Search

Distortion of Scientific Terms by Supposed Modernizing Translations: The Example 'orbis' (sphere)/'orbita' (orbit). The use of modern terminology and thinking hinders to understand historic astronomical and physical texts and often misleads the reader, because between celestial physics from Aristotle and Ptolemy to Copernic on the one side and since Kepler and Newton on the other side a fundamental change of paradigm had taken place. The former started from the assumption that planets are indirectly moved by large equally rotating etherical spheres combined with each other to form every kind of unequally apparent planetary motion as a resultant, whereas the later started from Kepler's idea that every motion of a planet is directly caused by two forces moulding his (naturally unequal) 'orbit'. 'orbita' was Kepler's new specific term for the way of the planet coined in late 1604; in contrast, the Latin term of the elder paradigm has been 'orbis' ('sphere'), on the one hand as concentric 'orbis totalis' of a planet (or the fixed stars), on the other hand as non-concentric 'orbes particulares' (of the eccenters and epicycles) within the space of an 'orbis totalis'. These terms were interpreted and translated in accordance with modern dynamic (as the supposed 'true') thinking as if they were 'orbits' (German: 'Bahn'). But you cannot bring the two paradigms into line. As a result, the texts of seemingly 'modern' translations become incomprehensible, absurd and wrong. The study shows this on thinking (1st ) about Aristotelian physics of former times using terms and ideas of modern dynamics, and on thinking (2nd ) about the former explanation of apparent motions of heavenly bodies using these dynamics and ignoring the different special Aristotelian and Ptolemaic physics of 'orbes' (spheres).

Analysing all the surviving reports and mentions of the supposed unicorn discovered in the year 1663 near Quedlinburg, this paper replies to the question: "Who reconstructed the skeleton of the unicorn from a find of bones, O. von Guericke or G. W. Leibniz?" and diagnoses that neither of them did so. The author of the first report with a figure was Johannes Meyer, astronomer and treasurer of the Abbes Superior of Quedlinburg; and his German text had been translated by both partly in different ways (Guericke's Experimenta nova, printed in 1672 and used by Leibniz; Leibniz's Protogaea, first printed posthumously in 1749). Discovery, excavation, salvage and reconstruction of the unicorn were ascribed to Guericke only by Othenio Abel (for the first time in 1918 and thereafter on many occasions) without indicating any source for that. His story of the supposed discovery since then has been embellished with a lot of imagination further and further. However, Leibniz himself wrote in his Protogaea, that a figure of the unicorn skeleton (which Guericke does not reproduce) had been sent to him together with a report (by J. Meyer from Quedlinburg); and this figure he and his engraver Nicholas Seeländer 'corrected' and completed in accordance with their own imagination of a unicorn's build in 1716 to illustrate the Protogaea (M. B. Valentini printed a copy of Meyer's original in 1704).

