editing Kepler's collected works
Problems and Dittlculties in Editing Kepler's Collected Works ~Z
HAMMER
Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Kepler Research Centre, Weil-der-Stadt, Germany
SUMMARY
A survey is presented of the problems and difficulties involved in the new edition of Kepler's work, which aims at far-reaching completeness. I t was initiated in 1937 by the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and the Deutsche l~orschungsgemeinschaft, and by now the first 15 volumes have been completed. The older edition, published by Chr. Frisch in 8 volumes during the period 1858-71, unfortunately became rather out-of-date only 40 years after it appeared. To ensure a longer life for the new edition, and to avoid the mistakes inherent in Frisch's edition, three complexes of problems had to be considered: firstly, the completeness, correctness and arrangement of the texts; secondly, the structure of the new books; and, thirdly, the editorial apparatus. The difficulties involved in the collection of the material, the printed as well as the manuscript works, is now very much reduced thanks to Frisch's extensive preliminary work. There remained essentially only the ~lling of certain gaps and work on localizing material. On the other hand, the finding of suitable collaborators was a major problem from the very beginning. The sad gap caused by the death of Max Caspar in 1956 has not yet been filled. Here we recall that it is especially the edition of the supplementary notes and commentaries (the so-called "Nachberichte"), which are intended as a replacement of translations, that make particularly heavy demands on the editor. Finally, there is the problem of how to minimize the difference in outlook between author and editor, which has such unfortunate consequences for the life4ime of an edition. We also mention the language problem: Kepler and his contemporaries wrote their works in the unified language of scholars. Editions should, however, even more than the originals, be addressed to the whole world.
Ww MUST first m e n t i o n w i t h a p p r e c i a t i o n t h e o l d e r e d i t i o n of t h e Opera Omnia Joaiznls Kepleri in e i g h t volumes, c a r r i e d o u t in 1858-71 b y Chr. Frisch. W e recall, however: t h a t a l r e a d y 30 y e a r s a f t e r its c o m p l e t i o n i t a p p e a r e d r a t h e r o u t - o f - d a t e because of technical a n d f o r m a l reasons i n h e r e n t in this edition, p a r t i c u l a r l y as c o m p a r e d with t h e Galileo e d i t i o n of A. F a v a r o . Nevertheless, i t has k e p t its value as a p r e l i m i u a r y basis of t h e n e w edition, i n i t i a t e d b y W . v. D y c k . I n p a r t i c u l a r , F r i s c h succeeded in collecting all t h e p r i n t e d w o r k of K e p l e r w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of a few r a t h e r small a n d v e r y r a r e l y o b t a i n a b l e p a p e r s . H e was less successful in this r e l a t i v e completeness as far as m a n u s c r i p t s were concerned. W . v. D y e k , t h e o r i g i n a t o r of t h e new e d i t i o n - - w h i c h has a p p e a r e d since 1937 a n d has in t h e m e a n t i m e r e a c h e d 15 volumes, in spite of t h e g r e a t difficulty b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e w a r - - w a s himself a v e r y keen K e p l e r researcher, who succeeded in m a k i n g several b e a u t i ful finds. I t was as e a r l y as 1914 t h a t he d e m o n s t r a t e d a t a Viennese m e e t i n g of t h e " V e r b a n d d e u t s c h e r wissensehaftlieher K S r p e r s e h a f t e n " t h e necessity of such a new edition, p o i n t i n g o u t t h e m a t e r i a l a n d f o r m a l i n a d e q u a c y of t h e F r i s c h edition. M a y I s a y h e r e i m m e d i a t e l y , t h a t i t was j u s t t h e f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e of our e d i t i o n - - t y p e , size, p a p e r , c o v e r - - w h i c h b e c a m e t h e s u b j e c t of m a n y considerations a n d tests. T h e impression a n a u t h o r m a k e s on one, t h e s y m p a t h y or a n t i p a t h y he arouses, are d e t e r m i n e d b y such extern a l effects far m o r e t h a n is n o r m a l l y realized. 261
262
Problems and Difficultiea in Editing Kepler's Collected Works
The preparatory work by Dyek, which started soon after the end of the first world war and of the subsequent period of inflation, was first of all directed towards the completion of the text, but also aimed at the creation of a team of independent collaborators to whom the responsible edition of single volumes or themes could be entrusted. The weak link in Frisch's work concerns the manuscripts. No doubt he had read an astonishing amount, but he had left too many gaps. Kepler's correspondence was subdivided by him according to factual points of view and was thus hopelessly scattered. Dyck therefore saw no other way out than to attack Kepler's estate quite afresh; he aimed to reproduce photographically the widely scattered Kepleriana which, as is known from literary and other sources, are practically without exception in fixed hands: that is, to reproduce not only the actual autographs, but also all