The Role of Biblical Interpretation in the Cosmology of Tycho Brahe

8/12/2019 The Role of Biblical Interpretation in the Cosmology of Tycho Brahe

1/23

Pergamon Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 515537, 1998 1998 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain00393681/98 $19.000.00

The Role of Biblical Interpretation in theCosmology of Tycho Brahe

Kenneth J. Howell*

If standard histories of sixteenth-century science are to be believed, there were two

men who lived the majority of their lives on the island of Hven under the name

Tycho Brahe. One was the great pre-telescopic astronomer, whose premier contri-

bution to science was his comprehensive and meticulous program of observation

that would provide the foundation for Johannes Keplers discovery of the elliptical

orbits of the planets. Unfortunately, because this Tycho held rather traditional views

of physics and scriptural literalism, he was hindered from recognizing the truth of

Copernicus revolutionary cosmology. His world system turned out be a rather

trivial looking inversion of the Copernican system which in the end consigned its

author to the oblivion of pre-modern science.1 The other Tycho was a Paracelsian

hermetic whose chief goal was the union of celestial and terrestial astronomy,which he hoped would ultimately elucidate the structure and meaning of the cos-

mos. He was the maker of elixirs and cures which he offered to his benefactor

Frederick II.2 This latter view supplements the exclusive focus on Tychos astron-

* The Newman Foundation, The University of Illinois, 604 E. Armory Ave., Champaign, IL68120, U.S.A.

Received 10 December 1996; in revised form 2 July 1997.1This traditional picture of Tycho is seen in standard histories of astronomy such as A. Pannekoek,

A History of Astronomy(New York: Dover Publications, 1989, unaltered from the 1961 ed.), or Alexan-

dre Koyre, The Astronomical Revolution(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973); see p. 163. Thisportrayal is developed fully in Christine Jones Schofield, Tychonic and Semi-Tychonic World Systems(New York: Arno Press, 1981), see p. 92. Even Tychos admiring biographers J. I. E. Dreyer, TychoBrahe (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1891), and Victor Thoren, The Lord of Uraniborg: ABiography of Tycho Brahe(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), saw him in this light. Morenuanced portrayals of Tycho, which still treat his cosmology within the context of technical astronomy,can be found in Owen Gingerich and Robert S. Westman, The Wittich Connection: Conflict and Priorityin Late Sixteenth-Century Cosmology (Philadelphia: Transactions of the American PhilosophicalSociety, vol. 78, Part 7, 1988). See also Robert S. Westman, The Astronomers Role in the SixteenthCentury: A Preliminary Study, History of Science 23 (1980), 105147.

2For attempts to place Tychos science in the context of Paracelsianism, see Owen Hannaway, Lab-oratory Design and the Aim of Science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brahe, Isis 77 (1986), 585610, Jole Schakelford, Paracelsianism in Denmark and Norway in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen-

turies (Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. Microfilms International, 1989), idem, Paracelsianism and Patronage inEarly Modern Denmark, in Bruce T. Moran (ed.) Patronage and Institutions: Science, Technology and

PII: S0039-3681(98)00032-6

515


2/23

516 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

omy that characterized earlier studies but still fails to account for the full range of

Tychos cosmological pronouncements. I here argue that an adequate account of

Tychos cosmology must include a third area that Tycho himself addressed, biblical

interpretation. Although Tycho Brahe never wrote a work on biblical interpretation

per se, as Galileo did, he did address such issues in his extensive correspondence.

The Danish nobleman left us in little doubt about the ultimate goal of astronomy

or his chemical researches. While his observational assault on Mars made an indis-

pensable contribution to Keplers elliptical paths and the area law, his goal was

not limited to correction of technical features of observational astronomy, nor even

to formulating the most adequate astronomical system. His correspondence shows

him intensely interested in the total restoration of astronomy and the nature of the

heavens. As we will see, Tychos restoration project made him search far and wide

for astronomical, physical, chemical and theological information that might throw

light on his task of giving the true picture of the heavens, thus restoring to human-

kind a lost but essential knowledge. For him, neither Ptolemy nor Copernicus could

lay claim to such a total restoration, the former because of mathematical absurdities,

and the latter because of physical absurdities. Tychos task encompassed every

available dimension and anticipated Keplers explicit physicalism, without an

endorsement of Copernicus:

I will rather labor to satisfy the heavenly appearances with our other hypotheses

because, if I have the favor of the Author of heaven, I will work expressly for the

restitution of the celestial motions that the truth may be known. This will far exceed

the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems and rather correspond to the truth itself.3

The widely received view that the Tychonic system represented a compromise

between an ancient Ptolemy and a modern Copernicusan inevitable result of

Tychos commitment to a immobile earth does not adequately reflect Tychos

own view of his task.4 Recent studies have suggested that the origin of Tychos

Medicine at the European Court 15001750(Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1991), and idem, Tycho

Brahe, Laboratory Design and the Aim of Science, Isis84 (1993), 211230, and Alain Segonds, TychoBrahe et lalchimie, in Jean-Claude Margolin and Sylvain Matton (eds), Alchimie et philosophie a larenaissance(Paris: Libraire philosophique J. Vrin, 1993). The German text of Tychos Prefaceto PederJacobsen Flemloses Astrologia can be found in John Christianson, Tycho Brahes Cosmology fromthe Astrologia of 1591, Isis 59 (1968), 312318.

3Brahe to Rothmann, 21 February 1589, Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera Omnia, 15 vols, ed. J. L. E.Dreyer (Copenhagen: Nielsen and Lydiche 1913), VI, p. 176, hereafter cited as TBOO. All translationsin the text and notes are my own unless otherwise noted. On Tychos restoration project, see also AnnBlair, Tycho Brahes Critique of Copernicus and the Copernican System, Journal of the History ofIdeas51 (1990), 355377, esp. p. 357. William Donahues 1972 dissertation recognized Tychos pursuitof a physically true system of the universe; reprinted as Donahue, The Dissolution of the CelestialSpheres 15951650 (New York: Arno Press, 1981); see pp. 6264.

4On the Tychonic Compromise, see J. L. Dreyer Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and

Work in the Sixteenth Century (1890; reprint, Dover, 1963), idem, A History of Astronomy from Thalesto Kepler(2nd ed. Dover, 1953), Dorothy Stimson, The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theoryof the Universe(New York: Baker and Taylor, 1917), p. 34, and Victor E. Thoren, The Lord of Urani-borg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).


3/23

517The Role of Biblical Interpretation in the Cosmology of Tycho Brahe

geoheliocentric system may not be as inevitable as implied in the standard view. 5

Tycho repeatedly gave expression to an increasingly common goal among late

sixteenth-century astronomers, that of searching, not for adequate models of

description that could save the phenomena, but for the real system of the universe.6

How did Tycho proceed with his restoration project and what role did the Bible

play in this project?

Tychos project was founded on what he considered indisputable observations,

because in his view all theoretical and cosmological consequences had to be con-

sistent with more accurate data than were available in either Ptolemy or Copernicus.

No doubt Reinholds corrections to Copernicus had a decisive influence and sug-

gested to him that even more accurate ephemerides were still to be produced.7 The

conclusions he drew from the new star of 1572, especially that it could be neither

planet nor comet, also made him doubt that any system, ancient or modern, accu-

rately enough captured planetary motions. But observations were only the begin-

ning for Tycho. Observations could prove hypotheses in physics wrong but could

not establish them. For example, celestial matter was a physical question, not an

astronomical hypothesis, and no amount of accurate observations or mathematical

elegance could affirmatively settle a physical question. The result of the cometary

observations of 1577 and 1585 were for him purely negative, that the heavens

could not have solid spheres, but they did not offer any positive information about

the material of which the heavens were made. For a total cosmology one must also

include physical arguments, chemical correspondences and theological consider-

ations as well. Tycho summarized his global goal in a letter to Christoph Rothmann

in 1588 with a famous epigram:

You anxiously demanded to know what the depicted philosophical saying means:

the inscription SUSPICIENDO DESPICIO [treating heavenly things] and the other

DESPICIENDO SUSPICIO [treating earthly things]. To accede to your wish, here

you have it. You have rightly conjectured that this is a hieroglyphic: for they have

in view not only that superior celestial and that inferior terrestrial astronomy but also

theology that is more divine but less commonly used. This is indeed a knowledge of

all ethics i.e. the discernment of virtues and vices. It presents a physical consideration

of created things.8

Tychos words reflect Philip Melanchthons vision of the interpenetrating concernsof physical inquiry and human morality, but it also adds a component with which

Melanchthon was not familiar, a kind of Paracelsian unification of the celestial and

the terrestrial realms by a series of correspondences, each of which revealed some-

5Owen Gingerich and Robert S. Westman, The Wittich Connection: Conflict and Priority in LateSixteenth-Century Cosmology (Philadelphia: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol.78, Part 7, 1988), p. 2.