es ist fur mich an der Zeit, ein Wort des Dankes zu sagen. Dieser gebuhrt in erster Linie zwei Personenkreisen: unseren Autoren und unseren Gutachtern. Sie, liebe Autoren und Co-Autoren, sind zu allererst zu nennen. Sie haben durch die Qualitat Ihrer Artikel den Grundstein gelegt, aber auch die vielen bei diesem doppelblinden Reviewverfahren im Dunkeln bleibenden Gutachter haben sich um den Aufstieg der Phlebologie verdient gemacht. Erst dank dieses Zusammenspiels wurden viele Manuskripte optimiert und auf den hohen Level gebracht, der das internationale Renommee unserer Zeitschrift mittlerweile begrundet. Am Ende haben alle profitiert: die Phlebologie, ihre Leser und auch Sie, liebe Autoren und Autorinnen. Auch wenn es manchmal entnervend sein mag, wenn ein Teil des eigenen Manuskripts von einem Gutachter „in Stucke gerissen oder einfach nur nicht so akzeptiert wird, wie es war“, am Ende ist es genau dieser Garungsund Klarungsprozess, der die gleichbleibend hohe Qualitat erzeugt, die im gunstigsten Falle auch durch einen Anstieg des Impact-Faktors fur alle sichtbar belohnt wird. Wie bei einem Baum die unterirdischen Wurzeln die Entfaltung von Stamm, Blattern, Bluten und Fruchten ermoglichen, so haben sich unsere uber 60 verborgenen Gutachter, die sich aus allen interdisziplinaren Feldern des breiten Spektrums der Phlebologie rekrutieren, in rein ehrenamtlicher Weise verdient gemacht. Lassen Sie mich Ihnen, liebe Reviewer, die Sie niemals zu einer einzigen Arbeit namentlich genannt werden konnten, an dieser Stelle gesondert danken. Sie haben in hohem Mase zu der Aufwartsentwicklung des Impact-Faktors beigetragen. Mir ist es eine auserordentliche Freude, Ihnen anlasslich dieser Kongressausgabe unseres wissenschaftlichen Journals mitteilen zu konnen, dass der Impact-Faktor der Phlebologie1 erneut gestiegen ist. In dem kurzen Zeitraum, in dem unser Organ von dem renommierten Institute for Scientific Information2 (ISI) bewertet wird, hat es bereits den Wert von 1 uberstiegen. Der Impact-Faktor der Phlebologie fur das Jahr 2004 betragt 1,1. Die Abbildung 1 verdeutlicht die zeitliche Entwicklung. Der Aufstieg ist umso bemerkenswerter, als unser – zwar durchaus auch Englisch – uberwiegend aber Deutsch publizierendes Journal damit an der Spitze aller nicht rein englischen Publikationsorgane liegt und namhafte gleichartig gemischte oder rein englischsprachige Mitbewerber auf der internationalen Buhne uberrunden konnte. Details entnehmen Sie bitte der Tabelle 1. Den nicht wenigen dermatologischen Autoren und Lesern unserer Zeitschrift sei angemerkt, dass der „Hautarzt“ im Jahre 2004 einen Impact-Faktor von 0,4613 erhielt. So viel zur eigenen Standortbestimmung. Wenn ich mich mit dieser Ausgabe unserer Zeitschrift nach zwolf Jahren ehrenamtlicher Tatigkeit als wissenschaftlicher Hauptschriftleiter von dieser Position, die mir stets groste Freude bereitet hat, verabschiede und wieder in den Leserund Autorenkreis einreihen mochte, dann kehre ich zu denen zuruck, die eigentlich die wahren Trager der Phlebologie sind, und das macht mich glucklich und still. Es ist deshalb muProfessor Dr. med. Ulrich Schultz-Ehrenburg mit Christel Henke aus dem Editorial-Office der Phlebologie bei der Eroffnung seiner neuen Berliner Praxis im Jahre 2002 Editorial

Pharmacy serving to propagate the Lutherian doctrine of justification: "Christus as a pharmacist" is an interconfessional, but confessionally differentiated symbolic motif (Sinnbildmotiv) of Christian folklore art in German-speaking countries. The article investigates the sociocultural conditions and prerequisites (German bible translation, religion and confession, piety, pharmacy, chymiatry, chemistry, apothecary training and status) for transfering the old metaphor and idea of Christ as a physician to the new vision of Christ as a apothecary who prepares and dispenses his heavenly medicine all by himself. In the early 17th century (especially in the 1610's) these requirements were fulfilled, so that the oldest known witness to this motif transfer (picturing the so-called Heilandsruf of Matthew 11, 28), a genre picture of 1619, will be the first pictural version of this motif in general. It was created by the protestant Painter Mich(a)el Herr of Nuremberg. In the abstract and reduced form of a devotional picture this motif then became widespread in churches and vicarages, in monasteries and their apothecaries as well as in private houses (with small altars: Herrgottswinkel). The oldest yet known examples are works from around 1630. For the first time during the Thirty Year's War, it served in this form for propagating the Lutherian justification doctrine (now referring to Jesaja 55, 1), saying that the belief in Christ is enough to be released from all sins (sola fide). Around 1650, as a reaction to that, a catholic version of the devotional picture was created, claiming and picturing that in contrast eucharist is the highest and real, healing medium' of Christ to redemption. All pictures of this version avoid quoting Jesaja 55, 1, whereas all protestant pictures quote this verse from the Bible word-for-word.

