Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

Author(s): Peter BARKER

Source: Revue d'histoire des sciences , juillet-décembre 2008, Vol. 61, No. 2 (juillet-
décembre 2008), pp. 265-286
Published by: Armand Colin

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23634276

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revue d'histoire des
sciences

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian
cosmology :
Pena, Rothmann and Brahe
Peter BARKER *

Resume
Résumé : Les savants du XVle
XVIe siecle
siècle ont
ont utilise
utilisé les
les idees
idées stoi'ciennes
stoïciennes en
philosophie naturelle contre Aristote.
Aristote. Je
Je m'interesse
m'intéresse ici
ici aà celles
celles sur
sur la
la
substance du ciel et les causes du
du mouvement
mouvement des des planetes
planètes depuis
depuis Jean
Jean
de La Pene
Pêne jusqu'a
jusqu'à Christoph Rothmann
Rothmann et et Tycho
Tycho Brahe.
Brahé. Je
Je conclus
conclus que,
que,
avant Juste Lipse, ces penseurs
penseurs ont
ont employe
employé des
des elements
éléments dudu stoicisme,
stoïcisme,
mais non le stoicisme
stoïcisme comme systeme
système philosophique.
philosophique.

Mots-cles : Jean de La Pene ; Christoph Rothmann ; Tycho Brahe ;

cosmologie ; stoicisme.

Summary : Sixteenth century

century natural
natural philosophers
philosophers used
used Stoic
Stoic ideas
ideas
Aristotle. II consider
against Aristotle. consider ideas
¡deas on
on the
the substance
substanceofofthe heavens and
the heavens and
the causes of planetary motion
motion from
from loannes
loannes Pena
Pena to
to Christoph
Chrlstoph Roth
Roth
mann and Tycho Brahe. I conclude
conclude that,
that, before
before Justus
Justus Lipsius,
Llpslus, these
these
thinkers
thlnkers used elements of Stoicism,
Stoicism, butbut not
not Stoicism
Stolclsm considered
consldered asas aa
philosophical
phllosophlcal system.

Keywords : loannes Pena ; Christoph Rothmann ; Tycho Brahe; cosmo

logy ; Stoicism.

By the sixteenth century Aristotle's account of the heavens had

suffered various amplifications and accretions. First, medieval wri
ters had made it a commonplace that Aristotle's fifth essence was to
be spoken of as aether, and had the properties of tri-dimensionality,
transparency, and resisting intrusions. Some sixteenth century wri
ters added solidity. Second, the theorica tradition from Georg
Peurbach onwards, had specified various interlocking orbs that
between them would generate the epicyclic - or eccentric -
motions used to calculate planetary positions in the Ptolemaic
tradition. These sets of orbs were usually assumed to occupy the
whole of the spherical shell, concentric with the Earth, designated
* Peter Barker, Department of the history of science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK,
73019 USA. Fax : (US) 405-325-2363. E-mail : barkerp@ou.edu

Revue d'histoire des sciences j Tome 61 -2 | juillet-decembre 2008 | 265-286 265

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

the sphere of a planet. Whether one accepted the detailed three

dimensionai modei or not, it was accepted that planets did not
move themselves, but rather were moved by the orb or orbs in
which they were embedded « like knots in a board » to use a
common contemporary phrase. Various additional spheres had also
been added at the outer edge of Aristotle's cosmos, notably a
« crystalline heaven » and additional spheres that accounted for the
precession of the equinoxes 1.

Tycho Brahe's role in the rejection of these Aristotelian tenets is well

known. lt has recently been noted that Christoph Rothmann - mathe
matician to the Landgrave Wilhelm IV of Hesse-Kassel - predated
Tycho Brahe in the rejection of celestial spheres with planets that
moved because they were embedded in them. Christoph Roth
mann's arguments derive from specifically Stoic sources, and origí
nate in a context of direct opposition to Aristotelianism. By exami
ning these arguments and how they were deployed, I hope to show
some of the ways in which sixteenth century natural philosophers
drew on Stoic ideas in the period before Justus Lipsius and suggest
some preliminary answers to the questions why (and how) sixteenth
century natural philosophers came to reject Aristotelian verities 2.

■ On the properties of the celestial spheres according to medieval writers, see Edward
Crant, Celestial orbs in the Latin Middle Ages, Isis, 78 (1987), 153-173. On the origin of
the multiple orb model of planetary motion, see Bernard R. Goldstein, The Arabie version
of Ptolemy's planetary hypothèses, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
57/4 (1967). On the application of the term « crystalline » to the heavens, and their
equivocal solidity or hardness in sixteenth century discussions, see Bernard R. Goldstein
and Peter Barker, The role of Rothmann in the dissolution of the celestial spheres, British
Journal for the history of science, 28 (1995), 385-403, esp. 391 -395. In a later article, The
medieval cosmos : Its structure and opération, Journal for the history of astronomy, 28
(1997), 147-168, Edward Grant suggests a « gradual shift » from fluid to solid heavens
beginning in the thirteenth century. On this subject, see also Miguel A. Granada, II
problema astronomico-cosmologico e le sacre scritture dopo Copernlco : Christoph
Rothmann e la « teoría dell'accomodazione », Rivista di storia délia filosofía, 51 (1996),
789-828, esp. 805, noting remarks about hard celestial spheres by Bruno in 1584 and
Stellatus in his poem Zodiacus vitae (Venice, 1536-1537). For a general discussion see
Michel-Pierre Lerner, Le Monde des sphères (Paris : Belles Lettres, 1996), t. 1 ; Miguel
A. Granada, Sfere solide e cielo fluido : Momenti del dibattito cosmológico nella seconda
meta del Cinquecento (Milano : Angelo Guerlni e Associati, 2002).
- On Christoph Rothmann and Tycho Brahe see Goldstein and Barker (1995), op. cit. in η. 1
and Miguel A. Granada, El Debate cosmológico en 1588 : Bruno, Brahe, Rothmann,
Ursus, Roslin (Napoli : Bibliopolis, 1996). On the Stoic background to early modem
science see Peter Barker, Stoic contributions to early modem science, in Margaret J. Osier
(éd.), Atoms, pneuma and tranquillity : Epicurean and Stoic thèmes in European thought
(Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1991), 135-154, and Peter Barker and Bernard
R. Goldstein, is seventeenth century physics indebted to the Stoics ?, Centaurus, 27
(1984),148-164.

266

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

In 1555 loannes Pena (Jean de La Pêne) was installed as professor of

mathematics at the Collège royal in Paris. He was the son of a
Huguenot family from Aix-en-Provence who came to Paris as a
student. According to Nicholas Nancel he became one of a small
circle of students working with Petrus Ramus (Pierre de La Ramée)
on new translations of classical authors in science and mathema
tics. Petrus Ramus, of course, is famous for his opposition to
Aristotle, or, more properly, to what he believed to be the corrupted
Aristotle of the Schools. loannes Pena was educated in an atmo
sphère of humanistic antischolasticism, and specifically the critical
scrutiny of Aristotle's works by Petrus Ramus - one of the most
important conversations with Aristotle during the sixteenth century.
In a dedicatory essay (perhaps a version of his inaugural lecture)
prefacing his new translation of Euclid's Optics loannes Pena
rejected a series of Aristotelian doctrines in natural philosophy. His
ideas reappear in the workof Christoph Rothmann, are criticized by
Tycho Brahe and have their last important airing in Johannes Kepler.
The alternatives loannes Pena présents to Aristotelian natural phi
losophy derive from two main sources, the optical tradition, and the
doctrines of Stoicism 3.

