BRAHE, TYCHO

(b. Skåne, Denmark [later in Sweden], 14 December 1546; d. Prague, Czech Republic, 24 October 1601), astronomy. For the original article on Brahe see DSB, vol. 2.

Brahe’s contribution to the history of European science and culture appears far richer in the early 2000s than it did in 1970. Victor E. Thoren’s 1990 biography established a new starting point for understanding Tycho’s astronomy, whereas Peter Zeeberg showed how deeply Tycho was embedded in the humanist culture of the late Renaissance, and J. R. Christianson examined his patronage of scientists, technicians, artists, and natural philosophers who participated in his large-scale research and cultural projects. Many other scholars have presented new understandings of Tycho’s astronomy, cosmology, and natural philosophy. Tycho Brahe was a generous, courtly, but demanding aristocrat who was a theoretical astronomer of the first rank and founder of the first modern research institute, as well as the inventor of fundamental methods of observational science.

Humanist Influence. During the decade 1559 to 1570 that Tycho spent as a university student, studies that bore the imprint of the humanist reformer, Philipp Melanchthon shaped his outlook. In the Philippist curriculum of the Lutheran universities Tycho attended, students acquired an awareness of divine law by studying the laws placed by God in nature, because the”manifest footprints of God in nature” led onward to religious faith. Arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, astrology, geography (including cartography and chorography), anatomy, and botany were parts of this plan of study. The Philippist curriculum channeled Tycho Brahe’s strong personal interests in astronomy and astrology, and it resonated with his attraction to Paracelsian medicine. The urge to return ad fontes—to the sources of wisdom that lay within the natural world itself—energized these approaches. Lutheran theology, Hermetic philosophy, and millenial astrology all taught Tycho to strive for the instauration of a lost golden age, and he came to believe that active natural philosophy could help to achieve it. By the age of sixteen, he was convinced that the sources of wisdom in astronomy and astrology lay not in books but in the heavens themselves and that only precise observation could recover them. At the same time, he believed that knowledge of God’s laws discovered in nature must harmonize with the divine wisdom of the Bible.

Tycho Brahe had grown up in the circle of the Danish court. He returned to his native Denmark from studies abroad in 1570 and became a courtier in 1572. Around the same time, he fell in love with Kirsten Jørgensdatter (sometimes erroneously called Kristine Barbara). She was probably the daughter of a Lutheran pastor, but because she did not share his noble birth she was not acceptable at court. A wedding between an aristocrat and a commoner was illegal in sixteenth-century Denmark, but a common-law marriage was not. Tycho and Kirsten began living together in 1572, and the first of their eight children was born in September of 1573. They enjoyed a warm, harmonious marriage that lasted a lifetime.

Tycho was still a courtier when he observed the supernova of 1572. He discussed it with others at court, including the royal physician, Petrus Severinus; the French ambassador, Charles de Danzay, and his powerful uncle, Steward of the Realm Peder Oxe. They urged him to publish it, and he did so in 1573. Aristotelian physics denied that change could occur in the celestial spheres, but Severinus had just published a book on Paracelsus’s theory of semina, spiritual principles throughout the universe that give birth in their appointed times. This could explain how the birth of a new star might take place far beyond the Moon in the region of the stars. Tycho reported on the star’s astrological implications to King Frederik II. That winter, he lectured on astronomy in Copenhagen University, using Copernicus as his text-book—one of the first at any university to do so.

King Frederik was building “Hamlet’s Castle” at Kronborg in Elsinore to proclaim the power and splendor of the Danish realm at the very entrance to the Baltic Sea. Tycho traveled throughout Germany, Switzerland, and northern Italy in 1575. When he returned, he recommended various artists and artisans in Augsburg, Nürnberg, Hesse, and the Veneto for the Kronborg project. Landgrave William IV of Hesse-Cassel, whom Tycho had visited during his travels, sent a message to King Frederik, urging him to promote Tycho Brahe’s astronomy and natural philosophy for the benefit of humanity and the glory of the kingdom of Denmark. With this in mind, King Frederik on 11 February 1576 proposed to Tycho that he establish a royal Danish research center within sight of Elsinore on the island of Hven. The king intended it to be a place that would complement Kronborg Castle in contributing to the prestige of the kingdom. Tycho was astonished by the offer and accepted.