Regarding his world view and his heaviness theory Nicolaus Cusanus is imputed to having used (at least to some extent) forebodings and anticipations of modern conceptions. In the dialog Idiota de staticis experimentis he imputed the quantitative points of view of modern physics programmatically. In contrast with this, this article will show that the quantitative point of view is proposed for an inapt object at least. Cusanus based his reflections on one hand on the Aristotelic theories of elements and their heaviness with ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ weight (only thus, assumed inconsistencies can be explained), on the other hand he wants to determine the essential, qualitative properties of the forma, while only their complete abstraction by reduction on the mass without properties should result in an object for comparative weighings — lately in different ways by Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton. The putative modernness of cusanian conceptions compared with Aristotle are based on the tradition of platonian and stoic modifications which sooner were compatible with christian ideas.

The article deals with an aspect of the famous German chemist Robert Bunsen which has not been of much notice so far: his journeys. During his stay in Heidelberg (from 1852 on) Bunsen journeyed up to four months a year. Up to the age of seventy-eight, he travelled twice almost every year either in spring or autumn when there were no lectures at the university. He made his journeys for reasons of pleasure and in need of rest from teaching and research. In the 19 th century such frequency of travelling was quite unusual even for a bachelor like Bunsen. Beeing an enthusiastic wayfarer Bunsen also travelled far away often, so for example to Italy twelve times (even to Sicily), four times to Scotland and England, and twice to Mallorca. - Bunsen's first nine week journey to Italy in 1843 disappointed him as to its scientific outcome. This journey was a turning-point since he had travelled before for scientific purposes only, beginning with the postdoctoral trip which Bunsen took 1831/32 (sponsored by his sovereign, the king of Hannover) to Berlin, Paris and Vienna for education and information matters. The article sets this journey as well as subsequent travels focusing on science (information, professional communication, experimental team-work) in the framework of continuing academic training. In the end of the 18 th and in the 19 th century such journeys for further academic education were mainly done at public expense by chemists and geologists as well as by mining and steel scientists to prepare and qualify themselves as either university professors or administrators for mining metallurgical industry. All these various forms of travelling (postdoctoral educational travels at public expense, scientific journeys, meetings for experimental team-work, expeditions, and recreational trips) served the communication within the scientific community. No one who wanted to belong to this community was able to escape such form of communication.

L'A. mesure le poids de l'heritage antique dans le developpement historique de la science de la nature sous la Renaissance, a travers l'exemple de la Revolution copernicienne. L'A. met en evidence la dette de Copernic envers l'astronomie ancienne, d'Anaximandre a Ptolemee, qui pose les premiers principes de cosmographie ( representation geocentrique, systeme du deferent et de l'epicycle, notion de l'ecliptique et de la rotation de la terre...) En ce sens, Copernic apparait plus comme le restaurateur de l'astronomie ancienne que l'inventeur d'une ere scientifique nouvelle

The question whether there exists an interaction between ‘science’ (foreign text ignored) and ‘technology’ (foreign text ignored, esp. foreign text ignored) in Greek and Roman antiquity is discussed controversially until today. Especially representatives of the philologies strictly deny any form of relation, whereas modern scientists tend to take for granted that the current interaction between (exact) natural sciences and technology has always existed, at least since the beginning of real natural science founded by the ancient Greeks. This paper shows that both parties are right — at least in a certain way. Following current terminology and contents of ‘science’ and ‘technology’ there had been such an interaction — particularly with mathematics as linking element in so far as in antiquity especially foreign text ignored (mechanics) was regarded as applied mathematics and not as science. The strong interaction between pure mathematics and such fields of applied mathematics (namely mechanical technology) based on the fact that technological (mechanical) artefacts were properly constructed mathematically. Some of them are mentioned in this paper (astrolabes and sundials, waterclocks, tools and machines — especially lifting gears, bucket elevators, guns, pneumatic tools —, architecture of temples); in so far the supporters of an interaction between science and technology are right. However, the post-Aristotelian Greeks and Romans did not consider mathematics to be part of ‘science (of nature)’ as the post-kantian exact scientists do. Mathematics to them was a mere ‘art’ — consequently, in the mentioned cases there had been an interaction between ‘arts’ and of course not between ‘science’ and ‘art’ (technology); and in so far those are right who deny an interaction between natural science and technology. This shows that the contrariety of the answers to the question depends on the different terminology chosen. Following the current understanding of ‘exact natural science’ the answer is: yes; following the conception of ‘science’ in the self-understanding of Greek and Roman antiquity the answer is: no — and this is right as well! The reason for this apparent contrariety are just the different meanings and contents of ‘science (of nature)’ in antiquity and modern times.

