On Kepler's manifold motives for composing the Astronomia nova in such a way, see VoelkelJames R., The composition of Kepler's Astronomia nova (Princeton, 2001).
2.
KeplerJohannes, Gesammelte Werke, ed. by CasparMax (22 vols, Munich, 1937–; hereafter: KGW), xv (1951), no. 325, 55–56.
3.
Ibid., 57–61: “Scopus meus hic est, ut Caelestem machinam dicam non esse instar divinj animalis, sed instar horologij … ut … penè omnis motuum varietas ab una simplicissima vi magnetica corporalj, utj in horologio motus omnes a simplicissimo pondere”.
4.
DijksterhuisEduard J., The mechanization of the world picture, transl. by DikshoornC. (Oxford, 1961), 310.
5.
FieldJudith V., “A Lutheran astrologer: Johannes Kepler”, Archive for history of exact sciences, xxxi (1984), 189–271, p. 225; ShapinSteven, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, 1996), 33.
6.
In his translation of Kepler's Astronomia nova, Donahue suggests that the term ‘theorist’ best captures the sense of the astronomical ‘artifex’. In the above passage, the term ‘craftsman’ has been chosen on account of its ability to integrate the roles of the theorist and of the manufacturer in the single person of the Creator. See KeplerJohannes, New astronomy, transl. by DonahueWilliam H. (Cambridge, 1992), 20–21.
7.
On Kepler's unification of the celestial and terrestrial realms, see MartensRhonda S., “A commentary on Genesis: Plato's Timaeus and Kepler's astronomy”, in Plato's Timaeus as cultural icon, ed. by Reydams-SchilsGretchen J. (Notre Dame, 2003), 251–66, p. 262. On the relation of astrology and astronomy in Kepler's continuous cosmos, see SimonGérard, Kepler astronome astrologue (Paris, 1979), 41: “The astronomical revolution entails the material unification of the different regions of the world, and astrology as another form of knowledge cannot be based on celestial properties that would not have any guarantor on earth”.
8.
KGW, i (1938), 268.36–37.
9.
BraheTycho, Opera omnia, ed. by DreyerJ. L. E. (15 vols, Copenhagen, 1913–29; hereafter TBOO), iii (1916), 307.13.
10.
Cf. KGW, i (1938), 246.24.
11.
RabinSheila J., “Was Kepler's species immateriata substantial?”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxvi (2005), 49–56, p. 54.
12.
KGW, ii (1939), 14.14–29.
13.
Ibid., 15.39–16.2: “In Corporibus autem astronomice nihil iam consideramus, nisi eorum speciem, quam ad nos beneficio lucis, qua praedita sunt, demittunt; eiusque speciei, Solis praesertim et Lunae, de Terra verò vmbrae, figuram et quantitatem.” Cf. KeplerJohannes, Optics: Paralipomena to Witelo & Optical part of astronomy, transl. by DonahueWilliam H. (Sante Fe, 2000), 15.
14.
KGW, ii (1939), 14.35–39.
15.
On the publication of the Astronomiae pars optica, see Kepler, Optics (ref. 13), p. xiii.
16.
KGW, i (1938), 157.9.
17.
Ibid., 359.15–20. On Kepler's acceptance of the addition of “four years to the customary Christian epoch” and his comparison of the new star with the luminary “that led the three Magi to Christ's manger”, see GranadaMiguel A., “Kepler v. Roeslin on the interpretation of Kepler's nova: (1) 1604–1606”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxvi (2005), 299–319, p. 304; BonerPatrick J.BonerPatrick J., “Kepler v. the Epicureans: Causality, coincidence and the origins of the new star of 1604”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxviii (2007), 2007–21, p. 208.
18.
KGW, i (1938), 160.37, 164.19–21.
19.
Ibid., 160.18–23: “De specie stellae convenit omnibus, qui primo ejus exortui advigilarunt; fuisse exactè rotundam, nullo crine, nulla barba, vel syrmate in ullam partem projecto, quare nulli Crinitarum speciei, neque Pogoniae neque Cometis accensendam; sed stellis fixis similimam, radijs undiquaque ut fixarum, emicantibus; scintillatione clarissima, coruscatione seu vibratione tam rapida, ut negaverint quidam, sibi dum viverent, unquam quicquam in coelo visum esse aequè pernici motu…”.
