Rethinking Sixteenth-Century ‘Lutheran Astronomy’

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Abbreviations

CR = Corpus Reformatorum, 101 vols. Ed. by Karl Gottlieb Brettschneider and followers. Halle: Schwetschke, 1834–1959.

DBI = Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960–.

WA = Weimarer Ausgabe (The Weimar Edition) D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesammtausgabe, 121 vols. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau and followers, 1883–2009.

Notes

1 White, The History of the Warfare of Science with Theology.

2 For a bibliographical introduction to the English-language literature, see the first footnotes of Feldhay, ‘Religion’. For a historiography, see Brooke, Science and Religion.

3 Troeltsch, Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus; Merton, Science, Technology; Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy. For Kusukawa's influence, see among others Barker, ‘The Role of Religion’, ‘Astronomy, Providence’ and ‘The Lutheran Contribution’; and Methuen, ‘The Role of the Heavens’.

4 Gmelin, Geschichte der Chemie, 1:8.

5 See Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, 423.

6 Montgomery, ‘Cross, Constellation’.

7 Westman, ‘The Melanchthon Circle’, ‘Three Responses to the Copernican Theory’ and The Copernican Question. Cf. Wohlwill, ‘Melanchthon und Copernicus’; Thorndike, ‘The Circle of Melanchthon’, in his A History of Magic, 5:378–405; Hammer, ‘Melanchthon, inspirer of the study of astronomy’; Moran, ‘The Universe of Philip Melanchthon’; and Brosseder, ‘The Writing in the Wittenberg Sky’.

8 Westman, The Copernican Question, 110–113, 143–144.

9 Kepler, ‘Preface to the Rudolphine Tables’. For the astrological thesis and Pico's long-lasting influence, in addition to Westman, see Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence.

10 Methuen, ‘Special Providence’, 107.

11 See Methuen, ‘On the Problem of Defining’.

12 See Methuen, Kepler's Tübingen; Science and Theology.

13 On Melanchthon's natural philosophy see Maurer, ‘Melanchthon und die Naturwissenschaft’; Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy; and Frank, Melanchthon und die Naturwissenschaften.

14 Inasmuch as I take Melanchthon to represent the decisive influence in the field of Lutheran science, I disregard the differences between Luther and Melanchthon concerning natural philosophy and astrological belief. See on the question Hartfelder, Philipp Melanchthon, 195–196; Maaser, ‘Luther und die Naturwissenschaften’ and Methuen, ‘On the Problem of Defining’, 100–101.

15 Charlotte Methuen claims observation of nature, the doctrine of providence and the dogma of the ubiquity (or Lutheran theology of the Eucharist) to be the presumed characteristics of Lutheran natural philosophy: see Methuen, ‘On the Problem of Defining’. However, I do not think the supposed stress on observation in Lutheran natural philosophy is central to the argument of Kusukawa and others. On the other hand, Luther's negative stance toward Aristotle (and Aristotelians) – another feature underlined by Kusukawa – had little (or not necessarily positive) influence on the teaching of natural philosophy at Lutheran universities, as Methuen has also shown: see ‘On the Problem of Defining’, 101.

16 Cf. Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, 89.

17 Melanchthon, Initia doctrinae physicae, in CR, 13, 189. (Tota natura rerum velut theatrum est humani ingenii, quod Deus vult aspici, ideo indidit hominum mentibus cupiditatem considerandarum rerum, et voluptatem, quae agnitionem comitatur. Hae causae invitant sana ingenia ad considerationem naturae, etiamsi utilitas nulla sequeretur.)

18 Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, passim. (See agnitio in the Index.)

19 Melanchthon, Liber de Anima, in CR, 13, 57. (Sed tunc demum, cum ideam naturae in mente divina cernemus, totam hanc machinam velut intus aspiciemus, et opificis consilia et causas omnium operum divinorum intelligemus [my italics].) Cf. Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, 119; Bellucci, Science de la nature et Réformation, 215, and ‘Gott als Mens.’