Today, Stoic cosmology is less familiar than that of Aristotle, but to

sixteenth century readers it would have been readily available in
Roman authors such as Marcus Tullius Cicero, Lucius Annaeus
Seneca and Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Eider), while aspects
of Stoic cosmogony were mentioned in authors like Orígenes
Adamantius (Origen) and Plutarchus Chaeronensis (Plutarch). Like
Aristotle's cosmos the Stoic cosmos is spherical, but it has not
always existed in the same physical configuration. Initially a single
substance constitutes the whole of the Stoic cosmos. The substance,
termed pneuma in Greek is variously designated ignis, aer or
spiritus in Latin, according to the aspect it is considered under. The
founders of Stoicism described the fundamental substance as a
craftsmanlike fire that proceeded systematically about the business
3 - Peter Barker, Jean Pena (1528-58) and Stoic physics in the sixteenth century, in Ronald H.
Epp (ed.), Recovering the Stoics : Spindel Conférence 1984, Southern journal of phi loso
phy (supplément), 13 (1985), 93-107. For an édition and translation of Nicholas Nancel's
biography of Petrus Ramus see Peter Sharratt, Nicolaus Nacelius Pétri Rami vita, Huma
nística Lovaniensia, 24 (1975), 161-277. Since this essay was first presented (see n. 55)
Christoph Rothmann's debt to loannes Pena has also been noted by Miguel A. Granada,
Eliminazione delle sfere celesti e ipotesi astronomiche in un inédito di Christoph
Rothmann : L'influenza di Jean Pena e la polémica con Pietro Ramo, Rivista distoria délia
filosofía, 52/4 (1997), 785-821.

Revue d'histoire des sciences I Tome 61 -2 Í juillet-décembre 2008 267

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

of création. Thus in contrast to any of Aristotle's eiements, the Stoic

fundamental substance has two spécial attributes : it is intelligent
and it is alive. When the universe begins, the pneuma directs its
own differentiation into something like the four Aristotelian élé
ments. Two of these, earth and water, are carried to the center of the
spherical cosmos, although they continue to be pervaded by the
fundamental substance. Living créatures are animated by its pré
sence even when their bodies are largely earth or water. Air is a
denser or coarser form of pneuma, which becomes purer and more
like fire the higher one ascends. The heavens therefore contain a
continuous fluid substance that stretches from the surface of the
Earth to the sphere of fixed stars, which is the boundary of the
cosmos. In the heavens, the planets and stars are living créatures of
relatively pure fire. But the kind of visible fire that produces light
and heat requires fuel, in the form of heavier eiements. The funda
mental substance flows inwardsfrom the boundary of the cosmos to
the center and outwards again. The inward flow incidentally carries
celestial influences to the région of the Earth and gives a physical
basis for astrology. The outward flow carries with it traces of
terrestrial eiements that become fuel for the stars and planets. As the
Earth is finite, this process erodes and ultimately éliminâtes the
terrestrial part of the cosmos. When ail the fuel has been consumed
the universe returns to its initial state, and the whole cycle begins
again. Thus, the Stoic cosmos, like the Aristotelian one, is eternal,
but not static : it eternally repeats the sequence of differentiation
and conflagration just described. This entire process is govemed by
an intelligent agent that pervades the entire cosmos. It might there
fore be said that the entire Stoic cosmos is alive 4.

An overt appeal to Stoic doctrines is apparent at several places in

loannes Pena's essay. Efe mocks the Aristotelians for gathering
together ail the living fire that should be spread out through the
whole universe in a single place, the région above the element air.
EHe déniés the Aristotelian sphere of fire, and he also argues from
optics to conclusions that contradict Aristotle in the case of cornets
and the milky way. Parallax observations show that the milky way
cannot be a phenomenon taking place in the région below the
4 - David Ε. Hahm, The Origins ofStoic cosmology (Columbus, Ohio : Ohio State University
Press, 1977) ; Peter Barker, « Pneuma » and « Stoicism », in Wilbur Applebaum (éd.),
Encyclopedia of the Scientific Révolution from Copernicus to Newton (New York :
Garland Publishing Co., 2000), 510 a - 511 a and 620 b - 622 ; Michael J. White, Stoic
natural philosophy (physics and cosmology), in Brad Inwood (ed.) The Cambridge
companion to Stoicism (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2003), 124-152.

268

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

moon. A variety of arguments contradict Aristotle's account of

cornets as relatively long I¡ved fires in the same région. Peter Apian
had recently demonstrated that the tails of cornets always lay on a
great circle away from the Sun. loannes Pena and several contem
poraries concluded that the head of a cornet was a spherical lens
and the tail was a pyramid of rays created when sunlight was
focused by the head. This required that the head be a transparent
substance denser than air, and not fire, which was incapable of
refracting sunlight. Additional arguments based on their relative
speed compared to other celestial objects suggested that at least
some cornets were part of the heavens. loannes Pena also argued for
motions of the Earth that cannot occur in an Aristotelian - or indeed
a Copernican - cosmos 5.

In Aristotle's universethe Earth is stationary and in the centerof the

cosmos because that is the natural place of the element earth itself.
If the Earth could, by some means, be removed from the center of
the cosmos, itwould return tothis position as soon as the element of
which it is composed was allowed to undergo its natural motion. In
the Stoic cosmos, however, the Earth is maintained at the center of
the cosmos by currents of the pneuma flowing inward from the
periphery and outward from its center. Achilles Tatius, probably
writing about 250 in Alexandria 6, tells us :

« [The Stoics] use the following example to prove the state of rest of
the Earth. If one throws a grain or the seed of a lentil into a bladder
and blows it up by filling it with air, the seed will be raised and stay
in the middle of the bladder. In the same way the earth will remain
staying in the center, being kept in equilibrium by the pressure of the
air from ail sides. And again, if one takes a body and ties it from ail
sides with cords and pulls them with precisely equal force, the body

5 - Euclidis Optica et Catoptrica, nunquam antehac Graece aedita. Eadem Latine reddita per
loannem Penam Regium Mathematicum. His praeposita est euisdem toannis Penae de
usu Optices praefatio ... (Paris, 1557). loannes Pena's préfacé De usu Optices is subse
quently referred to as Pena (1557). On the optical theory of cornets in loannes Pena and
others see Peter Barker, The optical theory of cornets from Apian to Kepler, Physis, 30
(1993), 1-25.
6 - Note that Otto Neugebauer, History of ancient mathematical astronomy (New York :
Springer, 1975), 950, regards the date of this author as « very insecure ». The appellation
« Tatius » may also be the resuit of confusing Achilles the astronomer with another author,
known as an erotic novelist. The work now attributed to this author may contain only
fragments by the original Achilles, from a work that was not originally a commentary on
Aratus. Whether or not this is correct, by the Renaissance, the author of the work known
in Latin as Isagoge ad arati phaenomena is firmly identified as « Achilles Tatius » in
éditions from Florence (1567) and Paris (1630).

Revue d'histoire des sciences j Tome 61 -2 [ juillet-décembre 2008 269

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

will stay and remain in its place, because it is dragged equally from
ail sides 7. »

Whatever doubts we may have about the feasibiIity of this démons

tration, AchiI les Tatius provides a vivid image of the structure of the
Stoic cosmos. The bladder corresponds to the sphere of fixed stars.
The air corresponds to the pneuma flowing from the periphery of
the cosmos to the center and back again, and the lentil corresponds
to the Earth, which is supported by this flow. The central position of
the Earth is therefore a dynamic equilibrium - which might vary if
the equilibrium changed 8.

