epler as a Reader

AnthonyGrafton

Kepler,likeGalileo,oftenrebelledagainsttheculturalauthority of
old books.In 1599his teacherof astronomy, MichaelMaestlin,asked
himto collaborate in preparingan encyclopedic commentary on Homer.
Maestlinwantedhimto interpret theencounters ofthegodsin theIliad
and Odyssey as conjunctions of theplanetsnamedafterthemand to
computetheirexactdates.Keplerclearlyrejectedthenotionthatone
couldfindpreciseastronomical dataintheancientepics.Diplomatically,
hedidnotsayso. Instead,he suggested thatMaestlincompute thedates;
thenhe,Kepler,wouldsupplyastrological He thusneatly
interpretations.
ensuredthattheprojectcameto nothing.'
Kepler'srefusal to collaboratein weavinga Homericallegory seems
natural,eveninevitable. He had alreadybrokenwithbasicelements of
traditional
cosmology in hisMysterium cosmographicum. Andhe would
soonsetoutto createa newastronomy-one thatbroke,as Copernican
astronomy hadnot,withtheclassicaltradition thatstretched fromPtol-
emyto hisown time.He as
didthis, iswell known, byusingTycho'sunique
newstoresofempirical data,farmoreprecisethanthedataavailableto
theancients,andbysticking tohisownconviction thathecouldcreatea
physicallyas wellas a mathematically rigorousastronomy.2 Keplerhim-
selfinsistedagainand againthateventhoughhe was onlyone little
Germanworking at whathe expectedto be theendofhistory, he had
therightto introduce newideasintocosmology. He warnedtraditional
philosophersnottotrytorepress thosewhosought tochangeandimprove
naturalphilosophy "bytheprescription ofantiquity." Aristotle's
opinions
couldnotandshouldnotbe maintained againstthe"newdiscoveries that
arebeingmadeeveryday."3It seemsaltogether reasonablethatKepler,
unlikehismoreold-fashioned teachersinTiibingen, couldseeHomeras
a poet,nota masterofthesciencesand coulddrawtheconclusion that
mathematical and astronomical analysis of his work would only waste
time,paper,and spirit.
I Johannes Kepler,GesammelteWerke,ed. M. Caspar et al. (Munich,1937-), XIII,
330; XIV, 45.
2 See B. Stephenson, (New York, 1987).
Kepler'sPhysicalAstronomy
3 Kepler,GesammelteWerke, VIII, 225.

561

Copyright 1992 by JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, INC.

562 AnthonyGrafton

In fact,however,relationsbetweenthebook of natureand thebooks

of menweretangledin thesetransitional years.In the telescopewars of
1609 and after,Galileo artfullydeployedan anti-scholarly rhetoric.He
contrastedfertilerealityto sterilebooks,thepracticalworkof engineers
and craftsmen to the tedioussquabblingof pedants.4But in othertexts,
as Paolo Rossi and Eileen Reeveshave shown,he tookthebooksofmen
(and thewrittenbook of God) quite seriously.By the timehe wrotethe
Assayer,he had steepedhimselfin Jesuitcommentaries on the book of
Daniel. More surprisingly, he cast his own view of his enterprise in the
languagenotofthepracticalmanofvisionbutofthelearnedcommentator
on texts.He comparednatureto a book written in thelanguageofmathe-
matics-a language,he insisted,thatonlyexpertscould read.This second
setofmetaphorsrepresented naturenotas a user-friendly, unrolledscroll
accessibleto anyonewithopen eyesbut as an encrypted textwhichonly
virtuousmathematicians-theprophetsof Galileo's time-could de-
cipher.5
Kepler'sideas about readingand its traditionswereevendeeperand
morecomplexthanGalileo's. In the specificcase of Homer,he did not
need his masteryof modernscienceto rejectthe notionthathis poems
encodedastrologicalmessages.AncientGreekHomericscholarshad al-
ready rejectedthe effortto read the conversations, battlesand sexual
activitiesof the Homeric gods as literaryhoroscopes.More recently,
Erasmus and Rabelais had debunkedHomeric allegoresisin famous
books. Kepler,actingas a sensiblehumanist,simplyrevivedthehealthy
scepticism ofhispredecessors. He didnotrejectthehumanisttradition but
recovereda criticalelementwithinit.6Even whenhe attackedAristotle
on comets,he describedhimselfin ambivalentterms,as "creatingnew
doctrines,or ratherrecovering the old ones of Anaxagorasand Democ-
ritus."7
More generally,Kepler devotedhimselfthroughout his lifeto tradi-
tionalformsof scholarshipas well as modernformsof science.Like a
good northern Protestant, he grewup listeningto sermonsand disputa-

4See e.g. Kepler,GesammelteWerke,XVI, 329.