20 Melanchthon, Initia doctrinae physicae, in CR, 13, 202.

21 Melanchthon, ‘Preface to Johannes Schöner's Tabulae Astronomicae’, in CR, 3, 118. (Hoc mirificum spectaculum, videlicet, tot pulchra lumina, tam varios cursus, qui miras vices certissimis legibus conficiunt, non frustra posuit nobis ob oculos Deus, sed voluit ut nos inde anni descriptionem et temporum spatia vicesque sumeremus, et diversa temperamenta annorum prospiceremus. Postremo, ut hic pulcherrimus ordo motus et consensus moneret nos de opifice, haec non extitisse casu, sed ab aliqua aeterna mente esse orta, et gubernari. Quare generosa ingenia decet abhorrere auribus atque animis ab Epicureis illis, qui hanc certissimam motuum scientiam aspernantur.)

22 Melanchthon, ‘Praefatio in Geometriam’, in CR, 3, 114. (Suavissime enim a Platone dictum est: δϵὸν ἀϵὶ γϵωμϵτρϵῖν, hoc est, ut ego quidem interpretor, gubernare omnia, et certissima lege cursus coelestes et totam naturam regere.)

23 Ibid., 112–113.

24 The ubiquity is not treated by Kusukawa, who deals principally only with Melanchthon, but is justly mentioned by Charlotte Methuen as a presumed characteristic of Lutheran natural philosophy. See Methuen, ‘On the Problem of Defining’, 106–109. Cf. Barker, ‘The Role of Religion’, 61–62. The influence of the Lutheran concept of the Eucharist on seventeenth-century Lutheran natural philosophers has been established by Leijenhorst and Lüthy, ‘The Erosion of Aristotelianism’. Cf. Hellyer, Catholic Physics.

25 Luther, Predigten und Schriften, in WA, 23, 134 and 132.

26 See for example Heerbrand, Compendium theologiae, 37–39.

27 Melancthon, CR, 2, 531. (Ut enim in mundo lucet sol, ita et in homine, quem nonnulli propter plurimas similitudines μικρὸν χόσμον vocaverunt, sua quaedam lumina, velut sidera, condita sunt.) Cf. ibid. 533 and 536.

28 On the importance of ‘natural light’ for Lutheran astronomy, see Barker, ‘Kepler's Epistemology’; Cifoletti, ‘Kepler's De quantitatibus’, 217–218.

29 Bellucci, ‘Gott als Mens’, persuasively argues that God as mens is at the core of Melanchthon's philosophy of nature.

30 Kepler, Prodromus, 1–2. (Atqui hic est ille liber Naturae, tantopere sacris celebratus sermonibus, quem Paulus gentibus proponit, in quo Deum, ceu Solem in aqua vel speculo contemplentur. Nam cur Christiani minus hac contemplatione nos oblectaremus, quorum proprium est Deum vero cultu celebrare, venerari, admirari?)

31 Kepler, ‘Preface to the Rudolphine Tables’.

32 Ibid., 368. ‘And this he did with a mind devoid of all astrological superstitions, concentrating upon the one and only supreme goal of all philosophy, the knowledge both of God and of himself.’ Cf. Almási, ‘Tycho Brahe and the Separation’.

33 Kepler, ‘Preface to the Rudolphine Tables’, 362.

34 Brahe, De nova, E4v–Fr (TBOO 1, 35–36). ([N]ihil magis homini necessarium, et fini, propter quem constitutus est, magis conforme esse iudico, quam perpetuo, in iucunda operum divinorum, quae in Mundi fabrica undique elucent, consideratione versari.)

35 Ibid., TBOO 1, 125. The expression ‘aethereae [...] coelestis Machinae harmonia’ comes from the work cited above (TBOO 1, 36).