In his 1557 préfacé De usu Optices loannes Pena rejects Nicolaus

Copernicus' triple motion of the Earth, but he offers two arguments
for another motion that varies the distance of the Earth from the
fixed stars. First he suggests that modem estimâtes of the apparent
sizes of fixed stars are greater than ancient estimâtes for the same
stars, suggesting that the distance from which they are observed has
changed. However, this argument may be rejected by rejecting the
observations on which it is based 9. Another argument is impossible
to reject. Since the time of Callippus of Cyzicus the motion of the
fixed stars themselves (the precession of the equinoxes) has varied
from one degree in 72 years, to one degree every hundred years in
Claudius Ptolemy's time and back to one degree every 66 years in
the time of Albategnius (al-Battânï). The value in loannes Pena's day
lies between these extremes. Accepting, from the principies of
astronomy, that the motion of the heavens is uniform, this variation
can only be understood as a variation in the distance of the Earth
7 - Achilles Tatius, Isagoge ad arati phaenomena, in Denis Petau, Uranologion, sive systema
variorum authorum (Paris, 1630), 121 -164, 127 Ε : « lam quod immobilis terra consistât,
hoc exemplo colligunt. Etenim si quis, aiunt, in folliculum milii, seu lenticulae granum
iniiciat ; 8¡ inflando deinceps aëre compleat, elatum in sublime granum in vesicae medio
manebit. Ad eumdem modum terra undecunque ab aëre puisa, & in medio librata
suspenditur. Aut quemadmodum si quis corpus aliquod undique funibus alligatum
aequaliterab omne parte iubeatattrahi, cum undique paribus momentis impellatur, stabit,
et quiescet. » Translated in Samuel Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics (New York : Mac
millan, 1959), 109.
8 - The Stoic cosmos with an Earth maintained at its center by dynamic equilibrium,
appropriated by Renaissance writers from the work of Achilles Tatius and the work of
Gaius Plinius Secundus described below, may be a relatively late development in the
school. Earlier Stoics accepted arguments for the centrality and immobility of the Earth
that have much in common with Aristotle (see Hahm, op. cit. in n. 4,107-117). Something
like the latter view must presumably be attributed to Cleanthes, who attacked Aristachus
of Samos for impiety (see Alexander Jones, The Stoics and the astronomical sciences, in
Inwood, op. cit. in n. 4, 332).
9 - Pena (1557), op. cit. in n. 5, aa iv (v°), I. 1-9.

270

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

from the center of the universe 10. loannes Pena concludes that the
Earth moves and ¡s not the center of the cosmos - a resuit possible
in a Stoic universe constructed in the manner of Achilles Tatius, but
not an Aristotelian one.

The main argument that loannes Pena brings forward to contradict

the Aristotelian view of the constitution of the heavens dépends
upon observations of atmospheric refraction. The deflection of light
rays when they cross the boundary between two différent media
had been recognized in Antiquity as potentially relevant to astro
nomical observation. Specifically, if the substance of the heavens
was différent from the substances found beneath the Moon in
Aristotle's geocentric cosmos, then the light from the Sun or the stars
should be deflected by crossing the boundary between the régions.
Henee, the apparent position of heavenly bodies might differ from
their real position. If, as Aristotle taught, immediately inside the
sphere of the Moon is a sphere of the element fire which is distinct
from the sphere of air below it, then a further refraction should
occur at the boundary between these elements 11.

Refraction is discussed in book V of the Optics attributed to

Claudius Ptolemy 12. In the Middle Ages Alhazen (Ibn al-Haitham)
and Vitellio of Silesia had both treated the subject, and in a set of
observations for the year 1489 Bernhard Walther had noted chan
ges in the positions of stars nearthe horizon dueto refraction 13.The
law of refraction (Snel's law) was not yet known in its trigonométri
ca! form but it was recognized that the deflection of a light beam,
crossing a boundary from a rare médium to a dense médium,
decreased as the ray came closer to the vertical. If the ray was
perpendicular to the boundary it experienced no deflection at ail.
So, a simple way to detect the presence of atmospheric refraction
10 - Pena (1557), op. cit. in η. 5, aa iv (v°), I. 10 ff.
11 - Ibid., bb r°-v°.
12 - On the authorship of the Opticsattributed toClaudius Ptolemy, see Morris R. Cohen and
Israel Ε. Drabkin, A source book in Greek science (Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard Univer
sity Press, 1958), 271, n. 1, and A. Mark Smith, Ptolemy's theory of visual perception :
An English translation of the Optics with Introduction and Commentary, Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, 86/2 (1996), 5-7.
13 - Alhazen, Optics, vii.55 and Vitellio, Optics, x.54. Bernhard Walther, Observationes, in
Johann Schoener (ed.) Scripta clarissimi mathematici M. loannis Regiomontani, de
torqueto (Nuremberg, 1544), fol. 44 r° - 60 v°, 52 v° : « Est notandum quod circa
horizontem astra apparent propter radios fractos super horizontem, cum secundum
veritatem sint sub eo, quod instrumentum armillarum sensibiliter saepius mihi apparuit
anteque perspectivas Alhacen & Vitelionis Turingi viderim, [...] » In a marginal note
loannes Pena cites Vitellio, Optics, x.49.

Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 j juillet-décembre 2008 271

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

would be to measure the angular séparation of two stars when they

were close to the horizon, and at the zénith. With one of the pair at
the zénith, and the other close to it, any refractive distortion of the
observed distance between them should be minimized. Close to the
horizon the distortion should be greater, and appear as a change in
the angular distance between the stars 14.

In a book published in 1545 the Dutch physician and natural

philosopher Gemma Frisius claimed to have performed these obser
vations and to have found no effect. He reports his failure to find
atmospheric refraction in a work devoted to the use of the radius
astronomicus, which was adopted during the sixteenth century by
both terrestrial surveyors and astronomers to measure angular
séparations 1S.

In his préfacé to Euclid's Optics loannes Pena aspires to demóns

trate the utility - indeed the supremacy - of optics as an arbiter in
matters of natural philosophy. He seizes on Gemma Frisius' néga
tive resultas a major example and draws conclusions from itthat his
predecessor never reaches. If Gemma Frisius is correct and there is
no atmospheric refraction, a resuit that loannes Pena reinforces by
claiming that « [...] nothing like this has been seen in ail the
centuries by ail the famous men who have carefully observed the
stars 16 », then there can be no refraction-causing boundaries inter
vening between the observer and the fixed stars. The médium in
which the observer is immersed is air. Henee, negatively, there can
be no sphere of fire, or spheres of the heavens, above the observer,
and positively « the art of optics concludes that the space which is
between the Moon and the fixed stars is full of an airy spirit (hac
aëris anima plénum est) : I repeat it differs in no way from air17 ».

