Abstract
Johannes Kepler is a key figure in both the histories of astrology and the extraterrestrial life debate. To date, however, historians have not appreciated the intimate connection between the two concepts in Kepler’s thought. This chapter presents a thorough reconstruction of Kepler’s astrological theories and an analysis of his various writings on pluralist themes, attempting to establish exactly what fuelled his commitment to the existence of extraterrestrial life and how it fitted into his highly theological cosmos. As Gilbert’s had done, Kepler’s astrological theories expanded the operation of celestial influence to centres other than the earth, and his teleological understanding of celestial influence necessitated the existence of observers (i.e. living creatures) at those centres.
Thus the harmonies of music are sought within by the singer; the harmonies of the rays are looked for outside by sublunary Nature, are observed when met, are discriminated from those which are not harmonic (and thus take from it their essence), are selected, and are applied. In brief, the configurations sing the leading part; sublunary Nature dances to the laws of this song.
(Kepler 1997, 325)
Thus this appearance, brought by the agency of light to the body of the Sun, can along with the light itself flow straight to living creatures, who share in this instinct, just as in the fourth book we have stated that the pattern of the heaven flows to a foetus by the agency of the rays.
(Kepler 1997, 424)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
On this point, see especially Field 1988.
- 4.
- 5.
On Kepler’s metaphysics of light, and his debt to Plotinus , see Lindberg 1986.
- 6.
Kepler 1937–, II, 36: ‘…quatenus lux animae soboles’.
- 7.
Kepler again highlights the importance of lunar theory to the Copernican cause. See Kepler 1937–, II, 224: ‘Tandem vero, ubi Plutarchus, ubi Moestlinus aequis in Philosophia auribus fuerint accepti: tum bene Aristarchus cum Copernico suo discipulo sperare incipiat.’ Translation: ‘Once Plutarch and Maestlin have been heard in philosophy with impartial ears, then Aristarchus and his disciple Copernicus may well begin to hope.’
- 8.
Kepler 1937–, II, 118: ‘…dicamque, Lunae tale esse corpus, quale haec nostra terra est, ex aqua et continentibus unum globum efficiens’.
- 9.
Kepler 1937–, II, 220: ‘Haec omnia mihi praebent argumentum eius quod dixi: recte Lunam a Plutarcho tale corpus dici, quale terra est, inaequale montuosumque, et maiores quidem montes in proportione ad suum globum, quam sunt terreni in sua proportione. Ac ut cum Plutarcho etiam iocemur: quia penes nos usu venit, ut homines et animalia sequantur ingenium terrae seu provinciae suae: Erunt igitur in Luna creaturae viventes, multo maiori corporum mole, temperamentorumque duritie, quam nostra: sane quia et diem quindecim nostros dies longam, et ineffabiles aestus, Sole verticibus tam diu incumbente, perferunt, siquidem aliqui ibi sunt. Ut non absurde locus ille gentium superstitione lustrationi animarum destinari creditus sit.’
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
Kepler 1937–, IV, 342: ‘Quod si cui iam super novis hisce observationibus lubeat etiam Rationis vim excutere: quis non videt, quam longe contemplatio Naturae sua pomoeria prolatura sit; dum quaerimus, cui bono in Luna sint montium valliumque tractus, marium amplissima spacia; et an non ignobilior aliqua Creatura, quam homo, statui possit, quae tractus illos inhabitet.’
- 13.
Kepler, De fundamentis astrologiae certioribus (1601), in Kepler 1937–, IV, 7–35. On planetary light, see especially ibid., 17–20. See also the notes to these sections in the English translation: Field 1984, 236, n. 16, 243, ns 29, 30. The more traditional Aristotelian stance was that the planets are wholly illuminated by the sun. Grant traces the alternate hypothesis to Avicenna and Macrobius, with further arguments developed by Nicole Oresme and Albert of Saxony. See Grant 1994, 393–413, esp. 400–402.
- 14.
He didn’t proceed to the conclusion that the earth, one of the planets, has its own light, as Cusa had done.
- 15.
The argument that the varying colours of the planets suggested a degree of self-luminosity was made by Albert of Saxony. See Grant 1994, 402.