The paper presents biographical data of a total of 84 medical students at the University of Marburg during the first two decades of the 17th century. Of these 73 studied between 1608 and 1620, however, when the faculty had a till now unnoticed flowering caused by a new beginning which centred on modern chymiatric medicine and made the Marburg University attractive especially for non-Hessian and foreign students of medicine. Apart from matricles and doctorates, the analysis focuses on sources of information relevant to the length of stay at the Marburg faculty. According to that the highest number of medical students in a single year, for instance, amounted to 27 and 28 in 1615 and 1616 respectively.

The number of medical students at the University of Marburg in the early 17th century was so far thought to amount scarcely to a handful, tending towards zero. In contrast to that, this paper identifies for the time from 1600 to 1620 80 students of medicine, 73 just for the twelve years from 1608 to 1620. Almost a third of these, 23, also received their doctorate in Marburg, whereas most of the others went to other universities for this purpose (Basel in particular) or ended their studies as a candidatus medicinae. The highest total number of students of a single year amounts to 28 in 1616. The reason for this rise to one of the most attractive medical faculties in the German-speaking countries was a completely new beginning with the professors Nicolaus Braun, Johannes Hartmann (till 1618), and Heinrich Petraeus (till 1620) following the vacancy of all three professorships of medicine. Of these professors Braun represented the traditional Galenic medicine, whereas Hartmann and Petraeus acted as academic protagonists of the modem chymiatria (the chemical, paracelsian or hermetic medicine), that they made their task to harmonize with the conventional medicine. To that purpose teaching was supplemented by Petraeus with a cleverly devised intensive system of disputing and responding of the college of Nosologia and by Hartmann with a practical training of the students in a chemical laboratory. The new kind of teaching attracted students from many other German and European countries, primarily from Silesia, whereas the number of local students from Hessia remained at its previous very low level.

The change from ancient and medieval to modern natural science, called Wende (instead of ‘revolution’), must be associated with the work of Johannes Kepler and not that of Nicolaus Copernicus. Copernicus merely showed the way, introducing heliocentricity as the order of the planets. This Wende resulted from the synthesis of several disciplines formerly isolated from each other, namely mathematical (i.e. hypothetical) astronomy, new physics, mathematical harmony, astrology, new physical optics, and natural theology. Whereas Copernicus united mathematical astronomy and peripatetic (Aristotelian) physics, Kepler was first to see the necessity for providing a physical explanation and an ontological foundation to the heliocentric system. He was the first to consider and measure the movement of the planets in depth. The elements for his new physics Kepler obtained not from newly observed data, but from a harmonic archetypus of the regular polyhedra fitted in between excentric planetary spheres. On the basis of this archetypus (which he considered to be God's model in creating the universe) he accepted the new heliocentric planetary system as a physical reality. That is why astronomy, by way of taking into account stereometric quantities, is, in Kepler's eyes, a kind of divine worship. Later, the best empirical data had also to be taken into consideration as a means of proving this a priori archetypus (Vorurteil, preconception). The result was, on the one hand, a universal natural science able to explain natural processes in grater abundance than ever before or since in the history of science. Although accepted only in parts, it resulted in founding a new natural science with adherent mathematical and empirical methods. It also led Kepler to establish, step by step, the elliptical path of the planets, thereby overcoming, for the first time, the two axioms of ancient astronomy, requiring uniform and circular planetary motion. It has been shown that this Keplerian Wende was possible only within the Historischen Erfahrungsraum (‘historical field of experience’) of Renaissance Humanism (cf. this Journal 9/1986, p. 201), which came about itself as the result of reactivating the scientific and philosophical thinking of the ancient Greeks and was accomplished by three steps (phases) relating to the revival of (1) original ancient writings, (2) the ancient knowledge of natural facts and data, and (3) the ancient scientific and philosophical ideas and mentalities (Drei-Phasen-Modell).