those manuscripts which refer to Kepler and are of documentary value. These manuscripts had to be supplemented, according to Dyck's plan, by, e.g., the comprehensive files in Oxford which deal with the disagreements (concerning questions of estate) with his step-daughter Regina. On the other hand, the files dealing with an accusation of witchcraft against Kepler's m o t h e r - which Frisch had published on more than 200 pages of volume 8, and not even then comp l e t e l y - w e r e excluded. In the meantime the delicate question of whether these files should be included in the " D o k u m e n t e n b a n d " , which is planned in analogy to the Galileo edition, has been decided negatively. They will have to go into another publication which will have to analyse (using methods of legal history) the proceedings of this process which influenced Kepler's life so deeply. His own letters to the Herzog of Wiirttemberg, written in this connection, have been earmarked (probably not quite justifiably) for volume 18, to be included amongst the letters in general. The most important preliminary basis for the success of Dyck's plan was the readiness of the Soviet Government to send the volumes of Kepler's manuscripts, which were kept at Pulkovo and which made up by far the greatest part of the total estate, to Munich for reproduction. On this occasion the regrettable fact was revealed that since the days of Frisch, who at the time had also received these volumes for copying in Stuttgart, a certain not quite determinable number of sheets had been lost. To quote an example: from the Self-Analysis of Kepler of the year 1597--an unfinished document of inestimable import a n c e - w h i c h Frisch printed in volume V, pages 476-83, though it has not at any time been translated as a whole, no less than four sheets, or eight pages, have disappeared. This manuscript action will never come to a final end, since small finds will occur over and over again; it appears, however, that the hope of future large-scale finds must be abandoned. The 15,000 photo-copies, appro~mately, which this collection now includes, therefore represent a reliable working tool, such as can hardly be available for any other edition. Quite naturally a Kepler Archive will grow around this foundation. The situation as far as the printed papers of Kepler were concerned was simpler. Here, I have already mentioned that Frisch did good work. What has been found since is relatively little: a few Prognostica, poems and, more important than these, two small theological papers. In order to find any still hidden prints, and to localize at the same time all the existing copies of all of Kepler's papers, Dyck circulated a questionnaire of seven pages with detailed bibliographical notes to all German and Austrian libraries. The restriction to these two countries was essentially correct; amongst the non-German libraries only one had to report a possession. This was the library of the former Austrian Archive in Ljubljana (Laibach), in which a Prognosticum by Kepler was recently found which had been unknown hitherto. I t was, however, somewhat surprising that the libraries which were asked for information were unable to report any finds outside already known materials; it was only in 1950 that such a find was reported from Tfibingen.This seems to corroborate
F~z
H*~
263
the impression t h a t w e n o w possess the print~l papers of Kepler as completely as possible.
Moreover, the questionnaire formed the basis for the Bibliographia Kepleriana by Max Caspar (Munich, 1936). Dyck's personal effort to create a team of co-workers was less successful. I do not know more about his original ideas of the size of such a team of collaborators, but at the time of his death in 1934, which was still before the beginning of the actual work, it was certainly smaller than Dyck had anticipated. Up to this date he had only found two co.workers who were wholly or partly free for this task: Max Caspar, who was already well-known for his Kepler translations and was predestined to become the successor of Dyck, and myself, who was however for many years only at his disposal for half of each day. This was certainly a very narrow basis on which to build the new Kepler edition. In the subsequent years this has not increased, on the contrary it was further reduced in 1956 by Caspar's death. One may certainly blame the particular conditions in Germany for this regrettable state, and one can also doubt whether in his search Dyck had exhausted all possibilities; the most important reason, however, is undoubtedly a fact that has been regretted everywhere, namely, that the knowledge of Latin is seriously dying out, even in the circles of historically-interested natural scientists. The Natural Science of former centuries is, however, essentially Latin, and predominently so in the case of Kepler and his contemporaries. The work on the edition in front of us is enormous. A small part of it has been assured by delegating certain parts to temporary expert assistants, but as a decisively heavy task remains the work on certain items of the estate, such as fragmentary essays, drafts, reports, etc., as also on the extensive chronological material, the Astrologica, etc. Further below