Here is an article I found interesting about the three: Kepker, Brahe, Bruno.
IMO it states i.a. that from a scientific point of view, there are connections between their works. Which is not a scoop. More interesting is to try and prove that they were physically linked, if possible too with Rudolf; obviously they were with the latter, but were they in Prague at the same time?
The above article tells us that Bruno
"wandered over Europe, lecturing at Oxford, England, in 1582 and in Germany for some years after 1586. In 1592 he was arrested in Venice by the Inquisition and charged with heresy."
I have a French book about Rudolf, sorry for the title, it s "The emperor of alchemists" (smile, Pam). It s say a biographical essay, which was too made available in German.
The author is Jacqueline Dauxois. Page 167 of my edition (Lattes, Paris, 1996, ISBN 2-7096-1630-0), she sates:
"Two years before being burnt, Bruno crosses the Charles bridge" (in Prague). Bruno died in 1600. We then are here in 1598 or so.
There seems to be a doubt between the two statements I just mentionned. Which one is the more accurate? Was Bruno arrested in 1592? Then released? Here I am at the moment. Comments welcome.
--- Rene Zandbergen
> Dear all,
> Giordano Bruno is a truly interesting character.
> Before going into Pamela's post, I'd like to mention
> that there is a little-known threory that the VMs
> was actually written by Bruno. I wonder if anyone
> has read the publication in question and could
> summarise its main points to the list. It is cited
> at Jim Reeds' bibliography, which I cannot access
> right now (I tried Stolfi's mirror copy).
> Bruno was in Prague for a few months in 1588.
> He dedicated a book to Rudolf, for which the
> emperor gave him 300 Thalers.
> (I have no no idea how that relates to ducats).
> --- Pamela Richards
> > [...] this one contains a description of the
> > setting of the few facts we know of the death of
> > Giordano Br! uno.
> > The records of Bruno's inquisition trial no longer
> > exist, from what I understand. So we are not able
> > to state clearly for which of his unorthodox
> > he suffered.
> What one may read in reliable literature is that
> he stated that the Sun is not unique in the
> but that all stars are like our Sun; furthermore
> the universe is infinite. This was seen by the
> as an insult to God, for which he was burnt.
> Rather, it was not so much his thesis, as the fact
> that, when challenged by the church, he took a
> polemic stance and refused to phrase his theory
> in more acceptable terms. It is believed that he
> should not have died if it weren't for this
> > [...] he did concurr with Copernicus on the
> > of th! e Earth relative to the Sun, this was not the
> > major thrust of his writing.
> In my daily work (orbit computation of artificial
> satellites) I don't know what is the centre of the
> Universe but I do know what is the centre of my
> coordinates system, and that is the centre of
> the Earth. Thus, I use the Tychonic system:
> Moon and Sun revolve around the Earth and the
> rest revolves about the Sun. I also know that it
> doesn't matter at all. Now why did it matter to
> the people in the 15th-17th Century? That is
> because they came from the belief that the
> heavenly bodies were attached to crystalline
> so their orbits could never intersect (it would
> the spheres).
> Bruno also maintained that this idea of crystalline
> spheres was 'silly', and modern thought of course
> agrees with him (as it does on the topic of
> Sun and stars).
> Cheers, Rene
"I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing, than to teach ten thousand stars how not to dance."