5 P. Rossi, La scienza e la filosofiadei moderni(Turin, 1989), chs. 3-4; E. Reeves,
"Daniel 5 and the Assayer:Galileo reads the Handwritingon the Wall," Journalof
Medievaland RenaissanceStudies,21 (1991), 1-27;"Augustineand Galileoon Readingthe
Heavens,"JHI, 52 (1991), 563-79;cf.B. Goldstein,"Galileo's Accountof Astronomical
MiraclesintheBible:A ConfusionofSources,"Nuncius,5 (1990), 3-16.See moregenerally
H. Blumenberg, Die Lesbarkeitder Welt,2d ed. (Frankfurt, 1983).
6 See in generalJ. Seznec, The Survivalof thePagan Gods,tr. B. F. Sessions(New
York, 1953);T. Bleicher,Homerin derdeutschen Literatur(1450-1740)(Stuttgart, 1972).
For classicalattackson astronomicalreadingsof Homersee Heraclitus,ProblemataHo-
merica53 and Plutarch,De audiendispoetis19E.
7 Kepler, GesammelteWerke,VIII, 225: "IgnoscantigiturPhilosophi,antiqua dog-

matatuentes,novafabricanti dogmata,seu potiusveterailla ANAXAGORAE et DEMO-

CRITI revocanti...."
ReassessingHumanismand Science 563

tions.Long hoursof practicegave hima discriminating ear forexegesis.

At the age of twelvehe alreadyfoundit shockingwhena preacherdis-
tortedthetextofPaul's Epistlesto makeit supporta sermonthatbashed
theCalvinists.8The six statelyvolumesofKepler'scorrespondence, those
macaronicmonuments, halfLatin and halfGerman,halfmathematical
and halfunintelligible,to thefollyand grandeurof theGermanbaroque
mind,containdozens of discussionsof passagesfromthe Bible and the
classics.Severalofhis scientific
worksincludedetaileddigressions about
problemsin the early historyof the exact sciences.His Apologiafor
Tycho againstUrsus, which has receivedtwo substantialeditionsand
commentaries in thelastdecade,offersone oftheearliestfull-scaleefforts
to tracethe historyof ancientastronomy.9
Commentsscatteredthroughout Kepler's workshow how muchthe
act ofreadingmeantto him.He describedhisencounters withbookswith
articulateinterest,dating the most important ones-like his reading,at
the age of seventeen,of JuliusCaesar Scaliger'sExercitationes against
Cardano,whichhad inspiredhimto studynaturalphilosophy. 10Kepler's
accountsofreadingshowmeticulousattention to nuancesand differences
and are couchedin a crisplypreciseterminology. He evokedat different
timesthe horrorwithwhichhe read the paranoid,weirdlyarguedpam-
phlet by Nicolas Ursus against Tycho, with its apparentlydeliberate
misreadingsof ancientand moderntexts;the delightwithwhichhe sa-
vored Erasmus Reinhold's ruminations,"purissimoet suavissimoser-
monisgenere,"on thegeneraleffects ofthestarson thesublunaryworld;
themicroscopicattention withwhichhe scrutinized GirolamoCardano's
detaileddescriptionsof comets,word by word. Kepler used Cardano's
crisp,well-chosenadjectivesto compensateforthe weaknessof his own
eyesight.The Italian magus's vividprose made clear to Kepler what a
comet'stail actuallylooked like.11
Kepler,moreover, didnotalwaysreadliterally or resistthetemptation
to findhiddenmeaningsin theclassics.AnnotatinghisSomnium,a rich,
ifstrangeaccountof a voyageto themoon,he datedwithexquisitecare
hisfirstencounters withtherelevantancienttextsbyPlutarchand Lucian.
He also stated,curiously,thatLucian had hintedthathe meanthissatiri-
cal TrueHistoryas a profoundaccountofthephysicalworld.12 Evidently
8 Kepler,GesammelteWerke,XII, 49.
9 Jardine,TheBirthofHistoryand Philosophy ofScience(Cambridge,1984;repr.with
corrections,1988); V. Bialas in Kepler,GesammelteWerke,XX, 1.
10Kepler,GesammelteWerke,VIII, 15.
" Kepler,GesammelteWerke,XIII, 344-45;X, 40 (Kepler describesReinhold'stext
colorfully:"in ea namque floreshalantex hortisPhilosophiaepenitissimis, admirabilis
fragrantiae,quae lectorivelutimentemipsameripit");VIII, 227-28(on Cardano he says:
"Propemodumad vivumdepinxitnostrosCometas,exceptocolore").
12 Kepler,Operaomnia,ed. C. Frisch(Frankfurt and Erlangen,1858-71),VIII, pt. 1,
40: "quae [sc. Lucian'sfabula]tamenaliquidde totiusuniversinaturainnuebat,utquidem
ipse Lucianusmonetin exordio."See theexcellentanalysisby J.S. Romm,"Lucian and
564 Grafton
Anthony