36 Ibid. On the oration, see Jardine, The Birth of History, 262–264; Thoren, The Lord of Uraniborg, 80–85.

37 Crowther-Heyck, ‘Wonderful Secrets of Nature.’

38 I have checked the prefaces of the following editions and reprints (which is far from an exhaustive list): Florence 1498, 1550, 1571, 1579; Venice 1499, 1518, 1519, 1531, 1548, 1591; Strasburg 1501, 1533; Leipzig 1503, 1509, 1510; Vespucci, Bartolommeo 1508; Paris 1508, 1511, 1517, 1537, 1540, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1561, 1584; Nuremberg 1516; Vienna 1518; Ingolstadt 1526; Antwerp 1547, 1561, 1564, 1573, 1584; Frankfurt 1549, 1552, 1561, 1595; Valencia 1553; Cologne 1563, 1567, 1581, 1591; Basel 1561, 1568, 1569; Roma 1570; Lyon 1577, 1582; Herborn 1586, 1589; Coimbra 1593; Siena 1604. Cf. the editions of Wittenberg (1531, 1534, 1536, 1538, 1540, 1543, 1545, 1549, 1550, 1553, 1558, 1561, 1563, 1568, 1574).

39 On Fabri see Wickersheimer, ‘La Prenostication Nouvelle’, and Pletzer, ‘Středověký astronom’.

40 Fabri, Opus sphaericum, Aiir. (Prima cognita hac arte in cognitionem dei altissimi manu ducimur, quia iste tractatus de celo et eius magnitudine determinat. Celum autem enarrat, ut habet psalmista gloriam dei et alibi ‘Confitebuntur celi mirabilia tua’ [Ps. 88. v. 6]. Et Gregorius in moralibus ‘Vestigia nostri creatoris sunt mira opera visibilis creature, quae dum cernimus potentiam creatoris ammiramur’ [cf. Moralia in Job, 26, 17–18]. Cameracensis autem ‘Contemplatio conditoris in corporibus celestibus veluti in quodam speculo materiali manibus dei scripto representata est.’ Non ergo sine ratione Ptholomeus in principio Almagest describendo astronomiam dicit ‘Est scientia dirigens et ducens nos in cognitiones dei’ etc.)

41 Faber, Textus de sphera, aiv. I could not consult the first edition of the work of 1494 which was followed by several reprints. On Jacques d’Étaples Le Fèvre see Bédouelle, Lefèvre d'Etaples; and ‘Attacks on the Biblical Humanism’.

42 Clichtove, ‘Eximio et insigni viro’, 2. (Non enim de contuitu coelorum qui corporeis sit oculis [...] sed de intima animi contemplatione: qua rapidae circorum coelestium noscuntur vertigines, multiformes eorum gyrationes, luminarium deliquia et caetera id genus scitu dignissima: in quibus elucet summi sapientia patris et ex quibus humana mens assurgit in admirationem tam insignis fabricae, prorumpitque attonita tantarum spectaculo rerum in ipsius tam admirandi artificis laudem.) On the author see Massaut, Josse Clichtove.

43 Cf. Blair, The Theatre of Nature.

44 Fineus, De mundi sphaera, iiv. (Omnis itaque philosophia, omnisque certa et inviolabilis doctrina, qualis est Mathematica, eo potissimum tendere videtur, ut in veram caelestium rerum cognitionem mortales inducat.) On the author see Marr, The Worlds of Oronce Fine.

45 Gramineus, Uberior enarratio, A2r–A3r.

46 Barozzi, Cosmographia, A2v. (Cosmographiam [...] cuilibet perspicuum est [...] nil aliud esse, nisi universam Mundi machinam seu Sphaeram a Deo Opt. Max. summo rerum omnium Opifice, tanto ordine tantaque arte ac providentia creatam atque constructam, ut in ea cunctisque suis partibus mirandum in modum ipsius Creatoris summa Divinitas elucescat.)

