Barker&Goldstein

Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy
Author(s): Peter Barker and Bernard R. Goldstein

Source: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 16, Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions (2001),
pp. 88-113
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301981 .
Accessed: 24/10/2014 14:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Osiris.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TheologicalFoundations
of
Kepler'sAstronomy
By PeterBarker*and BernardR. Goldstein**
I. INTRODUCTION
JohannesKepler (1571-1630) is celebratedtodayas one of the firstdefendersof

Copernicanismand as the discovererof threelaws of planetarymotion.These are
usuallypresentedas follows:
FirstLaw: Theorbitsoftheplanetsareellipses,withthesunat onefocus.
SecondLaw: The radiusvectorfromthesunto a planetsweepsout equal areasin
equaltimes.
ThirdLaw: The squareof a planet'sperioddividedbythecubeof itsmeandistance
fromthesunis a constant.
Locating these laws in the historicalrecordis surprisingly difficult.
The modern
readerencounterstwo sortsof puzzles. First,thecleareststatements of each law by
Kepler are scatteredand in the wrongorder;and, consideringtheirpresentimpor-
tance,theylack theprominencewe would expect themto be given.Second, much
of Kepler'swork,especiallyhis firstdefenseof Copernicanismas well as thesetting
ofthethirdlaw,appearsunconnectedwithmodernscience.Indeed,muchof Kepler's
workhas been dismissedas mysticism or Neoplatonism.Kepler'sfrequentand direct
statements about religionare also dismissedas, at best,psychologicallysignificant
forunderstanding his scientificachievements.'
*Department of theHistoryof Science,601 Elm. Rm. 622, Universityof Oklahoma,Norman
OK 73019
**Departmentof ReligiousStudies,2604 Cathedralof Learning,
Universityof Pittsburgh,
Pitts-
burghPA 15260
We thankRogerAriew,AlanC. Bowen,JoseChabds,WilliamH. Donahue,OwenGingerich, Jose
Luis Mancha,and an anonymous reviewerforhelpandcriticism. acknowl-
The authorsgratefully
edgethesupportoftheNationalScienceFoundationandtheNationalEndowment fortheHumanities
inearlyphasesofthiswork.
See (in orderof originalpublication): J. L. E. Dreyer,Historyof Planetary SystemsfromThales
toKepler(Cambridge: Univ.Press,1906);Max Caspar,Kepler,trans.C. DorisHellman
Cambridge
(1948; New York: Dover, 1993); HerbertButterfield,The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800
(London: Bell & Sons, 1949); E. J. Dijksterhuis,The Mechanization of the WorldPicture, trans.
C. Dikshoorn 1961);ThomasS. Kuhn,TheCopernican
(1950; Oxford:Clarendon, Revolution:
Plan-
etaryAstronomyin the Historyof WesternThought(Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniv. Press, 1957);
Arthur (1959; New York:Macmillan,1968);AlexandreKoyr6,TheAs-
Koestler,TheSleepwalkers
tronomicalRevolution: Copernicus-Kepler-Borelli, trans. R. E. W. Madison (1961; Ithaca, N.Y.:
CornellUniv.Press,1973);J.V. Field,Kepler'sGeometrical (Chicago:Univ.ofChicago
Cosmology
Press, 1988); Job Kozhamthadam,The Discovery of Kepler's Laws: The Interactionof Science, Phi-
and Religion(NotreDame,Ind.:Univ.ofNotreDame Press,1994).
losophy,
? 2001 byThe History

of ScienceSociety.All rights 0369-7827/01/1601-0001$2.00
reserved.
Osiris,2001, 16:00-00 88

THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF KEPLER'S ASTRONOMY 89
For severalyearswe have been engagedin a contextualstudyof Kepler'sunifica-

tion of physicsand astronomy. In the course of thisproject,we have become per-
suaded thattheologyplaysa central Indeed,the-
role in Kepler'sscientificthinking.
ologyplaysseveral distinctroles in the reception of Copernicus's work. The agenda
of Lutheranism indirectly
helped to spread thenew science,and Kepler was heirto
a Lutheranproject that succeeded in publicizingCopernican astronomy.But in
Kepler's astronomyreligiousideas contributedirectlyto what are now considered
scientificachievements:thedefenseof Copernicanismand thediscoveryof thelaws
of planetarymotion.In whatfollowswe will brieflyreviewthehistoricaland intel-
lectualbackgroundneeded to situateKepler'sworkin his time;we will thenargue
thatKepler's firstbook cannotbe understoodwithoutacknowledgingits religious
dimensionsand go on to show thatsimilarissues underlieKepler's demonstration
thattheorbitof theplanetMars is an ellipse.2
II. COPERNICUS AND THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF ASTRONOMY
WhenCopernicus'sDe Revolutionibus appearedin 1543,themaindisputein astron-

omywas betweentheAverroists, who deniedtherealityof epicyclesand eccentrics
based on argumentsfromAristotle'sphysics,and mathematicalastronomers, who
supportedthe theoricatextbooktraditionand regardedepicyclesand eccentricsas
thepositionsof celestialbodies.3The Averroists
indispensableforpredicting insisted
thatthe heavenswere divided into a series of concentricorbs,all centeredon the
earth.Mathematicalastronomersfolloweda construction thatcame into wide use
withGeorg Peurbach'sNewvTheoriesof thePlanets (Theoricae novae planetarum,
Hibner,Die
see: Jtrgen
On themorespecificquestionoftheroleofreligionin Kepler'sthought,
Theologie JohannesKeplers zwischen Orthodoxieund Naturwissenschaft(Tiibingen: Mohr, 1975);
"The Rise andDeclineof Orthodox
andRichardS. Westfall, A StudyofKepler,Des-
Christianity:
cartes and Newton," in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity
and Science,ed. David C. LindbergandRonaldL. Numbers(Berkeleyand Los Angeles:Univ.of
CaliforniaPress,1986),pp. 218-55. In contrast, RobertS. Westman,"The Copernicansand the
Churches," theviewdefendedin detailin the
in ibid.,pp. 76-113. especiallypp. 96-8, anticipates
presentessay.
studyoftheseissueshasbenefited
2 Historical fromtheappearanceofseveralrecentbooks,includ-
ing G6rardSimon,Kepler astronomeastrologue(Paris: Gallimard,1979); Bruce Stephenson,
Keplers Physical Astronomy(1987; Princeton:PrincetonUniv. Press, 1994), and The Music of the
Heavens.KeplersHarmonicAstronomy (Princeton: Univ.Press,1994). On thereligious
Princeton
background see especiallySachikoKusukawa,The Transformation
to Kepler'sthought, ofNatural
Philosophy: The Case of Philip Melanchthon(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995); Charlotte
Methuen, Kepler's Tuibingen:Stimulus to a Theological Mathematics (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate,
1998); and thenew editionof Max Caspar,Kepler(New York:Dover,1993),withnew scholarly
apparatusby 0. Gingerich and A. Segonds.See also PeterBarker,"The Role of Religionin the
Lutheran Response to Copernicus," in Rethinkingthe ScientificRevolution,ed. Margaret J. Osler
in
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press,2000). pp. 59-88, and Barker,"Kepler'sEpistemology,"
Method and Order in Renaissance Natural Philosophy,ed. C. Methuen,D. Di Liscia, and E. Kessler
disser-
toare:Prodromus
(NewYork:Kluwer,1997).pp. 355-68.ThemainworksofKeplerreferred
tationein cosmographicarumn,continens mvsteriumcosmographicum (Ttibingen: Gruppenbach,
1596), now usually referredto as MysteriumCosmographicum; and Astronomia nova AITIO-
to in ourtextas The
AOFHTO2, sevphysicacoelestis(Heidelberg:G. Voegelinus,1609),referred
NewAstrononn'.The standard to whichwe referareA. M. Duncan,Johannes
translations Kepler-
MysteriumCosmographicum:The Secret of the Universe(Norwalk, Conn.: Abaris, 1981); and Wil-
liamH. Donahue,JohannesKepler NewvAstronomy (Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press,1992).
3Peter Barker,"Copernicusand theCriticsof Ptolemy," J. Hist.Astron.30 (1999):343-58,and
"Copernicus, the Orbs and the Equant" in Pierre Duhemn:Historian and Philosopher of Science, ed.
83 (1990):317-23.
in Synthese
R. AriewandP. Barker,

90 PETER BARKER AND BERNARD R. GOLDSTEIN
composedabout1460,first publishedin 1472).4Peurbach(1423-1461)employed

eccentricorbs,someofwhichcarriedsmallspheresperforming thefunction ofepi-
cycles.Thiscombination was carriedbyinnerandouterorbsofuneventhickness,
so thatthesystem oforbsforeachplanethadinnerandoutersurfaces centered on
theearth.Planetswereembedded inthesmallorbcorresponding totheepicycleand
physicallytransported through theheavensbythecombined motions ofthecomplete
setoforbs.
In additionto agreeing thatthecenteroftheentiresystem was theearth, thetwo
sidesalso agreedthattheheavenswerecompletely filledby thesystemsof orbs
carryingtheplanets;theoutersurfaceof thesystemof orbsforone planetfitted
exactlyintotheinnersurfaceof thesystemof orbsforthenextplanetbeyondit.
ClaudiusPtolemy(fl.150) hadintroduced theassumption thatthesystems oforbs
insideoneanother
fitted likea perfect setofRussiandolls(orthelayersofanonion),
nowgenerally called"thenesting hypothesis."InhisPlanetaryHypotheses Ptolemy
usedthenesting hypothesis to calculatetheabsolutedistances of planets from the
earthandtosupport for
hisoverallpattern the cosmos by showing thatthe calculated
distanceto thesun,based on themodelsforthemoon,Mercury, Venus,and the
sunin hisAlmagest(withminormodifications), was independently confirmed by
measurements ofthesolardistancebasedon parallax.Although thesourceofthese
ideasinPtolemy's workwasunknown inEuropeatthetimeofNicholasCopernicus
(1473-1543),thenesting hypothesis andthecorresponding schemefordistances (as
wellas fortheplanetary sizes)werewellknownthrough Arabicintermediaries and
completely assimilated intoWestern astronomy andcosmology.5
The publication of Copernicus's workdid notimmediately changeprevailing
viewson thephysicalbasis of astronomy. Mathematical astronomers, including
manyLutherans, saw Copernicusas a naturalallyin theirconflict withAverroist
naturalphilosophers. TheyadoptedthoseamongCopernicus's innovations thatdid
notchallenge theirbasicunderstanding ofthestructureofthecosmos.Forexample,
Ptolemy's modelforthemotionofthemoonwithan epicycleanda "crankmecha-
nism"produceda dramatic variationin themoon'sapparent diameter as ittraveled
aroundtheearth, contrary totheappearances-along-standing difficultythatAver-
roistscouldpointto as evidenceagainsttheexistence ofan epicycleforthemoon.6
Copernicus'sdouble-epicycle modelforthemooneliminated grossvariations indis-
tanceandproducedan acceptablevariation in themoon'sapparent size. So Coper-
nicus'slunarmodelcouldbe safelyadoptedwithout raisingfurther cosmological
questions.In Germany, the Lutheranleaderand educatorPhilippMelanchthon
(1497-1560)includedit in a physicstext,and in ItalyGiovanniAntonioMagini
(1555-1617)supplieda theorica-style versiongeneratedbythree-dimensional orbs.
Theplanetary modelscouldalso be usedformaking calculations without endorsing
Copernicus'sheliocentric cosmology.Melanchthon's protege,ErasmusReinhold
4 E. J.Aiton,"Peurbach's Theoricaenovaeplanetarum: A translationwithcommentary," Osiris3

(1987):5-44. A facsimileofthe1472editionappearsin Regiomontanus, Operacollectanea(Osna-
bruick:Zeller,1972).
5 Bernard R. Goldstein,The Arabic Version of Ptolemy's Planetary Hypotheses (Philadelphia:
AmericanPhilosophical Society,1967).
6 See, e.g.,BernardR. Goldstein,"Remarkson GemmaFrisius'sDe radioastronomico etgeomet-
rico," in FromAncientOmens to StatisticalMechanics, ed. J.L. Berggrenand BernardR. Goldstein
1987),pp. 167-80,especiallypp. 172 and 176-7.
(Copenhagen:Univ.Library,

(1511-1553), made Copernicus'smathematicalmodels the basis fora new set of

astronomicaltables,the PrutenicTables, publishedin 1551, and played a leading
role in spreadingCopernicus'sfamewithoutendorsinghis cosmic scheme.7
III. COPERNICANISM AND THE PROBLEM OF METHOD
In the period up to the beginningof Kepler's career,only a few scholarsadopted