- 16.
- 17.
Kepler, De stella nova in pede serpentarii (1606), in Kepler 1937–, I, 149–356.
- 18.
- 19.
For discussions on this topic, see Hirai 2011.
- 20.
- 21.
Kepler to Fabricius (11 Oct 1605), no. 358 in Kepler 1937–, XV, 258: ‘Ego vero non longe absum a Cornelii Gemmae Philosophia, qui existimat inesse unum et eundem spiritum in toto universo σωματομορφοῦντα quotidie, qui enim agat διὰ τὸ κάλλιον καὶ βέλτιον, et noverit, quid ex qualibet redundanti materia fieri commodissime possit; propterea sudorem faeminae et canis convertit in pulices capitis, in pediculos, rorem in bruchos, erucas, linum in anguillas, uliginem in ranas, aquam in pisces, terram in plantas, cadaver in vermes, stercus in scarabaeos, et infinita nova ac insolentia, aeris halitus in διατάττοντας, aethereae regionis in cometas tandem et stellas. Videas ubivis existere uliginosum quippiam, quod rationem continet seminariam, efficitque specierum varietatem, ut non ex cuiusvis arboris foliis quaevis eruca nascatur, sed ex singulis fere singulae. Ille vero totius mundi spiritus hoc praestare videtur, ut omnia invicem ordinentur, accedant novae creaturae instrumenta corporis convenientia. Si nihil viveret, ipse totam materiam vivificaret, ut Terra, si nihil moveretur, ipsa omnia ad se attraheret, alia propius aliis.’ On Cornelius Gemma (1535–1578), see Hirai 2008.
- 22.
Such a comparison is made in Boner 2008. However, while Boner’s analysis of Kepler is good, some passages from Gilbert are misinterpreted.
- 23.
Kepler 1937–, I, 269: ‘Haec nempe est illa, quae quoties invenit superfluam aliquam materiam; convertit eam in animalculum tale, quod rerum naturae serviat, seu juvandae seu exonerandae’.
- 24.
Brengger to Kepler (1 Sep 1607), no. 441 in Kepler 1937–, XVI, 38–40: ‘Hic quaeso patiaris ut exponam quid me impediat quo minus huic sententiae subscribam. Nosti mi Keplere longe aliam esse nostrae terrae quam stellarum rationem, siquidem harum corpora sunt simplicia, similaria, et teste Philosopho purissima: nostra autem terra non simplex sed dissimilaris et impura, cui varia diversarum substantiarum et temperamentorum corpora sunt permixta. Cum autem ad actionem perficiendam necessario requirantur duo, Agens et Patiens: (quicquid enim agit non in se agit sed in aliud) hinc actioni et passioni locus quidem datur in nostra Tellure ubi varii occurrunt humores et succi, in quos calor terrae actionem exerere potest eos attenuando et in vapores ac halitus resolvendo. Quid vero in stellis dabis? Quam substantiam resolubilem? An et illas humore aliquo aut succo perfusas seu praegnantes dices, qui in vapores resolvatur? At sic non sunt pura et simplicia corpora. Deinde cui bono inserviunt tum humor ille, vel analoga materia alia, tum exhalationes in quas resolvitur? An ut reliqui aetheris facultas naturalis habeat quo subinde repurget inquinamenta? In nostro globo alia eorum est utilitas: nam exhalationes suum habent finem, ut nimirum vertantur in pluvias, nivem, rorem, ventos, quibus humectetur et foecundetur terra, ac mundetur aer. Ista omnia deinde inserviunt generationi, ut germinent herbae et fruges, in nutrimentum et sustentationem omnium animalium. Quem usum stellarum globis supervacaneum esse, nemo negat, nisi qui cum Jordano Bruno Nolano tot mundos statuit, quot sunt globi mundani. Et ut summatim dicam, excrementorum proventus comitari solet vel generationem vel nutritionem, vel actionem illis famulantem, puta coctionem. Itaque ubi natura nullam instituit generationem, aut nutritionem, ibi nulla producit excrementa: et proinde nisi demonstretur vel stellas generare, vel nutriri, vel inhabitari ab animalibus quae nutritione egent, frustra laboratur de excrementorum inde consurgentium exortu, aut repurgatione.’ For Aristotle’s theory of the incorruptibility of the heavens, see On the Heavens, I, 3.