47 As examples, see the lengthy treatment of astronomy's certitude by the Paduan professor Franciscus Capuanus de Manfredonia (basing his argument mainly on Averroes, but apparently also influenced by Regiomontanus) in his ‘Prologus’ to Sacrobosco in Vespucci, Nota eorum, a4r; and also by Ciruelo, Uberrimum Sphere mundi commentum, aiiir. On the Piccolomini–Barozzi debate see De Pace, Le matematiche e il mondo; Cozzoli, ‘Alessandro Piccolomini’; Giacobbe, ‘Francesco Barozzi’; Sasaki, Descartes's Mathematical Thought, 50–55; and Florio and Maierù, ‘Le dimostrazioni di Francesco Barozzi.’ For the general historical context see Rose, The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics; and Crapulli, Mathesis universalis. For Regiomontanus, see Swerdlow, ‘Science and Humanism’.

48 Piccolomini, De sphaera libri quatuor, *2v. (Cuius motuum cognitionem deinde Astronomia, non ex vanis hominum opinionibus aut veritati modo consentaneis probabilibusque argumentis tradit: sed demonstrat ex certis verisque fundamentis, quae ex longinquae, earum rerum, quas sensus apprehendit, observatione constituta, geometricarum demonstrationum ope, veram scientiam pariunt: ut hac in parte multis aliis artibus praeferenda sit, quae non certis fundamentis, sed probabilibus tantum argumentis, atque hominum moribus opinionibusque nituntur.) On Stoppani, see Gerber, Niccolo Macchiavelli, 66–67, 123.

49 Fineus, De mundi sphaera, iiv. (Nullum studium censeri debet utilius, iucundius ac dignius Christiano quovis homine, nedum antistite, una divinorum operum contemplatione.)

50 Barozzi, Cosmographia, a3r.

51 Gallucci, Theatrum mundi et temporis, 3. On Gallucci see Germana Ernst, in DBI 51 (1998), 740–743.

52 This is at the core of Kusukawa's study of Melanchthon. For Melanchthon's influence in this respect, see for example the dedication written by one of his students: Beyer, Quaestiones novae, A2r–A3r.

53 For Stadius's unrecognised Copernicanism (not in the ‘Wittenberg sense’), read his dedication and astronomical history in Stadius, Tabulae Bergenses, A2r–A3v and 1–25. On Stadius see Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence, 191–203.

54 Cicero's great influence on Melanchthon's views is testified by his physics textbook Initiae doctrinae physicae, in which the Stoic proofs of the existence of God are from Cicero's De natura deorum. Cf. Kusukawa, The Transformation of Natural Philosophy, 153. On Stoic proofs of God's existence see Meijer, Stoic Theology.

55 See the quotation at note 22.

56 Bodin, Universae naturae theatrum, 3v, translation by Blair, The Theatre of Nature, 22. (Sed quia saepe disputatio suscipienda nobis est cum iis, qui nullum verae pietatis gustum habent: naturali scientia cogendi sunt, cuius tanta vis est, ut ab effectis et causarum serie continua perspicuum de mundi conditione et origine, deque unius Dei aeterni infinita potestate assensionem ab invitis extorquere sola possit.)

57 On Gramineus's confrontation with Tadeáš Hájek, see Graminaeus, Mysticus aquilo. Cf. Almási, The Uses of Humanism, 351.

58 Gramineus, Uberior enarratio, A3r–v. (Quid magis in animis hominum pietatem [quae ad omnia utilis est] omnisque virtutis genera confirmare poterit, quam ipsius coeli admiranda constructio, quam orbium coelestium varii cursus, quam concinnitas et harmonia, quae perpetuo motu ac aeterna circumducta vertigine, semel observatam non mutat habitudinem? Ex qua quilibet, etiam si de deo nulla vel sacrarum litterarum testimonia, aut Novi testamenti doctrina esset, perspiceret, divinam aliquam mentem esse, a cuius nutu ac supercilio totus mundus ac universi machina dependeret, quique hunc et moderaretur et gubernaret: nisi ex eorum numero sese quis esse fateatur, qui impie et sine ulla ratione mundum hunc ornamenti nomine dictum, fortuito ex atomorum concursu conflatum voluerunt. Haec sententia ut plane impia, ita non minori sese scelere obstringunt, qui haec non aspernantur solum, quibus oculi Platonis iudicio eruendi essent, sed hanc artem etiam veluti inutilem communi vitae, aut imperitia aut calumniandi studio maledictis insectantur.) It is curious that in the same sentence which refutes Lucretius's classic teaching on atoms the author relies on the Lucretian metaphor machina mundi. On the latter see Di Pasquale, ‘Il concetto di machina mundi’.