Copernicus'scosmology.8The chiefobstacle to generalacceptance was posed by
theAristotelianstandardsof demonstration applieduniformly in all sciencesby the
sixteenthcentury, and especially thetechniquethenknownas regressus.Briefly,a
regressusconsistedof threesets of arguments.The first,also called argumentsa
posteriori,derivedthe descriptionof an effectfromthe descriptionof one of its
possible causes. In astronomythe "effects"to be explainedwere the positionsof
heavenlybodies, and a posteriorireasoningled to the construction of hypotheses
that"save" these "appearances." For example, in the case of the sun it was well
knownthata posteriorireasoningled to twopossiblehypotheses:a concentriccircle
carryingan epicycleor an eccentriccircle.
The second stage in a regressuseliminatedalternatives, leavingonlyone, identi-
fiedas the"truecause" of theoriginaleffect. This processwas variouslydescribed
or
as consideratio negotiatio. To succeed, itoften appealed to information or explan-
atoryprinciples beyond theoriginal subject matter.Thus Aristotle in effectappealed
to principlesfromgeometryto show thatonlya sphericalearthwould cast a circular
shadowon themoonduringa lunareclipse,and loannes Pena (I1528-1558)appealed
to opticsand geometryto show thatonlya cometwhichwas a physicallens would
projecta tail of lightrayson a greatcircleawayfromthesun.
The thirdstage in a regressuswas an argumenta priorithatassumed thenewly
discoveredcause and derivedtheoriginaleffectfromitby deduction.It is important
to rememberthatthemeaningssixteenth- and seventeenth-century authorsattached
to Caposterioriand a priori had nothingto do withthe modernmeanings,which
date approximately fromthe workof ImmanuelKant. For authorsin our period,a
posteriorimeans"reasoningfromeffectsto (possible) causes,"whilea priorimeans
Philip Melanchthon,Initia doctrinaphysicae, in Corpus Reformatorum:Philippi Melanchthonis

Opera quae supersunt omnia,ed. C. G. Bretschneider, 1834-
87 vols. (1549; Halle: Schwetschke,
CR); ErasmusReinhold,Prutenicae
1860),vol. 13,cols. 179-412,especiallycol. 244 (henceforth
(I1551; Wittenberg:M. Welack, 1585); GiovanniAntonioMagini, Novae
tabulae coelestium mnotuurm
coelestiumorbium theoricae congruentescum observationibusN. Copernici (Venice: D. Zenarius,
ofCopernicus,
1589).On thereception "The Role ofErasmusRein-
see especiallyOwenGingerich,
holdandthePrutenicTablesintheDissemination oftheCopernican in ColloquiaCoperni-
Theory,"
cana II: Etudes sur I audience de la thl'orieheliocentrique,ed. J. Dobrzycki, Studia Copernicana 6
(Wroclaw.Poland:Ossolineum,1973),pp. 43-62; RobertS. Westman, "The Melanchthon Circle,
Rheticus, andtheWittenberg oftheCopernican
Interpretation Theory,"Isis 65 (1975):165-93;Peter
Barkerand BernardR. Goldstein,"RealismandInstrumentalism in Sixteenth Century Astronomy:
A Reappraisal:"Perspect.Sci. 6 (1999):232-58,and Barker,"Lutheran Responseto Copernicus"
(cit.n. 2).
8 RobertS. Westman, "The Astronomer'sRole in theSixteenth Century: A Preliminary Survey,"
Hist.Sci. 18 (1980):105-47,especiallyn. 6, p. 136. We wouldamendthislistchieflyby adding
R. GemmaFrisius,("Epistolaad I. Stadius,"in I. Stadius,Ephemerides novaeetexactaeab a. 1554
ad a. 1570 [ColoniaeAgrippinae: A. Birkmann, 1556].pp. alr-a2v; see also Goldstein, "Gemma
Frisius"[cit.n. 6]) andbynotingthatChristoph Rothmann abandonedCopernicanism aftervisiting
TychoBrahe.On Rothmann see BernardR. GoldsteinandPeterBarker, "The Role ofRothmann in
theDissolutionoftheCelestialSpheres," Brit.J.Hist.Sci. 28 (1995):385-403.
BarkerandGoldstein, "RealismandInstrumentalism inSixteenth Century Astronomy" (cit.n.7).

"reasoningfromthe one, truecause to an effect."Thus, an a priori demonstration

of the shape of theearth'sshadow began fromtheassumptionthattheearthwas a
sphere,and Pena's a prioridemonstration of comets' tails began
of the antisolarity
fromtheassumptionthata cometis a sphericallens."'
In astronomy, it was generallybelieved thatthe second and thirdstages of the
regressuscould notbe completedby earthboundobservers.This has led to a number
of interpretative problemsfor modem commentators.The frequenta posteriori
proofsin astronomyhave been misreadby some commentators as instancesof hy-
pothesistestingin themodernsense.The absence of a prioriarguments(or,in other
words,causal proofs)has also led to thecommonmisconceptionthatastronomywas
a fictionalistdisciplineat a timewhenphysicswas clearlyrealistand astronomywas
subordinated to physics.Whatbothofthesepositionsignoreis thatthewholepattern
of regressus,withits goal of causal knowledge,remainedtheideal in all sciences,
includingastronomy."One major reason why Copernicus'sfew supportersin the
period leading up to Kepler accepted his cosmic scheme was thattheybelieved it
offeredcausal proofsin astronomywherenone had been available before.Reiner
Gemma Frisius(1508-1555) and ChristophRothmann(c. 1555-1597) bothrepeat
such arguments.Their Copernicanconvictions,then,may have been based on the
beliefthattheCopernicanschemewas unique in its abilityto explain whysuperior
planetsretrogress whenin oppositionto thesun,whytheretrogressions varyin size
fromplanetto planet(withplanetscloserto theearthmakinglargerretrogressions),
and similarphenomena.12
If itwas truethatCopernicus'sschemegave theonlyexplanationfortheseeffects,
thenthiswould be tantamount to showingit was theone truecause of thecelestial
"phenomena."Evidently, most European astronomerswere unconvinced,and the
largestgroup favoring Copernicus accepted Reinhold's interpretation, using the
and
mathematics passing over the cosmology. But the introduction by Tycho Brahe
(1546-1601) of a geo-heliocentric cosmic scheme in 1588 removed any simple
claim to uniquenessforCopernicus.There were now two possible explanationsfor
all thephenomenaclaimed as evidence forCopernicusand againstPtolemy.From
being a candidatefora priori status,Copernicus'sschemenow became just one of
twoa posterioriexplanationsforthephenomenaofplanetarypositions.To vindicate
eitherpositionthesecond and thirdstagesof theregressusneeded to be completed.
Tychohimselfused argumentsestablishingtheimmobility of theearthto undermine
Copernicus.At least one Copernican,theGermanastronomer ChristophRothmann,
changedsides.13But themajoritypositionin mathematical astronomy remainedPto-
lemaic.
In 1596,whenKeplerbeganhis careerwiththepublicationof TheSacred Mystery
of theCosmos (MysteriumCosmographicum), he legitimately regardedCopernicus
as havingachieved no more thana posterioridemonstrations. He thenset out to
providethea prioridemonstrations of astronomicalphenomenapromisedby Coper-
"I On theuse ofthetermsa priori anda posterioriinthisperiodsee BarkerandGoldstein, "Real-

ism and Instrumentalismin Sixteenth Century Astronomy" (cit.n. 7); and Barker,"The Lutheran
Responseto Copernicus"(cit.n. 2).
" Barkerand Goldstein,"Realismand Instrumentalism in Sixteenth CenturyAstronomy" (cit.
n. 7).
12 Barker,"The LutheranResponseto Copernicus'(cit.n. 2).
andBarker,
'3 Goldstein "The Role ofRothmann" (cit.n. 8). especiallypp. 397ff.

nicus but not yetdelivered.He would do thisnot by completingthe threesteps of

theregressusbutbyusingintellectualresourcesprovidedbyhis trainingin Lutheran
The pattern
theologyto proceeddirectlyto thea prioriportionof thedemonstration.
ofhis argumentwouldsimultaneously ruleoutbothPtolemaicand Tychonicalterna-
tives,and his goal was to showthatCopernicus'sschemewas nothingless thanGod's
plan fortheworld.
IV. COMETS AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE HEAVENS
AlthoughTychoBrahe'ssystemattractedmanypreviousadherentsof Ptolemaicas-
tronomy, requiredconsiderablechangein theontologyof theheav-
its introduction
ens-a change thatcaused theauthorof thesystemsome difficulty. Using theCo-
pernicandistancesof planetsfromthe sun, when Mars was closest to the earthit
was considerablynearerthanthedistancefromtheearthto thesun.Tychoassumed
thatthesun movedaroundtheearth,whileMars and theotherplanetsmovedaround
thesun. If thesemotionswererepresented by systemsof orbs,like theorbs used in
a theorica,thentheorbs forMars and thesun intersectedand interpenetrated. This
was a physicalimpossibilityon theconventionalunderstanding of the substanceof
theheavens.In the mid-1580s Tychoabandonedthe conventionalaccount,withits
systemof orbscarryingtheplanets.Tychoconcludedthatthesubstanceof theheav-
ens was a continuousfluidof some sort,thattheplanetsmovedfreelythroughthis
medium,and thattheorbs of theplanetswere notphysicalobjects but geometrical
constructions representingboundariesin thismedium.Observationsof two comets
playeda special role in Tycho'sadoptionof thenew position.
Brightcometsappearedin 1577 and 1585. Because of renewedinterestin comets
earlierin thesixteenth century,thecometof 1577,in particular, was studiedby many
people. Two observers,
Tycho Brahe in Denmark and Michael Maestlin(1550-163 1)
in Germany,used new techniquesto trackthedistanceof thecometfromtheearth
on a dailybasis overa periodof months.Both concludedthatthecometmovedin a
way whichcarriedit througha seriesof thegeocentricorbspostulatedbyAristotle
and Ptolemy?but thatthe motionof the comet was quite consistentwithits being
carriedin an orb centeredon thesun and slightlylargerthantheorb of Venus. For
Tychothismotionwas ultimately fittedintohis new cosmic scheme,withthecomet
joiningtheplanetsin theirsun-centered motions,whilethesun itselfmovedaround
the earth.Maestlintook the moreradical step of adoptingthe Copernicansystem,
althoughhe clearlycontinuedto interpret theontologyof theheavensin themanner
familiarfromtheoricaand regardedtheplanets,thecomet,and theearthas all being
carriedbyorbscenteredon thesun.Maestlinsaw additionalevidenceforhis conclu-
sions in themotionsof a cometthatappearedin 1580.'4
For some yearsafter1577 Tychoalso continuedto believe thattheplanetswere
carriedby orbs. In the nextdecade, while developinghis new cosmic scheme,he
puzzled overtheintersection of theorbs forMars and the sun. When a new comet
appeared in 1585, it was again subject to intenseobservation.Shortlyafterward,
cometae aetherei,qui in anno 1577 et 1578 consti-

4 Michael Maestlin, Observatioet demonstratio
tutusin sphaera Veneris,apparuit (TUbingen:Gruppenbach,1578); and idem, Consideratioet obser-

vatio cometae aetherei astronomical qui anno MDLXXX ... apparuit (Heidelberg: Jakob MUller,
1581); TychoBrahe, De mundiaethereirecentioribusphaenomenis(Uraniborg,1588). See also Peter
Barker,"The OpticalTheoryofCometsfrom[Peter]Apianto Kepler,"Physis30 (1993):1-25.