Keplersaw readingas a rangeofpossibleresponses to an equallywide

rangeofforms ofwriting.Onemight compare hissenseofdiscrimination
to thetrainedattention brought
he presciently to bearon astronomical
dataandconditions ofobservation.
Sustainedinterest in oldertextswas onlynaturalin someoneof
Kepler'stimeandplace.Styleinterested himdeeply-strange though that
statement mayseemtothosewhohaveenjoyeda bracing dipinthechill
watersof Kepler'sLatinsyntax.He had a humanist education, which
gavehimthenormalsensethattheancients had saidmostthings better
thanmodemscould"3and he wrote forcourtly patrons,who were also
expert humanists andhada sharpandappreciative eyeforstriking turns
ofLatinphrase.Likemostproducts ofthissystem oftrainingandpatron-
age,heneverlosthisdesiretoadornhisownstylewithgemsandgewgaws
filchedfromthebestancientwriters. In pursuitof thesehe readand
rereadtheclassics.As a matureastronomer reprintinghisMysterium
cosmographicum, he lamented thefactthathe hadnotyetreadSeneca's
NaturalQuestions whenhefirst wrotethebook.Accordingly hehadfailed
to quoteSenecain thepreface, wherehe arguedthatnatureretained
plentyof secretsnot yetexplored.Keplernow providedthe relevant
sentence,"adorned," hesaid,"withthelittleflowersofLatineloquence,"
in a footnote.
14
Kepler'sinterestin thesubstanceofancienttextswasjustas natural
as hisconcernfortheirstyleand evenmoresustained. Mostsixteenth-
andearlyseventeenth-century as thelateCharlesSchmitt,
scientists, Ian
Maclean,andothershaveshown, resortedto books notonly when expli-
catingthenatural worldinuniversity coursesbutalsowhenwriting about
it fora maturepublic.Commentators byvocation, theysaw theirduty
notas discovering factsneverbeforeseenand drawing inferencesfrom
thembutas assembling factsfromreliablesourcesina newandrevealing
order.Mostscientific researchtooktheformofa searchforexperientia
thewritten
litterata, recordsofscientificfacts,ancientor modern. Most
scientific
writing resultednot in reportson controlledsituationsbut in
commentary or bricolage-the ofcanonicaltexts,
discussion linebyline,
in marginalnotesor the rearrangement of fragments fromtheminto
newtreatises. Thenormalearlymodernscientist resembled a bookworm

Plutarchas SourcesforKepler'sSomnium,"Classicaland ModernLiterature,9 (1989),

97-107.
13 See F. Seck's editionof and commentary on Kepler's Latin poems, in Kepler,
GesammelteWerke,XII; also Seck's article"JohannesKeplerals Dichter,"in Internatio-
nales Kepler-Symposium: ed. F. Krafft
Weilder Stadt 1971. Referateund Diskussionen,
(Hildesheim,1973),427-51.
14 Kepler,Gesammelte Werke,VIII, 22: "Non legeramSENECAM, qui peneeandem
sententiam EloquentiaeRomanae flosculissic exornavit...."
ReassessingHumanismand Science 565

draggingits endlesslengthdown endlessbookstacksratherthan Cesi's

lynxfiercelyscrutinizing the secretsof nature.'5
The youngKeplerfrequently mountedthissortofscientificexpedition
aroundthe shelvesof a library.Discussingmagnetismand the compass
withthe learnedmadmanHerwartvon Hohenburg,Chancellorof Ba-
varia,he quoted lavishly.His sourcesincludedCardano's richcompen-
diumofanecdotesaboutseals and symbols,candlesmade fromthefatof
corpses and the curativepowersof saliva, the On Subtlety;Scaliger's
Exercitationeson thatwork,at fivehundredpagesperhapsthelongestas
well as themostvenomousbook reviewin literaryhistory;and Theodor
Zwinger'sgenuinely weightyTheatrum humanaevitae,withits3000pages
of carefullyindexedanecdotesand examplesfromthe ancients.16Every
German university studentand teacherknew these usefulhandbooks.
Kepler'scolleaguesransackedthemforideas and evidencewhenproduc-
ing doctoralthesesfordebate.Such shorttreatises,normallywrittenby
professors fortheirstudents,fora fee,made no pretenseto intellectual
innovation.Rather,theyreaffirmed the solvencyof individualaccounts
in thevastsavingsbankofbookishknowledge. 17 WhenKeplerproduced
comparableManneristassemblagesof quotationand argument,he en-
gagedin normalscienceof thebookishkind.And his resultscould be as
unsurprising as his readingmatter.
ButKeplerreadinmanyways,someofthemhighlycomplex.Reading,
as he knewwell,was a learnedartpar excellence,one governedby com-
plex,explicitrules.GermanProtestantsin Kepler's timewrotethe first
full-scalemanualsthatframedtheserulesand evendevisedthename of
thearttheydefined:hermeneutics. Like thedancingofthetime,reading
had an etiquette.Machiavellineverseemsmoreconventional thanwhen
he describeshimself, in a famousletter,brushingoffthemud and debris
he has accumulatedin a day spentfishing, gambling,and drinking, and
puttingon royalgarmentsbeforehe venturesto addressthe ancients,in
theirsplendidcourts.Like dancing,readingfollowedcomplex,prepro-
grammedstepsbutallowedfora certainamountofindividualinnovation.
ButunlikedancingintheRenaissanceorreadingnow,however,readingin
Kepler'stimeremainedwesternculture'scentral,normalwayofobtaining
importantinformation. Indeed, it offeredthe model, as Galileo's case
shows,forall complexformsof learning.Two briefstudieswill suggest
someofthedistinctive featuresofKepler'spracticeas a readerand a few
of the waysin whichtheseinteractedwithhis practiceas a scientist.