20.
Ibid., 160.27–29.
21.
Ibid., 160.38–40.
22.
Ibid., 161.4–7.
23.
Ibid., 245.32–34: “Cùm enim in coelo nemo praesens affuerit: Certè quidquid hîc oculis non consequimur, ad quos lumina stellarum quadam speciei propagatione delabuntur; id frustra nitimur indagare”.
24.
Ibid., 246.18.
25.
Ibid., 246.18–24: “At multa sunt, quaedam in Opticis etiam à me sunt allata, quae arguunt, non tam essentiae dissimilitudine, quàm intervallis, distincta esse illa coelestia ab his sublunaribus…. Ut Copernicum etiam mittam, qui Telluri ipsi jus civitatis in coelo dedit”.
26.
Ibid., 247.9–14: “Planetae certè omnes, rotunditate, maculis, coloribus, incrementis ex appropinquando, parallaxibus, quibus in cognitionem venimus earum certae altitudinis, arguuntur esse corpora, non immateriati ignes; atque horum aliqua fixae cum Planetis habent communia. In his terris verò quis unquam vidit ignem, cui non fuerit corpus? Loquor de rebus naturalibus”.
27.
Ibid., 247.8–9.
28.
Cf. Aristotle, Meteorologica, 341a–342a.
29.
KGW, i (1938), 247.26–33: “Trajectiones, rem stellis similimam, probat Aristoteles, suâ constare materiâ; et docuit me olim experientia, cùm ingens in hac urbe ortum esset incendium; plures una nocte coelo sereno vidi trajectiones, quàm integro decennio anteacto. Aliqua itigur seu pinguedo seu arida materia … coactaque in globulos, et sic incensa, seu mavis illuminata, tot species exhibuit ignium discurrentium. In summa nihil horum sine material”.
30.
References to Tycho's Progymnasmata feature prominently throughout the Astronomiae pars optica; cf. KGW, ii (1939), 48.20–23, 111.2–119.11, et al.
31.
KGW, i (1938), 251.9–13.
32.
Ibid., 258.4–259.26: “… jam supra mentio facta est pulcherrimae sententiae, quam Braheus dixit: Stellas hujusmodi procreari ex via lactea. Et visus est confirmare rem sensu oculorum; ostensâ lacunâ, eo loco, quo sidus anni 1572. effulsit; quasi portio illa materiae in corpus sideris coacta fuerit; quae postmodùm fortasse conflagraverit, aut dissipata fuerit. Cui experimento accedit et nostra haec nova stella; cujus exortus rursum in confinium viae lacteae cecidit…. David Fabricius … anno 1596. 3/13. Augusti … matutino tempore novam stellam tertiae magnitudinis invenit in 25. 45′ Arietis, cum latitudine Australi 15. 54′ … Ille verò locus à via lactea abfuit longissimè”.
33.
Ibid., 259.25–26.
34.
TBOO, iii (1916), 300.4, 304.10–11. On the role of astrological reform in Tycho's consideration of the new star's matter and manner of generation, see vanden BroeckeSteven, The limits of influence: Pico, Louvain, and the crisis of Renaissance astrology (Leiden, 2003), 268–9.
35.
On Tycho's conception of the animate and material constitution of the heavens, see MosleyAdam, “Heaven and earth in the late sixteenth century: Tycho and Kepler on the sub- and supra-lunary”, forthcoming. I wish to thank Adam Mosley (Swansea University) for providing me with an early draft of his paper.
36.
TBOO, iii (1916), 235.35–236.16.
37.
Ibid., 304.39–42: “… haec Stella suâ magnitudine plus quam trecenties, molem, quam Terra & Maria efficiunt, ab initio exuperavit. Quaenam igitur sublunaris material ejus conformationi sufficeret?”.
38.
Ibid., 304.36.