Tychoreceiveda book aboutthe 1585 cometwritten by ChristophRothmann,court

astronomer to LandgraveWilliamIV of Hesse-Kassel.'5Rothmannarguedconvinc-
inglythatthe 1585 comet was celestial,and thatits motionwas inconsistentwith
thesubstanceoftheheavensas understoodin theAristotelian tradition.He suggested
revivingthe Stoic doctrinethatthe substanceof theheavenswas a special kindof
air.Immediatelyafterreceivingthisbook,Tychoadoptedtheview thatthesubstance
of theheavenswas a continuousfluid,solvingtheproblemposed bytheintersection
of the orbs of Mars and the sun. He gave the firstpublic presentationof his new
systemof theworldin 1588.b6
Returningto thecometof 1577 and theworkof Maestlin,thelatter'ssolutionto
thequestionsof the comet'spositionand motionalso offereda solutionto an out-
standingliabilityof theCopernicansystem.As mentionedearlier,in boththecosmic
schemesof Ptolemaicastronomersand theiropponentstheAverroists, theheavens
werecompletelyfilledby setsof orbsin perfectcontactwithone another,excluding
anyemptyspace. This had been achievedby a construction in whichthemaximum
distanceforone planetwas set equal to the minimumdistanceforthe nextplanet
beyondit. The thicknessof each orb was calculatedfromthe maximumand mini-
mumdistancesforeach planetbased on Ptolemy'seccentric-plus-epicycle construc-
tion. Because therewas no systematicconnectionamong the models for different
planetsin Ptolemy'sscheme,itwas possible to juxtapose the models in an approved
orderso thattheyfittedtogetherexactly.In Copernicus'ssystemthiswas no longer
possible:givenhis modelsforeach planet,theearth-sundistancefixedthedistances
forall theplanets.Even moreembarrassing, if thethicknessesof theorbs foreach
planetwerecalculated in thesame way as the Ptolemaic equivalents,thentherewere
largegaps between differentsets of orbs. As the eccentricity of each planet'smotion
was verymuch less than the difference in the mean distances betweenplanets,the
space occupied by each orb cluster was very much less than the distancesbetween
sets of orbs. In his book on the comet of 1577, Maestlin, in effect, suggestedthat
therewas a naturalexplanation forthe gaps in Copernicus's system. Comets are part
of the heavens too and require their own orbs to carry them around the sun. The
comet of 1577 was carriedby an orb system outside the orbs of Venus but inside
thosecarryingtheearth-moonsystem.Perhapsall thegaps werefilledby comets.7
Kepler became Maestlin'sstudentat Tfibingenand addressedall the issues we
have reviewedso farin thebooks he wrotelaterin his life.But confiningour atten-
tionto astronomyand cosmologyeliminatesa crucialdimensionof Lutheranintel-
lectuallifewhichKepler would also have acquiredat TUbingen,ifnotbefore.Why
were Lutheransso interestedin astronomythattheymade publishingthe workof
Copernicusa special project?Why were Lutheranslike Tychoand Maestlinso in-
tenselyinterestedin cometsand othercelestialphenomena?A largepartof the an-
sweris to be foundin astrology, whichin turnis an instanceof thespecial Lutheran
attitudetowardthe naturalworld.The greatLutheranteacherand educationalre-
formerPhilip Melanchthonhad set the patternforlaterLutherannaturalphiloso-
'5 C. Rothmann,Descriptio accurata cometae anni 1585 (composed in 1586), in WillebrordiSnehii

descriptiocometae, qui anno 1618 . .. (Louvain: Elziviriana, 1619).
"Role of Rothmann"
16Brahe,De mundiaetherei(cit. n. 14); Goldsteinand Barker, (cit. n. 8);
to Aristotelian
PeterBarker,"StoicAlternatives Cosmology:Pena and Rothmann."Rei Hist.Sci.,
forthcoming.
1" Maestlin, Observatioet demonstratiocometae aetherei... 1577 et 1578 (cit. n. 14), pp. 38-9.

pherswithhisearlyinterest in astrology-perhaps as a wayofunderstandingsigns

fromGod thatthepresent worldwas aboutto end.Melanchthon notonlyobserved
cometsandplanetshimself; heincluded inhisdefinition
celestialinfluences ofphys-
basisforthestudyofastrology
ics toprovidea rational byLutherans.18
Providingsignsoftheimpending endoftheworld, foreshadowedbytheReforma-
tionandtheconflict with theRoman CatholicChurch, was onlyone manifestation
ofGod'sprovidential governance oftheentireuniverse. Melanchthonendorsed,and
hisstudents
elaborated, thedoctrine thattheentire worldwasa structure
established
byGodforthebenefit ofthehumanrace.Adopting theargument fromdesignavail-
able in ancientsources such as Cicero's On theNatureof the Gods (or De Natura
Deorum),Melanchthon arguedthattheorderly andlaw-likepattern ofthenatural
worldshowedtheworkof a benevolent designer.The regularmotionsof celestial
objectswereone oftheclearestexamplesoflaw-likebehavior. Thus,thestudyof
astronomy byLutherans notonlyhad directpracticalapplication in astrology
but,
likeall studyofnatural philosophy, led bothtotherecognition thatGod existedand
to an appreciation ofhisbenevolence.
Although Melanchthon's emphasison providential designgavea newimpetus to
natural philosophy, earlyLutherans neverattempted to foundtheirreligious beliefs
on a purelyrationalor empirical basis.Lutherhimself had distinguished between
theprovinces oflaw andgospel.Whilelaw-for example,thebiblicalCommand-
ments-mightbe comprehended rationally,thebasisforsalvationwas thegospel,
revealedknowledge. The studyofnatural philosophy clearlyfellonthesideoflaw;
whileitmight enhancepietyitwasnotsufficient byitselfforsalvation. Melanchthon
provided an epistemologicalfoundation forknowledge ofmorallawbylinking itto
thedoctrine ofthenatural light,a specialfaculty oftheintellect thatgaveaccessto
knowledge engraved onthesoul.19 Thisaccesswasnotlimited tomoralprecepts but
alsoexplained thespecialcertainty ofmathematical knowledge. WhenMelanchthon
used theterm"law" to referto theregularmotionsof theplanets,he suggested
that,likeotherforms oflaw,oncediscovered thelawsofplanetary motioncouldbe
recognized to be eternaltruthsinscribed on thesoulbyGod. Exactlyhowone re-
movedthelayersof erroror sinthatprevented ordinary peoplefromrecognizing
suchtruths wasproblematic. Educationwasonemethod; empirical observationwas
another. Melanchthon in factpresented themethodology we havereviewedas a
pattern foreducation-theascentfromobservation topossiblecause,thereasoning
from manypossiblecausestoonetruecause,andthesubsequent a prioridemonstra-
tionoftheoriginalphenomenon.20 The samepattern wouldalso allowtherecogni-
tionofpreviously unknown causesof natural phenomena, butin an age whenthe
content of knowledge was to a largeextentregarded as stableand approachesto
improving knowledge focusedonreform byrecovering classicallearning,theappli-
cationofregressus todiscovering newknowledge wasnota prominent concern.
I" On Melanchthon's observationofthecometof 1531,see Kusukawa,Transformation ofNatural

Philosophy ofplanets,see PhilipMelanchthon,
(cit.n. 2), pp. 125, 170. On his observations Initia
doctrina physicae(1549),inCR, vol. 13,cols. 268 and274; BernardR. Goldstein, "LevibenGerson
andtheBrightness ofMars,"J.Hist.Astron.27 (1996):297-300.
19
On thedoctrine ofnaturallight,see Barker, "Kepler'sEpistemology" (cit.n. 2).
2() PhilipMelanchthon, Initiadoctrinaphysicae,in CR, vol. 13,col. 194,quotedandtranslated in
Barkerand Goldstein,"Realismand Instrumentalism in SixteenthCentury Astronomy" (cit.n. 7),
of Natural Philosophy(cit. n. 2), p. 185.
pp. 244f.; cf. Kusukawa, Transformation

V. KEPLER'S EDUCATION
AlthoughKepler is now rememberedas an astronomer, his earlyeducationwas in-

tendedto preparehim to enterthe ministryof the LutheranChurchin his native
Wurttemberg. The Lutheraninitiativesin educationhad extendedfromthefounding
of state-supportedpublic schools and thereformof universities likeWittenberg and
Tubingento the establishment of seminariesor Stiftsschulen to trainministersfor
the new church.Academicallytalentedstudentswere identifiedin primaryschool
and trackedintoworkthatpreparedthemfortheministry. The dukeofWurttemberg
providedscholarshipsto supportpromisingyoungstudents:Keplerwas one ofthem.
At some timeduringhis university educationatTubingen(1589-1594) Keplerfound
himselfunable to subscribeto the Formulaof Concord whichall Lutheranclerics
were requiredto endorse.A university careerwas also ruledout,since enteringthe
ministry was a preconditionforappointment.'Keplerwas luckyto findan appoint-
mentas a teacherof mathematicsand othersubjectsat theProtestant Stiftsschulein
Graz, a cityin Austria.Here he began his publishingcareerand a successfulcam-
paignto attractpatronage.His moveintomathematics and naturalphilosophyshould
notbe permitted to obscurethecontinuingrole of Kepler'sreligiouseducationboth
in his personallife and in his intellectualwork.
All theideas we have so farreviewedas typicalof the sixteenth-century milieu,
and especiallyof Lutheranism, were in activecirculationat TiibingenduringKep-
ler'suniversityyears.In particular, AndreasPlaner( 1546-1607), theprofessorwith
special responsibilityforAristotle'sOrganon(thatis, his logical works)lecturedon
thePosteriorAnalytics,includingbotha posterioriand a prioridemonstrations and
the conversionof one to the other(and the same methodologywas also discussed
by MartinCrusius [1526-1607], professorof Greek,and by Maestlin).22This was
hardlysurprising.Studentseverywherein Europe,regardlessof theirconfessional
allegiance,studiedthesetopics.Lutheranuniversitiesweredistinguished by thein-
in
fluenceof Melanchthon,and particular his ideas on natural and
philosophy provi-
dence.At TUbingen,Melanchthon'sviews were presentedby his studentJacobHeer-
brand (1521-1600), who taught theology to both Maestlin and Kepler. But
professorsof astronomy such as Maestlin and his predecessor PhilipApian (153 1-
1589) also showed the influence of the Lutheran doctrine of providence.
WhileKeplerwas atTiibingen,Heerbrandwas professoroftheologyin theuniver-
sityseminaryuntil1590 and succeededJacobAndreae(I1528-1590)as itschancellor
from1590 to 1599. In Heerbrand'swritingstheLutherandoctrinethatnaturalphi-
losophypermitsaccess to a divinelycreatedprovidentialorderingof the worldis
bothclearlyformulated and extended.For Heerbrand,thenaturalworldis thebook
of natureto be read in parallelwiththebook of Scripturein comingto understand
God and his works.23 Heerbrandsinglesout as elementsof theprovidentialdesign
21
Caspar, Kepler (cit. n. 1), pp. 48-50, 213, and 258-64; Hubner,TheologieJohannesKeplers (cit.
n. 1),pp. 45-59 and 108-11;Methuen, KeplersTibingen(cit.n. 2), pp. 44-6.
22
See Methuen, Kepler'sTibingen(cit.n. 2), pp. 183ff.
23 [on thematerials
"I am concentrating whichformthebasisfortheMysterium] so thatthismay
be madepublicas quicklyas possible,to thegloryof God, who wishesto be known[agnoscere]
throughtheBook of Nature,"Kepler to Maestlin, 3 Oct. 1595, JohannesKepler GesammelteWerke,
KGW). On earlymodem
ed. M. Caspar(Munich:Beck, 1937-).vol. 13,p. 40, lines2-3 (henceforth
readings of the book of nature,see JamesJ. Bono, The Wordof God and the Languages of Man:

the same categoriesof knowledgehighlightedby Melanchthon:theorderapparent

in themorallaw and in therealmof numbers.In thetraditionof theargumentfrom
design,and foreshadowing a commentthatKeplerlatermade in The Sacred Mystery
of the Cosmos, Heerbrandinsiststhatthe orderapparentin theserealmscannotbe
accidentalor,as he putsit,"fortuitous.:24
Like Melanchthonhe takestheappearance
of such orderto be evidence of the existenceof a creator.Equally,if the studyof
naturalphilosophyis to lead Lutheransto God, this activitypresupposesthatthe
providentialorderof the worldis accessible to thehumanintellect.God's plan for
theworldis in principleknowableby man.
Heerbrandendorses and extends Melanchthon'sviews on providenceand the
studyof naturebutwithoutattributing theseviews.25Kepler also failsto name Me-
lanchthonas a source.Theremaybe tworeasonsforthis.First,theseideas were in
some sense the commonpropertyof all Lutherans(and sharedto a considerable
extentby membersof otherfaiths).Second, in the age of theFormulaof Concord,
Melanchthon'sviews on therelationof Lutheranism to otherconfessions(especially
Calvinism)became increasinglysuspectwithintheLutherancommunity. Although
he was reveredafterhis deathas the main authorof theAugsburgConfessionand
thegreatreformer of educationin Germany, his rejectionby theLutheranleadership
mayhave made directcitationsomethingof a liability.26
Maestlin became Kepler's most importantteacher,and laterhis benefactorand
friend.Maestlin introducedKepler to Copernicanism,assisted him in findinghis
firstjob, and arrangedforpublicationof his firstbook, The Sacred Mysteryof the
Cosmos. We have alreadynotedMaestlin'sworkon thecometof 1577, whichboth
pointedout the difficultyposed forCopernicus'ssystemby gaps betweenhis orbs
and proposeda possible solution-fillingthegaps withcomets.Two otherelements
of Maestlin'sworkdeservespecial mention.The firstis his explicitdiscussionof the
statusof demonstration in astronomy. AlthoughMaestlin and indeed Crusius (the
professorof Greekat Tibingen) allow thepossibilityof a prioridemonstrations in
themathematicalsciences and some relatedmatters, thisdoes notextendto astron-
omy.For Crusius,in orderto qualifyas a priori,a demonstration mustbe unique,
the only possible demonstration of the phenomenonin question.This can usually
be attainedonlyin themathematical disciplines.Maestlinclaimsthathis demonstra-
tionthatcometsare above themoon(based on parallaxobservationsand geometrical
reasoning)is "necessary"(ex necesse), whichis verymuchthesame thingas calling
it a priori.27But these demonstrations are cosmological,not astronomicalin the
strictsense,and mathematicalreasoningplaysan unusuallylargerole in them.
Maestlin himselfhad endorsedCopernicanismin his treatiseson the comets of
InterpretingNature in Early Modern Science and Medicine (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press,
1995).
24 Methuen, Cosmographicum,
Kepler'sTibingen (cit.n. 2), p. 137,n. 82; see Kepler,Mysterium
chap. 14; Duncan,SecretoftheUniverse, p. 156 (lastparagraph)(bothcit.n. 2).
25
Methuen, (cit.n. 2), pp. 136ff.
Kepler'sTiibingen
26
On thechangingstatusof Melanchthon andhisideas at thetimeof BraheandKepler,see Jole
Shackelford, "Rosicrucianism,LutheranOrthodoxy in Early
and theRejectionof Paracelsianism
Seventeenth CenturyDenmark," Bull.Hist.Med.70 (1996):181-204.
sed ex necessitate
27 "Ex quo nonprobabiliter, evincitur,Cometam... in summoaetherelocum
sibi quaesivisse." Maestlin, Consideratio et observatio cometae aetherei astronomica, qui anno
MDLXXX. . . apparent (cit. n. 14). QuotedinMethuen, Kepler's Tiibingen(cit.n. 2), p. 179andn. 61.