15 See C. Schmitt,Studiesin RenaissancePhilosophy and Science(London, 1981); I.

Maclean, "The interpretation of naturalsigns:Cardano'sDe subtilitate versusScaliger's
Exercitationes," Mentalitiesin theRenaissance,ed. B. Vickers(Cam-
Occultand Scientific
bridge,1984),231-52.
16
Kepler,GesammelteWerke,XIII, 188-97.
17
See A. Grafton,"The Worldof the Polyhistors: Humanismand Encyclopedism,"
CentralEuropeanHistory,18 (1985), 31-47.
566 Anthony
Grafton

First,thereaderas courtier.No authorfoundmorereadersin early

modemcourtsthanTacitus,thegrimly analyticalhistorian
oftheRoman
empire.Hismordant ofcharacter
dissections andconflictrevealeda world
likethatofthelatesixteenth
startlingly century,a chiaroscuro
panorama
of corruption in highplaces,its foregroundcrowdedby thebodiesof
honorable dissentersfoullymurdered, itscenterdominated byscowling
Translations
tyrants. text,commentaries
ofhisdifficult on hispolitical
andrearrangements
lessons, ofhisstoriesandlessonsintomoresystematic
orderfilledthe shelvesof the specialistscalled "politicians"
(politici,
oftendisastrously,
politiques).8 These menadvisedrulersand aristocrats,
andtaughtuniversity courseson theartsofempire anddiplomacy. They
read,as LisaJardine andI havearguedelsewhere, lessforprivateenlight-
enment thanforpublicconsumption, basingtheirauthority andinfluence
on theirclaimto makeancienttextsteachmodemlessons.19
Like thepolitici,Keplerread Tacitusin a publiccontext-atthe
imperial courtinPrague,wherehecollatedtheoriginal textwithtransla-
tionsintoFrench,Italian,and Germanand madehis own versionof
HistoriesI. Likethepolitici,he tookan almostobsessive interestin the
text.Thebrilliant Flemishhumanist JustusLipsiusofferedtoreciteall of
Tacitus,wordbyword,witha daggerheldtohisthroat, tobe plunged in
ifhemadeonemistake. Keplermade hisfifthchild,Ludwig, learn Latin
partlyfromhisGermanTacitus.Starting at theadvancedageofsix,the
boyspentthreeyearstranslating Kepler'sGermanbackintoLatinand
comparing his resultswiththeoriginal.Like thepolitici,Keplercom-
mented at length on theproblems andlessonsofhistextinparenthetical
remarks he inserted intothebodyof his translation ratherthanin a
separatecommentary.20
Normalinterpreters-the mostinfluential of whomwas Lipsius-
treatedthe textless as an organicwholethanas a set of lessonsto
be memorized. Lipsius'sown mostfamousbook,thePolitica,simply
rearranged tagsfromTacitusandothersto fitthetopicsofa systematic
treatment ofpolitics.ArnoldClapmarius, theHelmstedt prodigy whose
posthumous De arcanisrerumpublicarum madea greatsplashon itsap-
pearancein 1605,wentevenfurther in thesamedirection. He insisted
thatTacitusoffered hisreadersall thearcanaofgovernment, thesecret

18 See A. Momigliano,"The FirstPoliticalCommentary on Tacitus,"EssaysinAncient

and ModernHistoriography (Oxford,1977),205-29;P. Burke,"Tacitism,"in Tacitus,ed.
T. A. Dorey (London, 1979); G. Oestreich,Neostoicism and theEarlyModernState,tr.
D. McClintock(Cambridge,1982); M. Morford,Stoicsand Neostoics(Princeton,1991).
19 L. Jardineand A. Grafton,"'Studied forAction': How Gabriel Harveyread his
Livy,"Past & Present,129 (1990), 30-78.
20 See theexcellentpresentationof thetextby F. Boockmannin Kepler,Gesammelte
Werke,XII, 367-75.
ReassessingHumanismand Science 567

