Ahead of her talk exploring Tycho Brahe and the restoration of Astronomy on Fri 3 October at 7:30 pm – 9:00 pm BST, we asked Dr Emma Perkins of the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge, to respond to some questions on the topic.

1. Could you tell us briefly who Tycho was and when and where he lived?

Tycho Brahe was a sixteenth-century Danish nobleman who defied the expectations of his family to become an astronomer. Funded by the Danish king, he built an observatory on the island of Hven where he conducted a systematic programme of observation that set a new standard for astronomy. This project yielded data of unprecedented accuracy, from which Johannes Kepler would go on to derive his laws of planetary motion.

2.     What aspects of knowledge from classical Antiquity did he believe he was recovering?

Tycho believed that astronomy had been in a state of decline since antiquity. Though Copernicus had gone some way to remedy the situation, Tycho fundamentally disagreed with his heliocentric world system. Not only had astronomy reached a higher level of perfection in the past, but it was also better funded and supported by statesmen and rulers; this allowed astronomers more freedom and better access to facilities and technology. Tycho thus conceived of his project as a restoration of astronomy, rather than especially new or innovative.

3. Was he aware of astronomical knowledge from other Ancient cultures e.g. Arabic and Indian sources?

Though he was deeply immersed in European astronomical traditions, there is no strong evidence that Tycho was influenced by other astronomical traditions (though he was certainly familiar with European astronomers that were – Copernicus, for one). That said, Islamic astronomy had begun to inform European traditions from the late medieval period, so there was undoubtedly some indirect influence. Tycho also singled out Al-Battani (9th–10th century CE) as a noteworthy predecessor, demonstrating awareness of non-European achievements. 

4. How does his approach reflect (or diverge from) broader Renaissance trends in restoring classical knowledge?

Unlike the philological approach of the humanists, Tycho turned to direct empirical observation to restore the discipline of astronomy. This was encouraged by the discrepancy he noticed between observed celestial events and those predicted by existing astronomical tables. Though this empirical approach appears rather ‘modern’, Tycho was in fact emulating the practices, as he recognised them, of ancient astronomers who had devised numerous instruments to diligently observe the stars.

5. Should we see him primarily as a scholar who looked back to the past rather than an early modern scientist?

The term ‘scientist’ is always problematic when applied to practitioners of the Renaissance, but I think we should see Tycho as a figure at the interstices of the old and the new. On the one hand, his was a project of renewal and restoration, and he presented himself as the most recent in a long lineage of illustrious astronomers stretching back to antiquity. Yet he also saw himself as going beyond his predecessors in many ways; his innovative instruments, for example, enabled him to improve upon past observations. The self-styling of himself and his contemporaries as ‘second Ptolemys’ illustrate how they framed their achievements with reference to the past, even while promoting their own skill and expertise.   

Is there anything else you would like to add?

Though Tycho is renowned for his astronomical achievements, he pursued this alongside other scholarly interests including astrology, poetry, and alchemy (which he referred to as ‘terrestrial astronomy’). These activities were all part of a wider effort to understand a world he understood as imbued with hidden connections. Although his science seems rather ‘modern’ in many aspects, he was pursuing it for very different reasons than we might expect today.

To Book for this event, click this link.