For the next twenty-one years, Tycho was given a free hand and extraordinary financial support to carry out research in astronomy, Paracelsian chemistry, and related subjects. The same artists and artisans who embellished Kronborg were also employed to make Uraniborg into a place of splendor. At Uraniborg, Tycho Brahe found innovative ways to integrate into an aristocratic lifestyle his far-ranging interests in astronomy, astrology, meteorology, mathematics, cosmology, cartography, chemistry, medicine, geodetic triangular surveying, hydraulic engineering, and a host of other fields including architecture, poetry, music, history, theology, and philosophy. Tycho’s collections of naturalia, scientific instruments, books, manuscripts, paintings, animated”Vitruvian” statues and other sculpture, his printing press and paper mill, botanical gardens and aviaries, the music and spirited conversation that filled his house, and his open-handed hospitality in entertaining kings, queens, princes, ambassadors, nobles, scholars, and artists from many lands became legendary. Tycho was a fine stylist of Latin poetry and prose who admired Ovid and Augustan classicism. His learned sister, Sophie Brahe, a genealogist, astrologer, and Paracelsian chemist, was a frequent guest.

Zeeberg has compared Tycho’s Uraniborg with Castiglione’s Urbino, the Platonic Academy of Medici Florence, and the circle of Erasmus and Thomas More in England as one of the most brilliant expressions of Renaissance culture. In short, Uraniborg fully achieved the aims of King Frederik when he commissioned Tycho Brahe to establish it.

Astronomical Instruments. Tycho’s instrumentation had been rather rudimentary when the supernova of 1572 appeared. By the time he saw his first comet in 1577, however, he could observe its altitude and azimuth with a quadrant that was a landmark because of its innovative features. Tycho fitted a large steel sextant with the same innovations and used it, as well as a cross-staff, to observe distances between the comet and nearby stars, frequently repeating the same observation with two instruments in order to compare results. In his persistent search for observational precision, Tycho Brahe gradually invented the modern rules of empirical evidence. As Thoren put it, nobody before Tycho

even catered to the ordinary rules of evidence, whereby several determinations of result would be deemed to provide more credibility than one or (rarely) two did. The problem with such redundancy, no doubt, was that it required concomitantly modern attitudes toward empirical data. The willingness to acknowledge error and the capacity to analyze its origins were the crux of Tycho’s concern for and success in the construction of instruments, so it is not surprising to see these attributes manifested in his handling of data. (Thoren, 1990, p. 137)

Tycho’s observations located both the supernova of 1572 and the comet of 1577 in celestial space above the Moon. This was contrary to Aristotelian physics, so Tycho and many of his contemporaries were compelled to reconsider the shape of the cosmos as a whole. In 1578, Tycho wrote a manuscript in German on the comet, not for publication but as a secret report to King Frederik II in his capacity as royal astrologer. He laid out the political effects that the comet foretold on Earth and included his astronomical and cosmological analysis as background. Tycho determined that the comet was located somewhere between the Moon and Venus and concluded that a separate cometary sphere occupied that space. He theorized that Mercury, Venus, and the comet revolved around the Sun, which in turn revolved around the Earth. When another comet appeared in 1580, Tycho assigned it to the same cometary sphere. That year, Paul Wittich visited Uraniborg and inspired Tycho to rethink his cosmology. In 1582, Tycho set out to observe Mars in opposition as a way to judge between the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, repeating these observations in 1585 and 1587 with superior instruments in Uraniborg and his new Stjerneborg observatory. He located the comet of 1585 very close to the Sun. This finally led Tycho to reject the

theory of solid celestial spheres, although he continued to believe that the celestial medium, aether, was a different element than terrestrial air. Once the spheres were out of the way, however, Tycho felt able to propound a new planetary theory in which orbits intersected, with all comets, planets, and the Moon revolving around the Sun, which in turn revolved around a stationary earth. Scholars still debate the role played in the development of Tycho’s theory by his competition with Nicolas Reimers Ursus and his exchanges with Paul Wittich and Christopher Roth-mann.