principlesthatRoman emperorshad employedto retaintheirpower;and

he diced the textintopill-sizedaxioms,topicby topic.21
KeplerclearlysharedthebeliefthatTacituscould provideinstruction
in prudenceformodernpolitici.He also clearlysharedthehope thathis
scholarshipcould help courtlyreadersto extractthis. When Ludwig
publishedKepler'stranslation, Regi-
he describedit as "Vollertrefflicher
ments-und Kriegsdiscursen, Diser Zeit nit weniger nutzlich/ als von
vergleichung wegender altenund newenWelt annemblichzu lesen"-a
sharplypracticalworkon government and warfare.Ludwigdedicatedit
to Maria Salome,Grafinvon Hebersdorff, who had askedhimfora copy
of the textforher son, lateran officerin Wallenstein'sarmy.22 Kepler's
version,withitsgeneralintroductions and helpful,sometimeselementary
glosses,was clearlyintendedto servea publicofrulers,notone of schol-
ars.23It providedmaterialfor the collectivediscussionsof politics,in
whichmoderncases werereferred to ancientexamples,thatmade up so
muchofcourtlifeintheLatin-drenched courtsofcentralEurope.Kepler's
readingof Tacitus thushad a publicand collectiveas well as a private
dimension,amountingas muchto performance as to meditation.
All of thiswas conventional, but Kepler's actual analysisof his text
contrastedsharplywith the fashionableones. He insistedon treating
Tacitus'sworkas an organicwhole,in bothitscontentand itsexpression.
He urgedhis readerto findin it not simple,ready-to-serve lessonsbut a
complex,suppleportraitof a movingtarget.Tacitus,he explained,had
represented theRoman stateat a timeofstrain,in a situationofcivilwar
whichhad forcedit to use all itssinewsand muscles-a situationlikethat
of the modernHoly Roman Empire.He had thusrevealedits strengths
and weaknessesin vividdetail-but in a waythatthereadercouldcapture
onlyby workingthroughhis textas a whole,notby snippingit intobits
and reassembling themlike the partsof a jigsaw puzzle.24
Kepler warnedthe readernot to look forsimple,schoolboylessons
about politicalprudence.Tacitus wrotethat Nero's death and Galba's
riseto empirehad revealedan arcanumimperii-thatone could become
an emperorwithoutbeingat Rome. Clapmariusinferred thatTacituswas
statinga formal,secretlaw oftheRoman empire,a principleconsciously
(if covertly)applied by Augustusand Tiberius.He dutifullywrotea
chapterabouttheneedforemperorsto be crownedonlyin theircapitals.25
Kepler,by contrast,insistedthatone shouldtakethepassagein a much
moregeneralway.Tacitusmeantonlythat'thesecretwas out'; one could

21 See in generalM. Stolleis,Arcanaimperii undRatio status(G6ttingen,1980); P. S.

Donaldson,Machiavelliand Mystery ofState (Cambridge,1988),ch. 4.
22 Kepler,GesammelteWerke, XII, 103, 371-2.
23 Kepler,GesammelteWerke, XII, 377.
24 Kepler,GesammelteWerke, XII, 112.
25 A. Clapmarius,De arcanisrerumpublicarum (Amsterdam,1644),II.xx, 98-100.
568 Anthony
Grafton

becomeemperor intheprovinces ifonehadsufficient militaryandpolitical

support. He meantnotto statea formal ruleofempirebutto describe a
In thiscase thescientist
singlepoliticalsituation.26 clearlyreadthetext
withmorepenetration thanthehumanist. Keplerresponded tothesame
needsand interests thatthe humanist commentators on Tacituscon-
fronted;butheframed hisresponse individual
ina characteristically way.
In hisversionofTacitismas inhisaversion toallegoresis,Keplershowed
thedensity andintricacy ofhisinvolvement withtextualknowledge. He
also showedthatthoughhe aimedhisworkat a courtaudience,he did
notfeelhe had to cuthisclothexactlyas courtly fashion dictated.
Second,thescientist. Kepler'sastronomical workconstantly refers
and respondsto earliertexts.In his firstmajorbook,theMysterium
cosmographicum, hearguedat length thathisthesisaboutthefiveregular
solidsbothdrewon and improved on Pythagoras and Plato. He also
discussed Ptolemy's at
astronomylength, comparing modelsforplane-
his
tarymotionto theCopernican ones-thoughhe owedthesubstance of
hisdiscussion nottomother witbutto hishelpful teacher, Maestlin.27 In
laterbooks,notablythe TabulaeRudolphinae, he sketched a full-scale
historyof astronomy from itsancient originsto his own day.
Keplergradually developed a newstoryaboutthedevelopment ofhis
science.Ithadcomeintobeing-hereheagreedwithsuchcontemporaries
as HenrySavile-in theancientNearEastin thelandoftheChaldeans,
whoseeclipseobservations Ptolemy cited.ButtheChaldeanastronomers
hadnotbegunworkat thefabulously earlydatesclaimedbysomeofthe
"Chaldeans"mentioned in classicaltexts(Cicerorecordeda boastof
470,000yearsofobservation). The earliestobservations referred to with
anyprecision werethosethatCallisthenes, Aristotle'sdisciple,had sup-
posedlyturned upinBabylon. Thesebeganonly1903yearsbefore Babylon
fellto Alexanderthe Great.As to the observations actuallyused by
ancientastronomers, theearliestweretheBabylonian eclipserecords used
by Ptolemy. Thesebeganonlywiththeera of Nabonassarin 747 BC.
Astronomy, in short,was notas venerable as historyor poetry.
Thebestofancient astronomy wasinfactquiterecent. Keplerthought
thatDionysius, an astronomer ofthethirdcentury BC mentioned in the
Almagest, had begunthesystematic observation of planetary motions,
withsomehelpfrom theChaldeans. Hipparchus produced thefirstrough
tablesin thesecondcentury BC, and ancientplanetary theoryreached