1577 and 1580. But in a disputationdeliveredat Heidelbergin 1582, addressedto

an audiencethatundoubtedlyretainedthegeocentricview of theuniverse,he gave
a completelyorthodoxstatement of thestatusof astronomy. A prioridemonstrations
are notavailableto earthbound observers;henceall workin astronomy mustproceed
a posteriori.Maestlinis therefore notamongtheearlyCopernicans(like R. Gemma
Frisiusor Rothmann)who regardedDe Revolutionibusas offering a prioriproofs.
Maestlin'sown convictionis based initiallyon his observationsof the 1577 comet,
which could not be made to fitinto a Ptolemaic scheme,whereas theycould be
made to fitintoa Copernicanone. But everyonewho acceptsthemethodof regressus
also acceptsthata prioridemonstration is theideal. So forMaestlinand his students,
thechallengeto supplya prioridemonstrations in astronomyremainsopen.
Second, Maestlin'sworkalso embodiestheLutheranconvictionthatthestudyof
thenaturalworld,especiallyastronomy, givesknowledgeof theCreator'sproviden-
tial plan. But Maestlinadds a significant refinement: he insiststhataccuracyin as-
tronomyimprovesone's knowledgeof God and providence.This applies bothto the
descriptionof thecometand to the "mostcertainlaws of theastronomers"(certis-
simis Astronomicislegibus).28 Gettingthe numbersrightmatters.Maestlin also
serves as the finallink in a chain of transmissionthatconnectsthe mathematical
viewsof SimonGrynaeusto Kepler.Grynaeus(1493-1541) was a friendand collab-
oratorofMelanchthon(witha special interestin astronomy), and he was responsible
forthefirstGreekeditionof Ptolemy'sAlmagest.In 1535 Melanchthonwrotea letter
to Grynaeus,intendedto be used as a prefaceto a commentary on Peurbach'snew
theorica.29 This lettermaywell marktheoriginof theLutheranemphasison astron-
omyand astrologyas sourcesoftheknowledgeof God's providence.It was reprinted
in severalprominent places-for example,at thebeginningofbotheditionsof Eras-
musReinhold'stheorica,in 1542 and 1553.30Grynaeushimselfarguedforthelegiti-
macy of mathematically based argumentsin establishingthe correctinterpretation
of observationaldata. His ideas influencedand were transmitted by threehighly
regardedTubingenfiguresduringKepler'stimethere.The firstof thesewas Martin
Crusius,who taughtKepler Greekand latertriedto enlisthis help witha commen-
taryon Homer.3'The second was PhilipApian, who had been professorof astron-
omy beforeMaestlinbut had lost thepositionwhen he refusedto subscribeto the
FormulaofConcord.Apian,a celebratedastronomer in his own right,was stillliving
in TiibingenwhenKepler arrived.Third,Maestlin'sremarkson thestatusof mathe-
maticsalso show Grynaeus'sinfluence.2
WhenKeplerarrivedat Ttibingenin 1589, Maestlinhad been professorof astron-
omy forsix years.AlthoughMaestlinconfinedhimselfto teachingorthodoxPtole-
28 Maestlin, Observatio et demonstratiocometae aetherei, . . . 1577 et 1578 (cit. n. 14), quoted in

Methuen,Kepler'sTiibingen (cit.n. 2), pp. 155, 171, 174; forMaestlin'semphasison exactnessin
describingthecomet,see p. 174,n. 50.
29
to Grynaeus,
Melanchthon Jan.10, 1535,LetterNo. 1239,CR, vol.2, pp. 814-21.
30 Kusukawa, in
Transformationof Natural Philosophy (cit. n. 2), p. 134. The letterreappeared
Theoricae novae planetarumGeorgiiPurbachii Germaniab Erasmo Reinholdo Salveldensi. . . (Wit-
tenberg:Lufft,1542), and Theoricae novae planetarumGeorgiiPurbachii Germaniab Erasmo Rein-
holdo Salveldensi . . . Recens editae et auctae novis scholiis in Theorica Solis ab ipso autore (Wit-
tenberg:Lufft,1553).
Kepler (cit.n. 1), pp. 47-8.
31 Caspar,
32 ForevidenceofthecarefulreadingbyApianandCrusiusofGrynaeus's viewsthatappearinhis
editionofEuclid'sElements, see Methuen, (cit.n. 2), p. 171.
KeplersTiibingen

maic astronomyin thebasic classes requiredof all students,he presentedCoperni-

can ideas to his advanced students.When Kepler's religiousscruplesbecame an
obstacleto his originalgoal of enteringtheLutheranministry, his intensivestudies
withMaestlin,together withtherecommendation of theTtibingenUniversity senate,
enabled him to finda positionteachingmathematicsat a Lutheranschool in the
Austriancityof Graz. Here Kepleravoidedreligiouspartisanshipand began a quest
forsupportin thenetworkofpatronagethatboundtogether theHoly RomanEmpire,
and in whichthegreatestpatronwas theemperor,RudolfII. It is againstthisback-
groundthatKepler produceda spectacularpiece of intellectualprecocityand self-
advertisement, in whichhe claimedto haveuncovered,once and forall, thestructure
of God's providentialplan forthe cosmos as a whole, and particularlyforthe ar-
rangementof theplanets.Ratherthanan exercisein astronomyor a defenseof Co-
pernicanismas a novel cosmology,Kepler's firstbook mustbe read as essentially
theological.
VI. THE MYSTERIUM COSMOGRAPHICUM
Kepler's firstmajor publicationwas his MysteriumCosmographicum(1596). The

role of religionis notconcealed butindicatedin theverytitleof thebook,whichhas
notbeen well translated."MysteriumCosmographicum"has usuallybeen rendered
"secretof theuniverse."33 But "secret"is a blandtranslationof mysterium. The term
maywell mean "mystery" or "secret,"but its centralmeaningin antiquitywas "sa-
cred mystery," the secretstaughtto initiateswhentheyentereda religiouscult. So
thetitlemightbe betterrendered"The Sacred Mysteryof theCosmos." To Kepler
and his audience of philologicallyacute humaniststhismeaningwould have been
evident,if not at once, thenas soon as the book was opened. The greetingsto the
readerannouncethatthe book will reveal "What the world is like, thatis, God's
cause and plan forcreatingit,"among otherwonders(Quid mundus,quae causa
Deo, ratioquecreandi).34 This makesthereligiousaspectoftheworkunambiguously
clear (and indicatesto whichreligionthissacredmystery belongs).
As is well known,Kepler introducesa geometricalconstruction based on thefive
regularPlatonicsolids to defend the Copernican system.The preface to thereader
begins.
to demonstrate
I propose,reader, inthislittlebookthatthemostGood andGreatCre-
ator,inthecreationofthismovingworld,andthearrangement referred
oftheheavens,
to thosefiveregularsolids,well knownfromPythagoras andPlatoto ourowntime,
thenumber
andthatto theirnaturehe fitted andthe
of theheavens,theirproportions,
plan(ratio)oftheirmotions."335
Twentieth-centuryhistorianshave usuallybeen happyto endorseKepler's defense

of Copernicus,althoughhis reasoningis oftendismissedas mystical.The sourceof
33 Forexample, byDuncaninhisEnglishtranslation, JohannesKepler: The Secretof the Universe

(cit.n. 2); also byA. SegondsinhisFrenchversion, Le Secretdu monde(Paris:BellesLettres,1984).
3' Kepler, Mvsterinum Cosmographicumn,fol.A lv; cf. Duncan,Secret of the Universe (cit. n. 2),
p. 48.
5 Kepler. MvsteriumCosniographicum,p. 6; cf.Duncan,Secret of the Universe(cit.n. 2), p. 62.
All translations arebyP. Barkerunlessotherwise indicated.

Kepler's alleged mysticismis apparentin thispassage; it is the numbermysticism

associatedwithPythagorasand Plato.The equallyprominent referenceto theChris-
tian deityhas usually passed withoutcommentamong historianswho took it for
grantedthatreal science-for example,theCopernicansystem-had nothingto do
withreligion.6
Looking at thepassage againstthe backgroundwe have alreadypresented,it is
conspicuousthatall threeissues raised by Kepler-the number,proportions,and
plan of thecelestialmotions are properlyquestionsin cosmology,and notastron-
omy understoodas thescience of determining thepositionsof planetsat any given
time.Indeed,even in Ptolemaiccosmologytheproportions of theheavenswere not
establishedfrompurelyastronomicalassumptions.37 It is also significantthatKepler
claims in thefirstline thathe will offerdemonstrations, a point already stated in the
to
greetings thereader, where he says thathe will consider thecause and plan (ratio)
of the celestial motions.All these pointswould be read by contemporaries as the
claim thatKepler will conformto the standardsaccepted in regressusdemonstra-
tions,and thatifhe claimsto knowthecause of themotions,he will haveto establish
his resultsby a priori proof.This is exactlywhatKepler goes on to do. Religious
ideas fromtheLutherantraditionplay a foundationalrole in thesedemonstrations.
The namingof theCreatorahead of Pythagorasand Plato is notsuperficialpietybut
indicatesthereal statusof religiousideas in Kepler'sdemonstrations.
In an autobiographicalremarkthatwe have no real reason to doubtKepler tells
us thathis originalinsightscame to him while teachingone day in July1595.38He
was drawinga diagramto showthepatternof greatconjunctionsfortheplanetsSat-
urnand Jupiteragainstthebackgroundof the zodiac. As he added lines to thedia-
gram,the figureincreasinglyresembleda series of trianglesinscribedwithinthe
circleof thezodiac. These trianglesdefineda second circlein theclear space at the
center.ApparentlyKeplerimmediatelyassociatedthegap betweenthetwocircles
theinscribedcircle and thezodiac circle-with thegaps betweencelestialspheres
in Copernicus'ssystem.He saw thepossibilityof explainingthegaps as the result
of boundariesinscribedand circumscribedaroundgeometricalfigures.
Kepler experimentedwitha varietyof constructions, even adding new and un-
knownplanetsat one point.But, as Kepler soon realized,therewas no satisfactory
wayto definetheintervalsby meansof polygons,particularly in thecase ofthehuge
gap betweenMars and Jupiter. On theotherhand,therewereonlyfiveregularthree-
36 See, e.g.,amongtheworks HistoryofPlanetary

alreadycited,Dreyer, Systems (cit.n. 1),p. 376:
"Fortheorderof[thepolyhedra intheMysterium]he givesa greatmanyreasons,one,morefantastic
thantheother.But we mustpass overthesecuriousdetails";and p. 410: "Manywriters haveex-
pressedtheirdeepregret thatKeplershouldhavespentso muchtimeon wildspeculations andfilled
hisbookswithall sortsofmystic Caspar,Kepler(cit.n. 1),p. 61: "Consciously
fantasies"; oruncon-
sciously, wereconnected
Kepler'sthoughts witheverythingwhichhe hadheardandreadofPythago-
ras andPlato... and withthatwhichChristian teachingaboutGod and theworldandtheposition
of menregarding in him.The timehad comewhenthesewhirling
bothhad implanted thoughts of
Kepler's took on a distinctform. . . [the Mysterium]";and p. 67: "Five mannersof approach to the
of theworldenablehimto answer[thefundamental
examination the
questionsof theMysterium]:
aesthetic .... the teleological ..., the mystic,by which he is convinced that 'most causes for
thethingsin theworldcan be derivedfromGod'sloveforman'"; Koyr6,TheAstronomical Revolu-
seemsverystrangeto us, and thereasoninginspiredby
tion(cit.n. 1), p. 149: "Kepler'smentality
itseemsfantastic orevenharebrained."Similarquotations can be foundelsewhereas well.
37 GoldsteinandBarker,"Role ofRothmann" (cit.n. 8), pp. 387ff.
A Kepler,MvsteriumCosmographicum,p. 8; cf. Duncan, Secret of the Universe(cit. n. 2), p. 65.