This condition has been stimulated by the latest study written by Fitz Krafft concerning the motif "Jesus Christ as a pharmacist", which was frequently used in Christian art. It is shown that this motif, fully developed in the first third of the 17th century, originated in the theology of Martin Luther.

Das die Spuren des allmachtigen Gottes sich in der Natur, vornehmlich jedoch in dem Riesenbau des Weltalls offenbaren, wird niemand leugnen. Insbesondere geht aus dem vorigen Buche, Kap. 20 u. folg. hervor : 1. Unbegreiflich ist die Entfernung der Himmelskorper, d. h. der Sonne, des Mondes und der ubrigen Planeten,und es steht fest, das einige von ihnen so ungeheuer gros sind, das sie nicht nur unsere Erde uberhaupt an Grose ubertreffen, sondern dies sogar um dasZehn-, Hundert- und noch viel Mehrfache tun. Denn welcher Sterbliche vermochte die Abmessungen unseres Erdballs sich vorzustellen oder zu begreifen, der einen Durchmesser von 1720, einen Halbmesser von 860 und einen Umfang von 5400 deutschen Meilen besitzt? Und doch ist er im Vergleich zur Sphare des ausersten Planeten, des Saturn, kaum erbsengros! Man kann also das Groosenverhaltins dieser Korper zueinander oder das ihrer Spharen zwar in Zahlen ausdrucken, aber durch keine masstabliche Zeichnung darstellen und wiedergeben.

Zum Schlus wollen wir eine Frage in Angriff nehmen, die an die Feinheit und Kraft des Denkens die allerhochsten Anforderungen stellt. Denn nirgends offenbart sich die Maj estat und Allmacht Gottes und die unergrundliche Tiefe seiner Schopfung gewaltiger als bei der Betrachtung der Entfernungen, der Vielzahl und der Riesengrosen dieser selbstleuchtenden Weltkorper, die auserhalb unseres Sonnensystems uber ungeheure, sie zugleich voneinander trennende Weiten verstreut sind.

Oben in Buch 2, Kap. 7, schrieben wir,das jedesErschaffene,vor allen Dingen die Weltkorper, aus seiner Stoffheit, seinem Leben und den ihm eigentumlichen Wirkkraften besteht.

Bevor wir mit einer A bhandlung uber den leeren Raum beginnen, in dem das ganze Weltgebaude sich befindet, der aber meist als ein besonderer Himmelsstoff aufgefast wird, wird es notig sein, in diesem ersten Buch um des leichteren Verstandnisses der spater zu behandelnden Fragenwillen etwas ausfuhrlicher darzulegen, was die Gelehrten und zumal die Himmelskundigen des Altertums wie der Neuzeit uber die Welt und die Verteilung, die Reihenfolge, den Lauf, die Entfernung und Grose der ihr zugehorigen Korper behaupten und urteilen.

Die Renaissance, von der die neuzeitliche Welt und neuzeitliche Naturwissenschaft ihren Ursprung und Anfang nahmen, war uber alle individuellen und nationalen Nuancen hinweg von einer einheitlichen Geisteshaltung gepragt gewesen, die keine grundsatzlich andersgerichtete natur- und technikbezogene Denkweise neben einer durch die Ruckbesinnung auf die Antike geleiteten christuch orientierten und von Kunst, Dichtung und Rhetorik gebildeten Vorstellungswelt kannte — insbesondere da auch ars als «Kunst» und ars als «Technik» noch eine haufig genug in einer Person reprasentierte Einheit darstellten.1