- 25.
A more promising connection between the two realms, in Brengger’s opinion, could be found in Gilbert’s magnetic philosophy, which he thought ‘pointed the way to the inner sanctuaries of celestial philosophy (ad penitiora Philosophiae coelestium adyta viam monstrare mihi videntur)’: Kepler 1937–, XVI, 40.
- 26.
Another figure who took a similar line of argument with Kepler was Helisaeus Roeslin (1545–1616), who believed the pluralist consequences of Copernicanism to be sufficient grounds to reject it. He also criticised the homogeneity of the celestial and terrestrial realms on the grounds that it would break down the astrological causal chain. See Granada 2011b.
- 27.
Kepler to Brengger (30 Nov 1607), no. 463 in Kepler 1937–, XVI, 84–92: ‘Stellarum globos putas purissimos simplicissimosque, mihi videntur esse similes nostrae Telluris. Tu philosophum allegas philosophus: si rogaretur experientiam diceret. At tacet experientia, cum nemo ibi fuerit, igitur nec negat, nec affirmat. Ipse vero argumentor probabiliter a similitudine, et ut tu inductione a Luna, quae multa habet similia terrestribus. Itaque et humorem stellis tribuo et regiones, quae ab exhalatione humoris compluantur et creaturas viventes, quibus id utilitati cedit. Nec enim solus infelix ille Prunus prunis tostus Romae, sed etiam Braheus meus in hanc concessit sententiam, esse stellis incolas. Id ego tanto libentius sequor, quod, ut planetas, sic Tellurem etiam ferri affirmo cum Aristarcho.’
- 28.
Kepler 1937–, I, 339: ‘Igitur posito quod certo consilio seu Dei ipsius seu creaturae rationalis incensa fuerit haec stella, si ex me quaeretur, quem ad finem hoc factum putem; et utrum eius significata ad ea. pertrahenda sint, quae sub manibus habemus homines? Primum ego non gentes tantum singulas, sed totum adeo Telluris globum nimis exilem puto, ut in eius complexum omnes cogitationes nostrae quae oriuntur super genuina significatione, sideris in altissimo aethere versantis, effundantur. Magna namque Mundi amplitudo est; nec absurda Tychoni Braheo visa est illa veterum quorundam Philosophorum opinio, statuentium caeteris quoque globis, qui vastissimi sunt, suos esse incolas, non equidem homines, at creaturas alias; quae si sunt, ad mundi ornatum utique pertinebunt, neque tantum siderum effectus persentiscent; sed etiam providentia supremi custodis comprehendentur; nec absurdum erit, aeque ipsis ac nobis in tellure versantibus hominibus, ex illa altissima specula fixarum Sphaerae signa mitti, magis forsan ipsorum appropriata captui, quam nostro. Quaero ergo non cui genti sed omnino cui globo potius credendum sit accensum esse sidus hoc.’ Emphasis added.
- 29.
- 30.
Bialas sees the three main influences for Kepler’s natural philosophy, especially in terms of metaphysics, as Cusa, Scaliger and Gilbert . See Bialas 2009, 29–30.
- 31.
On Herwart von Hohenburg , see Boner 2014.
- 32.
Kepler 1937–, III, 9: ‘Quippe cum essem in hoc Naturae theatro mediocriter versatus: illud me, usu Magistro, didicisse persuadebar, non multum distare, ut hominem ab homine, sic neque stellam a stella, hostem ab hoste: quare non facile recipiendum sermonem, qui de gentis eiusdem individuo uno temere aliquid insolitum sparsisset.’ Kepler 1992, 33.
- 33.
On the importance of the physical reality of heliocentrism for Kepler, see Gingerich 1973.
- 34.
- 35.
That is to say, just because the earth and other heavenly bodies may be alive does not mean they act in an inconsistent way. Once you understand the telos of a living object you can formulate rules for its behaviour under certain conditions.
- 36.
On Galileo’s involvement with astrology, see Rutkin 2005.
- 37.
- 38.
- 39.