6

Tychos realism is also argued in Nicholas Jardine, The Scenes of Inquiry (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1991), p. 132.

7See Tychos comments on Reinhold in Brahe to Peucer, TBOO, VII, p. 137.8Brahe to Rothmann, 17 August 1588, TBOO, VI, p. 144.


4/23


thing distinctive of the whole.9 Since Tycho explicitly emphasized theology as a

category to be included in his program, it is reasonable to ask what role the

interpretation of the Bible played.

Drawing mainly on Tychos correspondence, I explore his interpretation of the

Bible and what role his hermeneutics played in his emerging cosmology. I argue

that his hermeneutics was far more subtle than a simple literalism typically ascribed

to him and that it depended on his view of the relation of hermeneutics to disci-

plines such as astronomy and physics. One of his main correspondents, Christoph

Rothmann, insisted that astronomers alone could rightly give the true system of

the universe because astronomy alone offered demonstrative and relevantknowl-

edge. Tycho insisted on an observational difference between the Ptolemaic and

Copernican systems, but he also argued that astronomy was limited to observational

and mathematical prediction.10 It alone could not give the complete path to truth.

His castle on Hven was for contemplation of philosophy, especially the stars and

provided what he hoped would be a strong empirical basis for his restored astron-

omy, but it also housed a chemical laboratory in the cellar, designed to study

those correspondences between the terrestrial and the celestial realms. The physical

structures around him reflected the inner structure of the great problem he posed

for himself, revealing the true system of the universe. In Tychos mind, this project

had to include any and all methods of inquiry into nature that were available and

relevant, including biblical interpretation.11

The relevancy of biblical data is evident from Tychos early mathematical

oration, in which he attempted to ground astrological inferences in a biblical man-

date (Section 1). Biblical texts were also relevant to Tychos progress toward hissystem, but that system resulted from following a circuitous path that has been a

nemesis for historians (Section 2). Section 3 offers an explanation for why Tycho

never engaged in hermeneutical detail regarding the incompatibility of terrestrial

motion and biblical texts, suggesting an interactive and hierarchical view of disci-

plines. This contrasts sharply with Tychos treatment of biblical texts with regard

to celestial matter, where he engaged his correspondents in careful interpretation

and attempted to walk a thin line between literalism and irrelevance (Section 4).

1. The Young Tycho on Biblical Interpretation

An important window on Tychos approach to the Bible is offered by his inaug-

ural address on the mathematical disciplines (De disciplinis mathematicis oratio),

which he delivered in 1574 at the request of the Chancellor of the University of

9In the same letter, Tycho explains that a physical examination of all nature connects the superiorrealm with the inferior by an astonishing analogy (per admirandam analogiam). The knowledge of theseconnections Tycho called Spagyrica (Brahe to Rothmann, 17 August 1588, TBOO, VI, pp. 144, 145).

10As Gingerich and Westman point out, Tycho redefined the problem within the sphere of his com-

petence as an observational astronomer; see Owen Gingerich and Robert S. Westman, The WittichConnection: Conflict and Priority in Late Sixteenth-Century Cosmology (Philadelphia: Transactions ofthe American Philosophical Society, vol. 78, Part 7, 1988).

11Brahe to Rothmann, 17 August 1588, TBOO, VI, pp. 139140.


5/23


Copenhagen and the King of Denmark. This lecture, the commencement of a series

on the fundamentals of astronomy, was given in response to an invitation due to

his fame for observing the new star of 1572, and the circulation of his De nova

stella. While touching on a wide variety of subjects under the rubric of mathemat-

ical disciplines, Tycho focused on predictive astronomy and astrology, perhaps

because he hoped to persuade the Danish king to support astronomical research

since it would yield practical results in the political sphere.12

Tycho referred to the Bible throughout the lecture in connection with two major

subjects: the history of astronomy, and theological objections to astrology. In an

overlooked portion of the Oratio, Tycho presented an involved argument for the

antiquity of astronomical inquiry, based on biblical and Jewish sources. Tychos

audience knew that the ancient Pythagoreans were advocates of and learned in

mathematics, but his story traced the discipline further back, through the Egyptians

and Abraham to the third son of Adam and Eve, Seth.13 Nothing, of course, in the

biblical narrative suggests that Seth was an astronomer; Tycho took his information

from Josephus, the chronicler of Jewish antiquities. Relying uncritically on Jose-

phuss history, Tycho argued that Seths repository of astronomical knowledge

passed to Abraham, who in turn transported it to Egypt during his sojourn there.14

Like Seth, Abraham learned something of the Creator by observing the stars

directly. Josephus and his co-religionist Philo were anxious to demonstrate that the

admirable knowledge of the heavens, so praised by the Greeks, had its origins in

fact in patriarchal sources, not hellenic ones. And by the late sixteenth century,

this type of argument had been adopted by many who wrote histories of ancient

philosophy.15 Why Tycho should have been so anxious to treat the patriarchs as

12See TBOO, I, pp. 148, 149, 152, and V, p. 5. The Oratio has been variously evaluated by the fewhistorians of science who have paid any attention to it. Dreyers straightforward description of itscontents failed to offer any explanation other than Tychos imitation of other astrological writers: J.I. E. Dreyer, Tycho Brahe (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1891), pp. 74ff. Jardine regarded itas wholly unoriginal with respect to its historical themes, and thus similar to many other such addressesin the sixteenth century: Nicholas Jardine, The Birth of the History and Philosophy of Science(Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 127. This view is modified in Jardine,Scenes of Inquiry (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 132. Since three fourths of the document is

concerned with astrology, Thoren saw its most prominent and controversial aspect as Tychos defenseof horoscope astrology: Victor E. Thoren, The Lord of Uraniborg: A Biography of Tycho Brahe(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 8082.

13The narrative concerning Seth is found in Genesis 4: 255: 7.14Abrahams sojourn in Egypt is narrated in Genesis 12: 1020. In his Jewish Antiquities Josephus

argued that Abraham brought the knowledge of arithmetic and the laws of astronomy to Egypt. SeeFlavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Book 1, p. 167. For a modern edition consult Flavius Jose phe,Les Antiquites Juives, ed. and trans. Etienne Nodet, 2nd ed. (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1994), vol. I, p. 48.

15There were several broad outlines for the history of philosophy by Tychos time. One sought theorigins of wisdom in the Greeks rather than in the barbarians, and is illustrated in David ChytreesTabula philosophica(Basel, 1580). The other derived Greek wisdom from Eastern and Egyptian sourcesand is illustrated in Guillaume Morels Tabula compendiosa (Basel, 1580). Tychos attempt to locateancient astronomy in the patriarchs was shared by both Protestants and Catholics and was expounded

at length by the Pisan philosopher Paganino Gaudenzio in hisDe veterum ecclesiae patrum philosophicispronuntiatis liber(1644). For discussion of these historical models see Giovanni Santinello (ed.),Modelsof the History of Philosophy: From its Origins in the Renaissance to the Historia Philosophica

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993) pp. 8689, 120124.


6/23


astronomers is less clear but the answer may lie partly in Tychos hermetic tend-

encies, and partly in his argument for the theological acceptability of astrology.