39.
Ibid., 304.34–35.
40.
ShackelfordJole, “Tycho Brahe, laboratory design, and the aim of science: Reading plans in context”, Isis, lxxxiv (1993), 211–30, pp. 219–20.
41.
Ibid., 215.
42.
vanden BroeckeSteven, “Teratology and the publication of Tycho Brahe's new world system”, Journal for the history of astronomy, xxxvii (2006), 1–18, p. 8.
43.
See Mosley, “Heaven and earth in the late sixteenth century” (ref. 35).
44.
TBOO, iii (1916), 305.1–13: “… Vndenam haec Caelestis materia pro eius compagine in promptu erat? In ipso, inquam, Coelo … non aliter quam Terra et Maria, Aërque si quando nova quaedam exhibent spectacula, e sua propriâ alvo & substantiâ haec promunt. Etsi enim totum Caelum tenuißimum quid, & ubique motui Siderum absque ullo obstaculo pervium sit: Prorsus tamen incorporeum (alias etiam infinitum & illocale eßet) nequaquam existit. Ipsa igitur Caeli material, ut subtilißima, nostroque visui & Planetarum circuitibus pervia; in unum tamen globum condensata compactaque, & lumine, si non proprio saltem Solari illustrata, hanc Stellam effingere potuit. Quae quoniam citra communem Naturae ordinem quasi monstrosa extitit, parem cum caeteris perseverantiam obtinere nequibat…”.
45.
TBOO, ii (1915), 310.36–37.
46.
TBOO, iii (1916), 307.7–13: “Nemini … insolens videri debet, quod a materia Coelesti, eâdem cum Galaxiâ, ex qua reliquae constant Stellae, Nouam hanc compaginatam, minus tamen perfecte & solide elaboratam eße statuamus … in ijs, quae Terra suis visceribus progignit, Metallis videlicet & lapidibus pretiosis comperire liceat. Quid enim vetat superiora inferioribus comparare, cum utraque sibi in vicem pulchre sint analoga?”.
47.
Ibid., 307.36–37.
48.
Ibid., 307.16–18.
49.
Ibid., 307.18–21: “… aurum purum ignis … vehementißimi & diuturni vim absque ullo incommodo sustinet, nec ullâ elementari affectione ob suam exquisitam … homogeneitatem perfectionemque destruitur”.
50.
Ibid., 307.40.
51.
Ibid., 308.6–11: “Haud aliter … Stella haec in … Caelo, e caelesti … materiâ, quasi artificialiter, componi poterat, neque tamen ad tam integram, ut genuinae Stellae, perduci consistentiam: Ideoque pariter cum illis Solis & Stellarum radios, Caelique vim non diu sustinere potis erat: Proptereaque succeßiue alterationi, donec prorsus dißolueretur, subjiciebatur”.
52.
Ibid., 307.26–29.
53.
Ibid., 307.31–32.
54.
Ibid., 307.14–15.
55.
Ibid., 307.15–16. I wish to thank Lawrence M. Principe (Johns Hopkins University) and Anke Timmermann (Chemical Heritage Foundation) for elucidating the alchemical ideas of Tycho.
56.
Ibid., 307.14–16: “… omnium Metallorum atque Gemmarum, una eadêmque sit prima materia, non tamen omnia per Archaei … (uti vocat Paracelsus) energiam, ad eandem maturitatem subtiliata digestaque sint”.
57.
On the significance of Paracelsus in the alchemical endeavours of Tycho, see ShackelfordJole, “Providence, power, and cosmic causality in early modern astronomy: The case of Tycho Brahe and Petrus Severinus”, in Tycho Brahe and Prague: Crossroads of European science, ed. by ChristiansonJohn R. (Frankfurt, 2002), 46–69. See also SegondsAlain, “Tycho Brahe et l'alchimie”, in Alchimie et philosophie à la Renaissance, ed. by MargolinJean-ClaudeMattonSylvain (Paris, 1993), 365–78; and FigalaKarin, “Tycho Brahe's elixier”, Annals of science, xxviii (1972), 1972–76.