He was not alone in this. Gilbert was almost unique in arguing for an interplanetary void at the beginning of the seventeenth century, while Kepler’s commitment to a celestial air or resistance-less ether would remain commonplace well into the eighteenth. On Newton’s transition from a material to an immaterial ether, see Grant 1981, 247.
- 40.
See Granada 2009.
- 41.
- 42.
See the analysis by Dick 1982, 178: ‘In proportion to the extent that Kepler saw an Earthlike moon as a prediction of the Copernican theory, that theory may have affected his interpretation of the evidence for a lunar atmosphere. Such arguments of interpretation, enmeshed in metaphysical predispositions, rendered it virtually certain that observation would provide no speedy solution to the problem of a world in the moon, much less in the planets.’
- 43.
On Kepler’s continuing commitment to this theory, see Field 1988, 73–95.
- 44.
Kepler 1937–, IV, 307: ‘Plane igitur sic est, quod nobis est in Tellure nostra Luna, hoc non est globis caeteris; et quod Iovi sunt illae quatuor lunulae, id non sunt nobis: et vicissim singulis planetarum globis, eorumque incolis, sui serviunt circulatores. Ex qua consideratione, de incolis Iovialibus summa probabilitate concludimus.’ Kepler 1965, 42.
- 45.
- 46.
Kepler 1937–, IV, 309: ‘Habeant igitur creaturae Ioviae quo se oblectent; sint illis etiam, si placet, quatuor sui planetae dispositi ad normam classis trium rhombicorum corporum; quorum unum (quasi rhombicum) cubus ipse est, secundum Cuboctaedricum, tertium Icosidodecaedricum, sex, duodecim, triginta planorum quadrilaterorum: habeant inquam illi sua: nos Homines Terricolae non utique frustra (me doctore) de praestantissima nostrorum corporum habitatione gloriari possumus, Deoque conditori grates debemus.’ Kepler 1965, 46. Kepler would later try and prove this rhombic solid theory. See Field 1988, 79–80, 218–29.
- 47.
Kepler 1937–, IV, 343–44: ‘Atque illis quidem locis Sol hic noster, communis et huius terrestris, et illius Iovialis mundi focus, quem nos tricenum plurimum minutorum esse censemus, vix sena aut septena minuta implet; interimque duodecim nostratium annorum spacio Zodiacum emensus apud easdem rursum fixas deprehenditur. Itaque quae in illo Iovis globo degunt creaturae, dum illa quatuor Lunarum brevissima per fixas curricula contemplantur, dum quotidie orientes occidentesque et ipsas et Solem aspiciunt, Iovem lapidem jurarent (nuper enim ex illis regionibus reversus adsum) suum illum Iovis globum quiescere uno loco immobilem, Fixas vero et Solem quae corpora revera quiescunt, non minus quam illas suas quatuor Lunas multiplici motuum varietate circa suum illud domicilium converti.’
- 48.
- 49.
There is something of a disconnect between Kepler’s supposedly limited astrological theory, as it is understood by Field, Boner and others, and his more traditional and complex astrological practice, as examined by, among others, Greenbaum. The analysis in this section will hopefully contribute to bridging that divide. See Field 1988, 127–41; Greenbaum 2015.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
Kepler 1937–, VI, 175–76: ‘Haec cum sit natura huius sectionis, quae ad quinquanguli demonstrationem concurrit; cumque Creator Deus ad illam conformaverit leges generationis; ad genuinam quidem et seipsa sola perfectam proportionem ineffabilium terminorum, rationes plantarum seminarias, quae semen suum in semetipsis habere jussae sunt singulae: adjunctas vero binas Numerorum proportiones (quarum unius deficiens unitas alterius excedente compensetur) conjunctionem maris et foeminae: quid mirum igitur, si etiam soboles quinquanguli Tertia dura seu 4.5. et mollis 5.6. moveat animos, Dei imagines, ad affectus, generationis negocio comparandos?’ Kepler 1997, 241.
- 55.
The pre-existence of the geometrical archetype within the soul of the individual was one of the ways by which Kepler could save the aspects from the criticism of Pico, who saw no reason why an aspect of 60° should be efficacious, while ones of 59° or 61° are not. See Rabin 1997.