Tychos hermetic tendencies are reflected in his reference to Egyptian knowledge

as well as in his claim that astronomy has Adamic origins. The hermetic tradition,

revived and developed through the translation of the Corpus hermeticumby Marsi-

lio Ficino in 1460, had sought to legitimate its claims by appeal to an antiquity

which antedated the Greek golden age. Many hermetic thinkers believed that the

Egyptian Hermes Trismegistus had been a contemporary of Moses and was ulti-

mately the source of Platos thinking. Tycho put a spin on this claim by his argu-

ment that the Egyptians had learned astronomy prior to Moses from Abraham, who

was also in fact a recipient and conduit of secret knowledge having Adamic roots.

To root astronomy in the original creationin a pre-lapsarian human statewould

not have been unusual for hermetic or Paracelsian thinkers. Most likely, Tycho

drew this argument from his friend Petrus Severinus whose Idea medicinae philo-

sophicae had been published three years earlier and who offered one of the earliest

systematizations of Paracelsian theory.16

As to theology, if Tycho could show that the contemplation of the heavens had

its ultimate roots in the biblical patriarchs, this would certainly lessen any oppo-

sition that might be launched from a supposed biblical prohibition against astrology.

Later in his lecture, Tycho took up the challenge of biblical prohibitions against

secretive knowledge and practices.17 He denounced false astrologers who engaged

in mere fortune-telling and other more serious violations of biblical and astro-

nomical knowledge. Yet he argued just as vigorously that the abuse of a science

does not invalidate its legitimate use.18 The ultimate basis of Tychos argumentcame from Genesis 1: 1418 which taught that God placed the sun, the moon and

other celestial bodies in the firmament as signs for times and seasons. The celestial

bodies are Gods servants, not only to show the harmony and beauty of Gods

works, but to indicate the hidden counsel of God to humans who read the heavens.

Yet not all Lutheran thinkers agreed with the validity of astrological inferences,

and Tychos handling of the subject reveals some deep-seated tensions within

Lutheranism. During the 1570s, Lutheranism was embroiled in controversies stem-

ming from the differences between Philip Melanchthon and Luther himself. Those

who followed Melanchthon, commonly called Philippists, gave greater weight toCalvins theology and were judged by Lutheran purists to be heretical. Denmark

had come under the influence of the Philippists led by the leading theologian of

Copenhagen, Niels Hemmingsen. Melanchthon himself had argued for the limited

validity of astrology, but always stressed the freedom of God to perform his will

16On Tychos use of Severinus, see especiallyTBOO, I, pp. 130ff. Later in his lecture, Tycho specifi-cally attacked Thomas Erastus, who denied any connection between celestial bodies and medicine.Tychos linkage of the seven planets to seven principal organs of human anatomy was no doubt inspiredby Severinus Paracelsian treatise. See TBOO, I, pp. 166, 167.

17

Examples of biblical prohibitions can be found in Deuteronomy 13: 1ff and 18: 14.18The true uses of astrology are never censured in that [Mosaic] law but only its abuses and But

one cannot infer from this that there is no astral influence or that it should not be done by humans.(TBOO, I, p. 162).


7/23


against any limitation of divine freedom implied in an astrological connection.

Hemmingsen expressed reservations about Tychos ideas based on the same objec-

tion as Melanchthon.19 Tycho agreed that God is a perfectly free agent but he

was just as certain that God had chosen to employ secondary means to accomplish

his will. The incarnation of the Son of God made it clear that God works through

human instruments. Why then is it so strange that God would use the stars, as

Genesis 1: 16 asserts, to guide the crown of his creation, humans?20

In addition to the Mosaic legislation, specific texts cited against astrology

included Jeremiah 27: 9, But as for you, do not listen to your prophets, your

diviners, your dreamers, your soothsayers or your sorcerers who speak to you say-

ing, You will not serve the king of Babylon, and Isaiah 47: 13, Let now the

astrologers, those who prophesy by the stars, those who predict by the new moon,

stand up and save you from what will come upon you.21 Whether by prohibition

(Jeremiah) or taunt (Isaiah), these texts seem to condemn any involvement with

secretive or occult practices that could predict the future. How could Tycho defend

astrology against this prohibition? Jeremiahs prohibition, argued Tycho, does not

deny the signifying function of the stars, but only exhorts the people of Israel not

to fear the Babylonians, whose superstition and abuse of astrology are censured.

Isaiahs taunt condemns the Babylonians vain confidence in their predictions

not a proper use of astral influence for human benefit. Tycho appealed implicitly

to the notion of the congruence of scriptural texts as well as to a reductio ad

absurdum to argue his point. Since there can be no contradiction within the Scrip-

tures, and Genesis 1: 14 explicitly stated the celestial bodies to be signs, these

texts could not be denying celestial signification. To be consistent, Tychosopponents would also have to interpret King Asas being rebuked for trusting in

physicians as a condemnation of medicine.22 No one denied that medicine was a

gift of God; no one believed the Scriptures condemned its use. Why not read this

text as a condemnation of medicine if the texts cited above are interpreted as

prohibitions of astrology? Tycho himself explained that King Asa was condemned

for an excessive confidence in created things if the Creator is also neglected

not a wholesale condemnation of medicine. Tycho simply asked his audience to

make a similar distinction with regard to prophetic texts touching on astrology.

Celestial influence is not denied nor astrological practice prohibited, only abusethat excludes the power of God.23

Tycho had not only to deal with exegetical questions, but to correct apparent

empirical problems with astrology since he claimed that astrology enjoyed the same

19Tycho recorded conversations after the lecture; see TBOO, I, pp. 170173.20So Moses discussing Gods reason for making the heavens, the luminaries and the stars, says not

only that they are for times, days and years but also for signs and they necessarily signify something

to men for whose sake the greater part of this creation was made. (TBOO, I, p. 154)21These quotations come from the New American Standard Version.222 Chronicles 16: 12.23TBOO, I, pp. 162163.


8/23


status of certitude as other mathematical disciplines.24 No doubt twins were born

under the same celestial influence but they often experienced very different fates

in life and revealed quite different personality traits. How could astrology face

these obvious contradictions of its claim that the stars determined such features of

a persons life? A prime counterexample could be found in the Bible itself in the

lives of Jacob and Esau. The original narrative in Genesis, and later biblical com-

mentary on it, all stress the opposite traits and fates of these two figures.25 Tychos

answer invoked a distinction between astral influence and a determinism attributed

to astrology by its opponents. While Tycho maintained that the whole heavenly

constitution is in both [twins], he also insisted that it varies in diverse ways.26

Diversity of personality or circumstances of life, therefore, do not suggest a lack

of astral influence, but that this influence is worked out in conjunction with the

free choices and dispositions of individuals. As for Jacob and Esau, there is more

than meets the eye. Tycho quoted the prophet Malachis statement, Jacob I loved,

Esau I hated.27 No astrologer would ever claim that the stars bound God in whom

he could love or not love. The secret counsel of God is at work here so that the

fates of the patriarchal twins result from the special will of God alone.28

According to Tycho, astrology was sorely maligned because it was so misunder-

stood. It did not imply a fatalistic determinism as its opponents thought, nor was

the true practice of the art to be confused with the common fortune-telling riffraff.

True astrology assumed Gods intention to employ secondary means to influence

and shape the lives of his highest creation, man.29 If, as all Lutherans believed,

God was the providential ruler of the heavens, he surely could have used those

heavens for ultimate humanitarian purposes. Further, Scripture confirmed this viewwhen Moses taught that the heavenly bodies were made as signs for human beings.

Everyone acknowledged that celestial bodies were essential for keeping track of

the times and seasons as Genesis 1: 14 asserted. It was precisely that text, Tycho

argued, which also justifies astral influence.