58.
On the presence of Paracelsianism in Tycho's public lecture, see GranadaMiguel A., El debate cosmológico en 1588: Bruno, Brahe, Rothmann, Ursus, Röslin (Naples, 1996), 38. On the importance of the lecture as an “opportunity to present a Paracelsan view of the utility of astronomy”, see ThorenVictor E., The Lord of Uraniborg: A biography of Tycho Brahe (Cambridge 1990), 79.
59.
TBOO, vi (1919), 224.4–5.
60.
ChristiansonJ. R., “Tycho Brahe's German treatise on the comet of 1577: A study in science and politics”, Isis, lii (1979), 110–40, p. 121.
61.
TBOO, iv (1922), 382.40–41.
62.
HannawayOwen, “Laboratory design and the aim of science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brahe”, Isis, lxxvii (1986), 585–610, p. 597.
63.
TBOO, vi (1919), 145.4–10. Cf. Shackelford, “Tycho Brahe, laboratory design, and the aim of science” (ref. 40), p. 229: “Tycho Brahe's concern for the methodical reduction of observational error is balanced by a world view that supposes identifiable correspondences between the behavior of the planets, the organs of the body, and the metals of the Earth”.
64.
TBOO, vi (1919), 145.10–19.
65.
Ibid., 145.29–35.
66.
KGW, i (1938), 227.1–4.
67.
Ibid., 268.2–3.
68.
Ibid., 269.17–23: “… essentiae aetheriae proprium sit pellucere … coelum utique non de eorum pellucidorum est genere, quae duritie quadam hunc effectum retinent; quod demonstrant Cometae, qui quaquâ versum trajiciunt, nihil impediti à soliditate ulla orbium”.
69.
Ibid., 267.8–270.17.
70.
KGW, i (1938), 267.11–15.
71.
TBOO, iii (1919), 307.5.
72.
KGW, i (1938), 267.28–30: “… by these words, [Julius Caesar] Scaliger judged that we are led to the hidden secrets of nature.” Cf. Aristotle, De generatione animalium, 762a, 19–23.
73.
KGW, i (1938), 267.27–28.
74.
Ibid., 288.23–28: “… coelum ob solam magnitudinem est admirabile, cùm nos ob exiguitatem simus contemptibiles. Mihi quidem multò nobilior facultas homini videtur tributa, caeterisque animantibus, gignendi sibi simile, propter infinitam membrorum omnium ad finem suum ordinationem, quàm haec est coeli potentia, ad conglobanda excrementa coelestia, in unam stellae nova figuram”.
75.
Ibid., 268.36–37.
76.
Ibid., 268.28–32. For an interpretation of Kepler's comparison of “the earth as a macrocosm and the human body as a microcosm” as an articulation of Neoplatonic theory, see MagruderKerry V., “Global visions and the establishment of theories of the earth”, Centaurus, xlviii (2006), 233–57, p. 237.
77.
On the celestial causes of the spontaneous generation of “imperfect animals” according to Thomas Aquinas, see BroeckeVanden, The limits of influence (ref. 34), 21.
78.
KGW, i (1938), 269.30–31.
79.
Ibid., 269.31–32.
80.
Ibid., 269.33–34.
81.
Ibid., 269.35.
82.
Ibid., 269.24–28.
83.
KGW, vi (1940), 399.2–3.
84.
KGW, i (1938), 268.6–15; vi, 419.10.
85.
Ibid., 419.3–10. On Kepler's comparison in the Apologia of his animate conception of the earth with that of Fludd, see BonerPatrick J., “Kepler's living cosmology: Bridging the celestial and terrestrial realms”, Centaurus, xlviii (2006), 32–39.
86.
KGW, vi (1940), 419.2–10: “… perperam allegas … hoc potissimum impugnandum, quod Animam terrae dixerim flammam sorbitione marium fovendam: Cum ego scripserim flamma quaedam esse videtur … non valde pugnas, recordatus Archaei tui Paracelsici. Ego mi Roberte, de vocabulis non pugno. Si tibi non placet, vox Anima terrae … tibi licebit illam Archaeum Terrae dicere…”.
