Defense of The Harmony of the World

APPENDIX TO THE HARMONICS, REGARDING ANALYSIS IX.

Page 10.

And who denies that you, too, are skilled in Theory—albeit in your earlier books? Who prattles that practice The hands-on application of music, such as playing instruments or composing, as opposed to the abstract mathematical study of harmonics. is a disgrace to you? Indeed, whoever that bold little fellow is, he is worthy of not only your anger but my own as well. On the contrary, I most gladly assign all degrees of excellence to you because of this practice of yours. Let us move through the rest: Pythagoras considered the strikes of hammers A famous legend where Pythagoras discovered the mathematical ratios of musical intervals by listening to the different pitches produced by blacksmiths' hammers of different weights. before the causes of Music were discovered; and yet today, Robert Robert Fludd. passes down new instruments; Kepler either tears down the causes stated by Pythagoras with reasons or corrects them. Again, Robert is not the only one who experiments with his hands; nor does Kepler bring forth mere speculations. For Kepler himself also begins from manual labor: he applies the plectrum A small tool used to pluck strings, here referring to Kepler's use of a monochord for experiments. to the string and the small hammer to the bell. He untangles the harmonies by the proportion of the strings and examines the proportions of the celestial motions; he has found no better way. All these things, Robert, are confessed by both sides: and yet, regarding what is more important, it is also true that even though my book lacks your physical instruments, I still provide the causes of the harmonies to my reader.

Let us proceed further; I both seek the causes of the Harmonies and I arrange mathematical demonstrations; for this use is more powerful than those instruments. Indeed, I demonstrate in the abstract, except for what is on the paper: but I apply the demonstrated things to Concrete things—that is, to physical subjects, namely the motions of bodies. And yet my abstractions are similar to those concrete things; for nothing is more like another thing than the antitype A physical representation or realization of an abstract pattern or "type." is to its "type." On these points, too, we agree. Only one thing remains in the dispute: that the physical scientists, without the help of mathematics, have searched for the causes of other things through prior principles; I deny that it is possible for anyone to do business in bare substances without the mediation of "accidents" In Aristotelian philosophy, "substance" is what a thing is, while "accidents" are its qualities, like size or color. Kepler argues we can only understand the substance of the world through the "accident" of quantity (mathematics).. Among these accidents, I have learned from Aristotle that the first genus is quantities, and all the rest are secondary. You deny that the ancients ran from one art into another: but I have learned from Plato that the twin wings of Astronomy are Geometry and Arithmetic; although the former deals with sensible things, the latter two deal with abstract things. For this reason, I marvel all the more at your conclusion, which adopts the premises of your contradictions: that Harmony requires both Mathematical and Physical things for the discovery of causes; and you added most correctly, Metaphysical things. And indeed, you do add them: for you say that the Origin of intervals looks more toward "physics"—by reason of its hidden nature—than toward mathematics, if we look at its internal principle. Without a doubt, you call "Physics" what I call "Metaphysics." For you add: Its secret consists in the division of spiritual matter, the divider of which is the Soul, the act of the one singing or playing. I much prefer to interpret your words favorably than to seek an occasion for arguing. Therefore, I understand your Secret to be the form and essence of Harmonic contemplation on earth. I learn that this is spiritual matter; indeed, I too recognize Harmonies as an Entity of Reason original: "Ens rationis"; a philosophical term for something that exists in the mind or through the intellect rather than as a physical object.; and reason is a certain spiritual thing. By its division, I understand the Distinguishing of that which is Harmonic from that which is non-harmonic. Do you say the divider is the Soul? I myself, in my fourth book, first make the Soul—from its very creation, after the example of God its archetype The original pattern or "blueprint" in the mind of God that Kepler believed humans could understand because we are made in His image.—capable of the secret Harmonic formation; that is, I say the Ideas of the Harmonies are impressed upon it. By the application of these Ideas to those things offered through the senses, the harmonic is distinguished from the non-harmonic. So far, therefore, you infer in your conclusion what you were going to deny in your premises: nor can I easily release you from the following contradictions unless you help me. You had said that the Ancients did not run from art to art, yet now you assert that they were accustomed to opening the truly physical Nature and motion of substance by Mathematical reason. I wonder why you rebuke me for doing the very same thing.

Robert uses the word "Harmony" in the broadest sense.

But why should I say much regarding my method of philosophizing? Especially since you, even now at the end of this Analysis, introduce a capital equivocation The use of ambiguous language to hide the truth or avoid a point. in the words Music and Harmony, to be repeated again and again in the following sections. By this ambiguity, you call into question this entire effort—not only mine but even that of the Ancients. It is a remarkable wrestling-ground in which we run back and forth: I, approving the mathematical method of the Ancients, fight against them in the progress regarding particular details; you, accusing their general method itself, profess yourself a supporter of the Ancients in certain trifles.

You produce some "marrow," I know not what, of Divine Music, of which Mathematics are mere shadows that hardly touch it. You hide this marrow in the bowels of Nature.

You have a huge error in the art of music because it is placed among the mathematical liberal arts. You pronounce that there is a vain shadow in it—not a tunic, not a bark—and you say that through it, the interior essence or kernel is ignored.

If you wished to imply this: that a philosopher should not rest in elementary sounds...