Defense of The Harmony of the World

APOLOGY

Do you prefer to follow the opinions of Boethius An influential 6th-century philosopher whose "De institutione musica" was a standard textbook for centuries. and Guido Guido of Arezzo (d. 1033), the inventor of modern musical notation. rather than mine—I, who must be placed many steps behind them in true knowledge? You have an excuse, provided that you ignore theory and aim for practice. For those of that sort are content with the authority and reputation of writers. But for me, who examines causes according to the law of logic, no authority can suffice, especially if famous writers are caught in some error. Do you really think anyone has advanced so far in various sciences that he errs in nothing? Or is it impossible for one of the disciples to see where even Aristotle or your Hermes Hermes Trismegistus, the legendary Hellenistic figure to whom many mystical and alchemical texts were attributed; Fludd relied heavily on this "Hermetic" tradition. has gone wrong? This being the case, a hundred thousand ancient dogmas impressed upon the mind of a wise man would not make a single interspersed error into something that is not an error.

If, you say, Kepler had understood the depth of the Ancients in Nature, he would cry out that his own Astronomy is false and his Harmony imaginary. But this, Robert, is not refuting. I deny that statement in the sense of the condition you have set. For I understand Pythagoras and Boethius regarding matters of astronomy and harmonics without needing a "translator" Kepler suggests the math speaks for itself without Fludd's mystical interpretation.. But in your sense, perhaps it is true; if I were equipped with those wings of your imagination, perhaps I would fly over my own corrections toward the Ancients; indeed, I might even thunder along with Plato:

original Greek: "ἤφαισε πρόμολ' ὧδε Κεπλῆρος σῖο χατίζει" — A playful adaptation of a line from Homer's Iliad (18.392), where Charis calls Hephaestus to help the goddess Thetis. Here, Kepler mocks the idea that he needs a god's intervention to see things Fludd's way.

You claim that different consonances are produced by the various resistances of bodies, and from these your unique Harmony of the world is produced; and further down, on page 15, line 29: that natural harmony exists between benevolent actions and well-disposed passions of the world-soul with its material substance. This, I say, is partly your own speech, and partly a piece of equivocation Using the same word with different meanings to mislead. already touched upon above. To me, consonance exists in the mixture of sounds drawn out by the collision of bodies; harmonic proportions exist between quantities—especially of motions—not between the bodies themselves, nor between resistances. We each speak according to our own judgment, and we do not meet each other in this diversion.

If it is "condemnation" to refute a single error in Harmonics (such as the idea of two major tones always following one another, and similar things), then let the challenge be directed at you: you review the record, and refute my reasons. Place their words and your interpretation of those words side-by-side; tell me everywhere I confuse myself, choose the worse, or reject the better. For if you both say this and demonstrate it, you will help not only me but also the reader. You achieve nothing by collecting passages where I refute writers, unless you also defend the things you think I have refuted poorly. I say the authors themselves would agree with me if they were present. Page 15. Your forceful eloquence at this point is out of place; it is not only directed at me but could also be brandished against those very people you pretend to defend—especially Aristotle, who consumes half of his work refuting the ancients. You should attack the boastful or the defeated in this way, not those who are still wrestling and fighting.

But what a judge of envy you prove yourself to be, whenever I utter a word about my own methods for the sake of showing a distinction; immediately you strike me with blows of philautia original: "philautia" — Greek for "self-love" or "excessive vanity." and "boasting." I am not engaged in composing a hymn of praise for my work, but in explaining the goal I had proposed, so that it might appear that you seek one thing and I seek another. Whether I am "affected" let the reader judge, especially when he has placed your censures (which now follow) and my defenses against one another. In my first book, you say, "we find nothing pertaining to the true Harmony of the world, but only figures being compared." I do not think it would be worth the effort to urge you to read the book more carefully, for you would not obey. I only warn the reader: Robert has not read it, he has not weighed it, or if he has weighed it, he is playing around—therefore he is either mocking or quibbling. In the preamble, I indicate that the causes of Harmonies must be sought from Geometry, from the division of the circle, which is done through demonstrable regular figures. The book itself displays the figures. To be sure, figures are not yet the same thing as Harmony, but they are the way toward it. What? If the bride is being escorted but the wedding has not yet happened, does the bride have nothing to do with the wedding? Or if Euclid does nothing in Book IV regarding solid bodies, but only regarding plane figures, does Book IV therefore contribute nothing to the formation of the five solids in the following Book XIII? But I see what you want, Robert; you rejoice in your heart that you have provoked me, and you laugh at an unnecessary defense. Therefore, I shall add nothing more.

In my second book, you attribute to me the belief that the power of the world's Harmony consists in the five regular bodies The five Platonic solids: tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, dodecahedron, and icosahedron.. Again, the fiery whirlwind of your volatile genius—which your Hermes bids you make "fixed"—passes over it in swift flight. My second book is still concerned with