Maria Cunitz, the greatest astronomer between Kepler and Huygens.

It remains here to forestall suspicion, for some will ask why it is that against the custom of all expert practitioners I have written the introduction in a two-fold idiom; and it will be suspected (for men are prone to suspicion) that either through eagerness for novelty or display of Latinity I seek after a little empty glory. To these I answer that I have done this neither heedlessly nor without careful thought, but persuaded by the encouragement of two weighty authorities, of which the first is LOVE OF FATHERLAND, the other NECESSITY itself. I believe it is unknown to no one that the German Nation abounds in those of abilities suited to astronomical practice although often lacking knowledge of Latin, to whom I do not see by what pretense of duty I, being of the German Nation, could refuse or take away the benefit of my labors since it is agreed by the opinion of foreigners also that the Fatherland claims a great part of our labors as its own. And we see that most other Nations publish their writings, in particular their discoveries, in the vernacular idiom familiar to them (German: in ihrer Muttersprache). But because this work, in as much as it is intended for the universal improvement of the republic of letters, should also be imparted to other nations not proficient in our idiom, necessity itself ordained to entrust this introduction to the Latin language as being more universal and familiar to most Nations. In addition, it is also to be feared, lest perhaps kidnappers (plagiarii)—for by the wickedness of our age such shamelessness has come about that very many are found who have no scruples to translate works of some note into another language, with the authors not knowing, not consulted, not willing, rather with their names entirely suppressed, and maliciously take credit for themselves—seizing this opportunity for conveyance in the open market of their own desire, ambition, and arrogance, expose for sale, enveloped in a veil of Latinity, this my authentic progeny, honorably and freely born and raised.-- Maria Cunitz’s Beneficent Urania (1650) translated by N.M. Swerdlow (2012), Urania Propitia, Tabulae Rudophinae faciles redditae a Maria Cunitia Beneficent Urania, the Adaptation of the Rudolphine Tables by Maria Cunitz 86-7.

Editing volumes can be ungrateful work; one is at the mercy of the often deplorable time-conscientiousness of others, and one must pray for their generosity in sharing their best work. One also relies on their integrity; I have had senior scholars recycle material from earlier publications without mention. But one of its great joys is learning the unexpected in nearby areas of scholarship. While editing a draft-paper by Rhonda Martens, "Newton's Introduction to Astronomy," on the significance of early Kepler (for the forthcoming Oxford Handbook to Isaac Newton, co-edited with Chris Smeenk). Martens writes: "Kepler's second law in particular was generally avoided by astronomers before Newton's Principia. Maria Cunitz (c.1604-­‐1664)5...approved of Kepler's work but used alternatives to Kepler's second law." The accompanying footnote reads: "Maria Cunitz is notable not only for her excellent tables, but also for achieving recognition despite her gender. Swerdlow (2012) has an excellent chapter on her." Made curious by Martens' comment and knowing from personal experience that Noel Swerdlow doesn't suffer fools lightly, I asked Swerdlow to send me his paper.

Swerdlow's work is a labor of love. Against eighteenth century judgments, his first sentence leaves no doubt of his estimation: "Maria Cunitz’s Beneficent Urania, published in 1650, has the distinction of being the earliest surviving scientific work by a woman on the highest technical level of its age, for its purpose was to provide solutions to difficulties in the most advanced science of the age, the mathematical astronomy of Kepler’s Rudolphine Tables." A claim Swerdlow later reiterates, and then adds: "no contemporary was more accomplished in mathematical astronomy, and as such, she and her work are of enduring interest, of enduring importance, to the history of science." (93) Swerdlow devotes most of the chapter explaining her contributions and, along the way, offers subtle evidence that she was almost certainly a Copernican.

 

According to contemporaries, Cunitz spoke seven languages fluently. Sadly, most of her papers were destroyed in a fire near the end of her life, so we do not have much evidence of her wider interests in astrology and natural philosophy (see here for an intro). Above I have quoted Swerdlow's translation of part of Cunitz's explanation for why she published her work in both German and in Latin (here's the Latin). She presents herself as being simultaneously a true patriot and a philanthropist to mankind ("universal improvement of the republic of letters"). Interestingly enough, she understands her patriotism in terms of a universally accepted, partial property right of the nation in her scientific labor ("the Fatherland claims a great part of our labors as its own.")* This is also poignant because she herself suffered greatly from the religious civil wars tearing Germany apart during this period (as noted in this Dutch eighteenth century encyclopedia).

In fact, more base property rights also play a role in her consideration. By publishing her work in two languages she reduces the opportunity for the theft of her work by commercial and intellectual opportunists. 

While the work is a major contribution to (observational and mathematical) astronomy, one of its purposes is the improvement of astrology (a family business in addition to medicine). For, while Luther had frowned on astrology, it remained part of astronomical practice throughout the Protestant German speaking world. That is to say, Cunitz wishes to be useful not just the very learned but also the more common, skilled Germans, who could calculate their fate.

 

*Given that there is no German state, it is worth reflecting on how she conceives of the ground of this claim.

Comments

[Jackie Taylor]

Hello Eric
This book sounds great. Thanks for the new discovery. Will you have a chapter on du Chatelet?

[Eric Schliesser]

Hi Jacky, I am not actively doing research on Du Chatelet. (Are you?) Karen Detlefsen is preparing a chapter on her for the OUP volume, so keep tuned!