26 Kepler,GesammelteWerke,XII, 126: "Nicht / dass es ein lang verschwiegener /

unnd etlichenwenigenbekandterGriffgewestware: sondernweil sie jetzo an Kayser
Galba ein Exempelhatten:da gedachteinjederObristerunndRom: Rathsherr:haltstill/
wil es nun hinfort also zugehn/ wil ich mirselberdas bestegonnen."
27 For the firsteditionof the Mysterium see Kepler, GesammelteWerke,I; forthe
second,withhis commentary, see GesammelteWerkeVIII. See also the reprintof the
secondeditionwitha translation by A. M. Duncan, ed. E. J. Aiton (New York, 1981).
ReassessingHumanismand Science 569

completion inthedoubleform ofprecisegeometrical modelsandaccurate

predictive tables,onlyintheworkofPtolemy inthesecondcentury AD.28
Astronomy, moreover, wasnopurescienceevenas Ptolemy practised
it. Its ancientstudents had beeninspiredless by the austeretaskof
predicting themotions oftheplanetsthanbytheprofitable oneofpre-
dicting events onearth, whichtheysawas controlled bythestars.Ptolemy
himself wrotethestandard manualofastrology, theTetrabiblos, andall
classicalastronomy, before andafterhistime,retained theclearsignsof
itsoriginin superstition. As a treecouldbe trackedunequivocally to its
roots,so astronomy couldbe trackedbackto thedivinatory beliefsthat
had spawnedit. Its technicalsubstance, likethetree'srings,borethe
ineradicable evidenceofitshistory.29
Classicalastrology Keplertreatedin an especially insightful way-
notas a bundleofimplausible superstitions butas a disciplinewithall the
apparent order,rigor,and elaboration ofa validancientscience.Origi-
nally,to be sure,celestialdivination had beennothing morethanthe
normalsuperstition of theChaldeans,a bundleof obviousnugae.But
Ptolemyand otherGreekastronomers had usedthetoolsoflogicand
computation tomakethenugaeseempreciseandcoherent. Theyhadthus
madesuperstition look as rigorousas science-andensuredthattheir
predecessors wouldcontinue to takebothstudiesveryseriously.30
Kepler'ssketches ofthehistory ofastronomy differsharply, as Nicho-
las Jardine has shown,fromtheonesthatfrequently provided a starting
pointforsixteenth-century university lecturecourseson classicalastron-
omy.Theseusuallytooktheformofsetpieces,likemodern introductory
lectures; theyweredesigned toenhancethelecturer's prestige andbolster
his enrollments. To makethe genealogy of his disciplineas nobleas
possible, thelecturer wouldpushitsbeginning totheearliestpossible date
and identify as its inventors themostfamouspossibleindividuals. He
couldattainbothends,and oftendid,by makingAdamand Noah the
inventor andthetransmitter ofrealastronomy. The teacherwantedhis
fieldtobe glamorous as wellas ancient. So heusuallyinsisted thatastron-
omyhadbeencultivated in Near
aboveall themysterious East,bysage
Chaldeans, Magi,andEgyptians. Zoroaster andHermesmight receiveas
muchspace,attention andpraiseas Hipparchus andPtolemy. Miraculous
feats-likeThales'sfamous eclipseprediction-bulked largerthanhumble
accumulation of data and drawingup of tables.The whole enterprise,
finally, wasnotanalysed intechnical detailbutapotheosized inthefluffy
adjectival cloudsofepideictic rhetoric. Astronomy's past,so evoked, gave