Why did Tycho take the Genesis reference to luminaries as signs to legitimate

astrological inferences and attempt to explain the prophetic prohibitions as misun-

derstood? Opponents of astrology took the prophetic passages as primary, and no

doubt would have explained Genesis 1: 1418 as teaching only that celestial bodies

mark time for us. Here a classic problem in biblical interpretation shows itself

24So I will take it upon myself especially for those who take delight in these matters to adduce heresome reasons that confirm the certitude of astrology. (TBOO, I, p. 153)

25See Genesis 29: 3133: 20; Malachi 1: 6; Romans 9: 1013.26TBOO, I, p. 162.27Malachi 1: 6.28TBOO, I, p. 162.29So the heavenly bodies necessarily teach their meaning [significatio] by the power placed in them

by God and so one can infer that there are causes which signify. Nor does this in any way detract fromdivine omnipotence or liberty which are tied to secondary causes. Although God is a perfect and free

agent, unrestricted by any natural law, yet he did not want to pervert the order of nature that he setup. And although God could have done everything without intermediaries yet he was pleased by hisinscrutable wisdom that all these things that normally happen in the world come from Him throughmeans. (TBOO, I, p. 154)


9/23


again. Hermeneutical disputants take different passages in the Bible as controlling

the interpretation of the issue at hand. No one admits that the passages are contra-

dictory. Each text must be fit with the others but the question of which text to

take as foundational is not easily answered, nor even how to determine the proper

interpretation of the foundational passage. Tycho interpreted Genesis 1: 1418 in

its fullest possible sense with its language of signs being a justification for a doc-

trine of celestial influence; he interpreted the prophetic texts with their condem-

nations as not applying to the same doctrine but only as condemnations of its

abuse. However, his opponents took the Genesis text as implying only temporal

inferences as legitimate while they interpreted the prophetic texts as the widest

possible condemnations of any celestial influence.

Which method of interpretation was correct? Tychos lecture certainly did not

answer that question, nor does it even seem possible that he could have given an

answer at all. These differences were repeated over and over again in the interpret-

ative disputes of the Reformation era without resolution. Niels Hemmingsen appar-

ently did not press the issue, because Tycho recorded only that his primary concern

centered on the general issue of Gods freedom, not the specific interpretation of

texts. Tychos answer to the theodicy problem seemingly reassured Hemmingsen.

Tychos rehearsal of ancient astronomy among the patriarchs reveals much about

his conception of whether the Scriptures contain information to be taken into

account by the astronomer. In his later correspondence with Christoph Rothmann

(c. 1589), he reasserted that the knowledge of astronomy was (probably) passed

on to the writing prophets from the first patriarchs.30 This allowed him to claim

that accurate information about the heavens can be found in the Bible, althoughthe writers were concerned about more important mysteries than astronomy or

physics per se. A pattern emerges in Tychos early biblical interpretation that will

characterize his later hermeneutics as well. Tycho thought the Bible relevant to

any subject, but he also eagerly argued that proper interpretation would not imply

censure of any science. The beautiful harmony of the heavens and its motions

sufficed to declare the glory of God, but it was celestial influences that particularly

showed divine care for humans living here in this inferior part of the universe. As

Tycho moved toward his geoheliocentric system, he did so with the Bible in the

back of his mind, ready to probe its meaning for the sake of science.Already in 1574, well before his observational program began in earnest,

Tychos interpretation reflected a multi-faceted and nuanced approach to the prob-

lem of reading the heavens and the Bible. He clearly saw the Bible as a source of

history about ancient astronomya view not unlike that of many of his contempor-

aries, who viewed the Bible as a source for virtually every discipline. While never

viewing the Bible as an astronomical text, Tycho wanted to ground astrological

inferences in the authority of the sacred text. His method for accomplishing this

goal invoked the notion that the Bible itself was a source for astronomical infor-

mation and, by implication, for astrology as well. Since he believed that astronomy

30Brahe to Rothmann, 21 February 1589, TBOO, VI, p. 178.


10/23


was essential to and found its fulfillment in astrology, he had to overcome theologi-

cal objections to the latter by showing the Bible relevant to the former. Was this

view of the Bible important for Tychos total restoration project? To answer this,

it is important to understand how Brahe treated the problem of biblical exegesis

and terrestrial immobility.

2. Tycho on the Bible and the Motion of the Earth

Why did Tycho believe that Scripture taught an immobile earth? Explaining his

belief proves somewhat difficult because his citation of scriptural opposition to the

earths motion is never accompanied by specific texts. Tycho often spoke of the

earth as a sluggish and ignoble body that was unfit for the velocity needed to

account for diurnal motion. Whenever Tycho gave reasons against the motion of

the earth, he always claimed that it was against physics and Sacred Scripture:

For although it [Copernican theory] conveniently remedies those other things which

in the Ptolemaic system are incoherent and superfluous and it lacks nothing that is

mathematically good, nevertheless, when it attributes a regular, perfect and by no

means intricate motion to the earth (that sluggish and ignoble body), this assumption

is rendered no less suspect, especially because it openly contradicts Sacred Scripture

in not a few places.31

The tone of Tychos objections to Copernicus makes clear his certainty about what

can be known from physical considerations and from biblical teaching. With such

a strong conviction, we might think that Tycho would debate the meaning of texts

which were subject to alternative interpretations. But this Tycho does not do. Why

did Tycho accept the biblical statements about a motionless earth without deliber-

ation or dispute? Did he not realize that the texts dealing with terrestrial motion

were open to alternative interpretations? Tychos belief in biblical grounds for

terrestrial immobility is all the more puzzling when we consider that he was ready

in other instances to dispute interpretations of Scripture he thought wrong. We

observed above how Tycho departed from interpretations of the prophetic texts

that were viewed as condemning astrology; we will later see how he entered into

extensive discussion of texts that were taken as proofs of solid spheres being taught

in the Bible. Why then did he not consider alternative interpretations of texts touch-ing on the motion of the earth? In fact, he never quoted or even cited any standard

texts (Psalm 93; Eccl. chap. 1; Joshua chap. 10)a lack of comment even more

puzzling because some of his correspondents (e.g. Rothmann) had raised the very

issues that demanded such discussion.

Tychos lack of hermeneutical discussion can be explained by two factors: his

view of disciplinary boundaries, and the structure of his cosmology. Tychos differ-

31

Brahe to Peucer, 13 September 1588, TBOO, VII, p. 128. See also Nevertheless, the substantialabsurdity of the earths ordinary and continual revolution presented quite an obstacle to me, to saynothing of its being contrary to the unquestionable authority of the Sacred Scriptures. (TBOO, VII,p. 129)


11/23


ences with Christoph Rothmann over the proper relations between astronomy, phys-

ics and theology were both profound and highly consequential. Rothmann argued

that physics or theology could not answer the question of celestial matter, but the

form of his argument suggests that he would certainly have said the same with

regard to the Bibles relevance to the earths motion:

Unless this question [celestial matter] is decided by us, it will not be decided by

anyone, whether theologian or physicist. For God has not revealed anything whatever

about this in his Word because it has nothing to do with our salvation. The Scriptures,

which are written for the unlearned and learned alike, the common and ingenious, do

not contain such disputations, which are not even understood by very many learned

people, as Christ testifies in John chapter three to Nicodemus.32

For Rothmann, the Bible is a book of redemption, not natural philosophy, and he

appealed to a notion already invoked in Lutheran circles by Rheticus, and widely

known among scriptural interpreters, that of accommodation.33 Yet Rothmanns

categorical exclusion of biblical relevance to natural philosophy appears more thor-

ough-going than with some earlier interpreters. His reference to the story of Jesus

and Nicodemus might imply that, for Rothmann, the Bible is not a book of dispu-

tations at all, not even theological disputations. Rothmann may have viewed Nicod-

emus as wanting to engage Jesus in rabbinic-style disputation, while viewing Jesus

as rejecting this style in favor of deeper spiritual truths. From this, he inferred

Jesus intention to be edificatory, not theological. Generalizing this intention to the

entire Biblean obvious non-sequiturwould have only had persuasive force

against the background of a common belief in accommodated scriptural language,

a belief Tycho shared. Rothmann probably reasoned that, if the Bible was written

for spiritual edification and not for theological disputation, then certainly it was

not written for natural philosophy. That the Bible was written for everyone in

everyday language precluded its being interpreted as a textbook of arcane philo-

sophy.