dimensionalfigures.Takingtheconservativeview thatthe six knownplanetswere

all thatexisted,fiveregularsolids would providethe correctnumberof intervals.
Kepler was delightedto discoverthatone particularorderingof the solids (moving
outwardfromthesun:octahedron,icosahedron,dodecahedron,pyramid,cube) filled
thegaps in close agreementwiththedistancesthatfollowedfromCopernicus'ssys-
tem.It shouldbe remembered thatforKeplertheseregularsolidsweremathematical
objects rather than physical bodies in theheavens.But it is notonlythepossibility
of recovering (something close to) the correctnumericaldistancesthatis striking;it
is equally significant that there be only one orderingthatachieves this.Again there
were difficulties: for example, the ratiosforthedodecahedronand theicosahedron
are thesame,as Keplerwas explicitlyaware.39Despite this,by a seriesof arguments
he establisheda unique orderingof thepolyhedra.Therewas one and onlyone way
of arrivingat the correctnumbers,and this was the markof an a priori demon-
stration.
In thefirstchapterof thebook Keplercompareswhathe is doingwiththeearlier
workof Copernicus.Where Copernicusaddressedonly astronomy, Kepler says he
will deal withcosmology;whereCopernicushad been able-in theend-to offer
onlya posterioridemonstrations, Kepler will provide,forthefirsttime,an a priori
demonstration of theCopernicansystemof theworld.4"
The uniquenessof Kepler'sproofwould have been its strongest recommendation
to a sixteenth-century methodologist. But perhapsthe suspicionlingers(especially
in the modernmind)thatthecorrespondencebetweenthenested-solidsmodel and
Copernicus'snumbersmightbe a mere coincidence,made plausible by Kepler's
personalinvolvement in Platonicnumbermysticism.Kepler'sresultis neitherper-
sonal, coincidental,nor mystical.Melanchthon'sdisciple,Georg JoachimRheticus
(1514-1574), had alreadyraised the questionof whythereare six planetsand not
some othernumberin his NarratioPrima. He had offeredas a reason thatsix is a
perfectnumber(in themathematicalsense thatit is equal to the sum of its divisors
otherthan itself),but he had offeredno further explanationof why the Creator
shouldhave chosen a perfectnumber,or why theCreatorshould have chosen this
perfectnumberratherthansome other.Rheticus'sdemonstration is clearly not a
priori.And in the same passage Rheticusacknowledgesbut does not resolve the
problemofthegaps betweenCopernicus'sspheres,sayingthatthereis "no immense
interval"betweenthem.41By contrast, Kepler'sdemonstration thatthereare six plan-
ets answersall thesequestionsand is also unique.4
Could thearrangement of theregularsolids discoveredby Keplerbe coincidental
or,to use a termwe have alreadyintroduced,"fortuitous"? The answerdependson
seeing thattheproofrestson a theologicalfoundationthatis not mysticalbut the
overt,commonproperty of Lutheransand manyothercontemporary Christians.The
world has been constructedby a benevolentCreator,accordingto a discoverable
39Kepler,MysteriumCosmographicum,p. 27; cf.Duncan,Secretof the Universe(cit.n. 2), p. 103.

40
Kepler,MysteriumCosmographicum,pp. 13 and 23; cf. Duncan,Secret of the Universe (cit.
n. 2), pp. 77-9,97-9.
41 Rheticus, Narratioprima(Danzig:Rhode,1540), Diii r; idem,GeorgiiJoachimi RheticiNarra-
tioprima,ed. H. Hugonnard-Roche, J.-P.Verdet.M.-P.Lerneret al. (Wroclaw:Ossolineum,1982),
E. Rosen,ThreeCopernicanTreatises,
p. 60 (Latintext);p. 113(Frenchtranslation); 2nded. (New
York:Dover,1959),p. 147.
42 See also thelongdiscussionaddedby Kepleras n. 7 to theoriginalprefacein the1621edition
of theMvsteriumCosmographicum;Duncan, Secret of the Universe(cit. n. 2), p. 70.

102 PETERBARKERAND BERNARDR. GOLDSTEIN
plan. That the plan turnsout to be essentiallygeometricalis what makes it dis-

coverable.Kepler and manycontemporaries believed thatknowledgeof geometry
had been inscribedon thehumansoul whenitwas created.Humanbeingsare there-
fore uniquely well equipped to discover a geometricalplan for the world. Like
knowledgeof othermathematicaltruthsand of the moral law, such knowledgeis
accessible by thenaturallightof reason(a pointthatKeplermakesaboutmathemat-
ics in several places).43Knowledge secured in this way is literallyguaranteedby
God, so no further epistemologicalguaranteesare needed. Why did God use geo-
metricalsolids as the basis for the plan of the world? Because he benevolently
wishedto providea meansforhis creaturesto come to knowhis providential design.
Whythisdesignand notsome other?God mightverywell have arrangedthesolids
in a different order,butonce theorderis chosen it yields a unique set of distances,
discoverablea posteriorifromastronomicalobservation.This confirmsthehintthat
because thenumberof planetsis one morethanthenumberof regularsolids, each
then,thedemonstrations
solid will be used onlyonce. Ultimately, bothofthenumber
and thespacingof theplanetsbeginfromtheassumptionthatthereis a providential
plan,and thatit is knowableby humanbeings.Keplermakesthisaspectof his work
explicitin themanyreferencesto theCreatordeityand his plan fortheworldat the
beginningof The Sacred Mysteryof the Cosmos, and it is repeatedthroughout the
book. For example,in chapter4, the authortells us, "I thinkthatfromthe love of
God towardsmankindmanycauses of thingsin theworldmaybe deduced."'44 And
it is reiteratedin thequotationthatcloses thefinalchapter:
suchis
itpleases[me]tocryout:Certainly
AndnowatlastwiththedivineCopernicus
oftheGoodandGreat[God];andwithPliny:Theimmense
thedivinehandiwork world
is sacred.45
To sumup: in his own terms,and by thestandardsof sixteenth-century methodol-

ogy,Kepler has good reason to believe thathe has discoveredGod's plan forthe
world.At thesame time he has solved the outstandingproblem of thegaps between
Copernicus'sspheres.46 He avoids potentiallyawkwardquestionsaboutthephysical
connectionsbetweenspheresby adoptingan air-likecontinuousfluidas the sub-
stanceof theheavens.Like Brahehe treatsthespheresdefinedbyhis cosmic scheme
as geometricalboundariesin a continuousphysicalsubstance.The abandonmentof
spheres thatphysicallytransportthe planets immediatelycalled attentionto the
questionof whatmovestheplanets.This becomes one of themainissues addressed
in theNew Astronomy of 1609. Moreover,Keplerneverseriouslyquestionsthatthe
cosmos is finiteand sphericalin shape. In perhapsthebest-knowntheologicalpas-
De
41 See, e.g.. Kepler, Quantitatibus, (cit.n. 2), p. 360.
citedin Barker,"Kepler'sEpistemology"
p. 27; cf. Duncan, Secretofthe Universe(cit. n. 2), p. 106.
44Kepler,MysteriumCosmnographicum,
Mysterium
45 Kepler. Cosmographicum, p. 82; cf.Duncan,SecretoftheUniverse(cit.n. 2), p. 223.
The passageends,"andwithPliny:The immenseworldis sacred,thewholeconsidered as a whole,
yeaverilyitselfthewhole,finiteandresembling The sacredwholeinvokedbyPlinyis,
theinfinite."
orcourse,theStoiccosmos.
46 Kepleradmitted thatthe"fit"betweenhis theory of theregularsolidsandthedatais notexact
butnoted"howgreatly unequalthenumbers wouldhavebeen,ifthisundertaking hadbeencontrary
to Nature,thatis, ifGod himselfat theCreationhad notlookedto theseproportions" (Mysterium
Cosmographicum,p. 50; Duncan, Secretof the Universe[cit. n. 2], p. 157). But Kepler believed that
discrepancies.
theremaining
in hisHarmoniceMundi(1619) he hadeliminated

sage fromThe Sacred MysteryoftheCosmos Keplerclaims thatthecosmos is liter-

ally an image of God:
Andthethreemostimportantthings,
ofwhichI persistently soughtthecauseswhythey
wereso andnototherwise,
werethenumber, sizeandmotionoftheorbs.Thatbeautiful
commensurability
(harmonia)ofstaticobjects:thesun,thefixedstars,andtheinterven-
ingmedium[on theone hand]withGod theFather, theSon,andtheHolySpirit[on
theother],
mademedarethis.47
Althoughthisstructure is securedby similarconvictionsconnectinggeometry, the

plan fortheworld,and the natureof the deity,Kepler makes no subsequentclaim
thatit can be demonstrated a priori,perhapsbecause thereseems to be no way to
establishthatthecorrespondencehe proposesis unique.
Like theregular-solidsconstruction, theclaim thatthecosmos followsthepattern
of theTrinityachieves at best an explanationforthe staticstructureof the created
world.Kepler is less successfulin accountingfortheway theplanetsmove.This is
perhapsa limitationimposed by using knowledgeof geometryas the basis fora
priori demonstrations.Gettingthe details of planetarymotion rightbecomes
Kepler'smajorproject,occupyinghimformostofthefirstdecade of theseventeenth
centuryand leading to his New Astronomy. In thisbook he answersthequestionof
the causes of planetarymotionand, at the same time,he specifiesthe patternof
reasoningthat led him to them.This book is rememberedtoday for describing
Kepler'sdiscoveryof thefirsttwo laws of planetarymotion.As we will see, Kepler
makes special use of a second commonformof demonstration, to movebeyondthe
staticresultsof The Sacred Mysteryof theCosmos, whichwere achievedin accor-
dance withthea prioriportionof theregressusmethod.AlthoughtheNew Astron-
omyis seldomseen as a book withreligiouscontent,theLutheranprovidential view
of natureagain underliesthereasoningemployedhere. It is to thissecond pattern
of reasoningthatwe now turn.
VII. EXEMPLUM AND THE ARGUMENTS FOR KEPLER'S PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES
The second piece of contextualinformation needed to understandKepler's argu-

mentsis themeaningof thetermexemplum.Like regressus,the earlymodem dis-
cussion of theexemplumpatternof argumentis rootedin Aristotle'slogic, specifi-
adherents.For
cally remarksin thePriorAnalyticsmodifiedby its sixteenth-century
our purposes,themostsignificant of theseadherentsis Melanchthon,whose works
on rhetoricand dialecticswere enormouslyinfluential,especiallyin Lutheranuni-
versities,includingthatattendedby Kepler.
threemodesof inference,
In thePriorAnalyticsAristotledistinguishes as follows:
Wehavean "example"whenthemajortermis provedtobelongtothemiddlebymeans

ofa termthatresembles Itoughttobe knownboththatthemiddlebelongsto
thethird.
thethirdtermandthatthefirstbelongsto thatwhichresemblesthethird.... Clearly
thentoarguebyexampleis neither from
likereasoning parttowhole,norlikereasoning
fromwholeto part,butrather reasoning frompartto partwhenbothparticularsare
subordinatedto thesametermand one of themis known.It differsfrominduction
Mysterium
17 Kepler, 1596,p. 6: cf.Duncan,SecretoftheUniverse(cit.n. 2).
Cosmographicum,
p. 62.

104 PETERBARKERAND BERNARDR. GOLDSTEIN
becauseinduction,starting casesproves(as we saw) thatthemajor

fromall particular
termbelongsto themiddleanddoes notapplythesyllogistic conclusionto theminor
term,whereasargument byexampledoes makethisapplication anddoes notdrawits
cases.48
prooffromall theparticular
In Greekthetermcorresponding is paradeigma,and
to "example"in thistranslation
it is usuallytranslatedintoLatin as exemplum.49
In Aristotleexemplummaybe merelya mode of inference;forMelanchthonand
Kepleritis also an indicationof theexistenceof a universalruleor law and,as such,
partof God's providentialplan. In his ErotemataDialectices (originallypublished
in 1547, frequently revisedand reprinted)MelanchthonrepeatsAristotle'sdivision
of inferencesintosyllogisms,inductions,and exemplaand goes on to say,"Exempla
are thereforeremindersabout some universalrule or law, which connectssimilar
things."50The examplesgivento illustrate thistypeof inferenceinvolvemoralprohi-
bitions:
The greatest intheFloodon accountoflicentiousness

partofthehumanraceperished
without
[libidines];therefore, will be punished[at thepresent
doubtlicentiousness
time].5'
To makethestructure ofthisargumentclearer,notethatNoah's Flood was a singular

event,broughtabout,accordingto Melanchthon,by thelicentiousnessof thehuman
race. Similar events with similarcauses were the destructionof Sodom and of
Thebes. It is possible to reason legitimatelyfromthese singularcases to another
singularcase-similar excesses today will also be punished-because thereis a
morallaw thatsuchbehavioris wrong,and it is knownthatGod punishesthosewho
transgressthemorallaw. So a clearerstatement mightbe:
Thelicentious
behaviorofhumansbeforetheFloodwaspunished; licentious
therefore,
todaywillbe punished.
behavior
Or,recastingtheexemplumas a syllogism:
is punished
behavior
All licentious byGod;therefore, todaywillbe
behavior
licentious
punished byGod.
Here the firstuniversalpremisestatesthe (combinationof) morallaws thatrender

theinferencebetweensingularinstancesvalid.
The same argumentstructure recursfrequently clear and
in Kepler.A particularly
48 Aristotle,PriorAnalytics, A. J.Jenkinson
trans. (Oxford:Clarendon, 1928),11.24,68b38-69b19.
Organonseu libriad Dialecticamattinentes...,
9 E.g., see Aristoteles trans.F. Caesius(Venice:
ApudHieronymum Scotum,1552),fols.103r-103v.In additiontotheuse ofthetermexemplum by
Melanchthon andKepler(see thefollowing paragraphs),thispatternofargument is widelydiscussed
in sixteenth-andearlyseventeenth-century textson logicanddialectics.TwoexamplesareEustach-
iusa SanctoPaulo,Summaphilosophiaquadripartita (Coloniae:Zetzner, 1629),pt.1 (Logic),p. 168,
who treatsit as a fallacy;and Theophraste Bouju, Corpsde toutela philosophiedeviseen deux
parties(Paris:M. Orry,1614),p. 73, whoacceptsitas a nonfallacious pattern ofargument.
50 Erotemata Dialectices,CR, vol. 13,cols. 621-24,col. 622: "Suntigiturexemplacommonefacti-
ones [i.e.,reminders] de aliquauniversaliregulaseu lege,quae complectitur similia"
51 Ibid.,col. 622.