This is a devastating conclusion - and likely to be uncongenial to

much of loannes Pena's Parisian audience. He hastens to support
14 - Pena (1557), op. cit. in η. 5, bb ν.
15 - Gemma Frisius, De radio astronómico et geométrico liber (Antwerp, 1545). For a
translation of the relevant passage see Bernard R. Goldstein, Remarks on Gemma
Frlsius's De radio astronómico et geométrico, in J. Lennart Berggren and Bernard
R. Goldstein (eds.), From ancient omens to statistical mechanics (Copenhagen : Univer
sity Library, 1987), 167-179, 173.
16 - Pena (1557), op. cit. in n. 5, aa iii, II. 12-14 : « [...] nec taie quicquam totseculis, tôt viris
clarissimis assiduè sydera observantibus unquam apparuit. »
17 - Ibid., aa iii r°, II. 14-17 : « His accuratè examinatis, concludit ars Optica, spatium illud
quod inter Lunam et fixa sydera médium est (de summo enim coelo non babeo quod
dicam) bac aëris anima plénum esse : ab aëre (inquam) nihil distinguí. »

272

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

his conclusions by deftly appealing to the authority of a tradition in

natural philosophy almost as venerable as Aristotle's, presented in
the wordsof an authorthat ail of his audience would befamiliarwith,
and which the Humanist faction would hold in even higher esteem
than Aristotle. That author, of course, is Marcus Tullius Cicero.

The works of Marcus Tullius Cicero were the model of style for
Humanists. Some Humanists would refuse to employ a Latin word,
phrase, or construction unless it had been used by Marcus Tullius
Cicero. Although this was an extreme position (and came in for
some abuse from contemporaries) it was not an uncommon posi
tion, and well-trained Humanists knew Marcus Tullius Cicero's
works so intimately that they could recognize when their fellows
were meeting this standard, loannes Pena was educated in the inner
circleof Petrus Ramus, notonly oneofthe leading critics of Aristotle
in his génération, but one of its most ardent exponents of Cicero
nianism. Although he rejected the slavish imitation of Marcus
Tullius Cicero, his personal réputation depended in large part on his
émulation of Marcus Tullius Cicero as an orator18. So it is hardly
surprising that when loannes Pena writes his Préfacé On the use of
Optics his vocabulary is distinctively Ciceronian.

Of particular interest is the phrase that loannes Pena uses to

characterize the substance ofthe heavens. The wholespace, he tells
us, stretching from the surface of the Earth to the fixed stars, the
space through which the planets move, is filled with air. Clearly this
is not Aristotle's element « air », confined naturally to an orb above
the terraqueous sphere and well below the sphere of the Moon.
Rather it is the basis of respiration and life. loannes Pena uses the
phrase animabilis spiritus to describe it19. The word animabilis is
evidently an adjective - although its form is puzzling. A more
familiar word is animalis (living). The variant form perhaps indica
tes the active conveyance of the property indicated by the unmo
dified form : thus an animabilis spiritus is a « life-giving spirit » or
more simply an « animating spirit ».

Very few people today now possess the lightning recall of classical
authors that loannes Pena could présupposé in his audience. In
■ On these matters, a useful survey ¡s : Izora Scott, Controversies over the imitation of
Cicero (New York : Teachers Collège, Columbla Unlversity, 1910). On Petrus Ramus see
99-103. More recently, see Christian Mouchel, Cicéron etSénèque dans la rhétorique de
la Renaissance (Marburg : Hitzeroth, 1990).
- Pena (1557), op. cit. in n. 5, aa ii ν, I. 34.

Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre 2008 273

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

place of this we have Lexicons - although to find the peculiar

adjective animabilis we need to look at those from the nineteenth
century, before the texts were cleaned up and words like this were
expunged as copyists' errors. When we look in the right place
however, we find that the form animabilis appears only once in
surviving classical literature, and, that it occurs in one of Marcus
Tullius Cicero's dialogues. Specifically it appears in an exposition of
cosmology by the Stoic spokesman Balbus, in the dialogue On the
nature of the gods 20. This dialogue was available throughout the
Renaissance and the early modem period. Among many sixteenth
century Latin éditions it is perhaps worth noting the Paris 1545
édition, which would have been available to loannes Pena, and
which contains the key phrase animabilis spiritum 21. The work was
also published in French translation in 1581. On the nature of the
gods would have been read not only as part of the well trained
Flumanist's éducation in the works of Marcus Tullius Cicero, but
also, and more specifically, after the Reformation it would be read
as a source of one of the most important arguments linking religion
with natural philosophy. The Stoic cosmology outlined by Marcus
Tullius Cicero's character Balbus is presented in the course of an
argument that the universe as a whole is benevolently designed for
the welfare of its créatures, and that this design is evidence of a
designer. Since David Hume devastated this pattern of argument in
the eighteenth century, we have perhaps forgotten how greatly it
appealed to early modem Christians. As Sachiko Kusukawa shows
in her recent book, Philip Melanchthon identified the benevolent
design described in Marcus Tullius Cicero's book with the provi
dential design of the universe attributed to the Christian deity. This
emphasis on the providential design of the universe as a way of
knowing God was a leading component of Melanchthon's defense
of natural philosophy against Luther and others who thought Aris
totle's natural philosophy was tainted by too close an association
with Catholic dogma 22.

20 - Marcus Tullius Cicero, De natura deorum, II. 36, I. 91 : « Principio enim terra sita in
media parte mundi circumfusa undique est hac animabile et spirabile natura cui nomen
estaer. » On this phrase see : Austin Stickney, Cicero-De natura deorum (Boston :Ginn
& Co., 1901 ), esp. page 265 n. 107.5.
21 - M. Tullii Ciceronis de Philosophia prima pars, id est, [...] de Natura deorum libri III
(Paris, 1545).
22 - Sachiko Kusukawa, The Transformation of natural philosophy : The case of Philip
Melanchthon (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1995). See also Peter Barker,
The role of religion in the Lutheran response to Copernicus, in Margaret J. Osier (ed.)
Rethinking the scientific révolution (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2000),

274

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

loannes Pena was a Huguenot when he came to Paris. The préfacé

we have been considering may well have been delivered as his
inaugural lecture in 1555, before its publication in 1557. He died
only a year later. His master, Petrus Ramus, became a Huguenot and
died in the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. This confessional
affiliation may help to explain why loannes Pena's ideas found their
most sympathetic réception in the work of a Lutheran, Christoph
Rothmann, mathematician to the Landgrave of Hesse. The Land
grave Wilhelm IV, and his successors, supported a number of
natural philosophers and mechanicswho constructed astronomical
instruments and autómata, and conducted one of the most ambi
tious programs of astronomical observation in Europe. The Kassel
program was surpassed only by Tycho Brahe's work, first under the
patronage of the Danish throne, and ultimately under the patronage
of Emperor Rudolf 11. Christoph Rothmann was mathematicustothe
Landgrave from 1577 until 1590, the year he visited Tycho Brahe's
observatory at Hven. For reasons that are obscure, Christoph Roth
mann never resumed his position at Kassel, although he correspon
ded with Wilhelm IV's successor as late as 1597. The exact date of
his death remains uncertain 23. During his tenure at Kassel, Chris
toph Rothmann wrote, but did not publish, a number of works on
astronomy, including book length manuscripts on astronomy, on
the fixed stars, and on the cornet of 15 8 5 24. The last of these was