Tycho Brahe’s innovative skill as a theoretical astronomer was clearly demonstrated by Thoren’s analysis of his three major contributions to lunar theory. Thoren noted that Tycho’s discovery of the variation was “the first new astronomical phenomenon to be discovered since Ptolemy’s time.” Tycho went on to discover nutation, and finally, he deduced the existence of nodal oscillation. The “theoretical prediction of the existence of a previously unnoticed phenomenon,” Thoren noted, was “completely unprecedented” (Thoren, 1990, pp. 327, 333). He showed that Tycho’s solar theory was equally innovative, whereas Owen Gingerich and James Voelkel emphasized the importance of Mars in Tycho’s mature program of observation. These Mars observations later played an indispensible part in Kepler’s discovery of his laws of planetary motion.

Tycho Brahe’s organization of research on a large scale, involving centrally directed teams of scientists and technicians, scientific expeditions to gather data from distant locations, and collaboration with numerous other researchers across the face of Europe, was largely unprecedented. He used his aristocratic wealth, leadership ability, and social panache to solve classic problems in unprecedented ways with whole teams of scholars and technicians. As part of this process, Tycho personally taught his methods of observation and data reduction to numerous younger astronomers, including Johannes Kepler, Willebrord Snel, Paul Wittich, Simon Marius (Mayr), Duncan Liddel, David Fabricius of Resterhave (father of Johannes Fabricius), Johannes Müller of Berlin, Christian Sørensen Longomontanus, Adriaan Metius, and Christopher Roth-mann. Leading seventeenth-century cartographers, Willem Janszoon Blaeu and Arnold Floris van Langren, also worked as his assistants, and Tycho prepared the first Scandinavian map based on geodetic triangular surveying. Tycho corresponded with astronomers and princes across Europe and sent them copies of his published works.

Tycho was a lifelong proponent of aristocratic constitutional government, and this put him at odds with the absolutist ambitions of King Christian IV, who was crowned in 1596. Moreover, a powerful clique at Copenhagen University resented Tycho’s attracting their best students, and orthodox theologians opposed his Lutheran Philippism. These forces combined to drive Tycho into the voluntary exile from Denmark that eventually led to the court of Emperor Rudolf II and to his contact with Johannes Kepler.

Analysis of hairs preserved from Tycho’s beard revealed high levels of mercury, which probably stemmed from plague medicine that he administered to himself and may have contributed to his death. Unsubstantiated speculation that he was poisoned proved to be without credibility.

SUPPLEMENTARY BIBLIOGRAPHY

WORKS BY BRAHE

Christianson, John Robert. “Tycho Brahe’s Facts of Life.” Fund og Forskning i det kongelige biblioteks samlinger 17 (1970): 21–28.

———. “Addenda to Tycho Brahe Opera Omnia tomus XIV.” Centaurus 16 (1972): 231–247.

Zeeberg, Peter. Tycho Brahes “Urania Titani:” Et digt om Sophie Brahe. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1994. Tycho Brahe’s major Latin poem and the Renaissance culture of Uraniborg.

Hadravová, Alena, Petr Hadrava, and Jole R. Shackelford, trans. and eds. Tycho Brahe: Instruments of the Renewed Astronomy. Prague: Konaisch Latin Press, 1996.

Zeeberg, Peter. “The Inscriptions of Tycho Brahe’s Uraniborg.” In A History of Nordic Neo-Latin Literature. Edited by Minna Skafte Jensen. Odense, Denmark: Odense Universitetsforlag, 1996.

OTHER SOURCES

Blair, Ann. “Tycho Brahe’s Critique of Copernicus and the Copernican System.” Isis 51 (1990): 355–377.

Brosseder, Claudia. “The Writing in the Wittenberg Sky: Astrology in Sixteenth-Century Germany.” Journal of the History of Ideas 66 (2005): 557–576.

Christianson, John R. “Tycho Brahe’s German Treatise on the Comet of 1577: A Study in Science and Politics.” Isis 70 (1979): 110–140.

———. “Tycho Brahe in Scandinavian Scholarship.” History ofScience 36 (1998): 467–484.