87.
Ibid., 419.11.
88.
Ibid., 399.13–15.
89.
Ibid., 399.18–26: “Non sunt adeo Roberte divisa, Mathesis et Chymia; ut in eundem hominem non cadant, qui Mathematica tradat dilucidè, verbose, per literas et diagrammata, Chymica more sectae. Vis scire conjugii huius exemplum? Accipe Tychonem Brahe, cui in parte … ego successi. Quam ille fidus silentii custos in Hermeticis, tam fidelis contra perspicuusque doctor, quoties in Mathematicis aliquid in vulgus proferendum sumpsit: Nulla … ille comminisci solitus est aenigmata, nihil in picturis tradidit, non pollicitus est motus caelestes docere sine quantitatibus; non dedignatus est subvenire ingeniis infirmioribus, vel ipsâ calculi formâ…”.
90.
VermijRienk, “Subterranean fire: Changing theories of the earth during the Renaissance”, Early science and medicine, iii (1998), 323–47, p. 336.
91.
GilbertWilliam, De magnete, magneticisque corporibus, et de magno magnete tellure; Physiologia nova, plurimis & argumentis, & experimentis demonstrata (London, 1600), 20.27.
92.
KGW, xiv (1949), 494.23–24.
93.
On the purported role of Herwart as a patron who, “through critical objections, urged Kepler to a more objective reconsideration of his thoughts”, see AlbrechtDieter, “Hans Georg Hörwarth (Herwart) v. Hohenburg”, in Neue Deutsche Biographie, ed. by the Historische Kommission, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, viii (Berlin, 1969), 722–3; cf. CasparMax, Kepler, transl. by HellmanC. Doris (New York, 1993), 90.
94.
KGW, xiv (1949), no. 235, 37–38.
95.
Ibid., 39–40.
96.
KGW, xiv (1949), no. 242, 13–14.
97.
Ibid., no. 243, 8–12.
98.
On Kepler's magnetic conception of the motions of the planets in the Astronomia nova, according to which the magnetic axis of each planet curiously maintained a constant direction, see StephensonBruce, Kepler's physical astronomy (New York, 1987), 111–18; KoyréAlexandre, The astronomical revolution: Copernicus—Kepler—Borelli, transl. by MaddisonR. E. W. (Ithaca, 1973), 257–9.
99.
KGW, xiv (1949), no. 243, 13–15: “In planetis pono facultates, magneticis similiores. Habent enim binos polos, quorum altero fugiunt a Sole, altero appetunt Sole, hinc Eccentricitas.” 100. On Kepler's submission of an early manuscript of the Astronomia nova to Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II (1552–1612) during the winter holidays of 1604–1605, see his letter of February 1605 to Herwart von Hohenburg, KGW, xv (1951), no. 325, 52–55: “Over Christmas I submitted to the Emperor the Commentaries on the motions of Mars, together with simple but extensive tables of computing the planet, yet they are not fully elaborated and some chapters, which I am gradually weaving together, are still missing. There are now 51 chapters.” On the consequences of Kepler's revision of the manuscript for the composition of the Astronomia nova, see DonahueWilliam H., “Kepler's fabricated figures: Covering up the mess in the New astronomy“, Journal for the history of astronomy, xix (1988), 1988–37.
100.
KGW, xv (1951), no. 357, 44–58: “Duae sunt vt nosti planetarum inaequalitates, altera ex Sole, communis omnibus: Altera cuique propria. Illam ego sic inuestigaui; vt sperem omnibus quatuor residuis satisfacturam. Hanc pertinacissimis laboribus tantisper tractaui vt denique sese naturae legibus accommodet, itaque, quod hanc attinet, de Astronomia sine hypothesibus constituta gloriari possim. Quo nomine gratulor vestrae genti, de inuenta per Gulielmum Gilberti philosophia magnetica…. Nam quid est, quod Planetas circa Solem rapit? … Quid enim nisi effluuium Solis magneticum? Quid vero est, quod Planetas facit à Sole eccentricos, quod cogat ipsos ad Solem accedere, ab eo recedere? Nempe effluuium ex ipsis Planetarum corporibus magneticum, et directio axis. Atque haec omnia ratiocinia in Marte sic sunt comparata, vt aut falsa esse necesse sit, aut omnibus Planetis, quoad qualitatem, communia”.