If theology had no relevance to the question of the earths motion, surely physics

did, since kinematics constituted a well recognized part of this science. However,

physics cannot yield an answer for quite different reasons:

Also, how can the physicists know anything with certainty? For we know and under-

stand about the heights and the matters discussed by us only as much as we discover

mathematical demonstrations through trigonometry. Without these [demonstrations],

those who discuss such matters are completely worthless and raving mad.34

Rothmann analyzed Aristotelian physical claims into one of two categorieseither

they constituted metaphysical claims that could be as easily denied as affirmed

32Rothmann to Brahe, 13 October 1588, TBOO, VI, p. 149.33On Rheticuss attempt to reconcile Copernicanism with scriptural exegesis, see Kenneth J. Howell,

Copernicanism and the Bible in Early Modern Science, in Jitse van der Meer (ed.), Facets of Faith

and Science (Lanham, MD: University of America Press, 1996), p. 264. Rheticus lost treatise wasdiscovered and translated by Reijer Hooykaas, G. J. Rheticus Treatise on Holy Scripture and theMotion of the Earth (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1984).

34Rothmann to Brahe, 13 October 1588, TBOO, VI, p. 149.


12/23


or they should be construed as empirical claims requiring verification.35 The former

category had no capacity for proof and the latter lacked sufficient demonstrations.

The only possible answer for Rothmann lay with astronomy because it provided

answers that were both relevant and demonstrative. The priority of astronomy in

establishing knowledge of the heavens may ultimately be behind Rothmanns sud-

den adoption of Copernicanism.36

Tychos view of the relevance of physics and theology was quite different. His

underlying assumption was that discovering the true system of the world required

the agreement of all three disciplines in their respective conclusions, but this did

not imply that all disciplines were relevant to the same degree:

Therefore the question of celestial matter is not properly a decision of astronomers.

The astronomer labors to investigate from accurate observations, not what heaven is

and from what cause its splendid bodies exist, but rather especially how all these

bodies move. The question of celestial matter is left to the theologians and physicists

among whom now there is still not a satisfactory explanation.37

What Tycho said about celestial matter also applies to terrestrial motion. In the

hierarchy of the sciences, the question of motion was a physical question, although

astronomy still had a limited role to play. Astronomy could construct tests to refute

the motion of the earth, but no amount of observation or theoretical construction

could positively establish the earths motion, because motion could only be attri-

buted to bodies whose nature we know, and astronomy did not deal with the natures

of bodies, celestial or elementary; it only observed and hypothesized about celestial

motions. Physics, on the other hand, could provide a positive answer, and in

Tychos view no physical reason for departing from the standard view of terrestrial

immobility existed. His references to the earths immobility always retain the order

of being contrary to physics and Sacred Scripturehe never reverses this order.

This seemingly insignificant detail becomes important and explicable when his

views on the relations of the relevant disciplines are taken into account.

I suggest that Tychos operating in accordance with an implicit hierarchy

explains his lack of comment on biblical passages dealing with the motion of the

earth. If terrestrial motion could not be settled by physical arguments, then Tycho

would have had to consider theological arguments, and handle alternative interpret-

ations of texts. If, on the other hand, the proposition of terrestrial motion was

denied by physics, then the question was settled, and there was no need to resort

to an analysis of biblical data.

That Tycho believed the issue was settled within the realm of physics finds

support in a letter to Kepler toward the end of his life (1598). This missive offered

a critique of Keplers Copernicanism while praising the ingenuity of the Mysterium

cosmographicum. As he had from the beginning of his investigations, Tycho reiter-

35Rothmann to Brahe, 13 October 1588, TBOO, VI, p. 149.36

For a discussion of Rothmanns sudden change of opinion see Bruce T. Moran, ChristopherRothmann, the Copernican Theory, and Institutional and Technical Influences on the Criticism of Aristo-telian Cosmology, Sixteenth Century Journal XIII (3) (1982), 85109.

37Brahe to Rothmann, 17 August 1588, TBOO, VI, p. 139.


13/23


ated his standard objections to the Copernican system including yet another denial

of the triple motion of the earth:

Nor could the earth have an annual motion, so I can completely ignore superfluous

librations (nor is there any such thing as a precession of the equinoxes as Copernicus

thought). However, a diurnal motion can be plausibly attributed to it because of a

smaller rotation [gyrum], but while this would fit so a heavy and dense body [earth],

I adjust [this body] to rest rather than to motion.38

Missing from Tychos armamentarium is his usual biblical addendum on terrestrial

immobility. Was this an oversight or was it no longer relevant? In their earlier

forms, Tychos denials rarely mentioned the three kinds of Copernican motions

specifically; they simply denied any and all movement. To Kepler, Tycho com-

pletely denied annual motion and libration while showing some allowance for daily

motion. Ten years earlier, in making his system public, Tycho strongly denied any

motions to the earth, although some other geoheliocentric systems had incorporateddiurnal motion. At that time, he needed to argue against any terrestrial motion

because his own system was not yet widely accepted. Perhaps, by 1598, Tycho

perceived that his system (or some geoheliocentric variant) was gaining acceptance

and since some other semi-tychonic systems had allowed for diurnal motion, he

might have left the question open.39 He would then have had to reconsider his

biblical opposition and that would explain his lack of reference to a biblical denial

of terrestrial motion to Kepler. On the other hand, it is also clear that Tycho still

thought of the earth as immobile, and he may not have cited biblical reasons any

longer because his confidence in the reality of his own system had now convinced

him of the physical impossibility of earths motion. Now that he possessed his

own alternative to Ptolemy and Copernicus, confirmatory evidence from the Bible

was no longer as necessary to emphasize. How ironic that Tychos confidence

would later be undermined by the recipient of his letter, the very one to offer

physical reasons for earths movement.

The structure of Tychos cosmology also affords insight into his view that the

earth cannot be moving. In general, Tycho assumed that the elementary world

consisted of the four elements (air, earth, fire, water) and believed that nothing in

the elementary, sublunar world could be ascribed to the celestial realm.40 Rothmann

38Brahe to Kepler, 1 April 1598, TBOO, VIII, p. 45.39Other geoheliocentric models differed from Tychos system by having the orbit of Mars enclosing

the solar orbit completely and by allowing diurnal motion of the earth. Such a model was presentedby Nicholaus Ursus in hisFundamentum astronomicum(1588). The differences between Ursus systemand Tychos led to one of the most bitter priority disputes of sixteenth-century astronomy. For arecounting of this dispute see Christine Jones Schofield, Tychonic and Semi-Tychonic World Systems(New York: Arno Press, 1981), pp. 108136, and Edward Rosen Three Imperial Mathematicians(NewYork: Abaris, 1986).

40May we never admit something of an elementary nature (something that is corruptible, variableand conformed to this transitory region) to that pure, perfect and changeless celestial region, since

everyone has rightly and unanimously established that heaven is of a certain nature that is exempt fromthe number and nature of the four elements and far more excellent than them. They maintain that ithas a certain kind of fifth essence far different from the four elements and far more excellent. (Braheto Rothmann, 17 August 1588, TBOO, VI, p. 135)


14/23


argued that air permeated both the sublunar realm and the heavens all the way up

to the eighth sphere (of fixed stars).41 The reasons for Tychos disagreement were

already evident in his Oratio of 1574. His argument for celestial influences noted

in Section 1 depended on a rigid separation of the celestial and elementary worlds.

The sublunar realm consisting of air received the influences of the heavens and

transmitted these influences to human beings.42 Tycho drew upon the Paracelsian

correspondence between planets and human organs to argue that human beings

consisted of the four elements and also participated in the forms of the superior

world.43 Such notions of the universe and humans assumed and sometimes asserted

a distinction between the two realms that demanded an argument for a connection

between thema rigid distinction common both to Aristotelian and Paracelsian

cosmologies.

Consequently, there was no need in Tychos mind to argue between variant

interpretations of biblical texts on terrestrial motion because there were no compel-

ling physical reasons to believe that anything of an elementary nature participated

in the celestial region. To reverse the positions of the sun and earth, as the Coper-

nican system did, would violate this cosmic structure that God had placed in the

world. The earth could not participate in celestial motion because of its nature.