- 56.
- 57.
Kepler 1937–, VI, 228: ‘habetque iam ab ipso ortu connexas et in unum quasi conflatas Ideas, et Harmoniarum in sonos incorporatarum, et affectionum animi respondentium: ut non aliter ipsi sit implantata Idea Harmoniae, quam quatenus laetificat, estque delectabilium aliquid, et quatenus est Ideae motus conformis implexa’. Kepler 1997, 310.
- 58.
- 59.
Kepler 1937–, VI, 271: ‘quam alii δύναμιν, ego ἐνέργειαν lubentius nominaverim. Est enim animarum essentia haec, est veluti ῥύσις quaedam huius flammae ista’. The published English translation (Kepler 1997, 367) renders it thus: ‘Others have named it a “power,” but I for preference an “activity.” For the former is the essence of souls, but this latter a kind of “flowing” of the flame.’ The usual interpretation of the Latin haec and ista as a correlative pair would imply a reverse order, i.e. energeia is the essence and dunamis is the ‘flowing’. The rest of the passage, however, makes clear that for Kepler the essence of the soul is its flowing.
- 60.
- 61.
Kepler 1937–, VI, 279: ‘Hic intersere, rursum ex Genesi, Planetarum discrimina in qualitatibus. Nam si Anima lux quaedam est; discernet etiam Martis ruborem a Jovis candore, Saturnique livore: itaque fatiendum est, magnum auxilium ex Marte, non tantum, ut prius, ad industriam; sed etiam ad acrimoniam ingenii, quae consistit in vi ignea.’ Kepler 1997, 376–77.
- 62.
See Walker 1967.
- 63.
See, for example, Caspar’s reflection on Kepler’s harmonic philosophy: ‘Certainly for Kepler this book was his mind’s favorite child. Those were the thoughts to which he clung during the trials of his life and which distributed light to him in the darkness which surrounded him. They formed the place of refuge, where he felt secure, which he recognized as his true home.’ Caspar 1993, 288. See also Field 2009.
- 64.
- 65.
There is no textual evidence that Tycho in fact believed in life in/on the other globes, although that doesn’t rule out the possibility that it may have been discussed privately between the two astronomers. Dick argues that Kepler misconstrued a reductio ad absurdum argument made elsewhere by Tycho, i.e. the immense size of a heliocentric universe would seem to necessitate celestial inhabitants to make it useful. Celestial inhabitation is absurd, ergo heliocentrism is incorrect. See Dick 1982, 73–74.
- 66.
- 67.
Here again we can draw a parallel to Rheticus’ Narratio prima. See above, Sect. 3.3.
- 68.
Kepler 1937–, VII, 342: ‘At non interim rigide negaverim, hunc effectum potius in consilii parte fuisse, ut non sit, vel non sit mera necessitatis appendix: quia huius quantitatem adhuc ignoramus. Tunc locus erit dicendae causae finalis: huc tendere contemperationem inter se virium, librationis, fibrarum inclinationis, circumlationis, certa in unoquolibet proportione: ut quia librationes quidem comparatae sunt ad constituendas Harmonias motuum, Harmoniarum quaelibet enasceretur non semper in una aliqua binorum planetarum configuratione, sed successu saeculorum omnes omnino configurationes pervagaretur: atque sic Harmoniae motuum omnes (quae sunt lib. V. Harmonicorum) cum Harmoniis configurationum omnibus (libri IV. Harm: materia) permiscerentur.’ Kepler 1952, 945.
- 69.
Kepler 1937–, VI, 272: ‘Hoc vero Animae Terrae opus, etsi perpetuum est: opus tamen fuit excessibus aliquibus in evaporando; non continuis toto aliquo tempore: sed ad certos dies redactis; ut ex copia vaporum foras emissa pluviae tempestivae, Solibus tamen intercurrentibus, suppeditarentur, superficiei Terrae refocillandae humectandaeque causa; unde fruges et pabula Animantibus succrescere possent.’ Kepler 1997, 368.
- 70.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
- 74.
