Anthem to the Sun: Copernicus

Christopher W Helton, PhD

Philosopher and Owner of Paracelsus LLC,
Publicado em 22 de ago. de 2017

Hieronymus Bosh’s Garden of Earthly Delights has two sets of panels depicting God’s
perspective of the earth. Most Premoderns have tried to attain the divine perspective
either of the inside panels or the outside panels of Bosh’s painting. Nicholas Copernicus
attains perspectives of the outside panels, by forming the foundation of modernity’s
perspective of the earth. Copernicus has surpassed other Premoderns in this respect. In
The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of the Western
thought, Thomas Kuhn makes a very compelling argument that Copernicus causes a
paradigm shift in the understanding of West concerning its place in the solar system.
Kant calls this shift the "Copernican revolution."

This essay will not undermine Kuhn's forward vision of Copernicus' work, but examine
the pre-existing Premodern language games, such as the Hermetica, 15th century
Florentine Neo-Platonic language game, and Pythagoras, which are the preconditions
that makes such a theory possible or conceivable in what Foucault calls "the field of
rationality" of Premodernity. My interpretation of Copernicus is backwards, while
Kuhn's paradigm discourse is forward, so our views are incommensurate to one another.
Naturally so, since Kuhn is a philosopher of science, trying to provide structure to the
history of science; while my work is genealogical, which means looking for the roots of
thought.

Without the benefit of direct observation, Copernicus motivated by Hermetic and

Pythagorean insights uses geometry and observation to demonstrate his heliocentric
hypothesis of the solar system in opposition to the accepted Ptolemaic model. These
genealogical considerations help remove Kant's "Paradigm shift" to Copernicus and
restore his Premodernity. Understood in this way, Copernicus is sketching with
geometry God’s perspective of the earth and its role in the solar system. The heavens are
a closed sphere, because God is distinct from the created cosmos, so heaven is not
infinite. Ironically, he is motivated by the same Hermetic images or beliefs as the 15th
century Florentines, the 16th century German rational spiritualists, Porta, and other
Premoderns. Kuhn, however, is not too interested in Copernicus' Premodern roots.
Accordingly, this essay will try to demonstrate Copernicus' participation in Premodern
language games concerning the deity in forming his cosmology.

In On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543), Copernicus puts forth an alternate
cosmological order than Ptolemy’s system. Instead of the earth being the center of the
solar system, the sun is the center, and the earth rotates around the sun. Copernicus
believes this hypothesis will eliminate several problems associated with Ptolemaic
system. Astronomers, who follow Ptolemy, are uncertain about the motion of the sun
and moon and cannot establish a constant length even for a tropical year. Secondly, they
are not consistent in explaining the motions of the other five planets. They use
homocentric motion, while others use eccentrics and epicycles to explain the rotation of
the five other planets.
To overcome these problems, Copernicus offers alternate hypothesis about the planets,
which has its roots with the Ancient Pythagoreans: "Philolaus the Pythagorean believes
that, like the sun and moon, it revolves around the fire in an oblique circle. Heraclides
of Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean make the earth move, not in a progressive
motion, but like a wheel in rotation from west to east about it center (Copernicus,
5).Copernicus’ reference to Pythagoreans is meant to add credibility to his heliocentric
hypothesis, because his view is not new, but maintained by the ancient Pythagoreans,
whose works have been recently recovered from antiquity.

His heliocentric hypothesis does not only have Pythagorean roots, but also Hermetic.
We may recall Ficino’s first usage of the microcosm and macrocosm analogy involves
the imagery of the sun and heart, which directly comes from the Hermetica. Copernicus,
likewise, speaks of the special role that the Sun has in the Hermetica: “For, the sun is not
inappropriately called by some people the lantern of the universe, its mind by others,
and its ruler. Hermes the Thrice Greatest labels it a visible god” (Copernicus, 22).
Accordingly, we have two historical roots for Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis: the
Pythagoreans and Hermes.

Since Premoderns believed incorrectly that Hermes pre-dated the Pythagoreans,

Copernicus would have believed that the idea that the sun is the center of solar system,
and the other seven spheres rotate around her came from Hermes, and past down to the
Pythagoreans, as a secret of nature. Accordingly, Hermes is the initial source or root of
the heliocentric hypothesis. We find Hermes in the 15th century Florentines, Servetus,
the German spiritual rationalists, Calvin, Porta, Gilbert, and Bruno. Now, we find
Hermes as a root of the Copernican hypothesis, which modernity regards as the first
move towards modernity, but is really a return to the Hermetic and Pythagorean beliefs
about the cosmos.

