1. Representative examples include De Norbert, Geschichte der Bahnbestimmung von Planeten und Kometen (Leipzig, 1887–94), ii, 218; Pelseneer, op. cit. (ref. 2), 205; De Ernst, Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Coppernicanischen Lehre (Erlangen, 1943), 331; de Santillana Giorgio, The crime of Galileo (Chicago, 1955), 170, n. 11; Koyré, op. cit. (ref. 3), 363–4, 377, n. 5; Stahlman William D., Foreword to Small Robert, An account of the astronomical discoveries of Kepler (reprint of 1804 edn, Madison, 1963), p. ix; Hall A. Rupert, The revolution in science 1500–1700 (London, 1983), 143; Cohen I. Bernard, Revolution in science (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), 132.
2. See, for example, the statement from the author of the well-known pejorative term for this historiographical vice — Whig history — That Kepler “has to his credit a collection of discoveries and conclusions … from which we can pick out three that have a permanent importance in the history of astronomy” (Herbert Butterfield, Origins of modern science, 1300–1800 (rev. edn, New York, 1962), 75–76).