I shall mention another big task. But first of all we must t r y to improve the present disquietening state that for the final direction of the edition no sufficiently experienced successor appears to be available at present. I t sounds like a joke, in view of this dangerous situation which existed from the very beginning, that the Deutsche Forsehungsgemeinschaft of the time (1935) stipulated, on the suggestion of a well-known mathematician, that the whole Kepler edition be rendered bi-lingual, i.e. that the German translation should be attached to all Latin works. Max Caspar, as the director, was at great pains to prevent this deadly attack, but this was not possible without making concessions. I t was agreed that the place of translation should be taken, for the benefit of non-humanistically trained people, by critically annotated descriptions of the contents. The commentaries, enlarged in this way, which we call the "Nachberichte ", have in the meantime found a good reception, and have become a characteristic of the Kepler edition. Whether they are an example which calls for imitation, as has sometimes been said, should be considered more thoroughly; in any case they hamper the speed of output of successive volumes. I do not wish to go further into this point, since I have to make another remark about a further difficulty of our edition. The value in the use of a good edition certainly depends also on the completeness of the texts and of their correct reproduction. Probably still more, however, on the possibility of being able to activate the assembled wealth at any time. The instrument for doing so is a good index, without which an edition cannot be of the fullest use. I shall not go here into questions of principle, which would warrant a special essay: I mean discussions whether name-, place-, and subject-index should be separated or united; whether the subject-index should be a collection of characteristic words, or whether it should rather be constructed systematically; whether the correspondence requires an index by itself, etc. I only wish to report that, as far as the Kepler edition is concerned, the lack of scientific collaborators, perhaps coupled with the well-known reluctance to embark on index work, has led to a very difficult situation.
264
Problems and Difficulties in Editing Kepler's Collected Works
We have earmarked for our edition volume 24 as a special index volume. For reasons of economy--still more, however, because nobody knows the terminology, meaning and content of a paper better than the particular editor--the register should actually grow as the edition grows, so that it could serve as a working tool. Unfortunately, this is not the case in our edition. There exist name-indices for single volumes; these are at the moment combined by an assistant to form a total register of the published fifteen volumes, and at the same time they are also combined with the place-index. Completely lacking, however, is still the most important subject-index. Thus in our work we have to r e l y - - t o begin w i t h - - o n our memory, on the index of the Friseh edition, and on some other auxiliary tools. The necessity to remove this regrettable difficulty is receiving the attention of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences.
HAMMER
Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Kepler Research Centre, Weil-der-Stadt, Germany
SUMMARY
A survey is presented of the problems and difficulties involved in the new edition of Kepler's work, which aims at far-reaching completeness. I t was initiated in 1937 by the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and the Deutsche l~orschungsgemeinschaft, and by now the first 15 volumes have been completed. The older edition, published by Chr. Frisch in 8 volumes during the period 1858-71, unfortunately became rather out-of-date only 40 years after it appeared. To ensure a longer life for the new edition, and to avoid the mistakes inherent in Frisch's edition, three complexes of problems had to be considered: firstly, the completeness, correctness and arrangement of the texts; secondly, the structure of the new books; and, thirdly, the editorial apparatus. The difficulties involved in the collection of the material, the printed as well as the manuscript works, is now very much reduced thanks to Frisch's extensive preliminary work. There remained essentially only the ~lling of certain gaps and work on localizing material. On the other hand, the finding of suitable collaborators was a major problem from the very beginning. The sad gap caused by the death of Max Caspar in 1956 has not yet been filled. Here we recall that it is especially the edition of the supplementary notes and commentaries (the so-called "Nachberichte"), which are intended as a replacement of translations, that make particularly heavy demands on the editor. Finally, there is the problem of how to minimize the difference in outlook between author and editor, which has such unfortunate consequences for the life4ime of an edition. We also mention the language problem: Kepler and his contemporaries wrote their works in the unified language of scholars. Editions should, however, even more than the originals, be addressed to the whole world.