Copernicus begins constructing his heliocentric cosmology with a macro and micro
analogy: just as the cosmos (macrocosm) is a sphere, so are the celestial planets spheres
(microcosm). Unlike Bruno, Copernicus does not believe the cosmos to be infinite, but a
closed sphere. He believes that sphere is the best structure, for two reasons. Of all the
forms, first of all, the sphere is the most perfect, “needing no joint and being a complete
whole, which can be neither increased nor diminished” (Copernicus, 8). A spherical
structure to cosmos may have Hermetic roots. Hermes claims that cosmos is created by
God as a great sphere: “Entering the craftman’s sphere [cosmos]…and learning well
their essence and sharing their nature, the man wished to break through the
circumference of the circles [planets] to observe the rule of the one given power over fire
[sun]” (Hermes, 3). Hermes claims that all the planets are spheres. The truly wise try to
break through their respective spheres in order to see Sun.

Just as God created planets as spheres, he made the cosmos eternal sphere and the sun
or fire is its center. Copernicus’ second reason for making the cosmos a sphere is “the
most capacious of figures, best suited to retain and enclose all things” (Copernicus, 8).
Hermes’ comments about how hard it is to break through “the circumferences of the
circles” negatively reinforces Copernicus’ point that the sphere is the best form for the
universe, because the sphere is the best at retaining and enclosing the celestial spheres,
the sun, moon, earth, etc. Just as the cosmos is sphere, the earth is sphere, because the
earth “presses upon its center from every direction” (Copernicus, 8). The earth is sphere,
because stars which are visible near the North pole are invisible near the South pole, and
vice versa. “Thus Italy does not see Canopus, which is visible in Egypt; and Italy does
see the River’s last star, which is unfamiliar to our area in the colder region” (Copernicus,
9). Another proof of the spherical structure of earth involves the observation of ship
leaving a harbor. As the ship moves further and further away from harbor, the ship
gradually disappears from point view of the harbor.

The motion of celestial spheres is circular, because this is perfect movement for sphere,
which rotating around some center (whether earth or sun). The rotation of spheres
around the center is perpetual and eternal, because the geometric sign of eternity is a
circle, because it has no limitation to its form. There are several rotations. First, celestial
spheres rotate around the center (earth or sun). These revolutions move from west to
east. Second, they rotate around themselves daily, which causes day and night. On the
Ptolemaic system, “the entire universe, with the exception of the earth, is conceived as
whirling from east to west in this rotation” (Copernicus, 10). The celestial revolutions
move from west to east, while the rotations of individual spheres move from east to west.
The first rotation provides us with a year, while second rotation provides a day. “It is
recognized as the common measure of all motions, since we even compute time itself
chiefly by number of days” or years (Copernicus, 10).

On the Ptolemaic system, these dual movements of the celestial spheres have problems:
first, the first rotation does not move around the poles as the second rotation, but run
“obliquely through the zodiac” (Copernicus, 11). Second, the first rotation of the spheres
is not uninformed in their respective orbits. The motion of the Moon and Sun appear to
move close than move quicker in their course. We occasionally see the five other spheres
in retrograde motion or stationary. The two distinct motions of seven spheres are not
uniformed, because either their poles are different from the earth’s or “that the earth is
not at the center of the circles on which they revolve” (Copernicus, 11). Or, does the earth
rotate around the sun and has two rotations?

To answer this question which cannot be directly observed, Copernicus applies the
following epistemic principle: “every observed change of place is caused by a motion of
either the observed object, or the observer or by an unequal displacement of each”
(Copernicus, 11). Whenever we observe an object in motion, the object is moved, or the
observer is moved, or there is an unequal displacement between the object and the
observer. When the motion between the object and observer are equal in speed and the
same direction, the motion is not observed, because nothing is diminished in the motion.
If the earth moved, then all objects would appear to be moving past the earth. If the earth
rotates from west to east instead of the heavens, then “you will find that this is actual
situation concerning the apparent rising and setting of the sun, moon, stars, and
everything” (Copernicus, 12).

If the earth's second rotation (daily), then it would follow that the earth has the first
motion, rotating around the sun, because the planets shift in their proximity to the earth
only demonstrates that the earth is not the center of universe, but only a sphere rotating
around the sun. The earth’s first and second motion is supported by Philolaus, a
Pythagorean astronomer: “That the earth rotates, that it also travels with several
motions, and that it is one of the heavenly bodies are said to have been the opinions of
Philolaus the Pythagorean” (Copernicus, 12).

Copernicus is not referring to Pythagoreans as rhetorical devises, because a fundamental

assumption of pre modernity is that the older the philosophy is, the more real. This pre
modern assumption is impetus of his quotation of Hermes for the heliocentric system.
Since Hermes and Pythagoreans are far older than Ptolemy, their views should be
regarded more seriously. If we accept Hermetic/Pythagorean heliocentric hypothesis,
then all the problems of the non-uniformed motions of the celestial spheres will be
eliminated. First, the risings and settings of zodiacal signs and fixed stars will appear the
same way regardless of morning or night. Secondly, the stations, the retro-gradations,
and forward movement of planets are not the movement of those respective planets, but
the movement of the earth.