59-88 ; Peter Barker, Astronomy, providence and the Lutheran contribution to science,
in Angus Menuge (ed.) Reading God's world (St Louis : Concordia Press, 2004),
157-187 ; Id., The Lutheran contribution to the astronomical révolution, in )ohn Brooke
and Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu (eds.), Religious values and the rise of science in Europe
(Istanbul : Research Centre for Islamic history, art and culture, 2005), 31-62.
23 - On the Kassel-Hven correspondence see now : Adam Mosley, Bearing the heavens :
Tycho Brahe and the astronomical community ofthe late sixteenth century (Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 2007). On the 1597 letter, see Goldstein and Barker, op. cit.
in n. 1, 386, n. 4. Christoph Rothmann may have survived until the last years of the
century, but he apparently died before the publication of his Germán work on the
sacramente in 1611. See Jürgen Hamel and Wolfgang R. Dick, Die astronomischen
Forschungen in Kassel unter Wilhelm IV (Frankfurt am Main : Harri Deutsch, 1998).
24 - Peter Barker, How Rothmann changed his mind, Centaurus, 46 (2004), 41-57, esta
blishes the following order of composition :
Christophori Rothmanni Bernburgensis Astronomía : in qua hypothèses Ptolemaicae ex
hypothesibus Copernici corriguntur et supplentur et inprimis intellectus et usus tabula
rum Prutenicarum declaratur et demonsfatur (Landesbibliothek und Muhardsche Biblio
thek der Stadt Kassel, MS Astron. 11 ). Probably essentially complete in 1585. This work
is now available as : Miguel A. Granada, Jürgen Hamel and Ludolf von Mackensen,
Cristoph Rothmanns Handbuch der Astronomie von 1589 (Frankfurt am Main : Harri
Deutsch, 2003).
Christophori Rothmanni Bernburgensis, lliustrissimi Principis Wilhelmi Landgravii Has
siae, etc., Mathematici scriptum de cometa, qui anno Christi 1585 mensib. Octobri et
Novembri apparuit, in Willebrord Snel, Descriptio cometae qui anno 1618 mense

Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre 2008 275

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

actually published by his successor Willebrord Snel in 1619, but a

complete draft appears to have been sent to Tycho Brahe in 1586,
with dramatic effects 2S.

In his book on the cornet Christoph Rothmann concludes that there

are no Aristotelian celestial spheres, that the substance of the
heavens is air, and that air extends ail the way to the fixed stars. He
begins with observations that establish the position of the 1585
cornet in the heavens, but his main arguments recapitúlate loannes
Pena's ideas, although he includes a corrected version of the key
phrase for the nature of the celestial substance.

loannes Pena's work appears early and often in Christoph Roth

mann's cornet treatise. In the material preceding the first chapter he
repeats loannes Pena's conclusions, using practically the same
words, that the tail of a cornet is generated by the refraction of the
Sun's rays as they pass through the body of the cornet, which is a
transparent body denser than air, and that, as refraction does not
occur when light passes through a fire, the cornet cannot be a
burning vapor26. Christoph Rothmann's adoption of the optical
account of cornets informs the whole work, and supports directly
anti-Aristotelian conclusions, both about the nature of cornets and
about the nature of the heavens.

Novembri primum effulsit (Leiden, 1619), 69-156, subsequently referred to as Scriptum

de cometa. Finished between January and May 1586.
Christophori Rothmanni Bernburgensis, lllustrissimi Principis Cuilielmi Landgravii Has
siae, etc., Mathematici observationum stellarum fixarum (Landesbibliothek und
Muhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel, MS Astron. 5, Nr. 7). Writing stopped no later
than Summer 1590.
In addition, Willebrord Snel, Coeli et siderum in eo errantium OBSERVATtONES
HASSIACAE lllustrissimi Principis Wilhelmi Hassiae Lantgravii auspiciis quondam ins
titutae et Spicilegium biennale ex observationibus Bohemicis v.n. Tycho Brahe nunc
primum publícate Willebrordo Snel lio R.F. Quibus accesserunt loannis Regiomontanus
et Bernardi Walteri Observationes Noribergicae (Leiden, 1618), 1-14, présents Chris
toph Rothmann's collation of Kassel observations from 1561 to 1582.
25 - Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 69-156. The date of composition can be established
from a report of parhelia observed at Kassel on 2 January 1586, page 132. Christoph
Rothmann says that he is sending the book to Tycho Brahe in a letter dated 18 May 1586.
See John L. E. Dreyer (éd.), Tychonis Brahe opera omnia (Copenhagen : Cyldendalia,
1919), V : 5 II. 30-35. Tycho Brahe first mentions the book in a letter dated 20 January
1587, V : 85 II. 29-34 : « [...] ob causam mihi tuum pereruditum scriptum (licet non ad
Colophonem perductam) de hoc Cometa transmisistl, [...], longe mihi gratissimum
fuit. »

26 - Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 70, following Pena (1557), op. cit. in n. 5, bb ii r, esp.
I. 15 if.

276

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

At the end of chapter 3, Christoph Rothmann concludes that the

1585 cornet has no parallax, as even a parallax as small as half a
minute would have been easily observable using his instruments 27.
loannes Pena had suggested that some cornets could be seen to be
further away than the Moon from their speed, according to the
principie that the slower an object appeared to move, the further
away from the Earth it lay. In chapter 4 Christoph Rothmann adds
his parallax observations to these arguments, concluding that the
cornet must be located in the sphere of Saturn 28. But this raises a
new problem : according to Aristotelian natural philosophy the
planets are « a denser part of their spheres » and transported by
them 29. Whatever the substance of the heavens, the planetary
spheres are believed to be strong solid bodies (corpora solide firma)
capable of carrying the planets around with them, and resisting
pénétration in depth, that ¡s, the intrusion of new bodies (corpora
autem solida penetrationem dimensionum non admittant)30. How
then can the cornets either exist, or move, in the sphere of Saturn ?
Without mentioning loannes Pena by name Christoph Rothmann
immediately proposes to résolve this difficulty by appealing to
optics. He then states loannes Pena's main conclusion, again vir
tually in the same words, that between the sphere of the fixed stars
and the Earth there is nothing except living air (animalem aerem),
and that the seven planets hang in this air31. Incidentally, in a
typical example of his rhetoric, Christoph Rothmann leaves us in no
doubt about his views on the relative soundness of Aristotelian
natural philosophy and arguments from optics or astronomy. The
celestial spheres are only firma. Démonstrations in optics and
astronomy, however, are firmissima (the superlative form) 32.
27 - Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 98.
28 - Ibid., 98-101.
29 - For a statement that would be regarded as définitive by many of the historical actors we
are considering, see Philipp Melanchthon, Initia doctrinae physicae (Wittenberg, 1575),
8 ; in margin « Stella quid » : « Stellam esse densiorem partem sui orbis... » (1 st printing :
Wittenberg, 1549). loannes Pena reports a similar définition for planets : Pena (1557),
op. cit. in n. 5, aa iii r, II. 30-31.
30 - Both quotes, Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 102.
31 - Ibid., 102-103 : « [...] ostendemusque, inter sphaeram stellarum fixarum & tellurem
nihil aliud esse, quam animalem hune aërem, septemque Errantia sidera in aëre
pendere. » Compare loannes Pena, as quoted above, n. 17.
32 - In an extended play on words, Christoph Rothmann first describes the spheres of the
planets as « Strong, solid bodies (corpora [...] solidé firma) », which « lead the planets
strongly by their motion (Planetas suo motu firmiter ducunt) ». But this is a « futile
conjecture » that will be refuted « by the strongest démonstrations of Optics and
Astronomy (firmissimae Opticae et Astronomicae demonstrationibus) ». Rothmann,
Scriptum de cometa, 102.

Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre 2008 277

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

Το support the conclusion that the heavens are air, Christoph

Rothmann deploys loannes Pena's refraction argument, embel
lished with detailed references to Alhazen and Vitellio's treatments.
The phenomenon of refraction is illustrated by a silver coin placed
out of sight at the bottom of a bowl that becomes visible when the
bowl is filled with water. If therefore, the celestial spheres are
substances différent from air, necessarily ail stars apart from those
vertically overhead will appear away from their true location and
the distances between pairs of stars will change. Repeating the
words of loannes Pena, Christoph Rothmann déniés this with the
ringing phrase that « Nothing of the sort has been seen through ail
the ages by ail the famous men who have carefully observed the
stars » modestly adding that nothing has been seen with his own
most accurate instrument either. It follows that air extends ail the
way to the fixed stars, and the planets, as he puts it, « hang » in the
air 33.

In the remainder of the book Christoph Rothmann returns repeated

ly to this resuit that the substance of the heavens is air, established in
chapter 5, and connects it with Stoic sources. In addition to his use
of loannes Pena, who I have already indicated would have expec
ted his audience to recognize the view he was presenting as Stoic,
Christoph Rothmann connects the view that the substance of the
heavens is air directly with a second Stoic source - Gaius Plinius
Secundus'Natural history34. At the beginning of book II, the author
gives an essentially Stoic account of the cosmos. Starting with a
relatively clear statement of the Stoic view that the cosmos as a
whole is a deity, he proceeds to describe a cyclical cosmos in which
the terraqueous sphere is held at the center by a dynamic balance of
forces. The stars and planets are made of fire, and the substance of
the heavens varies from air mixed with ail kinds of other things near
the surface of the Earth to relatively pure fire, or if you prefer
aether 35, as one ascends. Air, however :

« [...] is the principie of life, and penetrates ail the universe and is
intertwined with the whole ; suspended by its force in the center of
space is poised the Earth [...] In this way owing to an equal urge in
opposite directions the elements remain stationary, each in its own

33 - Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 103 : « Sed nihil tale tôt seculis Virls clarissimis
assiduè sidéra observantibus, nec nobis quoque per accuratissima riostra instrumenta
apparuit. » Compare loannes Pena, as quoted above, n. 16.
34 - Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 117.
35 - Gaius Plinius Secundus, Natural history, ll.vii.48.

278

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

place [...] ; thus being alorie motionless with the universe revolving
around her she (the Earth) both hangs attached to them ail and atthe
same time is that on which they ail rest36 ».

Takingall thistogether what we have isthe usual difficulty in finding

a single Latin term to translate pneuma, which is an ail pervasive
mixture of air and fire that directs the évolution of the cosmos and is
the active principie in Stoic physical explanations. That the sub
stance of the heavens may be referred to as « air » is shown by
Gaius Plinius Secundus' next comment that the planets « hang » in
the celestial air. In fact Christoph Rothmann explicitly notes Gaius
Plinius Secundus'useof the phrase, in chapter 10 ofhis cornet book,
where he returns to a considération of difficulties surrounding the
claim that the substance enveloping the planets is no différent from
pure sublunar air37. Although it is clear that Aristotle is a main
target of this chapter, and that Gaius Plinius Secundus is a congenial
ancient author, Stoicism is not mentioned by ñame. These ideas are
simply so well known to Christoph Rothmann's contemporaries
that labelling them Stoic is redundant. It is probably also significant
that the Natural history was used as a substitute for Aristotle's works
on natural philosophy in Lutheran universities as a resuit of
Melanchthon's educational reforms. Although Aristotle's works
were rapidly rehabilitated and reintroduced, book II of Gaius Pli
nius Secundus'Natural history, and its Stoic affiliation would have
been well known to Christoph Rothmann and his Lutheran
audience 38.

Christoph Rothmann never really faces the problem that is imme

diately raised by adopting a fluid substance for the heavens. In
Aristotelian natural philosophy, the planets are not self-moving but
are carried around the heavens by their spheres. As soon as spheres
capable of playing this role are removed, we need a new account of
the causes of planetary motion. Gaius Plinius Secundus suggests a
Stoic « dynamic » explanation. Parailei to the description of the
stability of the central Earth, the planets are supported and moved
bythe substance ofthe heavens. Similarly Christoph Rothmann tells
36 - Caius PliniusSecundus, Natural history, ll.iv.10-12, transi. Harris Rackham (Cambridge,
Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1938), 177.
37 - Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 147 ; cf. Caius Plinius Secundus, Natural history,
ll.iv.12.
38 - Kusukawa, op. cit. In n. 22, 136-137 (Milich's publications on and teaching of Gaius
Plinius Secundus Natural history, book II, at Wittenberg), and 180-181 (subséquent
lecturers).

Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre 2008 279

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

us that the seven planets are propelled and carried around by the
force of the air (ab impulsu aeris)39. Although this proposai for
explaining the causes of planetary motion is certifiably Stoic, it is
not the majority position of Stoic writers, which takes planets to be
active agents that move themselves. We find this latter view
elsewhere in the early modem critique of Aristotle.

When Tycho Brahe received Christoph Rothmann's cornet book in

1586 he was actively considering three competing Systems of the
world - those of Claudius Ptolemy, Nicolaus Copernicus, and his
own. In the last two Systems the distance from the Earth to Mars
when it is in opposition wiII be less than the distance from the Earth
to the Sun. This should never happen in a system of the world that
combines Claudius Ptolemy's astronomy with Aristotle's cosmo
logy. Observing a parallax for Mars greater than the Sun's parallax
would be strong evidence that Claudius Ptolemy and Aristotle were
wrong about the center of planetary motions. Tycho Brahe tried to
observe this during the opposition of 1582, but initially reported
that he failed to find any discernable parallax. He later reversed his
story, and made the alleged successful observation a central argu
ment in favor of his own system. His first clear affirmation that he
didfind a parallax showing Mars was doser than the Sun during the
1582 opposition came immediately after he received Christoph
Rothmann's cornet book (which incidentally reasserts Georg Rhe
ticus' claim that the parallax of Mars during oppositions shows it is
closer than the Sun) 40.

But even if the parallax of Mars was certain - and greater than the
Sun's - there would still be the problem of distinguishing Nicolaus
Copernicus' heliocentric system from Tycho Brahe's geoheliocen
tric alternative. And there was an outstanding difficulty for Tycho
Brahe's own system : saying that Mars cornes closer to the Earth
than the Sun, during opposition, is just another way of saying that
their spheres intersect. If these spheres are composed of material
that resists interpénétration (whether or not they are « hard »), any
such intersection is physically impossible. As late as 1584 Tycho

39 - Gaius PliniusSecundus, Natural history, ll.iv.11-12 ; cf. Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa,

143.

40 - For an extended discussion see Goldstein and Barker (1995), op. cit. in η. 1, esp. the
Appendix, 401 -403 ; Owen Gingerich and James R. Voelkel, Tycho Brahe's Copernican
campaign, Journal for the history of astronomy, 29 (1998), 1 -34.

280

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

Brahe was drawing diagrams of his System with the orb of Mars large
enough to enclose the orb of the Sun and avoid intersection 41.

Although he had met Petrus Ramus, Tycho Brahe had never corne
across loannes Pena's préfacé. Christoph Rothmann's arguments
against celestial spheres and in favor of air as the substance of the
heavens were apparently new to him 42. It seems likely, therefore,
that reading Christoph Rothmann's book showed him a way to
remove this objection to his own system. He then deployed another
argument that appears in the book to elimínate the remaining rival
to his own system - that cornets do not retrogress as they should in
a Copernican world 43.