briefexample followsan argumentthattheplanetsvaryin receptivity

to the solar
virtue(on accountof whichtheirmotionsare slowerthantherotationof the sun),
to thesun:
increaseswiththeirproximity
and thatthisreceptivity
andso inorder, fromtheexampleofthe

all thewaytoMERCURY,whichundoubtedly
superior[planets],yetagain will itselfbe slowerthanthepowerthatconveysit.... This
analogyteachesthatthereresidesin all planets,andalso in Mercuryitself,
thelowest,
an inherent forceofextricating
material itselfa littlefromtheorbofthesolarvirtue.52
Here theexemplumargumentis:
Saturn, Mars,andVenusmovemoreslowlythanthepowerthatconveysthem
Jupiter,
(thesolarvirtue);therefore willmovemoreslowlythanthepowerthatcon-
Mercury
veysit.
Kepler,however,is interestedin establishingthe generalrule or law thatlicenses

theexemplum:unlikeMelanchthon'sexample,it is notone alreadyknown.The syl-
logisticversionof theargumentwould therefore be:
In all planetsthereresidesa powercapableof resisting

theeffectsofthesolarvirtue
(in consequenceof whichtheywill movemoreslowlythanthepowerthatconveys
them);therefore, in Mercury thereresidesa powercapableof resisting of
theeffects
thesolarvirtue(inconsequence ofwhichitwillmovemoreslowlythanthepowerthat
conveysit).
In both Melanchthonand Kepler,by inspectinga successfulexemplumargument,

we mayestablisha principleused by God to governtheworld.
show,forMelanchthontheprimarymeaningof naturallaw
As theseillustrations
is a morallaw or principle,engravedin thehumansoul byitsCreatorand accessible
to all throughtheexerciseof thatfacultyof thesoul or mindcalled thenaturallight.
Otherprinciplessimilarlyaccessible includethefundamental truthsof mathematics.
The moralprinciples were establishedby God to ensure a stable and harmonious
social worldforthehumanrace. However,humansocial liferequiresa stablephysi-
cal environment. As alreadyindicated,Lutheranslike Melanchthonand Kepler be-
lieved thatthephysicaluniversehad been establishedin a way and accordingto a
patternintendedforthebenefitof mankind.Thus,physicallaws, includingthoseto
be foundin astronomy, were partof the providentialplan.53Melanchthonuses the
52 Kepler, Astronomia Nova (cit.n. 2), pp. 174-5: "[E]tsic consquenter, usquead MERCURIAM,
qui proculdubioad exemplum superiorum, etiamipsetardior quae ipsumvehit.[p. 175]
erit,virtute
Docet hincanalogiastatuere, omnibusPLANETIS, ipse etiamMERCURIO humilimo, inessevim
materialam ex orbevirtutis
sese explicandinonnihil SOLARIS." Cf.Donahue,NewAstronomy (cit.
n. 2), p. 388.
53 On Melanchthon's conceptofnatural lawandprovidence, see Kusukawa,Transformation ofNat-
uralPhilosophy(cit.n. 2), pp. 124-73.For additionalinformation on Kepler'sknowledgeof this
tradition, see Methuen, Kepler'sTiubingen see Barker,
(cit.n. 2). On Kepler'suse ofthesedoctrines,
"Lutheran Responseto Copernicus"(cit.n. 2).

term"law" to referto thepatternof motionof heavenlybodies.54Kepler speaks the

same way and also uses theterms"law" and "rule"to referto thetwobasic physical
principlesintroducedin theNew Astronomy: thedistance-velocity relation,and the
reciprocation rule (called "libration"by Kepler).55
Since at least the time when he composed The Sacred Mysteryof the Cosmos,
Keplerreliedupon a versionof thenaturallightdoctrineto safeguardknowledgeof
the divineplan.6 He laterused the term"archetype"to designatethe geometrical
basis of theplan. Rules or laws such as thedistance-velocity relationor therecipro-
cationruleare notat thesame level as thesegeometricalarchetypes. Valid exemplum
inferencesmay be takento establishthe existenceof a genus to which all its in-
stances(theexempla)belongas species,and thismaybe seen as a law or regularity.
The essentialdifference betweenarchetypesand laws is thatthediscoveryof arche-
types depends on mathematicalknowledgealone, whereas the discoveryof laws
requiresan investigation and observationof nature.We further suggestthatarche-
typesdisplaythe eternaltime-invariant featuresof the divineplan, whereasexem-
plumargumentsare used to discoverthelaws governingthefeaturesof theplan that
varyin time,such as thepositions,distances,and velocitiesof theplanets.57
VIII. THE ARGUMENT OF THE NEW ASTRONOMY
A New Astronomy Based on Causes, or CelestialPhysics(AstronomiaNova AITIO-

AOFHTO02 sev physica coelestis) appeared at Prague in 1609. The book begins
witha series of chaptersin whichthe systemsof Ptolemy,Brahe, and Copernicus
are consideredas possible models thatmayaccountforTycho'sextremelyaccurate
positionaldata forMars. This is an a posterioriinvestigation of astronomyin the
sense thatprevailed beforeKepler-the aim is to recover the phenomena,not to
of
give a causal account planetary motion understood In chapter16
realistically.58
Keplerintroduces a model thatuses an equant with a nonbisected which
eccentricity,
he calls his "vicarious hypothesis,"that is, a hypothesis to be used provisionally
54 Kusukawa, Transformation ofNaturalPhilosophy (cit.n. 2), p. 140,quotinga passagebyMe-

lanchthon publishedin 1536: "[T]he surestlaw regulatestheheavenlycoursesand thewholeof
nature"([C]ertissima legecursuscoelestesettotamnaturam regere)(CR, vol. 3, col. 114).
55 Kepler,Astronomia nova,p. 276; Donahue,NewAstronomy p. 560 (bothcit.n. 2); KGW vol.3,
p. 356, lines 14ff.,and"legeslibrationis" line 17. In theEpitome,KGW (cit.n. 23), vol.7, p. 367,
line34, Kepleragainapplies"leges"to thereciprocation rule.
56 Barker,"Kepler'sEpistemology" (cit.n. 2).
57 We are notawareof anycommentator whohas appreciated Kepler'sappealto exemplum argu-
ments,butR. Martenscomes veryclose: "Thatthemathematical relationholdsin bothcases is
evidencefortheprecisionoftheanalogyandhenceforthearchetypal natureoftherelation,rather
thanevidencethatmagneticpoles cause libration": R. Martens,"Kepler'sSolutionto theProblem
of a Realist Celestial Mechanics," Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 30 (1999):377-94, especially p. 390. What
shecalls"analogy"is theexemplumn argument. shehas noticedthatKeplerhas not
But,significantly,
assertedthatthesolarvirtueis magnetic;rather, boththesolarvirtueandmagnetism belongto the
samegenus(to use ourterminology): see theNewAstronomy, chaps.34 and57, whereKeplerpre-
sentshis exemplum arguments. We intendto treatKepler'sdistinction between"archetype" and
"physicallaw" in greaterdetailin a subsequent Forthemoment
publication. to saythat
letitsuffice
theterm"archetype" occursrarelyin Kepler'swritings before1618.
" The modernunderstanding is thatCopernicusat leastattempted to givea realistic-thatis, a
causal-account of planetary motion.But Kepler'sview is thatCopernicus'sworkwas successful
onlyas an a posterioriaccount,leavingtoKeplerthetaskofcompleting thea priorione:Mysterium
Cosmographicumn, chap.1,Duncan,SecretoftheUniverse (cit.n. 2), p. 76; Martens,"Kepler'sSolu-
tion"(cit.n. 57).

untilthetruehypothesisis discovered.By theend of the second major partof the

New Astronomy (endingwithchap. 21), Kepler has appealed to thenow celebrated
8-minuteerrorin longitudeto eliminatethemodelsof Brahe,Ptolemy,and Coperni-
cus, leavingonlyhis vicarioushypothesisas a possible accountfortheangularposi-
tionsof Mars.59By prevailingstandardsin physics,however,Kepler cannotoffera
meregeometricalmodel butmustidentifythetruecauses of themotions,if he is to
make good on his title'spromiseto offer"an astronomybased on causes." Kepler
pointsout thatusing an equant model withnonbisectedeccentricity gives correct
angularpositions,while an equant model with bisected eccentricityseems to be
needed to recoverthecorrectdistances.But a model thatembodiesthetruecauses
(and permitsa priorirecoveryof theobservationaldata) mustcorrectlyassignboth
an angularpositionand a distanceto theplanetat any giventime.So by theend of
thesecondmajorpartof theoverallargumentof theNewAstronomy thereis already
a clear indicationthatthe vicarious hypothesisitselfcannot be the basis for a
causal astronomy.60
As we have discussed at lengthin a previouspaper,the thirdpartof the New
Astronomy (concludingwithchap. 40) establishesthedistance-velocity law forthe
case of a planetmovingon an eccentriccircle. This is the firstappearanceof the
resultnow called Kepler's Second Law, but the modernformof the Second Law
employsan ellipse, not a circle. The resultof chapter40 is therefore not Kepler's
Second Law buta step on theway to it.61In our previousworkwe were contentto
show how establishingthedistance-velocitylaw linkedmathematicaland physical
reasoning.However, that law is connected to more general physical principles
throughexemplum-style inferences.
The firstimportantset of exempla in theNew Astronomy occurs in chapter34,
linkinglightwiththemotivepowerin thesunthatdrivestheplanetsand establishing
thephysicalbasis forthedistance-velocitylaw of chapter40. Fromthisit follows
thatthereexistsa genusof whichthislaw is an instance.Physicallaws or principles
dealingwithotheraspectsof naturemaybe recognizedas legitimateon thegrounds
thattheyshare the same mathematicalstructure and are thereforeinstancesof the
same genus. Principlesthatdo not may be recognizedas spuriousand rejected.
Keplerneeds exemplathatsharemorethanmathematicalsimilarities.In chapter36
Kepler says,"I shall proposeto thereadertheobviouslyvalid exemplumof light"62
and adds a clearstatement thatthisinstanceof exemplumindicatesnotan illustration
but a patternof argument, herecalled "theargumentfromsimilarthings."63 Kepler
explicitlydrawsan analogybetweenthecause of themotivepowerin the sun and
thecauses of lightand of themagnet.Hence, althoughhe does notclaim to know
all thephysicaldetailsof thisforcein thesun,he can claim thatsuch a forceexists,
as a species of the genus "forcesthatattenuatewithdistance."These arguments
Astronomia
59 Kepler, (cit.n. 2), p. 286.
Nova,chap. 19; Donahue,NewAstronomy
60
Nova,chap. 19; Donahue,NewAstronomy
Kepler,Astronomia (cit.n. 2), p. 286.
61 Ann.
PeterBarkerand BernardR. Goldstein,"Distanceand Velocityin Kepler'sAstronomy,"
Sci. 51 (1994):59-73.
62
"[P]roponamlectoriexemplum lucisplanegenuinam, cumin SOLIS corporeet ipsa niduletur,
indequecomeshuicvirtuti motrici in totummundum emicet,"Kepler,Astronomia Nova,p. 172; cf.
Donahue,NewAstronomy (cit.n. 2), p. 383.
63 Kepler,AstronomiaNova,p. 173; cf. Donahue,NewAstronomy (cit.n. 2), p. 386. In margin:
"Exemplum inLuce."In text:"Utvis argumenti [literally:
a similitantositevidentior" "In orderthat
theforceoftheargument froma similarthingbe thatmuchmoreevident"].