The hierarchy of celestial spheres is based upon Euclid’s principle that objects moving
equally fast, those farther away seem to travel more slowly than those closer. No one
disagrees that the highest part of the heavens is the fixed stars; likewise, no disagrees
that the moon is the closest sphere to the earth, because its rotation is the shortest. Saturn
is the farthest away from the earth, because its rotation is the longest. Jupiter is next, and
then Mars, because of the length of their rotations. On the Ptolemaic system, these
celestial spheres are above the sun; while Mercury and Venus are below the sun, because
these “planets do not pass through every elongation from the sun, as other planets do”
(Copernicus, 18).

Plato, on the other hand, places Mercury and Venus above the Sun. Al-Bitruji places
Venus above sun, while Mercury is below it. If the Mercury and Venus were under the
Sun, then why do these planets not traverse separate orbits divergent from the sun, like
the other planets, “without violating the arrangement of the planets in accordance with
their relative swiftness and slowness” (Copernicus, 19)? On the Ptolemaic system, the
hierarchy of planets and Euclid’s principle fall into a dilemma: either the earth is not the
center of heavens, or there is no real arrangement of the planets.

According to Martianus Capella, Mercury and Venus rotate around the sun, because
these planets “diverge no farther than from the sun than is permitted by the curvature
of their revolutions” (Copernicus, 20). Copernicus argues that Capella’s approach to the
so-called lower planets should be applied to all the planets, so “since the sun remains
stationary, whatever appears as motion of the sun is really due rather to the motion of
the earth” (Copernicus, 20). Copernicus’ hierarchy of the celestial spheres is based upon
this assumption: “the size of sphere is measured by the length of the time, the order of
the spheres is following beginning with the highest” (Copernicus, 21). On Copernicus’
principle, Mars would be larger than the earth, which is not the case; and Saturn would
be larger than Jupiter, which is, likewise, not the case. Copernicus’ order is the sun
stationary in the center, then Mercury, Venus, the Earth and Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,
and then the fixed stars. The rotation of Saturn is thirty years, Jupiter is twelve, Mars is
two, and the Earth is one year; while Venus rotates around the sun in 9 months and
Mercury in eighty days.

Copernicus has provided some keen observations and geometrical calculations about
the shortcomings of the Ptolemaic system, but occasionally he removes himself from the
strict discourse of astronomy and geometry, and starts predicating attributes to the sun,
which transcend his observations and geometrical calculations. In the Hermetica,
Hermes argues that “eternity, therefore, is an image of god, the cosmos is an image of
eternity; and the sun is an image of the cosmos” (Hermetica, XI:15). According to this
passage, the cosmos is an image of eternity, because the planets rotate around the sun
forever in perpetual motion in a circle, which is the geometrical sign for eternity, no
limitation. The sun is the image of the cosmos, because all celestial planets are attracted
to the Sun. Copernicus uses Ficino's eros to explain the regular and constant movement
of the planets: "For my part I believe that gravity is nothing but a certain natural desire,
which the divine providence of the Creator of all things has implanted in parts, to gather
as a unity and a whole by combing in the form of globe” (Copernicus, 18).

He uses “natural desire,” “divine providence,” and “unity” as an alternative to Modern

gravity or Gilbert's Premodern magnetism, which binds his whole cosmos together.
Copernicus’ unity is far closer to the meaning of the passage from Hermetica than to any
modern concept of gravity. Copernicus confirms his Hermetic view of the sun in saying
that “thus, indeed, as though seated on a royal throne, the sun governs the family of
planets revolving around it” (Copernicus, 22). His language of “a royal throne” and
“governs” implies that Sun is an intelligence, which governs the other celestial planets.
Governance requires intelligence. If the Sun has intelligence, then the Sun has a soul.

Copernicus view of the sun is not much different than Agrippa, who believes that the
celestial entities have souls, which govern specific domains of the terrestrial world. The
essential difference between Copernicus and Agrippa is that the former believes in solar
monarchy (“royal throne); while the latter believes in a celestial oligarchy in which
different celestial spheres have their own domain of power. Copernicus and Agrippa
still share the same Hermetic belief that a celestial body has a soul, intelligence, and
governs inferior subjects. I do not think that Copernicus’ references to Pythagoreans or
Hermes are rhetorical, but refer to his Hermetic belief in placing the sun over the other
celestial spheres, as the solar king of the cosmos. Copernicus’ cosmology is closed, not
infinite, and the sun is the center of this perfectly closed sphere (heaven), which governs
all the celestial spheres by attraction (or Ficino’s eros).

In conclusion, the anthem of sun thesis is not meant to undermine the importance of
Kuhn's work concerning the Copernican paradigm shift in the history of science. Instead,
anthem of the sun is a backward looking interpretation of Copernicus' cosmological
work, which draws upon existing Premodern language games to render a picture of the
roots of his unique language game concerning the solar system. Copernicus draws upon
the Hermetica, Ficino, the Premodern concept of ousia to form his cosmology. This
background to Copernicus has been neglected by historians of science, because they are
not interested Premodern language games, which make his theory possible in a "field of
rationality." Instead, Kuhn and other historians of science are preoccupied with
subsequent influence.