———.On Tycho’s Island: Tycho Brahe and His Assistants, 1570–1601. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge, 2000. The abridged paperback edition (2003) has the subtitle, Tycho Brahe, Science, and Culture in the Sixteenth Century.

———. “The Legacy of Tycho Brahe.” Centaurus 44 (2002): 228–247.

Christianson, John Robert, Alena Hadravová, Petr Hadrava, et al., eds. Tycho Brahe and Prague: Crossroads of European Science, vol. 16, Acta Historica Astronomiae. Frankfurt am Main: Harri Deutsch, 2002. Twenty-six articles on Tycho.

Danneskiold-Samsøe, J. F. C. Muses and Patrons: Cultures ofNatural Philosophy in Seventeenth-Century Scandinavia, vol. 10,Ugglan Minervaserien. Lund, Sweden: Lunds Universitet, 2004.

Daussy, Hugues. “Un diplomat protestant au service d’un roi catholique: Charles de Danzay, ambassadeur de France au Danemark (1515–1589).” In Élites et notables de l’Ouest, XVIe-XXe siècle: Entre conservatisme et modernité, edited by Frédérique Pitou. Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires, 2004.

Frank, Günther, and Stefan Rhein, eds. Melanchthon und dieNaturwissenschaften seiner Zeit. Sigmaringen, Germany: Jan Thorbecke Verlag, 1998.

Gingerich, Owen. “Tycho Brahe and the Great Comet of 1577.” Sky and Telescope 54 (1977): 452–458.

———, and Robert S. Westman. The Wittich Connection:Conflict and Priority in Late Sixteenth-Century Cosmology. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1988. Tycho’s relationship with Paul Wittich.

———, and James R. Voelkel. “Tycho Brahe’s Copernican Campaign.”Journal for the History of Astronomy 29 (1998): 1–34.

Granada, Miguel A. “Did Tycho Eliminate the Celestial Spheres Before 1586?” Journal for the History of Astronomy 37 (2006): 125–145. Includes references to other literature on celestial spheres.

Grant, Edward. Planets, Stars, and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200–1687. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge, 1994.

Håkansson, Håkan. “Tycho the Apocalyptic: History, Prophecy and the Meaning of Natural Phenomena.” In Science in Contact at the Beginning of the Scientific Revolution, edited by Jitka Zamrzlová. Prague: National Technical Museum, 2004

———, ed. Tycho Brahe och Renässansen: Att låta själen flyga mellan himlens tinnar. Stockholm: Atlantis, 2006.

Haasbroek, N. D. Gemma Frisius, Tycho Brahe and Snellius andTheir Triangulations. Delft, The Netherlands: Rijkscommissie voor Geodesie, 1968.

Hannaway, Owen. “Laboratory Design and the Aim of Science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brahe.” Isis77 (1986): 585–610.

———. “Johan Gregor van der Schardt: Sculptor—and Architect.” Hafnia: Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art10 (1985): 147–164.

Honnens de Lichtenberg, Hanne. Johan Gregor van der Schardt:Bildhauer bei Kaiser Maximillian II, am dänischen Hof und bei Tycho Brahe. Translated from Danish by Georg Albrecht Mai. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1991.

———. “Tycho Brahe als Mäzen.” In Europa in Scandinavia:Kulturelle und soziale Dialoge in der frühen Neuzeit, vol. 2, Studia septemtrionalia, edited by Robert Bohn, 91–97. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 1994.

Howell, Kenneth J. God’s Two Books: Copernican Cosmology andBiblical Interpretation in Early Modern Science. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2002.

Jacobsen, Aase R., and Lars Petersen. “How Tycho Brahe Really Died.” Planetarium 30 (2001): 9–10.

Jardine, Nicholas. The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science:Kepler's A Defense of Tycho Against Ursus with Essays on Its Provenance and Significance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Jardine, Nicholas, Dieter Launert, Alain Segonds, et al. “Tycho v. Ursus: The Build-Up to a Trial, Part 1.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 36 (2005): 81–106.

Jarrell, Richard A. “The Contemporaries of Tycho Brahe.” In The General History of Astronomy, vol. 2, Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics, Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton, edited by René Taton and Curtis Wilson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Jones, Michael. “Tycho Brahe, Cartography and Landscape in 16^th Century Scandinavia.” In European Rural Landscapes: Persistence and Change in a Globalising Environment, edited by Hannes Palang, Helen Sooväli, Marc Antorp, et al. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.