establishtheexistenceof a forcethattraversesspace, diminisheswithdistance,and

moves the planets.This forceis assumed in chapter40, whichestablishesthe dis-
tance-velocitylaw and concludesthethirdmajorsectionof theNew Astronomy.64
The connectionsKeplerdrawsbetweenlight,themagnet,and thesolar forcethat
moves the planets are not merelyanalogies but evidence forthe existenceof an
underlying physicalprinciple,establishedby God as partof theprovidential plan of
the world,coveringall physicalpowers thatattenuateas theyspread out through
space.65Because it is deduced fromthepropertiesof one such power,thedistance-
velocitylaw of chapter40 mayalso be recognizedas a principleby means of which
God directstheprovidential plan.The resultsofchapter40 place Keplerin a position
to answer the questions about the motionsof the planets leftincompletein The
Sacred MysteryoftheCosmos and withthesame theologicalcertainty as theresults
of his firstbook.
The fourthpartof theNew Astronomy (chaps. 41-60) establishesthatthepathof
Mars is an ellipse, a resultnow called Kepler's FirstLaw when generalizedto all
planets.This is themostdifficultpartofthebook bothmathematically and conceptu-
ally,forKepleroffersfewguidepoststo his reasoning.Much attention has been paid
to Kepler's examinationof alternativeoval curvesin the earlychaptersof partIV,
but thekey questionis how Kepler arguesforthecorrectnessof his own solution.
Unless he can show thathis solutionis correctand unique he cannotclaim to have
derivedthe motionfromits causes. The eliminationof the ovals is an example of
standarda posteriorireasoning,but the argumentforthe uniquenessof Kepler's
solutionagain uses exemplunargumentsto establishtheuniquenessof theellipse,
by showingthatthiscurveand onlythiscurvefollowsfromprinciplesthatare part
of theprovidentialplan of theworld.In orderto pass fromthea posterioriportion
of a regressusto the a priori portion,it is common to appeal to principlesfrom
higherdisciplines,and hereKepler again appeals to principlesthatoriginatein the-
ology to establishthea prioricharacterof theellipse. This is especiallyclear in the
he considers,a puckeredoval he calls thevia buccosa, or
case of thelast alternative
"path in the of
shape puffed-out cheeks."66
The main physicalargumentrecommencesin chapter56 withthe reappearance
of an epicyclerepresenting motionthatwas firstintroducedin chapter
reciprocating
39. The goal of thatchapterwas to indicatethe conceptualdifficulties with the
simpleeccentricmodel,and a reciprocating motionon an epicyclewas introduced
The distance-velocitylaw establishedin chapter40 gov-
to illustratethedifficulty.
erns the motionof the planet in longitudebut does not adequatelydeterminethe
distanceof theplanetfromthesun,and a new principle,thereciprocationlaw,cor-
rectsthelengthof theradiusvectorso thatboththedirectionand thedistanceof the
64 It is notclaimedthat theforcethatmovestheplanetsis identicalin all respectstolight.In fact,

thereareimportant differences: themotivepowerinthesunattenuates whereaslight
as thedistance,
attenuates as thesquareofdistance(as Kepleremphasizesat thebeginning ofchap.36). The genus
ofwhichthesearespeciesis "powersthatattenuate In thenewnotestochapter16 in
withdistance."
thesecondeditionof Mvsterium Cosmographicum Kepleradds anotherspeciesto thegenus,the
power thatproducesheat: JohannesKepler, MysteriumCosmographicum (Frankfurt: Erasmus
Kempfer, 1621),p. 61, n. 7. Cf.Duncan,SecretoftheUniverse(cit.n. 2), p. 171.
65 Notethat Kepler'stitleforchap.36 is "By whatmeasurethemotivepowerofthesunis attenu-
atedas it spreadsthrough theworld"(Astronomia Nova,chap.36; Donahue,NewAstronomy [cit.
n. 2], p. 394).
66
Kepler,Astronomia Nova (cit.n. 2), chap.58.

planetare now specified.But in the same way thatKepler needed to legitimatethe

physicalbasis forthedistance-velocity rule,he also needs to show thattherecipro-
cationmotionis physicallylegitimate. AlthoughKeplerdoes notsay so explicitly, he
clearlyrealized thatthe distance-velocitylaw alone was inadequateforexplaining
planetarymotion.In the earlychaptersof partIV, he constructed models withvar-
ious ad hoc assumptionsthatdid notworkwell and weresubsequentlyrejected.The
path of Mars was certainlysome kind of oval inside the eccentriccircle,but the
difficultywas in decidingwhichoval curvewas thecorrectone. The reciprocation
rulethenreappears,because Kepler saw thatit offeredthepossibilityof beingjusti-
fiedas a physicalprinciple.
Chapter57 argues,again using exemplumstyleinference,thatthe reciprocating
motionrepresentsa naturallaw (and hence is partof the providentialplan). The
chapteris entitled"On thePhysicalor MetaphysicalBasis of theLibrationMotion,"
and a noteto thetitlemakes Kepler'sgoal even clearer:"By whatnaturalprinciples
a planetmaybe made to reciprocateas if on thediameterof an epicycle."Kepleris
notpresentinganalogies in an attemptto persuadethereaderof theplausibilityof
reciprocation; he is lookingforsimilarphysicalsystemswhichcan be used to estab-
lish thatthereciprocationis a species of a widergenus,and hence a law of nature.
The firstinstancehe considersis a circularriverand a boat directedby an oar; the
directionof theboat variesovertime,so thatit revolvesin twice theperiodictime
of the planet (twice the timeit takes to go once aroundthe river).However,this
exampleis physicallyunacceptableto Keplerbecause thefacesoftheplanetsshould
appear to change,whiletheface of themoon,althoughit participateswiththeplan-
ets in themotionunderdiscussion,does notchangeoverthecourseof a month;and,
more importantly, the "species" of the sun is immaterial,while the river,oar, and
boat are material.67 As in the earlierseries of exempla,Kepler proceeds fromthe
materialto theimmaterial.
The criticalstep in the argumentis signaled by the marginalnote "Exemplum
Magneticum."Kepler arguesthata magneticsolar forceactingon planetsthatare
magnetswill bringabout thereciprocationmotion.68 Previously,in partIII, Kepler
appealed to one propertyof a magnet,namely,thatits forcediminisheswithdis-
tance,whereasherehe appeals to anotherproperty of a magnet,namely,thatit both
attractsand repels. Two pointsdeserve special emphasis: first,Kepler concludes,
notthatthesolarforceis magnetic,butthatit is a species of thesame genusas mag-
neticforce.Keplernotesexplicitlythatthereciprocation motionobeysthesame law
as thebalance beam or scales.69Second, on thegroundsthatthephysicalinfluence
responsibleforreciprocationin themotionof a planetis a species of an established
67
Kepler,AstronomiaNova,pp. 269-70; cf.Donahue,NewAstronomy (cit.n. 2), 549-50,corre-
spondingto thepassagesbetweenthemarginalnotes:"Exemplanaturalialibrationum huiusmodi"
and"Exemplidefectus."
68 Kepler,AstronomiaNova,pp. 271-74; cf. Donahue,NewAstronomy (cit.n. 2), pp. 550ff.In
margin:"Exemplum Telluris"(p. 271) and"Exemplum Magneticum" (p. 272).
69 Kepler,AstronomiaNova (cit. n. 2), p. 273, witha marginalnoteby Kepler:"Reciprocation
worksaccording tothelawofthebalance;hencethename'Libration."'In chapter 33 oftheAstrono-
miaNova,Keplerintroduced thebalancebeamas a preliminary analogyforthemotionoftheplanets,
here invokingterminology drawnfrommedievalphysics:"intensionand remissionof motion."
Donahue,NewAstronomy (cit.n. 2), pp. 376, 378; see also JohnE. Murdochand EdithD. Sylla,
"The Scienceof Motion??'in Sciencein theMiddleAges,ed. David C. Lindberg(Chicago:Univ.
ChicagoPress,1978),pp. 206-64, especiallypp. 237ff.In chap.57 (Donahue,NewAstronomy [cit.

genus,thisinfluence,whateverit is, can be recognizedas partof God's governance

of his creationand hencea law of nature.It is thisstatusthatshowsthereciprocation
ruleto be theonlypossible explanationforthecorresponding motionof theplanet
and entitlesKepler to claim thathe has founda causal account.This is especially
clear in thecase of thelast alternativeto theellipse,eliminatedby Keplerin chapter
58, thevia buccosa. Here thealternativecurveis eliminated,notbecause it failsto
fittheobservationsbutbecause theellipse-and onlytheellipse-follows fromthe
combinationofthedistance-velocity law and thereciprocation law.And whatmakes
thata good basis forselectingbetweenotherwiseequally successfulcurvesis that
the two laws invokedherehave alreadybeen shownto be partsof theprovidential
plan, by means of exempluminferences.Hence the two real laws presentedin the
New Astronomyare not Kepler's Firstand Second Laws, as we know themtoday,
butthedistance-velocitylaw and thereciprocationlaw.70
At the beginningof chapter58, Kepler says, "Throughoutthisentirework,my
aim has been to finda physicalhypothesisthatnot only will producedistancesin
agreementwiththoseobserved,butalso, and at thesame time,soundequationsLi.e.,
propercorrectionsto the planet'sangularpositions],whichhithertowe have been
drivento borrowfromthe vicarioushypothesisof chapter16."'71The path of the
planet,in thesense of itstwo-dimensional trackin bothdistanceand directionfrom
thesun,will be specifiedby meansof thedistance-velocity law actingtogetherwith
thereciprocationrule.This turnsout to be theellipse, whichis nottherefore a law
but
itself a consequence of the applicationof two separateand independentlaws. It
is oftensaid thatKeplerdependedon curvefitting, and thatbecause a whole family
of curvesis observationally indistinguishablefromtheellipse,Kepler'sargumentis
notsound.72In fact,Kepler has concludedwitha regressusargument:he considers
n. 2], p. 566), Keplercites(pseudo-)Aristotle'sMechanicsin connection withthelaw ofthelever;

fora discussionsee JosephE. Brown,"The ScienceofWeights," inLindberg, ScienceintheMiddle
Ages[cit.n. 69], pp. 179-205.
70 The reciprocation The "Area
law is also called the"versinerule";Keplercalls it "libration."
Law" forthecircleis introduced inchapter to thedistance-velocity
40 as an approximation law,but
Keplernevergivesitthestatusof a "law."In chapter59, whereKepleris deriving theellipsefrom
his twolaws,he stillappeals to thedistance-velocity law (Donahue,NewAstronomy [cit.n. 2],
p. 585, n. 16). The correctrelationship betweenthedistance-velocity law and theArea Law was
not established by Kepler untilthe EpitomeAstronomiaeCopernicanae, or Epitome of Copernican
Astronomy (Linz: Tampachius,1618-1621),wherehe indicatesthatthereare twocomponents of
motionthatlead to theellipse:one is perpendicular to theradiusvectorfromthesunto theplanet,
andtheotheris a reciprocation alongtheradiusvectorfromthesunto theplanet.Thismodifies his
previousexplanation in theNewAstronomy and is equivalent to theAreaLaw: "Therefore in order
to form[theellipticalorbit]twoelementsof movement are mingledtogether,as has beendemon-
stratedalready:oneelementcomesfromtherevolution aroundthesunbyreasonofone solarvirtue;
theothercomesfromthelibration towardsthesunbyreasonofanother fromthe
solarvirtuedistinct
Kepler,Epitomeof CopernicanAstronomy,
first." KGW,vol. 7, p. 377. Cf. E. J.Aiton,"Infinitesi-
mals and the Area Law," in InternationalesKepler-Symposium,Weil der Stadt 1971, ed. F. Krafft,
K. Meyer,andB. Sticker(Hildesheim:Gerstenberg, 1973),pp. 285-305,especiallypp. 303ff.;and
Stephenson,Kepler's Physical Astronomy(cit. n. 2), pp. 163-65.
71Donahue,NewAstronomy (cit.n. 2), p. 573.
72
toEdmondHalley( 1656?-1743) in 1686Newtonwrotethat"KeplerknewtheOrbto
In a letter
be notcircularbutoval and guestit to be Elliptical."Quotedin CurtisWilson,"The Newtonian
Achievementin Astronomy,"in The General HistoryofAstronomy:PlanetaryAstronomy fromthe
Renaissance to theRise ofAstrophvsics,ed. R. Tatonand C. Wilson, vol. 2A: TychoBrahe to Newton
and
(CambridgeUniv.Press,1989),pp. 233-74,especiallyp. 238; see also Aiton,"Infinitesimals