Knowledge from physics and the evident meaning of the Bible agreedthe earth

could not be moving. But Tychos discussions of the Bible on other matters sug-

gests that he would have seriously reconsidered those biblical texts on terrestrial

motion which seemed so clear, if he had physical reasons to do so. His willingness

to depart from literal physical interpretations of biblical texts becomes evident in

his discussions of celestial matter.

3. The Bible and the Material of the Heavens

The greater part of Tychos biblical exegesis concerned the problem of the nature

of the celestial realm in general. Once the doctrine of the solid spheres had been

41But we disagree with you when you say that because of refraction there is a difference betweenthe transparency [diaphana] of ether and air i.e. that there is no elementary air in the heavenly spheresbut rather that ether is a liquid substance very different from elementary air. Rothmann to Brahe (11

October 1587, TBOO, VI, p. 111), and Nor would I ever have introduced the matter of air [into thecelestial region] except that the failure of refraction and optical demonstrations compelled me.(Rothmann to Brahe, 13 October 1588, TBOO, VI, p. 149)

42Oratio de disciplinis mathematicis, TBOO, I, p. 156. Also in his Preface to Flemloses Astrologia,Tycho speaks of the air in the sublunar realm as the agent of celestial influences: The latter [sublunarrealm] comprises the earth, sea and air and stands over against the aetherial which is unintelligble(unbegreiflich). Nevertheless, these two are so bound together that the lower (i.e. earth) is under theinfluence of the upper world Air is a means and an instrument through which natural operations andinfluences can be joined and extended (John Christianson, Tycho Brahes Cosmology from the Astrolo-gia of 1591, Isis 59 (1968), 312318).

43All structures of the human body are from heaven, analogous to the properties of the seven wander-ing stars so that these almost similar operations share in our body with the nature of the planets in theheavens So because there is so great an analogy between the seven planets and the seven principal

members of the human body, and all things fit with one another, so that man seems to be formed forthe idea of a superior world, therefore he is rightly called a Microcosm by the philosophers. Who ofsound mind could ever deny that the celestial bodies influence the human body to which they are boundby such a great similitude of functions? (Oratio de disciplinis mathematicis, TBOO, I, p. 157).


15/23


abandoned by many astronomers (c. 1580s), they found themselves obliged to

address the question of what the heavens were made. The wide range of answers

posed even deeper problems of how to adjudicate among these solutions, and it is

here that the interrelations among disciplines had a direct effect on the theories

proffered. Among the variety of proposals for celestial matter, many had roots in

ancient philosophy.44 Naturally enough, one could find traditional Aristotelians who

maintained a doctrine of the inalterability of the heavens by explaining the comets

as meteorological or visual phenomena, although even the most devoted disciples

of the Stagirite displayed a greater flexibility than is generally acknowledged.45

One prominent trend was the Stoic revival of a continuous view of matter

encompassing both the celestial and terrestrial worlds. Under the influence of Jean

Pena, the mathematician of Paris, this took the form of the heavens consisting of

air.46 Nor were the chemical philosophers silent on the matter. Paracelsus had

spoken of the heavens as having an igneous substance.

Of these various developments Tycho was well aware. As noted above, he felt

that he could not turn to the physicists or theologians for a satisfactory answer to

this question, so he was compelled to enter into each arena to determine as best

he could the proper answer. In this process, he contemplated various theories: some

ancient, some modern. Because he lacked a definitive answer from natural philo-

sophy, scriptural declarations on the heavens became relevant; he had to not only

evaluate natural-philosophical positions, but weigh various interpretations of texts.

What was his methodology in this process? How did this affect his interpretation

of texts which seem to teach the solidity of the celestial spheres? How did he

interpret texts implying a doctrine of celestial matter? I shall take up each of thesequestions in order.

I suggested earlier that Tychos literalism was only apparent and that his her-

meneutical complacency with regard to terrestrial motion grew out of his prior

belief in its physical impossibility, not from a naive biblicism. The implications

for Tychos cosmology surfaced when he interacted with other cosmological alter-

natives of his day, one of which was suggested by the Spanish physician Francesco

Valles in a book printed in Leiden in 1588, the same year as Brahes lengthy letter

to Peucer detailing his path to his system. We shall return to Tychos critique of

Valles momentarily, but first we note that in Tychos judgment the faux pasVallescommits involves a too literal interpretation of Scripture:

But he [Valles] understands this text and certain others in a much too literal fashion.

Nor does he consider what is said that is contrary to this in Isaiah and elsewhere.47

44The most comprehensive treatment of the variety of changes in cosmology is still William H.Donahue,The Dissolution of the Celestial Spheres 15951650(New York: Arno Press, 1981). Donahuecovers the range of primary sources to be taken into account but his classification of various cosmologi-cal schemes is by no means widely accepted.

45Charles B. Schmitt, Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, MA, 1983). See also Gingerich

and Westman, pp. 72ff, and literature cited there for more leads.46Peter Barker, Jean Pena and the Stoic Physics in the Sixteenth Century, The Southern Journal

of Philosophy 23 (1985), 93107.47Brahe to Peucer, 13 September 1588, TBOO, VII, p. 134.


16/23


it [Valles method] propounds things too much from the literal sense of Scripture.

Let us abandon this way, if indeed it leads us away from our present duty, and if it

is resolved to investigate with those who do chiefly astronomy the many things con-

tained in this science. So there can be no objection from Sacred Scripture or philo-

sophy if we establish with certainty that the material of the heavens is very liquid

and more tenuous and subtle than any air.48

Tychos criticism sounds akin to what Galileo and Kepler would later argue,

namely, that the issues of physical science and biblical interpretation are separate,

and that one should not rely on a literal reading of the Bible to arrive at a picture

of the universe. Yet Tychos language cited earlier with regard to the earths motion

(against physics and Holy Scripture) suggests that for him the Bible was still

relevant to physical questions. How then is Tycho to be understood? Was the Bible

relevant to physical questions or not? Was it to be taken literally or not?

To Christoph Rothmann, Tycho must have seemed like a hide-bound literalist,

for Rothmann objected to dragging Scripture into an essentially astronomical dis-cussion. Rothmann claimed that biblical language was gauged (accommodated) to

the understanding of common people who did not have access to esoteric astro-

nomical knowledge. It cannot therefore be expected that the Bible will yield infor-

mation which is helpful to the astronomer. Tychos response admitted that the

Bible uses a common method of description in scientific matters, but this does not

imply that its words must not be taken seriously. For Tycho, this would be treating

the Bible as if it were simply another human document which need not be taken

authoritatively when speaking about astronomical matters:

Much less are those things true which are alleged by you when you exempt thosethat Holy Scripture asserts to the contrary. The reverence and authority due to the

sacred writings is, and ought to be greater than that of playing games with them [in

modum Cothurni]. For although they adjusted themselves to the common method of

understanding in physics and some other matters, yet let it be far from us to think

of them as speaking in such a common manner that we do not believe them to be

speaking truth. Thus Moses, even if he does not refer to the deep things of astronomy

when treating the creation of the world in the first chapter of Genesis, because he is

writing for the common people, nevertheless he does introduce that which our astron-

omers can concede.49

In Tychos estimation, Rothmanns dismissal of biblical relevance effectively lev-

elled the authority of the Bible, and put it on the same plane as other physical

treatises. Tycho insisted on the potential relevance of the Bible to any physical

question, since to deny it would preclude the possibility of divine authority answer-

ing the question. Similarly, he praised Caspar Peucer for confirming from Scripture

that the heavens are not made of solid spheres.50

The use of phenomenal language in the Bible did not imply that its authority

was limited, only that its information was not complete. Tychos discussion of

48Brahe to Peucer, 13 September 1588, TBOO, VII, p. 135.49Brahe to Rothmann, 21 February 1589, TBOO, VI, p. 177.50Brahe to Peucer, 13 September 1588, TBOO, VII, p. 133.