Of course, the last thing Tycho Brahe wanted to do was to give his
correspondent crédit for any of this. In fact when Christoph Roth
mann challenged him on the nature of the heavens and particularly
the causes of planetary motion in his system, Tycho Brahe contra
dicted him and supported his own originality by drawing on ano
ther set of Stoic ideas about the nature of the planetary motion.

According to Marcus Tullius Cicero's Stoic spokesman Balbus, in

On the nature ofthe gods, the planets are the proper créatures of the
aether44. As intelligent living créatures, they direct their own
motions. To make the contrast with Gaius Plinius Secundus clear,
we might say that for Marcus Tullius Cicero planets do not hang,
they swim. Throughout the Middle Ages this view was routinely
41 - Kristian Peder Moesgaard, The Copernican influence on Tycho Brahe, Studia Coperni
cana, 5 (1972), 31-55, esp. 47.
42 - Tycho Brahe proposes that the substance of the heavens is fire, on the authority of the
Paracelsans, in the Germán treatise on the comet of 1577, but still retains celestial
spheres, and concludes that the comet is in the sphere of Venus. Although he was
already persuaded of the possibility of change in the heavens, before 1586 he gave no
indication ofhowto reconcile thiswith the principies of natural philosophythatunderlie
astronomy. See John R. Christianson, Tycho Brahe's Germán treatise on the comet of
1577 : A study in science and politics, /sis, 70 (1979), 110-140.
43 - Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 99.
44 - MarcusTullius Cicero, De natura deorum, 2.41-3 : « [l]f the heat of the Sun is similar to
the fires in the bodies of living créatures, then the Sun itself must be alive, and also the
other stars which are born in the celestial fire which we cali the aether or the heavens.
Just as some living créatures are born on the Earth, some in the water, and some in the air,
¡t seems to be absurd to think [...] that no living créatures should be born in that región
most suited to engender them. Now the stars continue to exist in the aether ; anything in
that place is always agitated and full of vigor, consequently any créature engendered
there must have the keenest senses and the swiftest movements. Henee, as the stars are
engendered in the aether, ¡t follows that they are conscious and intelligent beings [...]
[indeed] it is likely that outstanding intelligence exists in the stars, since they inhabit the
aetherial región of the world (...] »

Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61-2 | juillet-décembre 2008 281

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

mentioned as an alternative to the Aristotelian account of planets

transportée! by their spheres. The phrase that became standard to
describe the view mentioned birds flying through the air, and fish
swimming through the waters, as the planets moved through the
heavens. We find the view mentioned in authors as diverse as Jean
Buridan and Pierre d'Ailly. Before the sixteenth century it was
uniformly rejected on the grounds that planets were not self-moving
and that the view required pénétration in depth which celestial
matter did not allow. However, the view was endorsed by Martin
Luther, in his Lectures on Genesis (1544), although it was soon
rejected again by the leading Wittenberg astronomer, Erasmus
Reinhold, in his Theoricae novaeplanetarum (Wittenberg, 1553) 45.
But Tycho Brahe had another asset he could use to increase his own
credibiIity at the expense of Christoph Rothmann - his expertise in
alchemy. In his reply he combined Stoic cosmology and Paracelsan
alchemy.

According to Tycho Brahe, in a letter of February 1589, the sub

stance of the heavens is a « most pure and most fluid aethereal
substance » distinct from ail the terrestrial elements. However, if a
comparison must be made, the substance of the heavens is closest
to fire, as Paracelsus teaches, although it is a fire that burns without
being consumed. For Tycho Brahe stars and planets are formed from
this substance. Consequently, just as birds made from the mumia of
air live in the air, and fish made from the mumia of water move in
the waters, for the same reason it is likely that the Sun and stars,
which are made of a kind of unburning fire, carry out their révolu
tions in the aether which is fiery and unburning 46.

45 - Ernest A. Moody (éd.), lohannis Buridani quaestiones super libris quattuor De caelo et
mundo (Cambridge, Mass. : Medieval Academy of America, 1942), 209-210, book 2 :
question 18,1. 34ff ; Pierre d'Ailly, 14 quaestiones, in Spherae tractatus loannis de Sacro
Busto (Venice, 1531), quest. 2, fol. 148 v° ; Martin Luther, Ennaratio in I cap. Cenesis
(1544), Luthers Werke in Auswahl (Berlin : W. de Cruyter, c. 1959), 42, 23, 14E ;
Erasmus Reinhold, Theoricae novae planetarum Ceorgii Purbacchii Cermani ab Erasmo
Reinholdo Salveldensi [...] Recens editae & auctae novis scholiis in theoria Solis ab ipso
autore (Wittenberg, 1553), fol 27 v°. Note that the passage does not occur in the first
édition (Wittenberg, 1542) ; cf. fol. Diii v°.
46-Tycho Brahe to Christoph Rothmann, 21 Feb. 1589, in Tycho Brahe, Epistolarum
astronomicarum (Uraniburg, 1596), 137-151 ( = Dreyer (éd.), op. cit. in n. 25, VI :
382-383) : « Caeli videlicet, substantiam esse Aetheream & liquidissimam, purissimam
que ; quandam materiam, supra omnem elementorum naturam exaltam... Sin autem
alicuius Elementi naturam Caelo affingere non admodum absurdum videretur, ego
potius illud Igneum, quam Aereum esse concederem, prout ab Paracelso traditum est,
qui illud Quartum & Igneum elementum noncupat. »

282

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

Here we find the same hallmark phrase about birds, fish and planets
that may be traced to Marcus Tullius Cicero's exposition of Stoicism,
combined with the vocabulary of Paracelsus. Mumia, from the
same root as our word « mummify », is a Paracelsan term for
something that preserves or sustains. Having belabored poor Chris
toph Rothmann with Marcus Tullius Cicero and Paracelsus, Tycho
Brahe also urges him to study Gaius Plinius Secundus with care, as
if he had not quite got the latter's doctrines right in the cornet book.

Ail this, of course, is just verbal fencing. The constitution of the Stoic
substance of the heavens is ambiguous, but it is clearly differentia
ted from Aristotle's by its fluidity, its continuity with the terrestrial
elements, its role as the basis of life, and its spiritual aspect.
Whether you call it air or fire is inconsequential as long as it
performs the functions of the pneuma. Tycho Brahe himself descri
bes a cosmos in which the upper reaches are vital air in a Germán
work on astrological meteorology published in 1591. And his
student Longomontanus, in the Astronómica Danica of 1622,
emphasizes the spiritual nature of the celestial substance, which is
the same as the air of loannes Pena and Christoph Rothmann 47.