59 Vespucci, Nota eorum, aiir.

60 Clavius, In sphaeram, †2v. (Qui hac ratione Mundum contemplatur, non solum in Dei cognitionem facilius venit, sed sui ipsius, quod illi prisci Philosophi plurimi faciebant. Nullum enim aliud est Dei opus, quod ubique et semper tam excellenti ratione omnibus pene nostris sensibus pateat, et sui Factoris sapientiam praedicet, quam hoc Mundi ornamentum et haec rerum omnium universitas. Quae nos quoque nobis pene ob oculos per speculum ponit. Nihil enim aliud est homo, ut Graeci voluerunt, quam μικρόκοσμος.) On Ciotti, who was one of Giordano Bruno's contacts in Venice, see the voice of Massimo Firpo in DBI 25 (1981), 692–696.

61 Fiorentino, Annotationi. Cf. Canone, ‘Variazioni bruniane’.

62 As a matter of fact this was acknowledged also by Calvin in his oration against astrology, where he was arguing against abuses and excesses: ‘Je sais que de savoir le cours des astres, leur vertu et ce qui est de semblable, non-seulement apporte grande utilité aux hommes, mais incite à magnifier Dieu en cette sagesse admirable qui se montre là.’ Calvin, ‘Traité’, 124.

63 See Brosseder, ‘The Writing’.

64 See ibid.; Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence; Westman, The Copernican Question.

65 Melanchthon, ‘Praefatio in Geometriam’, in CR, 3, 107–114.

66 Cf. Westman, ‘The Astronomer's Role’; Jardine, ‘The Places of Astronomy’.

67 See note 49.

68 Cited by Blair, The Theatre of Nature, 23.

69 I partly rely on the wording of Blair, The Theatre of Nature, 28. On Christian humanism, see Nauert, ‘Rethinking “Christian Humanism”’.

70 See for example his letters to the Senate of Prague (20 February, 1 and 3 October, 1540), in CR, 3, 971, 1100–1101.

71 Methuen, Kepler's Tübingen, 61–63.

72 When Daneau introduces natural-theological arguments in the second chapter of his book ‘Physice utrum homine Christiano digna’ that is based mostly on scriptural authorities, the dialogue continues with an investigation of the usual theological points that are raised against natural scientific investigation. Daneau, Physica Christiana, 30–35. See. Blair, The Theatre of Nature, 29. On Daneau see Fatio, Méthode et théologie.

73 Maestlin, Observatio et demonstratio, A3v. Maestlin refers to his appointment as deacon of Backnang in 1576 on the same page.

74 Apianus, Sphaera Iani, 1.

75 It was exactly in 1591 (when Clavius's De sphaera edition was published by Ciotti) that Ciotti came to own a printing press and be more intensely related to Bruno. Through his use of Latin and regular presence in Frankfurt we may presume that Ciotti's publishing house was also oriented to Northern Europe. See Firpo (as in note 56).

76 Brahe, De nova, TBOO 1, 35-44 and 145-170. Also see notes 35-36 above.

77 Cf. Hemmingsen's Admonitio, which came out the following year.

78 Brahe, De nova, TBOO 1, 149.

79 Rothman, ‘From Cosmos to Confession’, 116–121.

80 Boner, ‘A Statesman and a Scholar’.