Kepler 1937–, XI.2, 363: ‘Cum aquas Privolvis ademissem, aestus et frigoris vicissitudines immanes proximis omnino temporum articulis relinquere cogerer: subiit animum, eos tractus habitari non posse, saltem sub dio. Ex opportuno igitur aquae influebant certis diei tempestatibus: eas iterum recedentes jussi viventia comitari; et ut tam propere possent, longos pedes dedi; aliis nandi facultatem, et aquarum patientiam: ut tantum non in pisces degenerarent. Nec quicquam huius illi erit incredibile, qui de Cola Siculo, Homine-pisce, legerit. Etiam illud reputabam; nihil in terris tam esse nobis violentum, cuius tolerantiam non indiderit Deus certo generi animalium; famis et aestus Africani, Leonibus; situs et immensorum desertorum Syriae Palmyrenes, Camelis; frigoris Hyperborei, Ursis, etc.’ Kepler 1967, 130–31.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
Kepler 1937–, XI.2, 330: ‘Quibusdam per diei aestum spiritus exhaustus, vitaque extincta, per noctem redeunt, contraria ratione quam apud nos Muscis. Passim per solum dispersae moles figura nucum pinearum, per diem adustis corticibus, vesperi quasi reclusis latebris, animantia edunt.’ Kepler 1967, 28.
- 78.
Kepler 1937–, XI.2, 364: ‘Ex resina, exsudante ex trabibus navium per Solis fervorem, et globatim adhaerescente, Anates nasci, quibus ultimum totius corporis, rostrum maturescat, quo soluto, se dent undis subjectis, refert Scaliger in Exercitationibus. Nota est multorum celebratione, arbor Scotiae, quae eundem foetum proferat. Anno 1615 aestate siccissima, vidi Lincii allatum ex Drani campis desertis, ramulum juniperi, cui adnata erat figura insecti insolita, colore scarabaei cornuti, mediotenus extans, et sese movens lento motu, posteriora arbori adhaerentia, erant resina juniperina.’ Kepler 1967, 133–34.
- 79.
See Caspar’s similar criticism of the historical treatment of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion: ‘In truth, if a work presents science with such a valuable contribution as the third planet law (not to mention the mathematical and musical fruits), then a critic must seek the lack in himself if he does not achieve an understanding of the manner of contemplating nature out of which the work has arisen.’ Caspar 1993, 289.
- 80.
The scientific elite, that is, as it is construed by our modern history of science. There were later reformers of astrology, such as Jean-Baptiste Morin (1583–1656), who were considered elite in their own time.
- 81.
Over 10% of Dick’s Plurality of Worlds (Dick 1982), which stretches from Democritus to Kant , is taken up by discussion of Kepler. The heavy-weighting given him in this standard text, as well as his prominent position in the history of astronomy more generally, means that Kepler is one of the first names mentioned in any short description of the history of pluralism, e.g. Catling 2013, 3–4.
- 82.
Dick did say this much: ‘Finally, Kepler the astrologer, who had cast many horoscopes for Rudolph II, noted that the astrological point of view also favored the existence of Jovians, because the small arcs that the orbits of the new moons subtended could be of significance only to the Jovians.’ See Dick 1982, 77. Kepler didn’t explicitly link these moons to a Jovian astrology (see Boner 2013, 152), but it is not necessarily a misguided connection on Dick’s part.
- 83.
See, for example, the analysis of the Somnium in Hallyn 1990, 279–80.
- 84.
He may well have been delighted, however, by the discovery that some moons and planets, in this system and others, have an orbital resonance, where their orbital periods are related by ratios of small integers. One can imagine the ambivalence he might have felt towards such articles as Holman et al. 2010, ‘Kepler-9: a system of multiple planets transiting a sun-like star, confirmed by timing variations’.
References
Bialas, Volker. 2009. Kepler’s philosophy of nature. In Johannes Kepler: From Tübingen to Żagań, ed. Richard Lynn Kremer and Jarosław Włodarczyk, 29–40. Warsaw: Institut Historii Nauki PAN.
Boner, Patrick J. 2007. Kepler v. the Epicureans: Causality, coincidence and the origins of the new star of 1604. Journal for the History of Astronomy 38: 207–221.