Kæmpe, Bent, Claus Thykier, and N. A. Pedersen. “The Cause of Death of Tycho Brahe in 1601.” Proceedings of the XXXI Congress of the The International Association of Forensic Toxicologists (TIAFT), 15–20 August 1993 in Leipzig (1993), 1–7.

Kongsted, Ole. Kronborg-Brunnen und Kronborg-Mottetten, vol. 43, Schriften des Gesellschaft für Flensburger Stadtgeschichte. Copenhagen: Det kongelige Bibliotek, 1991.

Kusukawa, Sachiko. The Transformation of Natural Philosophy:The Case of Philip Melanchthon. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Lundquist, Kjell. “The plant material in the Renaissance garden of Tycho Brahe at Uraniborg (1581-1597) on the island of Ven—A restoration project in progress.” Museologica scientifica 14 (1998), suppl.: 223–235.

———. “Reconstruction of the Planting in Uraniborg, Tycho Brahe’s (1546–1601) Renaissance Garden on the Island of Ven.” Garden History: Journal of the Garden History Society 32 (2004): 152–166.

Methuen, Charlotte. “The Role of the Heavens in the Thought of Philip Melanchthon.” Journal of the History of Ideas 57 (1996): 385–403.

Moesgaard, Kristian Peder. “Copernican Influence on Tycho Brahe.” In The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory, vol. 1, Colloquia Copernicana, edited by Jerzy Dobrzycki. Dortrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1972.

———. “How Copernicanism Took Root in Denmark and Norway.” In The Reception of Copernicus’ Heliocentric Theory, vol. 1, Colloquia Copernicana, edited by Jerzy Dobrzycki. Dortrecht, Netherlands: D. Reidel, 1972.

———. “Tychonian Observations, Perfect Numbers, and the Date of Creation: Longomontanus’s Solar and Precessional Theories.”Journal for the History of Astronomy 6 (1975): 84–99.

———. “Cosmology in the Wake of Tycho Brahe’s Astronomy.” In Cosmology, History, and Theory, edited by Wolfgang Yourgrau and Allen D. Breck. New York: Plenum Press, 1977.

Moran, Bruce T. “Christoph Rothmann, the Copernican Theory, and Institutional and Technical Influence on the Criticism of Aristotelean Cosmology.” Sixteenth Century Journal 13 (1982): 85–108.

———.Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and theScientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.

———, ed. Patronage and Institutions: Science, Technology andMedicine at the European Court 1500–1750. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 1991.

Mosley, Adam, Nicholas Jardine, and Karin Tybjerg. “Epistolary Culture, Editorial Practices, and the Propriety of Tycho’s Astronomical Letters.”Journal for the History of Astronomy 34 (2003): 421–451.

———.Bearing the Heavens: Tycho Brahe and the AstronomicalCommunity of the Late Sixteenth Century. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Norlind, Wilhelm. Tycho Brahe: En levnadsteckning. Lund, Sweden: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1970. Tycho’s life, works, and library, with a German summary.

Rosen, Edward. Three Imperial Mathematicians: Kepler TrappedBetween Tycho Brahe and Ursus. New York: Abaris Books, 1986.

Schofield, Christine Jones. Tychonic and Semi-Tychonic WorldSystems. New York: Arno Press, 1981.

Schofield, Christine. “The Tychonic and Semi-Tychonic World Systems.” In The General History of Astronomy, vol. 2, Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics, Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton, edited by René Taton and Curtis Wilson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Shackelford, Jole. “Paracelsianism and Patronage in Early Modern Denmark.” In Patronage and Institutions: Science,

Technology, and Medicine at the European Court 1500–1750, edited by Bruce Moran. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 1991.

———. “Tycho Brahe, Laboratory Design, and the Aim of Science: Reading Plans in Context.” Isis 84 (1993): 211–230.

———. “Early Reception of Paracelsian Theory: Severinus and Erastus,” Sixteenth Century Journal 26 (1995): 123–135.