28 Kepler,GesammelteWerke,
X, 37-8.
29 Kepler,GesammelteWerke,X, 36: "ut inarborumfibrisanni,sic intotadivinissimae
artiscompositionelineamentaquaedam apparentortushujus: ut Matremet Nutricem
Astrologiamabnegarenon possitAstronomiafiliaet alumna."
30 Kepler,GesammelteWerke, X, 38.
570 AnthonyGrafton

it legitimacyandprestige. The realdetailsofparentage andthelike-as

so often-were prudently leftunexamined.31
Kepler'shistory,bycontrast, restedon closeexamination ofprimary
sources.He portrayed astronomy as theresultofhumaneffort, carried
outbyboringGreeks, rather thanthatofdivinerevelation, freelyoffered
toexciting andheinsisted
Orientals; ontheflawedandcontingent nature
evenofthescienceofPtolemy, Copernicus, and Keplerhimself.
Thishistory hada genealogy ofitsown,as Keplerscrupulously stated.
Giovanni PicodellaMirandola analyzed theclaimsofclassicalastronomy
andastrology toan ancientNearEasternpedigree a hundred yearsbefore
Kepler,inthebrilliant Disputationes againstastrology thathehadalmost
finished whenhe died (on theday theastrologers had predicted). He
dismantled theChaldeans'claimsas dextrously as Keplerwould,using
thesameevidence. AndKeplerrepeatedly saidthathe tookPico'swork
veryseriously, evenifhe didnotacceptall ofitsconclusions.32
ButKeplerdidnotsimplycopyhispredecessor. Pico strictlydistin-
guishedbetweenastronomy, whichhe praisedas rigorous science,and
astrology, whichhe dismissed as worthless superstition.Moreover, he
inserted astrologyintoa single,constricted position in hisfamily treeof
themathematical sciences.He described itnotas thewickedstepmother
butonlyas theworthless daughter oftheotherart.Ancient astronomers,
he argued,echoingAristotle's accountoftheschoolofPythagoras, were
overcome bytheeleganceand predictive poweroftheirart.Theymade
thenaturalbutdeadlymistake ofoverestimating itspowers;hencetheir
assumption thatthemovements oftheheavenscouldbe usedto predict
individual fatesandhistoricalevents.Superstition arosefromtheabuse
ofscience.33
Kepler,bycontrast, insistedthatsciencehadsprung from superstition
in thefirstplace.In itsfinalformastrology embodied thesophisticated
mathematics ofPtolemy, butin itsoriginsthebeliefin divination from
thestarshadpreceded andinspired thegrowth ofastronomy. Thedesire
to knowthehumanfuture gaveriseto thescienceofplanetary motions,
and thetwo wereintertwined throughout history. Kepler's attack on
mythwas evenmoreradicalthanPico's;he extended it to themythical
autonomy ofscience.
Kepleraddressed hishistory, likehisGermanTacitus,to patronsat

31 See Jardine,The Birthof Historyand Philosophy of Science. For a morecritical

assessmentof Kepler's philologicalattainments, see B. Eastwood,"Kepler as Historian
ofScience:PrecursorsofCopernicanHeliocentrism accordingto De revolutionibus I, 10,"
Proceedings of theAmericanPhilosophicalSociety,126 (1982), 367-94.W. N. Stevenson
has undertaken a detailedstudyof Kepler'sworkon Lucan, whichpromisesto offerthe
fullestand mostpreciseassessmentyetof Kepler's Latin scholarship.
32 See e.g. Kepler,GesammelteWerke, VI, 266; XIV, 285.
33 G. Pico della Mirandola,Disputationes
contraastrologiam ed. E. Garin
divinatricem,
(Florence,1946-52).
ReassessingHumanismand Science 571

court.But it too was unfashionable. Kepler'sdismissalof horoscopic

astrology, his downgrading of Near Easternsagesand his diminuendo
treatment of therigorof astronomy all contradicted positionsthatthe
alchemists andastrologersoftheHabsburg courtlovedtomaintain. 4 His
reading ofearlyastronomy produced critical
history, notfluffygenealogy.
Kepler'sinterests
andpractices as a readerreveala greatdeal.In the
firstplace,theyshowthatnotall humanistic scholarship was thesame.
Likethemostoriginal scholarsofhistime,Scaliger andCasaubon,Kepler
chosehismethods andquestions withdiscrimination andindependence.
He rightly dismissedsomehumanistic methods as arbitrary.Buthe ac-
ceptedothersas rigorous andvalid,andfusedthemin hisownreadings
ofthesources.Keplerdistinguished between mathematics andphilology
and strongly preferredtheformer to thelatter.35 But he insistedthat
astronomers hadto usehistory andphilology as wellas computation and
observation. Otherwise theycould not assesstheiroldestdata-those
preserved byancientwriters.Problems ofinterpretationwerenotconfined
totheearlyhistory ofastronomy. Copernicus suggested thatPtolemy and
otherancients haddeliberatelyalteredcertain observations tomakethem
fittheirtheories.36
Herwart andothercontemporaries ofKeplerrevived
in
thisthesis,whichhad someprimafaciesupport theAlmagest itself.
Onlyclosescrutiny ofthesurviving sources,rigorously conducted, en-
abledKeplerto rejecttheircritique.37 Directstudyofclassicaltextsthus
formed partofKepler'sastronomy,
an integral as it had formed partof
Copernicus's beforehim.
Similarly,Kepler'scaseshowsthatnotall thebookishscienceofthe
yearsaround1600ledintodeadendsor labyrinths withno centers. The
workofreaders wasas variedas itwasprofuse, andsomeofithadorganic
connections to themostpowerful empirical andmathematical scienceof
thetime.Advancednaturalphilosophy andadvancedtextual scholarship
werefirstbrought together byRegiomontanus, Polizianoand othersin