———. 2008. Life in the liquid fields: Kepler, Tycho and Gilbert on the nature of the heavens and Earth. History of Science 46: 275–297.
———. 2011. Kepler’s Copernican campaign and the new star of 1604. In Change and continuity in early modern cosmology, ed. Patrick J. Boner, 93–114. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2013. Kepler’s cosmological synthesis: Astrology, mechanism and the soul. Leiden: Brill.
———. 2014. Statesman and scholar: Herwart von Hohenburg as patron and author in the republic of letters. History of Science 52: 29–51.
Caspar, Max. 1993[1959]. Kepler. Ed. and Trans. Clarrise Doris Helmman. New York: Dover Publications.
Catling, David C. 2013. Astrobiology: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crowe, Michael J. 1986. The extraterrestrial life debate, 1750–1900: The idea of a plurality of worlds from Kant to Lowell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dick, Steven J. 1982. Plurality of worlds: The origins of the extraterrestrial life debate from Democritus to Kant. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1996. Other worlds: The cultural significance of the extraterrestrial life debate. Leonardo 29: 133–137.
Dunér, David. 2016. Swedenborg and the plurality of worlds: Astrotheology in the eighteenth century. Zygon 51: 450–479.
Field, J.V. 1984. A Lutheran astrologer: Johannes Kepler. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 31: 189–272.
———. 1988. Kepler’s geometrical cosmology. London: Athlone.
———. 2009. Kepler’s harmony of the world. In Johannes Kepler: From Tübingen to Żagań, ed. Richard Lynn Kremer and Jarosław Włodarczyk, 11–28. Warsaw: Institut Historii Nauki PAN.
Gingerich, Owen. 1973. From Copernicus to Kepler: Heliocentrism as model and as reality. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117: 513–522.
Grafton, Anthony. 1973. Michael Maestlin’s account of Copernican planetary theory. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117: 523–550.
Granada, Miguel A. 2005. Kepler v. Roeslin on the interpretation of Kepler’s nova: (1) 1604–1606. Journal for the History of Astronomy 36: 299–319.
———. 2009. Kepler and Bruno on the infinity of the universe and of solar systems. In Johannes Kepler: From Tübingen to Żagań, ed. Richard Lynn Kremer and Jarosław Włodarczyk, 131–158. Warsaw: Institut Historii Nauki PAN.
———. 2011a. Johannes Kepler and David Fabricius: Their discussion on the nova of 1604. In Change and continuity in early modern cosmology, ed. Patrick J. Boner, 66–92. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 2011b. After the nova of 1604: Roeslin and Kepler’s discussion on the significance of the celestial novelties (1607–1613). Journal for the History of Astronomy 42: 353–390.
Grant, Edward. 1981. Much ado about nothing: Theories of space and vacuum from the Middle Ages to the scientific revolution. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1994. Planets, stars, and orbs: The medieval cosmos, 1200–1687. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenbaum, Dorian Gieseler. 2015. Kepler’s personal astrology: Two letters to Michael Maestlin. In From Māshāʼ Allah to Kepler: Theory and practice in medieval and Renaissance astrology, ed. Charles Burnett and Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum, 177–200. Ceredigion: Sophia Centre Press.
Hallyn, Fernand. 1990. The poetic structure of the world: Copernicus and Kepler. In New York. Cambridge, MA: Zone Books; Distributed by MIT Press.
Hirai, Hiro, ed. 2008. Cornelius Gemma: Cosmology, medicine, and natural philosophy in Renaissance Louvain. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra.
———. 2011. Medical humanism and natural philosophy: Renaissance debates on matter, life and the soul. Leiden: Brill.
Holman, Matthew J., Daniel C. Fabrycky, Darin Ragozzine, Eric B. Ford, Jason H. Steffen, William F. Welsh, Jack J. Lissauer, et al. 2010. Kepler-9: A system of multiple planets transiting a sun-like star, confirmed by timing variations. Science 330: 51–54.
Jardine, Nick. 2009. God’s “ideal reader”: Kepler and his serious jokes. In Johannes Kepler: From Tübingen to Żagań, ed. Richard Lynn Kremer and Jarosław Włodarczyk, 41–52. Warsaw: Institut Historii Nauki PAN.