———. “Rosicrucianism, Lutheran Orthodoxy, and the Rejection of Paracelsianism in Early Seventeenth-Century Denmark,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 70 (1996): 181–204.

———. “Seeds with a Mechanical Purpose: Severinus’ Semina and Seventeenth-Century Matter Theory.” Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 41 (1998): 15–44. ———. “Unification and the Chemistry of the Reformation.” Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 40 (1998): 291–312. Tycho’s assistant, Cort Aslakssøn.

———.A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine: The Ideas, Intellectual Context, and Influence of Petrus Severinus (1540/2–1602). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press University of Copenhagen, 2004.

Skovgaard-Petersen, Karen, and Peter Zeeberg. “Recent Work on Nordic Neo-Latin Literature (1992–1996). Symbolae Osloenses, 72 (1997): 172–184. ———. “Recent Work on Nordic Neo-Latin Literature (1997–2000).Symbolae Osloenses, 76 (2001): 201–210.

———. “Recent Work on Nordic Neo-Latin Literature (2001–2004).” S ymbolae Osloenses, 79 (2004): 179–189. Thoren, Victor E. “An Early Instance of Deductive Discovery: Tycho Brahe’s Lunar Theory.” Isis 58 (1967): 19–36.

———. “Tycho Brahe’s Discovery of the Variation.” Centaurus 12 (1967): 151–166.

———. “An ‘Unpublished’ Version of Tycho Brahe’s Lunar Theory.” Centaurus 16 (1972): 203–230.

———. “New Light on Tycho’s Instruments,” Journal for theHistory of Astronomy 4 (1973): 25–45.

———. “Tycho Brahe as the Dean of a Renaissance Research Institute.” In Religion, Science, and Worldview, edited by Margaret J. Osler and Paul Lawrence Farber. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

———. “Tycho Brahe.” In The General History of Astronomy, vol. 2, Planetary Astronomy from the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics, Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton, edited by René Taton and Curtis Wilson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

———, with contributions by John Robert Christianson. TheLord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1990. The standard biography.

Thykier, Claus. “Dødsårsagen.” Skalk no. 1 (2001): 12–14. Vanden Broecke, Steven. “Teratology and the Publication of Tycho Brahe’s New World System (1588).” Journal for the History of Astronomy 37 (2006): 1–17.

Voelkel, James R. “Publish or Perish: Legal Contingencies and the Publication of Kepler’s Astronomia nova.”Science in Context, 12 (1999): 33–59.

Warner, Deborah Jean. The Sky Explored: Celestial Cartography1500–1800. New York: Alan R. Liss, 1979.

Webster, Charles. From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and theMaking of Modern Science. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Wesley, Walter. G. “The Accuracy of Tycho Brahe’s Instruments.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 9 (1978): 42–53.

———. “Tycho Brahe’s Solar Observations.” Journal for theHistory of Astronomy 10 (1979): 96–101.

———. “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory.” Isis 66 (1975): 165–193.

Westman, Robert S.”The Astronomer’s Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study.” History of Science, 18 (1980): 105–147.

———, ed. The Copernican Achievement. Berkeley: University of California, 1975.

Zamrzlová, Jitka, ed. Science in Contact at the Beginning of theScientific Revolution, new ser. vol. 8, Prague Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Prague: National Technical Museum, 2004. Six articles on Tycho Brahe, including Håkansson above.

———. “Science versus Secular Life: A Central Theme in the Latin Poems of Tycho Brahe.” In Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Torontonensis, edited by Alexander Dalzell, Charles Fantazzi, and Richard J. Schoeck. Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1991.

Zeeberg, Peter. “Alchemy, Astrology, and Ovid—A Love Poem by Tycho Brahe.” In Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Hafniensis, edited by Ann Moss et al. Binghamton, NY : Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1994.

———. “Neo-Latin Poetry in Its Social Context: Some Statistics and Some Examples from Sixteenth-Century Denmark.” In Mari Balticum—Mari Nostrum: Latin in the Countries of the Baltic Sea (1500-1800), series B, no. 274, Annales Academiæ Scientiarum Fennicæ, edited by Outi Merisalo and Raija Sarasti-Wilenius. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 1994.

John Robert Christianson