Ww MUST first m e n t i o n w i t h a p p r e c i a t i o n t h e o l d e r e d i t i o n of t h e Opera Omnia Joaiznls Kepleri in e i g h t volumes, c a r r i e d o u t in 1858-71 b y Chr. Frisch. W e recall, however: t h a t a l r e a d y 30 y e a r s a f t e r its c o m p l e t i o n i t a p p e a r e d r a t h e r o u t - o f - d a t e because of technical a n d f o r m a l reasons i n h e r e n t in this edition, p a r t i c u l a r l y as c o m p a r e d with t h e Galileo e d i t i o n of A. F a v a r o . Nevertheless, i t has k e p t its value as a p r e l i m i u a r y basis of t h e n e w edition, i n i t i a t e d b y W . v. D y c k . I n p a r t i c u l a r , F r i s c h succeeded in collecting all t h e p r i n t e d w o r k of K e p l e r w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of a few r a t h e r small a n d v e r y r a r e l y o b t a i n a b l e p a p e r s . H e was less successful in this r e l a t i v e completeness as far as m a n u s c r i p t s were concerned. W . v. D y e k , t h e o r i g i n a t o r of t h e new e d i t i o n - - w h i c h has a p p e a r e d since 1937 a n d has in t h e m e a n t i m e r e a c h e d 15 volumes, in spite of t h e g r e a t difficulty b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e w a r - - w a s himself a v e r y keen K e p l e r researcher, who succeeded in m a k i n g several b e a u t i ful finds. I t was as e a r l y as 1914 t h a t he d e m o n s t r a t e d a t a Viennese m e e t i n g of t h e " V e r b a n d d e u t s c h e r wissensehaftlieher K S r p e r s e h a f t e n " t h e necessity of such a new edition, p o i n t i n g o u t t h e m a t e r i a l a n d f o r m a l i n a d e q u a c y of t h e F r i s c h edition. M a y I s a y h e r e i m m e d i a t e l y , t h a t i t was j u s t t h e f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e of our e d i t i o n - - t y p e , size, p a p e r , c o v e r - - w h i c h b e c a m e t h e s u b j e c t of m a n y considerations a n d tests. T h e impression a n a u t h o r m a k e s on one, t h e s y m p a t h y or a n t i p a t h y he arouses, are d e t e r m i n e d b y such extern a l effects far m o r e t h a n is n o r m a l l y realized. 261
262
Problems and Difficultiea in Editing Kepler's Collected Works
The preparatory work by Dyek, which started soon after the end of the first world war and of the subsequent period of inflation, was first of all directed towards the completion of the text, but also aimed at the creation of a team of independent collaborators to whom the responsible edition of single volumes or themes could be entrusted. The weak link in Frisch's work concerns the manuscripts. No doubt he had read an astonishing amount, but he had left too many gaps. Kepler's correspondence was subdivided by him according to factual points of view and was thus hopelessly scattered. Dyck therefore saw no other way out than to attack Kepler's estate quite afresh; he aimed to reproduce photographically the widely scattered Kepleriana which, as is known from literary and other sources, are practically without exception in fixed hands: that is, to reproduce not only the actual autographs, but also all those manuscripts which refer to Kepler and are of documentary value. These manuscripts had to be supplemented, according to Dyck's plan, by, e.g., the comprehensive files in Oxford which deal with the disagreements (concerning questions of estate) with his step-daughter Regina. On the other hand, the files dealing with an accusation of witchcraft against Kepler's m o t h e r - which Frisch had published on more than 200 pages of volume 8, and not even then comp l e t e l y - w e r e excluded. In the meantime the delicate question of whether these files should be included in the " D o k u m e n t e n b a n d " , which is planned in analogy to the Galileo edition, has been decided negatively. They will have to go into another publication which will have to analyse (using methods of legal history) the proceedings of this process which influenced Kepler's life so deeply. His own letters to the Herzog of Wiirttemberg, written in this connection, have been earmarked (probably not quite justifiably) for volume 18, to be included amongst the letters in general. The most important preliminary basis for the success of Dyck's plan was the readiness of the Soviet Government to send the volumes of Kepler's manuscripts, which were kept at Pulkovo and which made up by far the greatest part of the total estate, to Munich for reproduction. On this occasion the regrettable fact was revealed that since the days of Frisch, who at the time had also received these volumes for copying in Stuttgart, a certain not quite determinable number of sheets had been lost. To quote an example: from the Self-Analysis of Kepler of the year 1597--an unfinished document of inestimable import a n c e - w h i c h Frisch printed in volume V, pages 476-83, though it has not at any time been translated as a whole, no less than four sheets, or eight pages, have disappeared. This manuscript action will never come to a final end, since small finds will occur over and over again; it appears, however, that the hope of future large-scale finds must be abandoned. The 15,000 photo-copies, appro~mately, which this collection now includes, therefore represent a reliable working tool, such as can hardly be available for any other edition. Quite naturally a Kepler Archive will grow around this foundation. The situation as far as the printed papers of Kepler were concerned was simpler. Here, I have already mentioned that Frisch did good work. What has been found since is relatively little: a few Prognostica, poems and, more important than these, two small theological papers. In order to find any still hidden prints, and to localize at the same time all the existing copies of all of Kepler's papers, Dyck circulated a questionnaire of seven pages with detailed bibliographical notes to all German and Austrian libraries. The restriction to these two countries was essentially correct; amongst the non-German libraries only one had to report a possession. This was the library of the former Austrian Archive in Ljubljana (Laibach), in which a Prognosticum by Kepler was recently found which had been unknown hitherto. I t was, however, somewhat surprising that the libraries which were asked for information were unable to report any finds outside already known materials; it was only in 1950 that such a find was reported from Tfibingen.This seems to corroborate
F~z
H*~
263
the impression t h a t w e n o w possess the print~l papers of Kepler as completely as possible.
