The Proscenium of Truth

DISCOURSE ON ANALYSIS.

ANALYSIS.

From this context, we draw out three things worthy of note. First is the extraordinary praise the Author [Kepler] gives to his own work—and indeed to himself. He seems to exalt himself both by exposing the errors of my subject matter and by showing contempt for the ancient authors, as if his own Harmony flowed from his own invention alone, or was a "virginal birth," proceeding from his fertile brain just as Minerva In Roman mythology, Minerva (Goddess of Wisdom) was born fully formed from the head of Jupiter. did. From this position, he attempts to fundamentally destroy and subvert the opinions of the ancient Philosophers and Mathematicians; and then, finally, he tries to broadcast my own ignorance and lack of skill to the world.

Regarding what pertains to me (to begin at the end), he first attributes nothing to my own invention, but asserts that everything I have written was extracted from the ancients. Then he continues in his usual way, and for the sake of magnifying my supposed error, he says that whatever I received from those authors, I used in a confused and incorrect manner.

Regarding his first assertion on this matter, we concede and acknowledge that the axiom of the wise is most true: Nothing is said now that was not said before. original: "Nihil est jam dictum, quod non erat dictum prius." A reference to Ecclesiastes 1:9. And yet, something is occasionally added or shaped for the sake of a better and shorter method. If the Author himself denies this, the very foundation of his own work will be found too fragile and subject to ruin. In my own Technical Music Musica artificialis Fludd’s term for the systematic, mathematical, and practical study of music as it reflects the cosmos., I have reduced the entire mystery of Music—indeed, everything that can be imagined in Music—into a methodical "Temple," or a hieroglyphic image of a temple. No one until now has ever devised such an invention. If I have produced the testimonies and authorities of the best ancient Philosophers and Mathematicians to harmonize with the construction of this "fabric," I believed this should be turned to my honor and praise, rather than bringing me any reproach for confirming their testimonies.

But when the Author says I have used the sayings of those authors in a "confused and incorrect" way, we take these statements of his as mere words—a wind born of canine envy original: "invidia canina"; a rhetorical term for a biting, snarling jealousy.—since he can produce no instance of either confusion or incorrectness. He condemns me, yet in his own "law," he is ignorant of the reasoning of truth. He praises himself, and yet, conversely, I find no evidence of any such praise from others. He seems to disparage my musical proportions at the end of his appendix with confused words; and yet, I know well that no mortal led by justice can find any fault in the proportions expressed in my "Temple." Therefore, these are empty words and absurd voices. Indeed, no one can be a true Musician who suffers from such a vice of antipathy.

But if this "confusion and incorrectness" he alleges consists of a poor investigation into concordant causes (as he claims), which he tries to correct in both the ancients and in me—refuting our sayings in that matter—we shall see to it that he perceives with open eyes in my reply to the following text that the matter stands far differently than he thought. There, I hope I shall pay him back in his own coin.

As for the testimony of the Authors, it is indeed the custom of Philosophers to add the opinions of other Philosophers to their own reasons. Look then and behold! The Author falls into Scylla while trying to avoid Charybdis A metaphor for trying to avoid one danger only to fall into a worse one, based on the sea monsters in the Odyssey.; he accuses another of imitating the opinions of others, yet he himself falls into the very same error (if it be one). He acknowledges that he received his invention of the five regular bodies The Platonic solids, which Kepler used to model the orbits of the planets. from Pythagoras; in the Preface to Book 1, he follows the doctrine of Copernicus regarding the motion of the Planets and the position of the heavens, as held in Book 5, chapter 3, and in many other places. He praises Schoner and embraces his doctrine in the Preface to Book 1. He confirms the opinion of Proclus A Neoplatonist philosopher. regarding the idea that the perception of the five regular bodies should be transferred from the five elements to the Planets and their intervals. And in Book 2, proposition 25, he says: “It seems consistent to me that there was a single doctrine of the five bodies, but it was hidden in the manner of a sect.” He acknowledges and follows Aristarchus of Samos; he extols the hypotheses of Tycho Brahe in Book 5, chapter 3.

And yet, he boasts that he draws the material of his Harmony from the nature of things, establishing it from the very foundations and proceeding in a natural order, so that all things are corrected according to the laws of nature and confusion is avoided. He even says he does not apply his findings to the whims of the Ancients. See, I pray, how inconsistent he is with himself in these assertions!

In the middle part of this passage, he exposes the "confusion" of the ancient Authors' doctrine and introduces "errors" to be corrected, which he says arise because of a variation in opinions. I, however, in my Technical Music, have followed the opinions of Pythagoras, Boethius, and Guido Guido d'Arezzo, the medieval inventor of modern musical notation.; I prefer to follow and embrace their views rather than those of a man who, in terms of true science, must be placed many steps behind them.

Certainly, nothing is more certain than this: if Johannes Kepler had rightly understood the depth of Pythagoras and Boethius regarding the mystery of Nature, he would immediately cry out, forced by the truth: “I have sinned; my Astronomy is false!” Nor is there any other harmony of the world than the one and the same harmony consisting of the various resistances of bodies procreating diverse consonances, and this occurs in the progression of Nature from imperfection to perfection. For it is most absurd to say that a regression occurs from the perfect to the imperfect; rather, according to the laws of nature, the imperfect always tends toward perfection by its own motion. It is rash, therefore, for him to condemn these truly learned Authors before he rightly understands the sense of their words from their own perspective, rather than conceiving them in his own way. He desires to avoid "confused things," and yet by this very curiosity of his, he confuses himself; he chooses the worse and rejects the better. This is the reason why, exalted in his own conceit, he first condemns Petrus Ramus, makes the exposition of Aristotle regarding the five proportions of bodies vain, accuses Pythagoras himself of error in his harmonic numbers in the Preface to Book 3, and exposes the fault of Ptolemy concerning the number of Harmonies and concordant intervals. Finally, in Book 5, chapter 3, he damns the ancient Astronomical hypotheses of Ptolemy along with the theories of Peuerbach, and entirely rejects—