Juste, David. 2010. Musical theory and astrological foundations in Kepler: The making of the new aspects. In Music and esotericism, ed. Laurence Wuidar, 177–196. Leiden: Brill.
Kepler, Johannes. 1937. Gesammelte werke. Edited under the supervision of the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 25 vols published so far. Munich: C.H. Beck.
———. 1952. Epitome of Copernican astronomy: IV and V. Translated by Charles Glenn Wallis. In Great books of the Western world, volume 16: Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica; W. Benton.
———. 1965. Kepler’s Conversation with Galileo’s Sidereal Messenger. Trans. Edward Rosen. New York: Johnson Reprint Corp.
———. 1967. Somnium: The dream, or Posthumous Work on Lunar Astronomy. Trans. Edward Rosen. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
———. 1981. Mysterium Cosmographicum: The Secret of the Universe. Trans. A.M. Duncan. New York: Abaris.
———. 1992. New Astronomy. Trans. William H. Donahue/Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1997. The Harmony of the World. Trans. E.J. Aiton, A.M. Duncan, and J.V. Field. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Kremer, Richard Lynn, and Jarosław Włodarczyk, eds. 2009. Johannes Kepler: From Tübingen to Żagań. Warsaw: Institut Historii Nauki PAN.
Lindberg, David C. 1986. The genesis of Kepler’s theory of light: Light metaphysics from Plotinus to Kepler. Osiris 2: 4–42.
Losch, Andreas. 2016. Astrotheology: On exoplanets, Christian concerns, and human hopes. Zygon 51: 405–413.
Martens, Rhonda. 2000. Kepler’s philosophy and the new astronomy. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Methuen, Charlotte. 1996. Maestlin’s teaching of Copernicus: The evidence of his university textbook and disputations. Isis 87: 230–247.
———. 1998. Kepler’s Tübingen: Stimulus to a theological mathematics. Aldershot/Brookfield: Ashgate.
Mix, Lucas John. 2016. Life-value narratives and the impact of astrobiology on Christian ethics. Zygon 51: 520–535.
Paul, Robert. 1986. Joseph Smith and the plurality of worlds idea. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19: 13–36.
Proclus. 1873. In primum Euclidis Elementorum librum commentarii, ed. Gottfried Friedlein. Leipzig: Teubner.
Rabin, Sheila J. 1997. Kepler’s attitude toward Pico and the anti-astrology polemic. Renaissance Quarterly 50: 750–770.
Rutkin, H. Darrel. 2005. Galileo astrologer: Astrology and mathematical practice in the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth centuries. Galilaeana 2: 107–143.
———. 2006. Various uses of horoscopes: Astrological practices in early modern Europe. In Horoscopes and public spheres: Essays on the history of astrology, ed. Günther Oestmann, H. Darrel Rutkin, and Kocku von Stuckrad, 167–182. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Scaliger, Julius Caesar. 1557. Exotericarum exercitationum liber quintus decimus de subtilitate ad Hieronymum Cardanum. Paris: Michel de Vascosan.
Seager, Sara. 2010. Exoplanet atmospheres: Physical processes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shuch, H. Paul, ed. 2011. Searching for extraterrestrial intelligence: SETI past, present, and future. Chichester: Springer.
Simon, Gérard. 1975. Kepler’s astrology: The direction of a reform. Vistas in Astronomy 18: 439–448.
Snyder, James G. 2011. Marsilio Ficino’s critique of the Lucretian alternative. Journal of the History of Ideas 72: 165–181.
Stephenson, Bruce. 1987. Kepler’s physical astronomy. New York: Springer.
———. 1994. The music of the heavens: Kepler’s harmonic astronomy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
van den Berg, Robbert Maarten. 2001. Proclus’ hymns: Essays, translations, commentary. In Leiden. Boston: Brill.
Voelkel, James R. 2001. The composition of Kepler’s Astronomia nova. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Walker, D.P. 1967. Kepler’s celestial music. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 30: 228–250.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Christie, J.E. (2019). Johannes Kepler: A New Astronomy, Astrological Harmonies and Living Creatures. In: From Influence to Inhabitation. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 228. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22169-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22169-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22168-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22169-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)