17/23


18/23


fine. This makes the courses of the seven planets free so that they move without any

slowing wherever their natural impetus and their knowledge carry them. This was

not seen by the ancients or even the greater part of the moderns, nor even conceded

because it was never doubted. For it is enough for the restoration of astronomy to

admit it as settled and known.54

Tycho saw this physical truth as a sure sign of the superiority of his system over

both Ptolemy and Copernicus because only he possessed the empirical evidence

which allowed for the intersection of planetary spheres. Tycho now also knew that

the Bible did not teach a doctrine of solid spheres because nothing in the Bible

would contradict this irrefutable empirical knowledge. Others were not so con-

vinced and offered biblical evidence for the solid spheres, texts which Tycho had

an obligation to interpret. The Greek translators of the Septuagint had translated

the Hebrewraqiaof Genesis chapter one as stereomawhich in Greek philosophical

usage meant a solid body.55 This was translated into Latin as firmamentumwhich

was then taken in the West as evidence for the Bible teaching the solidity of thecelestial spheres. Tycho argued that raqiais more properly translated by expansum,

taken from Castalios translation, and indicates a liquid or an open expanse which

allows the free movement of celestial bodies.56

His commitment to a liquid heaven required Tycho to address himself to two

key texts that seemed contradictory on the surface, Isaiah 40: 22 and Job 37: 18.

In his letter to Caspar Peucer (13 September 1588), Tycho approvingly cited Casta-

lios version of Job 37: 18, no doubt because Castalio had used aetherato translate

the Hebrew. Castalios translation was more an insertion of a modern cosmology

into an ancient text than an exegesis of its original meaning.57 A more propertranslation of the Massoretic text of Job 37: 18 is, Have you, Job, worked with

him [God] to fashion the hard vault of heaven with a hammer so that it looks like

a mirror of cast iron? The impression that this text teaches a solid celestial sphere

could only be reinforced by the Vulgate translation of the Hebrew chazaqwith the

superlative form solidissimi (very hard). The text also has the verbal root rq ( to

hammer out) which is related to the firmament (raqia) of Genesis chapter I. This

verb was regularly used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to fashioning of metal pro-

ducts. Consequently, a thorough investigation of Job 37: 18 only confirmed the

initial impression that Holy Scripture taught the solidity of the celestial firmament,and thereby justified the translation ofraqiaby the Latin firmamentum. Would not

this language require the belief in a solid sphere if it were taken literally? Does

Tycho take it so? Neither Tycho nor Peucer viewed this text as demanding a solid

54Brahe to Rothmann, 17 August 1588, TBOO, VI, p. 140.55For usage ofstereoma in Greek philosophy see Liddel and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon(Oxford:

The Clarendon Press, ninth ed. 1940), p. 1640.56Brahe to Peucer, undated letter of 1590, TBOO, VII, p. 231.57

Castalios Latin version of Isaiah 40: 22 can be translated as who extends the heavens like amembrane and expands it like a tabernacle for habitation, and of Job 37: 18 did you lead ether withit so strongly that it appeared to be hard? See Novum Jesu Christi Testamentum a Sebastiano CastalioneLatine redditu (London, 1682) (1st ed. 1580).


19/23


sphere, the former commending the latter for his reconciliation of Job 37: 18 with

Isaiah 40: 22:

It [Job 37: 18] says that the heavens are hard like steel. This is correctly expounded

by you in a learned and proper manner when you reconcile this text with the earlier

one by saying that the heavens have a solidity and perpetual firmness of constancy

(along with everything in them) rather than referring to the material of which the

heavens are made.58

Both Tycho and Peucer thought the Bible contained important information on cos-

mology, and Tychos interpretation of Job 37: 18 did not place it outside the realm

of relevance, but neither did it involve a literal description of a physical, celestial

reality. The words had a meaning which referred to the visible constancy of the

heavens, so that the solidity mentioned in the text was not accommodated language;

it was literal but not physical.

This method explains Tychos criticisms of Valles mentioned earlier. AlthoughTycho complained of Valless literalism, the real danger that the Spaniard fell into

was his attempt to join Scripture too closely to a sacred philosophy based on

certain texts. Valles had woven together texts like Job 37: 18 with quotations from

ancient Greek philosophers, showing the agreement of Sacred Scripture with philo-

sophical opinion. He concluded that the heavens could not consist of a liquid and

penetrable substance but rather must be made up of the four sublunary elements

combined with solid orbs. Valless literalism went from absurdity to absurdity

when he contended that the new star of 1572 was really nothing new but that it

had been there since the creation of the world and that it had simply not been seen

due to its small size. Valless view was based on Genesis 2: 4, which says the

heavens and the earth and all their hosts were completed and God completed His

work on the sixth day. Tycho was incredulous that so learned a man could start

from a literal interpretation and arrive at conclusions which lead to absurdities.

How does he [Valles] establish short of all sense and reason that this star has been

there since the beginning of the world but was too small to be seen? O what

speculation! One absurdity is only equalled by another. Now heaven has no firm orbs

that are really there, much less are they substances which are rarer in some places

and denser in others.

Valless literalism must be answered, not by an appeal to accommodation as

Rothmann would have it, but by a closer ascertaining of the meaning of the text.

That meaning will agree with irrefutable observations that had long ago been estab-

lished. The biblical texts then must be subject to a prior assessment based on

astronomy. Far from a literalism that controlled astronomy, Tycho made the auth-

ority of the text dependent on observations of the heavens. This priority no doubt

caused him to seek meanings for the texts which were literally true but not neces-

sarily physical.

Denying the existence of solid celestial spheres did not answer the question of

58Brahe to Peucer, 13 September 1588, TBOO, VII, p. 133.


20/23


celestial matter. Tycho argued against Rothmanns thesis that the celestial region

contained air like the sublunar realm, but his engagement in interpreting biblical

texts came into prominence in his correspondence with Caspar Peucer. His high

respect for Peucers handling of the biblical texts was probably shared by many

in Germany and other Lutheran strongholds, but it did not prevent him from deep

disagreements over what might be inferred from passages suggesting the nature of

celestial matter. Peucer agreed with Tycho that the heavens were made up of an

etherial substance that is refined, pure and accessible to all rays of light and is

liquid and fluid.59 Both Tycho and Peucer agreed that there should be no confusion

of the elementary and the celestial realms, but Peucer misunderstood Tychos pos-

ition when he attributed to him the Paracelsian view of the heavens as an igneous

substance. Tycho admitted no elementary substance into the heavens.60 This differ-

ence becomes evident in their disagreement over the interpretation of raqia.

Peucer held to supercelestial waters above the firmament where the eternal

light of God dwelt. His grounds lay in the etymology of the Hebrew word for

heavens, schamayim, which he derived fromsham(there) and mayim(water). This

etymology was confirmed by the language of the flood narrative, speaking of the

floodgates of heaven (Genesis 8: 2), as well as other texts that spoke of dark

waters and thick clouds of the sky (Psalm 18: 11). The light which reached the

earth came from the eternal seat of God and, when joined with the waters and

clouds, produced the sapphire color of the sky.61 The firm foundation of Scripture

was to be preferred to the wranglings and uncertainties of the philosophers.62 The

foundation of astronomy was sure observations but apparently these could not

answer important questions about the nature of celestial matter. For these, one mustturn to the most reliable source of divine revelation, the Bible.

Tycho objected strenuously to Peucers exegesis. To identify the waters of Gen-

esis 1 as supercelestial would be to claim that Scripture was speaking of things

not obvious to every observer:

Moses composed the account of creation for common and simple people who were

not acquainted with mathematics and physics and he undertook to explain things

which appear to mens eyes, not invisible and obscure things.63

On the surface, this appeal to accommodation on Tychos part is similar toRothmanns argument against Tycho on the motion of the earth. However, Tycho

did not dismiss Peucers exegesis as irrelevant; he offered an alternative reading.

He appealed to a greater flexibility of language evident in the Bible. Deuteronomy

4: 24 and Hebrews 12: 29 spoke of God as a consuming fire but this had no relation

59Peucer to Brahe, 10 May 1589, TBOO, VII, p. 185.60Brahe to Peucer, 1590, TBOO, VII, p. 230.61Peucer to Brahe, 10 May 1589, TBOO, VII, p. 185.62For my part I prefer to philosophize from Scripture only rather than to talk nonsense with philos-

ophers unskilled in divine things. This is especially true in matters where they stubbornly hang on totheir opinions or are deeply blind. They sometimes invent or assume to be true, certain hypotheseswhich are contrary to the heavenly truth (Peucer to Brahe, 10 May 1589, TBOO, VII, p. 188).