34 See 0. Hannaway,The Chemists and the Word(Baltimore,1975);and,moregener-

ally,R. Evans, RudolfII and his World(Oxford,1973); H. Trevor-Roper, Princesand
Artists (London, 1976),ch. 3. True,someartistsand intellectuals at Rudolf'scourtnour-
isheda realappreciationfortechnological and artisticprogress;see T. D. Kaufmann,The
School of Prague (Chicago and London, 1988), 96-99. Courts,like otherearlymodern
institutions, werehighlycomplexorganizations-as Kepler'scase itselfclearlyshows.
35 Kepler,Gesammelte Werke,XIV, 165; see Jardine, BirthofHistoryand Philosophy
ofScience,27, forthecircumstances.
36 Kepler,Gesammelte Werke, VIII, 102-3(fromRheticus'report).Copernicussuppos-
edlyremarkedthat"plerasqueobservationes veterumsyncerasnonesse,sed accommoda-
tas ad eam doctrinammotuum,quam sibiipsivnusquisquepeculiariter he
constituisset";
also lamented,showinghisown highdegreeofphilologicalinsight,that"Non haberenos
talesauctores,quales PTOLEMAEVS habuissetpostBabylonioset Chaldaeos,illa lumina
artis,HIPPARCHVM, TIMOCHAREM, MENELAVM, et caeteros,quorumet nos
observationibus ac praeceptisnitiac confiderepossemus."
37 See e.g. Kepler,Gesammelte Werke,XIV, 285.
572 AnthonyGrafton

Italy.Morethana century
latefifteenth-century later,scienceandscholar-
shipwerestilltightly connected in manysectors.The natureof their
bondsawaits,andwillcertainly reward, exploration.
In Kepler'sowncase,finally, awareness ofhiswaysofreadingand
hismeticulous attentionto thegrainandtexture ofpastastronomy help
to explaina crucialfeatureofhisscientific writing.Historians havelong
wondered whyKeplerincludedso muchinformation in hisworksabout
hisowntrialsandfailures. It seemslikelythathedidso precisely because
he hada humanist's senseofhisownposition inhistory. Afterspending
a lifetimereadingVirgiland Ovid,Petrarch wrotea formalletterTo
Posterityto answerhisfuture readers'questions. Afterdevoting muchof
hislifetoPtolemy andCopernicus, Keplerprovided a richsetofhistorical
glossesforhisowntexts, whichwouldenablehisreaders to answersome
of thequestionsthathe couldnotask his predecessors. He identified
thesourcesand weaknesses of his data,explained his assumptions, and
corrected hisownslipsanderrors. Keplerknewthatearlierastronomers
had madebad assumptions and cometo wrongconclusions. But the
austere,finished
literaryform adoptedbyPtolemy andimitated byCoper-
nicusmadeit impossible to see exactlywhereand howtheyhad gone
wrong.By adopting an open,evenlabyrinthine, formofexposition, by
making histextsintoopen-ended dialogues withhisearlierselves,Kepler
providedhis future readerswithexactlytheinformation thathis own
sourcesdeniedhim.38
Keplerhad learnedthehumanists' cruciallesson.His texts,likeall
others,shouldbe understood as theproduct ofa specific time,place,and
experience. Exposureto and participation in textualscholarship taught
Keplertotreathisownworkas contingent, notabsolute. He learned from
thehumanists to presenthimself as theobject, as well as thesubject,of
thehistory ofscience.LikeGalileo'sbrilliant, polishedrhetoric, Kepler's
devotedself-scrutiny belongsto a periodstyleof intellectual inquiry.
Thecontrast between thetworevealsthecomplexity andrichness ofthe
marriage between humanism andsciencewhichtookplaceinthefifteenth
century anddidnotdissolveuntilalmosttwohundred yearslater.

Princeton
University.

38 Arecentstudymakesinsightful use of Kepler's commentson his own work,and

shedsa newlighton his debtto a numberofancientworks(notablyPlato's Timaeusand
Proclus'commentary Cosmology
on book 1 of Euclid): J. V. Field, Kepler'sGeometrical
(Chicago, 1988).