101.
BarkerPeterGoldsteinBernard R., “Theological foundations of Kepler's astronomy”, Osiris, n.s., xvi (2001), 88–113, pp. 103–6.
102.
Gilbert, De magnete (ref. 91), 208.33–34.
103.
Ibid., 210.5.
104.
Ibid., 208.31–209.8: “Mirum profectò est quamobrem vnicus terrae globus cum suis effluuijs, ab eo eius: Sectatoribus damnatus sit, & in exilium (quasi excors & inanimus) eiectus, & ab omni mundi excellentis integritate deturbatus. Exiguum comparatione totius corpusculum, & in numerosa frequentia multorum millium obscurum, neglectum, & deformatum. Cui etiam socia elementa iungunt, pari infoelicitate misera & relicta. Monstrum igitur istud in Aristotelico mundo videatur, in quo omnia perfecta, viuida, animata; vnica verò terra, infoelix pars pusilla, imperfecta, mortua, inanimata & caduca…. Nos verò animatum totum mundum, omnes globos, astra omnia, tellurem etiam inclytam, proprijs & destinatis animis ab initio gubernari, motusq; suae conseruationis habere existimamus”.
105.
On the concomitant correspondence of the “proper magnetic form” of “each planet, star and satellite”, see RollerDuane H. D., The De magnete of William Gilbert (Amsterdam, 1959), 163–4.
106.
Gilbert, De magnete (ref. 91), 210.17–18.
107.
Ibid., 210.23–24.
108.
Ibid., 210.9–10.
109.
Ibid., 210.6.
110.
Ibid., 269.31–32.
111.
KGW, xvi (1954), no. 488, 353.
112.
Ibid., 352–3.
113.
Ibid., 351–9: “Materiam Cometarum ex Nihilo procreari non dixj, nec credo. Creari … est, ex materia conformari … praeexistente. Neque … absurdum globos exhalare in aetherem. Quid si enim et Terra exhalet in aetherem? Materia quae post conflagrationem chasmatum est residua quorsum, putas, abit? … Aut igitur dic, qua uia reuertatur illa in Terram, aut si non potes, crede minui Terram in saecula singula, et quod illi decedit, exhalare in aetherem”.
114.
Gilbert, De magnete (ref. 91), 209.36–210.2.
115.
Ibid., 209.26–210.2.
116.
Ibid., 210.30.
117.
Ibid., 210.32–33.
118.
KGW, i (1938), 268.22–23.
119.
Gilbert, De magnete (ref. 91), 209.38–39.
120.
Ibid., 209.8–11.
121.
Ibid., 209.34.
122.
Ibid., 21.18–23: “Terra enim ex profundo puteo eruta, vbi nulla suspicio concepti seminis esse videatur, si in altissima turri posita fuerit, herbam producit virentem, & iniussa gramina, Sole & coelo terrae incubantibus; atq; illa quidem quae in illa regione sunt spontanea; suas enim vnaquaeq; regio herbas producit, & stirpes, sua etiam metalla”.
123.
Ibid., 209.29.
124.
Ibid., 209.30–31.
125.
KGW, i (1938), 267.23–268.10.
126.
Gilbert, De magnete (ref. 91), 20.27.
127.
Ibid., 21.36–37.
128.
Ibid., 20.34.
129.
Ibid., 20.35–21.1: “Sed neq; planetis metalla nec metallis planetae, numero aut proprietate conueniunt. Quid enim cum Marte ferrum conuenit? Nisi quòd … ex illo instrumenta plurima, ita enses … fabricantur. Aes quid ad Venerem spectat? Aut Ioui quomodo correspondet stannum? aut plumbum album? Veneri potius dedicanda. Sed ista anilia”.