63Brahe to Peucer, 1590, TBOO, VII, p. 231.


21/23


to physical fire or heat that we experience. This was metaphorical extension.64

Similarly, the word raqia did not always have the same referent. Sometimes it

meant the total expanse of heaven as it appeared to the observers naked eye. At

other times, it referred to the supralunar realm of the luminaries, and at still others

to the liquid region just under the moon. Recognizing this flexibility allowed one

to recognize that Moses was not referring to any putative supracelestial waters:

The two waters mentioned in Scripture are referring to the seas on earth, and the

clouds, lightning, and rain, which are in the region of the air. 65 In the end, however,

Tycho argued against supracelestial waters on theologicalaesthetic grounds, God

is the author of order and utility.66 This implied specifically for Tycho that nothing

from the elementary realm, including water, could be ascribed to the supracelestial

world where God dwelt.

Tychos discussion of Valles was directed to Peucer as a warning not to attempt

to base a cosmology on the Bible. Cosmology was founded on observational astron-

omy and whatever could be learned from physics and chemical correspondences.

The Bible indeed had relevant information but not a complete sacred philosophy.

When it spoke of the natural world, it spoke truly and it must therefore be taken

seriously. To understand the meaning of the biblical texts that spoke of the natural

world, one had to be sure of what could be said with certainty and what was only

conjecture. This would prevent falling into the Scylla of Vallesian literalism or the

Charybdis of Rothmannian irrelevance.

4. Conclusion: Explaining Tychos CosmologyTychos biblical exegesis bears the marks of his Lutheran heritage and context.

By the 1580s, the division in European Christendom was well into the third gener-

ation and the differing modes of interpretation were beginning to show themselves.

In the 1540s, the gulf between Protestant and Catholic interpreters was not as wide

as it was by the 1580s. If the document attributed to Rheticus does indeed come

from his pen, it shows that a Lutheran in the 1540s could and probably had to

appeal to the historic precedent of St Augustine.67 In that same decade, the Council

of Trent made an issue of the unanimous consent of the Fathers as controlling

Catholic interpreters, to distinguish their method from Protestant tendencies to

64Nor did I attempt to test something seriously (because I expressly protested that it could be saidmetaphorically and not according to the elementary qualities of nature). God, who is devoid of allmatter and whose inscrutable nature no one can understand, is called a consuming fire in Deut. 4: 24;9: 3 and Heb. 12: 29. What objection is there if [the Scriptures] adopt a manner of speech adapted toour capacities and call the heavens or celestial stars fire since they give light and heat to the bodiesof the lower world in the manner of something burning? (Brahe to Peucer, undated letter of 1590,TBOO, VII, p. 230).

65Brahe to Peucer, undated letter, TBOO, VII, p. 232.66

Tycho adds,So he [God] does not want in any way to confound and pollute the heavens with theelementary without any clear use. (Brahe to Peucer, undated letter, TBOO, VII, p. 235).

67For Rheticus dependence on St Augustines commentary on Genesis, see the literature cited innote 33.


22/23


ignore the Fathers teaching. From that time on, it seems that Protestants did not

pay as much attention to the question of historical precedent.

Neither Tycho nor his correspondents placed a lot of emphasis on justifying an

interpretation based on the Church Fathers. This contrasts sharply with the situation

in which Galileo found himself thirty years later in the second decade of the seven-

teenth century. Galileo and other Catholic writers addressing these issues had to

take cognizance of the patristic witness. Already by the 1580s, the Protestants were

not so compelled. Whether this lack of reference to the Church Fathers is an acci-

dental omission due to the topic of natural philosophy or whether it reflects some-

thing deeper, it is difficult to know. Yet the amount of material in Tychos pub-

lished correspondence treating biblical texts and the differences of interpretation

between him and his friends suggest that neither Tycho nor Peucer felt obliged to

justify their claims by appeal to the Fathers.

Tychos interpretative method does, however, bear some of the standard marks

of classical Christian interpretation. He spent considerable effort in reconciling

texts that seemed on the surface to contradict one another. These intertextual com-

parisons had been standard fare in the history of hermeneutics and yet Tychos

own way of accomplishing this task indicates a parallel between his hermeneutical

and his cosmological methods. Tycho assumed with Christian antiquity that the

Bible would not contradict itself and so he sought to reconcile texts into a consistent

interpretative system. Similarly, Tycho sought to bring together apparently con-

flicting evidence from different disciplines that needed to be incorporated into a

cosmology. He was convinced that physical reasons demanded a stable earth, and

at the same time he knew that the sun had to be the center of the five orbitingplanets. Seeking a system taking all aspects of the problem into account was daunt-

ing but necessary. His work was a valiant attempt to construct a system that unified

all the disparate parts of different disciplines into a holistic picture. Yet Tychos

exegesis also shows an interactive mode of thought in treating the relations of

astronomy, physics, and interpretation. His method can be characterized neither as

simple literalism nor theological irrelevance. The Bible played a subordinate but

supplementary role. Because of its special status as revelation it could not be

ignoredeven its passing remarks had hidden truths of naturebut neither could

one expect to have a natural philosophy based on the Bible. Tycho clearly madethe Bible answer to the conclusions of astronomy when he knew that the heavens

could not have solid spheres. He also did not dismiss the Bibles statements about

celestial matter when he thought they might have something to contribute. The

Bible for Tycho confirmed what he found in the other sciences, that the universe

was eminently ordered because God the Creator was a God of order. And this

belief elucidates the relation between his astronomy and his chemical work. Indeed,

it helps to explain why he chose to call his chemical work by that strange termino-

logical extension, terrestrial astronomy. The work performed in his cellar laboratory

could be called astronomy because it discovered the same essential principles ascelestial astronomy. The similarity or identity of underlying laws was founded on

a principle of fittedness, a kind of natural comportment of the world every sector


23/23


of which has entities unique to its place. The entities in one sector possess a corre-

spondence with entities in other regions of the universe and these correspondences

are governed by underlying common principles. This sense of fittedness also

explains why he felt so keenly the criticism levelled by Peucer that his planetary

system left a huge gap between Saturn and the eighth sphere. He was at pains to

show that his system did not violate the symmetry appropriate to any true system.

It also explains why Tycho thought that celestial matter must differ from sublunar

matter. The heavens are incapable of having alterable matter but they have corre-

spondences in the inferior world. The earth also is unfit for celestial circular motion

because of its earthly matter.

The two men named Tycho Brahe who lived on Hven were often in conversation

with one another about how all the resources of ancient astronomy, modern obser-

vations, chemical correspondences, natural philosophy and theology could be

united into a modern synthesis that would lead to the true knowledge of the world

system. Tychos demise meant that this restoration of astronomy would fall to

another, but Tycho stands as one of the first early moderns who sought this total

unification. This in turn suggests that Tychos quondam assistant Johannes Kepler

was not the first to merge technical astronomy and cosmology. Tycho was, as

Kepler himself claimed in the Apologia pro Tychone contra Ursum, the first.68 But

what Tycho began, Kepler completed.

AcknowledgementsI hereby acknowledge the generous support of the Pascal Centre for Advanced

Studies of Faith and Science in Ancaster, Ontario, under a grant awarded to me from 1992 to 1995. Ialso wish to thank the Institute for Advanced Studies at Indiana University for the use of their facilities

during the writing of this article, as well as Professor John Hedley Brooke of the University of Lancaster

who commented on various aspects of this work. Thanks also are due to the anonymous referee for

Studiesand to Professor Nicholas Jardine who made numerous suggestions for its improvement.

68

Kepler placed Tycho in line with Copernicus realist view in a number of passages in the Apologia,in sharp contrast with Ursuss skeptical view of hypotheses. For translation of the relevant passages,see Nicholas Jardine, The Birth of the History and Philosophy of Science (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984), pp. 141, 143, 145146.

Documents

The Role of Biblical Interpretation in the Cosmology of Tycho Brahe