two models thataccountforthedata (the ellipse and thevia buccosa), butonlythe

ellipse can be deriveda prioriby geometricaldemonstration and as a resultof the
combinedeffectof his two laws (as Kepler demonstrates in chapters59 and 60).7
To be sure,in chapter58 Kepler also claims thatthe ellipse fitsthe observational
data slightlybetterthan the via buccosa, but thatis not the essentialpartof the
argument,as it shows the ellipse to be only a possible cause of the phenomena
(observedpositions).Similarly,Kepler indicatesin chapter58 thatthe ellipse has
symmetricalpropertieslacking in the via buccosa, but thattoo is insufficient to
establishthattheellipse is theonlypossible cause of thephenomena, which is the
resultKeplerneeds. To recapitulate:Keplercan legitimately claim to have offereda
causal astronomy, by prevailingsixteenth-century standards,because (1) theellipse
followsuniquelyfromthedistance-velocitylaw and thereciprocationlaw; (2) the
distance-velocity law and thereciprocation law are individually defensiblebyexein-
plumarguments;and (3) principles capable of defense in thisway are truelaws,that
is, theyare part of the providentialplan. In place of the negotiation or elimination
of possible causes to identifytheone true cause in a conventional regressus, Kepler
invokesthe special statusof exemplumargumentsin Melanchthonand Lutheran
naturalphilosophyto establishthathis physicalprinciplesare thecorrectones, and
theone truecause of planetarymotion.
Lutherantheologyconnectsthe physicalargumentsand the mathematicalargu-
ments.It was the failureto recognizethese connectionsthatmade it difficultfor
previouscommentators to appreciatethesignificanceof Kepler'sphysicalreasoning
and to see thefullforceof his claim to have achieved a causal astronomy. Modern
readerslocate two laws in theNew Astronomy:theso-called Area Law (or Second
Law) and the FirstLaw, whichdefinesplanetaryorbitsas ellipses withthe sun at
one focus. We have seen thatKepler offerstwo "laws" or "rules" in the course of
his book. These are thedistance-velocity law producedin chapter40, and therecip-
rocationrule or versinerule,especiallyin chapter57. The reappearanceof thedis-
tance-velocityrulein chapter59 and itsrestatement as applicablein thecase of an
ellipticalpathis not the statementof the "correct"Area Law butratheran integral
elementin Kepler's finalargumentforhis claim to have given a causal accountof
planetarymotion.'And unless the physicalcauses thatI had takenin the place of
theprincipleshad been good ones, theywould neverhavebeen able to withstandan
investigation The two laws (distance-velocityand reciproca-
of such exactitude."74
tion)are necessary(in thelogical sense) forthecausallybased accountof planetary
motionpromisedin the title:A New Astronomy Based on Causes; these causes in
factyieldboththedistanceand thedirectionof theplanet.
theAreaLaw" (cit.n. 70), p. 300, n. 63; D. T. Whiteside, "Newton'sEarlyThoughtson Planetary

Motion," Brit.J.Hist.Sci. 2 (1964):117-37,especiallyp. 129,n. 42; andidem,"KeplerianPlanetary
Eggs,Laid andUnlaid,1600-1605,"J.Hist.Astron.5 (1974):1-21,especiallyp. 14 andn. 41.
3
For differentinterpretations,see E. J. Aiton,"Johannes Keplerand theAstronomy without
Hypotheses," Jap.Stud.Hist.Sci. 14(1975):49-71,especiallyp. 65; andC. Wilson,"Kepler'sDeriva-
tionoftheEllipticalPath,"Isis 59 (1968):5-25,especiallypp. 17ff.
74 Kepler,Astronomia Nova (cit. n. 2), chap. 59, p. 295; Donahue,NewAstronomy (cit. n. 2),
p. 591. In theimmediately preceding passage,Keplersays,"[I]t [thedirection fromthesunto the
planet]agreesexactlywiththevicarioushypothesis, thatis,withtheobservations.Andwhenthefact
was established,I was afterwards driven,once I had settledon theprinciples,to seek thecause of
thematter whichI haverevealedto thereaderin thischapteras skilfully andlucidlyas possible."

IX. CONCLUSION
In theLutheranresponse toCopernicus we see religion playing twoimportant roles.

First,thespreadofLutheranism anditseducational reforms becomesa vehiclefor
spreadingCopernicus'sideas.A Lutheran (Rheticus, a discipleofMelanchthon) per-
suadedCopernicus topublishhismagnum opusandarranged fortheproduction of
thebook,andotherLutherans useditinteaching astronomy But
attheiruniversities.
Lutherans regardedCopernicus as a reformer,solvingthelong-standing problem of
nonuniform circularmotion inPtolemaicastronomy, rather thanas thediscovererof
thetruenatureof thecosmos.Melanchthon's protegeErasmusReinholdand his
successorsretainedPtolemy's cosmicscheme,evenif theyadoptedCopernicus's
mathematical modelsforcalculating thepositionsoftheplanets.Although anyone
readingDe Revolutionibus forits mathematical techniques wouldalso havebeen
exposedtoCopernicus's heliocentric scheme,Lutherans, in commonwiththeover-
whelming majorityofothersixteenth-century readers, provedstrikingly to
resistant
Copernicus'scosmology. At worst,it couldbe argued,Copernicus's book was no
morethanflotsam carriedbythespreading tideofLutheranism. The vastmajority
of Lutheranswhoalludeto Copernicus did notfindanysupport in theirtheology
forthenew cosmologybutonlycalled attention to a set of objections-biblical
passagesthatwereunderstood to excludethemotionof theearth-thatpartially
explainsthenegative responsetoCopernicus's cosmicscheme.75
Kepler'swork,however, showsa secondandfarstronger connection between reli-
gionandscience.Thebooksinwhichthisinfluence appearsarenotminororperiph-
eral-theyarethebookin whichKeplerhimselfstatedthathe had presented the
principal ofhislifetime
features research program (TheSacredMystery oftheCos-
mos),andthebookin whichhe claimedtohavefinally givena truecausalaccount
Based on Causes). Today thesebooks are
of planetarymotion(A New Astronomy
regarded,respectively,as thefirstmajordefenseofheliocentrism afterthedeathof
Copernicus, andthefirst statementofthetruelawsofplanetary motion.Bothbooks
containdiscussions ofthecausesofplanetary motionthatareacknowledged ances-
torsofNewton's theory ofuniversal that
Showing religion
gravitation. playeda role
inthereasoning ofthesebooksplacesitatthecenter of the most importantdevelop-
mentsinearlymodern science.
We havesuggested thatKepler'scausalreasoning cannotbe understood except
through a priorunderstanding of twothings: his use of regressusand his use of
exemplum reasoning.In bothcaseshisreligious convictions inform hisuse ofthese
patternsof argument and enablehim-as he sees it-to achieve thatwere
results
inaccessibleto hispredecessors. The convictionthat God has createdtheworld ac-
cordingto an intelligible planthathe,Kepler, has discovered, the
underlies claims
to knowledgein both The Sacred Mysteryof the Cosmos and A New Astronomy
itis theconfidence
Basedon Causes.In thefirst, planforthe
thatGod'sgeometrical
worldis accessiblethrough thea priori
thenaturallightof reasonthatunderlies
demonstration oftheworldandthedefenseofCopernicus's
ofthestructure cosmic
to theNewAstronomy,
75 In Kepler'sintroduction thereis a sectionthatbegins,"Thereare,how-
ever,manymorepeoplewhoaremovedbypietyto withhold consentfromCopernicus, fearingthat
falsehoodmightbe chargedagainsttheHolySpiritspeakingin thescriptures ifwe saythattheearth
is movedand thesunstandsstill"(Donahue,NewAstronomy [cit.n. 2], p. 59). Keplergoes on to
arguethatsuchfearsarebaseless.

thatexemplum
scheme.In thesecond,itis therelatedconviction argumentsreveal
thelawsbywhichGod governs ordered
theprovidentially the
worldthatvindicates
lawsofplanetarymotion.
Based on Causes Kepler regardswhat we have called the
In A New Astronomy
distance-velocity ruleandthereciprocation ruleas thetruelaws,fromwhichthe
ellipseandtheAreaLaw followas necessary consequences. Theselatter aredistin-
guishedfromotherpossiblepatterns, suchas thevia buccosa,andguaranteed as the
onlypossiblepattern ofplanetary motion, becausetheyfollowfromrulesor laws
thatareknowntobe partoftheprovidential plan.According to theacceptedstan-
dardsof regressus itis Kepler'sdemonstration thathisanalysisyieldsa uniquean-
swerthatshowsitis also sufficient. Keplercanthenconcludethathehasdiscovered
theonetruecauseofplanetary motion, satisfyingthemoststringent methodological
requirements ofhiscontemporaries andjustifying thetitleofhisbook.Atthesame
timehe completestheCopernicanagendaof providing a physically real,thatis,
causallybased,astronomy. It wouldalso havebeenapparent to hiscontemporaries
thatKeplerhas scrupulously observedtheacceptedorderof subordination or sub-
alternation inthesciences.His fundamental principlesaretheological; theyareused
to guarantee conclusionsin physics;andthese,in turn, areusedtodemonstrate re-
sultsin astronomy.
Kepleris usuallycredited withdiscovering threeoftheearliestscientific lawsof
themodernperiod.If we areright, a morehistorically defensible claimwouldbe
thatKeplerbelievedhe haddiscovered thepartofGod'sprovidential planthatem-
bodiedthepattern of thecosmos,andthedivinelawsbywhichGod regulated its
movingparts.The idea of a providential plan,and especiallythedivinelawsthat
regulate itsparts,maytherefore be seenas an essentialsteppreceding andpreparing
thewayforthesecularconceptofa lawofnature.


Barker&amp;Goldstein

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barker&amp;Goldstein

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theological Foundations of Kepler's Astronomy

Author(s): Peter Barker and Bernard R. Goldstein

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

JohannesKepler (1571-1630) is celebratedtodayas one of the firstdefendersof

? 2001 byThe History

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

For severalyearswe have been engagedin a contextualstudyof Kepler'sunifica-

II. COPERNICUS AND THE PHYSICAL BASIS OF ASTRONOMY

WhenCopernicus'sDe Revolutionibus appearedin 1543,themaindisputein astron-

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

composedabout1460,first publishedin 1472).4Peurbach(1423-1461)employed

4 E. J.Aiton,"Peurbach's Theoricaenovaeplanetarum: A translationwithcommentary," Osiris3

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

(1511-1553), made Copernicus'smathematicalmodels the basis fora new set of

III. COPERNICANISM AND THE PROBLEM OF METHOD

In the period up to the beginningof Kepler's career,only a few scholarsadopted

Philip Melanchthon,Initia doctrinaphysicae, in Corpus Reformatorum:Philippi Melanchthonis

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

"reasoningfromthe one, truecause to an effect."Thus, an a priori demonstration

"I On theuse ofthetermsa priori anda posterioriinthisperiodsee BarkerandGoldstein, "Real-

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

nicus but not yetdelivered.He would do thisnot by completingthe threesteps of

IV. COMETS AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE HEAVENS

cometae aetherei,qui in anno 1577 et 1578 consti-

tutusin sphaera Veneris,apparuit (TUbingen:Gruppenbach,1578); and idem, Consideratioet obser-

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

Tychoreceiveda book aboutthe 1585 cometwritten by ChristophRothmann,court

'5 C. Rothmann,Descriptio accurata cometae anni 1585 (composed in 1586), in WillebrordiSnehii

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

pherswithhisearlyinterest in astrology-perhaps as a wayofunderstandingsigns

I" On Melanchthon's observationofthecometof 1531,see Kusukawa,Transformation ofNatural

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

AlthoughKepler is now rememberedas an astronomer, his earlyeducationwas in-

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

the same categoriesof knowledgehighlightedby Melanchthon:theorderapparent

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

1577 and 1580. But in a disputationdeliveredat Heidelbergin 1582, addressedto

28 Maestlin, Observatio et demonstratiocometae aetherei, . . . 1577 et 1578 (cit. n. 14), quoted in

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

maic astronomyin thebasic classes requiredof all students,he presentedCoperni-

VI. THE MYSTERIUM COSMOGRAPHICUM

Kepler's firstmajor publicationwas his MysteriumCosmographicum(1596). The

Twentieth-centuryhistorianshave usuallybeen happyto endorseKepler's defense

33 Forexample, byDuncaninhisEnglishtranslation, JohannesKepler: The Secretof the Universe

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

Kepler's alleged mysticismis apparentin thispassage; it is the numbermysticism

36 See, e.g.,amongtheworks HistoryofPlanetary

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

dimensionalfigures.Takingtheconservativeview thatthe six knownplanetswere

39Kepler,MysteriumCosmographicum,p. 27; cf.Duncan,Secretof the Universe(cit.n. 2), p. 103.

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

plan. That the plan turnsout to be essentiallygeometricalis what makes it dis-

To sumup: in his own terms,and by thestandardsof sixteenth-century methodol-

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

sage fromThe Sacred MysteryoftheCosmos Keplerclaims thatthecosmos is liter-

Althoughthisstructure is securedby similarconvictionsconnectinggeometry, the

VII. EXEMPLUM AND THE ARGUMENTS FOR KEPLER'S PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES

The second piece of contextualinformation needed to understandKepler's argu-

Wehavean "example"whenthemajortermis provedtobelongtothemiddlebymeans

This content downloaded from 148.206.186.240 on Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:03:04 PM

becauseinduction,starting casesproves(as we saw) thatthemajor

The greatest intheFloodon accountoflicentiousness

To makethestructure ofthisargumentclearer,notethatNoah's Flood was a singular

Here the firstuniversalpremisestatesthe (combinationof) morallaws thatrender

Barker&Goldstein

Barker&Goldstein