Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Editor's preface
- Introduction
- 1 At the crossroads of magic and science: John Dee's Archemastrie
- 2 The occult tradition in the English universities of the Renaissance: a reassessment
- 3 Analogy versus identity: the rejection of occult symbolism, 1580–1680
- 4 Marin Mersenne: Renaissance naturalism and Renaissance magic
- 5 Nature, art, and psyche: Jung, Pauli, and the Kepler–Fludd polemic
- 6 The interpretation of natural signs: Cardano's De subtilitate versus Scaliger's Exercitationes
- 7 Kepler's attitude toward astrology and mysticism
- 8 Kepler's rejection of numerology
- 9 Francis Bacon's biological ideas: a new manuscript source
- 10 Newton and alchemy
- 11 Witchcraft and popular mentality in Lorraine, 1580–1630
- 12 The scientific status of demonology
- 13 “Reason,” “right reason,” and “revelation” in midseventeenth-century England
- Index
8 - Kepler's rejection of numerology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 January 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Editor's preface
- Introduction
- 1 At the crossroads of magic and science: John Dee's Archemastrie
- 2 The occult tradition in the English universities of the Renaissance: a reassessment
- 3 Analogy versus identity: the rejection of occult symbolism, 1580–1680
- 4 Marin Mersenne: Renaissance naturalism and Renaissance magic
- 5 Nature, art, and psyche: Jung, Pauli, and the Kepler–Fludd polemic
- 6 The interpretation of natural signs: Cardano's De subtilitate versus Scaliger's Exercitationes
- 7 Kepler's attitude toward astrology and mysticism
- 8 Kepler's rejection of numerology
- 9 Francis Bacon's biological ideas: a new manuscript source
- 10 Newton and alchemy
- 11 Witchcraft and popular mentality in Lorraine, 1580–1630
- 12 The scientific status of demonology
- 13 “Reason,” “right reason,” and “revelation” in midseventeenth-century England
- Index
Summary
In the Copernican description of the planetary system there are six planets instead of the Ptolemaic seven, the moon having become a subsidiary body of a type new to astronomers – and for which Kepler was to invent the term satellite in 1611. In 1540, Rheticus felt the need to defend this new number of the planets:
Who could have chosen a more suitable and more appropriate number than six? By what number could anyone more easily have persuaded mankind that the whole universe was divided into spheres by God the Author and Creator of the world? For the number six is honoured above all others in the sacred prophecies of God and by the Pythagoreans and the other philosophers. What is more agreeable to God's handiwork than that this first and most perfect work should be summed up in this first and most perfect number?
As Rosen remarks in his note on his translation of this passage, Rheticus's numerological argument finds no parallel in the work of Copernicus himself. It does, however, find an answer in Kepler's defense of Copernicanism in the Mysterium cosmographicum.
Kepler's own explanation of the number of the planets is geometrical: There are exactly six orbs because there are exactly five regular solids to define the spaces between them. As Kepler points out, the fact that there are exactly five such solids is proved in a scholium to the last proposition of Elements, Book XIII. Kepler had, however, considered the possibility of a numerical explanation of the structure of the planetary system, in connection with his earliest attempts to find a pattern in the ratios of the dimensions of the planetary orbs.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Occult Scientific Mentalities , pp. 273 - 296Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1984
- 4
- Cited by