Moreover, the questionnaire formed the basis for the Bibliographia Kepleriana by Max Caspar (Munich, 1936). Dyck's personal effort to create a team of co-workers was less successful. I do not know more about his original ideas of the size of such a team of collaborators, but at the time of his death in 1934, which was still before the beginning of the actual work, it was certainly smaller than Dyck had anticipated. Up to this date he had only found two co.workers who were wholly or partly free for this task: Max Caspar, who was already well-known for his Kepler translations and was predestined to become the successor of Dyck, and myself, who was however for many years only at his disposal for half of each day. This was certainly a very narrow basis on which to build the new Kepler edition. In the subsequent years this has not increased, on the contrary it was further reduced in 1956 by Caspar's death. One may certainly blame the particular conditions in Germany for this regrettable state, and one can also doubt whether in his search Dyck had exhausted all possibilities; the most important reason, however, is undoubtedly a fact that has been regretted everywhere, namely, that the knowledge of Latin is seriously dying out, even in the circles of historically-interested natural scientists. The Natural Science of former centuries is, however, essentially Latin, and predominently so in the case of Kepler and his contemporaries. The work on the edition in front of us is enormous. A small part of it has been assured by delegating certain parts to temporary expert assistants, but as a decisively heavy task remains the work on certain items of the estate, such as fragmentary essays, drafts, reports, etc., as also on the extensive chronological material, the Astrologica, etc. Further below I shall mention another big task. But first of all we must t r y to improve the present disquietening state that for the final direction of the edition no sufficiently experienced successor appears to be available at present. I t sounds like a joke, in view of this dangerous situation which existed from the very beginning, that the Deutsche Forsehungsgemeinschaft of the time (1935) stipulated, on the suggestion of a well-known mathematician, that the whole Kepler edition be rendered bi-lingual, i.e. that the German translation should be attached to all Latin works. Max Caspar, as the director, was at great pains to prevent this deadly attack, but this was not possible without making concessions. I t was agreed that the place of translation should be taken, for the benefit of non-humanistically trained people, by critically annotated descriptions of the contents. The commentaries, enlarged in this way, which we call the "Nachberichte ", have in the meantime found a good reception, and have become a characteristic of the Kepler edition. Whether they are an example which calls for imitation, as has sometimes been said, should be considered more thoroughly; in any case they hamper the speed of output of successive volumes. I do not wish to go further into this point, since I have to make another remark about a further difficulty of our edition. The value in the use of a good edition certainly depends also on the completeness of the texts and of their correct reproduction. Probably still more, however, on the possibility of being able to activate the assembled wealth at any time. The instrument for doing so is a good index, without which an edition cannot be of the fullest use. I shall not go here into questions of principle, which would warrant a special essay: I mean discussions whether name-, place-, and subject-index should be separated or united; whether the subject-index should be a collection of characteristic words, or whether it should rather be constructed systematically; whether the correspondence requires an index by itself, etc. I only wish to report that, as far as the Kepler edition is concerned, the lack of scientific collaborators, perhaps coupled with the well-known reluctance to embark on index work, has led to a very difficult situation.
264
Problems and Difficulties in Editing Kepler's Collected Works
We have earmarked for our edition volume 24 as a special index volume. For reasons of economy--still more, however, because nobody knows the terminology, meaning and content of a paper better than the particular editor--the register should actually grow as the edition grows, so that it could serve as a working tool. Unfortunately, this is not the case in our edition. There exist name-indices for single volumes; these are at the moment combined by an assistant to form a total register of the published fifteen volumes, and at the same time they are also combined with the place-index. Completely lacking, however, is still the most important subject-index. Thus in our work we have to r e l y - - t o begin w i t h - - o n our memory, on the index of the Friseh edition, and on some other auxiliary tools. The necessity to remove this regrettable difficulty is receiving the attention of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences.