Defense of The Harmony of the World

having stripped off the garments of speech: it is not only the Chemists original: Chymici; here referring to alchemists like Fludd, who used chemical and alchemical metaphors to describe the cosmos who do this: both Plato and Aristotle seem to insist on something similar when they say that, for a Mind that truly knows, definitions and syllogisms are taken away as superfluous. But by Hercules, it seemed to me that this Nature of Harmonic knowledge—fleeting and hidden as it is—must first of all be seized by its outer garment and held fast within the folds of long-winded words; that is, it must be expressed and shaped within the minds of readers. This is in the hope that perhaps someone like you might follow me (for you yourself might perhaps reject these things of mine) who, in your own way, might strip it of its garments and clothe it in gold, in such a way that hereafter its Virtue might be perceived by the mind without the need for words. To this point, it has not been our good fortune to be so successful in teaching and learning.

But you, throughout this entire Analysis, and most especially in that conclusion, prove that I spoke most correctly when I said: That to some extent the same subject matter was handed down by you. If you do not yet think enough has been done for you, then take your own final words as a supplement: The subject of your artificial Music stretches its borders more widely than my third book. Therefore, even in this way, your book concurs with mine to some extent—namely, as far as it reaches within the narrow confines of my book, and does not yet run further afield. And this was truly the meaning of my words: I intended to suggest that among a heap of many things and speculations, the Origin of Harmonics—which was my sole occupation—is also proposed by you.

ON ANALYSIS IV.

Page 6. I satisfy you with a single word: we compare things either to show agreement or to point out a difference. I have, therefore, rightly compared your ideas with mine so that my reader might know there is more of a difference between us than there is a consensus. But what is the point of playing with words? I called your Music "artificial" In this context, "artificial" means "related to the craft or art of music-making," whereas "natural" refers to the mathematical laws of sound found in nature. based on your own book, for you distinguish the Natural from the Artificial in your own manner. To me, there is no legitimate craft of Music, nor one acceptable to the hearing, that lacks the foundations shown by Nature. Therefore, I am also opening the causes of natural things even when I dispute the origin of artificial Music.

Behold, what a difficult man you are, through whom I am not even allowed to be modest! Indeed, you are a suspicious man who twists every single word into the opposite meaning. I wrote that I pass down "a few things" regarding the inventors of Music; is this to accuse them of being superfluous? Or is it not rather to send the reader, who is busy searching for the inventors, to you?

ON ANALYSIS V.

In how many ways Time is considered in sounds. Regarding the Times Kepler uses "Times" (Tempora) to refer to both the duration of notes (rhythm) and the frequency of vibrations (pitch). necessary for artificial Music, I praise you for philosophizing. Yet a worthy question occurs here, in which the reader may exercise themselves. You define sound rightly, Robert, through motion, nor do you allow time to be separated from motion. Ptolemy Claudius Ptolemy (c. 100–170 AD), an ancient astronomer and music theorist whose Harmonics Kepler studied deeply. and his commentator Porphyry A Neoplatonist philosopher (c. 234–305 AD) who wrote a commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics. followed this diligently. Time is present in sounds under two names: first, as it forms the essence of sounds, or the differences caused by heaviness and sharpness Kepler means "low pitch" and "high pitch."; second, as it happens to those sounds already formed, externally, as a measure. Deep sounds have slower tremors, sharp sounds have faster ones. For example, if a period of time is set, such as the interval between the systole the contraction of the heart and diastole the relaxation of the heart of the human pulse; let two strings be struck which make an octave original: Diapason, and let that string which emits the deep sound tremble within that prescribed space of time—let us say it makes fifty little vibrations—the other string will tremble one hundred times, sounding the higher note in consonance. I touched upon this speculation in Book III, folio 14, in a wonderful experiment. You see, Robert, that a deception here, arising from the ambiguity of the word "Time," was the cause of your wondering. If I had not touched upon this first consideration of time, I could have argued that I had assumed this along with the difference of the sounds themselves in sharpness and depth. Therefore, my text speaks of the other respect, in which time is the external measure of sounds; your text, which I am comparing, also speaks of this. For in the former respect, time is not arbitrary, but adheres necessarily to the depth or sharpness; but in this latter respect, it is entirely arbitrary. For this reason, it is named among the other causes of artificial Music. For as much as there is in any matter that comes from the choice of the craftsman, all of that is credited to art: but as much as art imitates nature, and by its own choice...