Christoph Rothmann and Tycho Brahe both reject Aristotle's celes

tial spheres but take opposed positions on the Stoic alternative they
propose to substitute for Aristotle's view of the causes of planetary
motion. Tycho Brahe regards the planets as living créatures that
direct their own motion, a view that would be congenial to many
contemporary Neoplatonists. Christoph Rothmann regards the pla
nets' motions as the resuit of motions in the celestial médium : the
planets are supported so that they « hang » in the air, as the Earth is
dynamically supported at the center of the universe. Variations in
(whatwe mightcall) pressure from différent directions leadsto their
motions. Although for Christoph Rothmann the ultímate cause of
Tycho Brahe, ibid., 137-138 : « Ex quo enim Stellae & lumina caelestia Igriea flamman
tiaque appareant ; [...] Animantia, quae de Mumia Terrae constant in Terris degere :
Volucres de Mumia Aeria in Aere : Pisces de Mumia Aquea in Aquis versari, & sic de
caeteris, ut ob id verisilius appareat, Solem et Stellas, quae Ignis cuiusdam incombusti
bilis speciem repraesentant, in Aethere Igneo et incombustibili, (unde etiam Aetheris
nomen apud Craecos illi attributum quasi Ardens seu Igneum, idque perpetuo cum sit
inconsummabilis) suas Revolutiones exercere. »
- On Tycho Brahe, see John Christianson, Tycho Brahe's cosmology from the Astrologia of
1591, Isis, 59 (1968), 312-318. On Christian Longomontanus, see William H. Donahue,
The solid planetary spheres in Post-Copemican astronomy, in Robert S. Westman (éd.),
The Copernican achievement (Berkeley : University of California Press, 1975) 244-275,
esp. 270.

Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 i juillet-décembre 2008 283

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

planetary motion is Divine (Christian) Providence 48, a later writer,

concentrating on the efficient causes he describes, might call his
account mechanical. It is interesting to note that ail these thèmes
recur in Johannes Kepler. In the Mysterium cosmographicum Kepler
advocates a continuous fluid heaven in which the spheres of the
planets are mere geometrical constructions 49. Faced with the pro
blem of accounting for the causes of planetary motion, he initially
opts for a view very like the one proposed by Tycho Brahe 50. But in
the Astronomía nova he rejects such views directly, and replaces
them with his quasi-magnetic solar force51. Although Johannes
Kepler called on this force as a Neoplatonist, later writers would
again be likely to see his explanation as mechanical. While Johan
nes Kepler uses the celestial air only to transmit the force that moves
the planets, other appropriators of Stoic ideas continue to use the
celestial substance itself to move the planets. An example is Sebas
tian Basso, who imagines doorways in each planet that open and
close to direct the flow of the celestial substance and henee the
planets' motions 52.

loannes Pena, Christoph Rothmann, Tycho Brahe and Johannes

Kepler are typical of the way Stoic ideas are employed by early
modem scientists. In ail three cases Stoic doctrines are attractive as
a ready-made alternative to Aristotelian ideas. In ail three cases the
Stoic origins of the ideas they use are so well known to their
audience that labelling them « Stoic » is unnecessary. At the same
time, early modem natural philosophers are not concerned to
preserve Stoic ideas as a sepárate and distinctive philosophical
system. Rather they take what they want, and combine it with
whatever they please : loannes Pena and Christoph Rothmann
48 - Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 135.
49 - Johannes Kepler, Mysterium cosmographicum (Frankfurt, 1621 ), 2nd éd., chap. 16, and
especially n. 7. Compare Christoph Rothmann, Scriptum de cometa, 117, where
Rothmann treats the Great Orb of Nicolaus Copernicus and Georg Rheticus similarly.
50 - Although he later identifies his moving intelligences with the Aristotelian intelligences of
Julius Caesar Scaliger rather than the Stoics (Kepler, op. cit. in n. 49, chap. 20, n. 3).
51 - Johannes Kepler, Astronomía nova (Heidelberg, 1609) notes, chap. 2, 8, that Tycho
Brahe requires « that the planets complete their courses in the pure aether, just like birds
in the air ». The proposai is fundamentally objectionable because such a spirit would be
unable to perform the epicyclic motion required of it, but also because « a round body
[like a planet] lacks such aids as wings or feet, by the moving of which the soul might
carry its body through the aethereal air as birds do in the atmosphère » (chap. 33, 168).
Both translations from William H. Donahue, Johannes Kepler - New astronomy (Cam
bridge : Cambridge University Press, 1992).
52 - Sebastian Basso, Philosophia naturalis adversus Aristotelem, libri XII (Amsterdam,
1649), 466. Original édition : Geneva, 1621.

284

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stoic alternatives to Aristotelian cosmology : Pena, Rothmann and Brahe

combine Stoic natural philosophy with the Perspectivist tradition in

optics ; Tycho Brahe combines Stoic ideas with Paracelsan
aichemy ; Johannes Kepler, despite his critical stance, is happy to
call on Stoic ideas to augment his personal blend of Neoplatonism,
and Sebastian Basso combines Stoicism with its ancient rival Epi
cureanism. In many cases Stoicism is not a resting place but a
stepping stone to new viewpoints, and ultimately to the mechanical
philosophy.

Here as elsewhere it is simply not true that Aristotelian doctrines

were abandoned when they were shown to be false by observation.
This is true neither for loannes Pena nor Tycho Brahe 53. For ail
these authors it was important that the Ancients disagreed among
themselves about the matters in dispute and that ancient authorities
could be found to support alternatives to Aristotle. The Stoics
played an important role here, but by no means held a monopoly.
This also helps to explain the pattem of appropriation of Stoic
doctrines before Justus Lipsius'attempt to recover and revive Stoi
cism as a distinct philosophical position 54. The authors I have
described confined themselves to snippets of Stoicism, drawn from
their common educational background and, in the case of Marcus
Tullius Cicero's works, not originally read for their natural philoso
phy. However, it is also significant that much of the criticism of
Aristotle we have reviewed drew also on the tradition in optics and
that ail the main figures we have discussed were mathematical
practitioners. loannes Pena's overt appeal to optics to settle out
standing questions in natural philosophy was directly subversive of
the order of the sciences accepted by Aristotelians, according to
which optics should have been subordinated to both physics and
mathematics. Although loannes Pena continues to use orthodox
Aristotelian patterns of démonstration, his rejection of the typical
order of the sciences calis in question the Aristotelian precept that
the major premises in démonstrations were ultimately to be secured
by dérivation from a superordinate science. Christoph Rothmann in
particular was very clear that the central issue in overturning
Aristotle's natural philosophy was not physical doctrine but
method, and that mathematical démonstrations of the sort found in
optics and astronomy were in principie préférable to scientific
53 - Contra Reijer Hooykaas, Humanisme, science et Réforme (Leiden : Brill, 1958), 48.
54 - Justus Lipsius, Manuductionis ad stoicam philosophiam libri tres (Antwerp, 1604) ; Id.,
Physiologia Stoicorum libri tres (Antwerp, 1604). In general see : Jacqueline Lagrée,
Juste Lipse et la restauration du stoïcisme (Paris : Vrin, 1994).

Revue d'histoire des sciences i Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre 2008 285

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Peter BARKER

explanations that satisfied Aristotle's canons of deductive démons

tration. It was, perhaps, the realization of the fulI potential of these
new methods by Johannes Kepler that became the beginning of the
end for the older scientific tradition 55.

55 - Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the conférence « 16th and 17th century
philosophy : Conversations with Aristotle », Cambridge, England, April 10-13, 1995,
and at the CNRS conférence on « La présence de la physique stoïcienne dans la
philosophie naturelle aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles », Lille, France, May 16, 1995. The author
would like to thank the participants in those conférences for valuable discussion. He
would also like to thank an anonymous reviewer, together with Roger Ariew, Constance
Blackwell, Kathleen M. Crowther, Mordechai Feingold, Miguel A. Granada, Bernard
Joly, Sachiko Kusukawa, Gérard Simon, and especially Bernard R. Goldstein, for advice
and encouragement while writing this paper.

286

This content downloaded from

89.164.29.222 on Sat, 23 Jan 2021 16:01:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms