Was Copernicus A Neoplatonist?

Was Copernicus A Neoplatonist?Author(s): Edward RosenSource: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1983), pp. 667-669Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709222 .

Accessed: 07/12/2014 07:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 07:51:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709222?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


WAS COPERNICUS A NEOPLATONIST?

BY EDWARD ROSEN

Christian thought was profoundly influenced by the ancient pagan Greek philosopher Plato. His followers, those whom we call the Neoplatonists, developed a distinctive metaphysical and spiritual doctrine: all reality has its source in the transcendent One, which produces a series of less unified levels of being, down to the last and lowest, the physical universe, a living creature endowed with a divine soul; at our highest, we humans can join the One in a mystical union.

A thinker's advocacy of such beliefs places him in the Neoplatonists' long and diverse procession. On the other hand, the complete absence of these teach- ings, whether explicit or implicit, from the works of an author disqualifies him for assignment to the Neoplatonists. A case in point is the founder of modem astronomy, Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), in whose voluminous writings no trace of Neoplatonic doctrine has ever been identified. Was his thinking affected by contact with a Neoplatonist?

Copernicus enrolled as a student at the University of Bologna, where his "friend and teacher at Bologna, Domenico Maria de [sic] Novara," we are told,1 "was a close associate of the Florentine Neoplatonists." This coterie of intel- lectuals constituted the Platonic Academy of Florence, a name adopted in imitation of Plato's Academy outside Athens. Much looser in its structure2 than the later Accademia dei Lincei, Academie des Sciences or Royal Society, the Florentine Academy had no charter, minutes of meetings, or roster. The founder of the Platonic Academy of Florence, Marsilio Ficino (1433-99), was asked by a German kindred spirit for a "catalog of his friends," as his associates in the Academy were regarded by Ficino. His reply mentions eighty names.3 These did not include Copernicus' "friend and teacher at Bologna," Domenico Maria Novara, who was not "a close associate of the Florentine Neoplatonists."

When Ficino's "catalog of his friends" was republished by a learned archivist, he added seven names culled from Ficino's correspondence.4 Heading the list of these additions was Francesco Marescalchi. As the recipient of a letter in Latin from Ficino in September 1474, he was addressed as "Franciscus Mares- calchus of Ferrara, distinguished fellow philosopher." In a second communi- cation he was called "beloved fellow philosopher." On 28 June 1477 Ficino reverted to "Franciscus Marescalchus of Ferrara ... my excellent fellow phi-

'Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1957; frequently reissued), 128.

2 Paul Oskar Kristeller, "The Platonic Academy of Florence," Renaissance News, 14 (1961), 150; rpt., Renaissance Thought, II (New York, 1965), 93.

3 M. Ficino, Opera omnia (Basel, 1576; rpt., Turin, 1962), 936-37. 4 Angelo Maria Bandini (1726-1803), Specimen literaturaeflorentinae (Florence, 1747-

51), II, 75.

667

Copyright Oct. 1983 by JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, INC.



668 EDWARD ROSEN

losopher."5 Ficino's repeated expressions of esteem for Marescalchi as a philosopher holding opinions akin to his own show this thinker to have been "a close associate of the Florentine Neoplatonists." But Francesco Marescalchi was not Copernicus' "friend and teacher at Bologna," Domenico Maria Novara.

Why was Marescalchi misidentified with Novara? Marescalchi, as we have learned from Ficino's letters to him, lived in Ferrara. Copernicus' teacher was descended from a family residing in Novara, whence one of his ancestors had moved to Ferrara. In that city Copernicus' teacher was born in 1454. In his numerous publications he usually styled himself "Domenico Maria da Novara of Ferrara."6 He began to teach astronomy at the University of Bologna in 1483, a year after the Ferrarese Neoplatonist Marescalchi died on 15 September 1482.7 Fourteen years later Copernicus entered the University of Bologna. He never had any contact with the Neoplatonist philosopher Marescalchi. On the other hand, "at Bologna ... he was not so much the pupil as the assistant and witness of observations of the learned Domenico Maria"8 Novara, professor of astronomy.

Novara, we are told, was "among the first to criticize the Ptolemaic planetary theory ... believing that no system so complex and cumbersome could represent the true mathematical order of nature";9 he "held that no system so cumbersome and inaccurate as the Ptolemaic had become could possibly be true of nature." 1

Novara's alleged condemnation of Ptolemy's planetary theory is not, however, supported by any reference to the Bolognese astronomer's writings. On the contrary, a student who visited the University of Bologna reported that Novara was "lecturing on Ptolemy's Almagest,"" as his Syntaxis was then miscalled. A university professor who lectured on the Syntaxis in Novara's time accepted the Ptolemaic system and planetary theory as true to nature. Novara's tombstone, erected by an heir, lauded his familiarity with the "travels of the sun."'2 In the Ptolemaic system the sun traveled, like the other planets with which it was then grouped. After Novara's death his former pupil, Copernicus, developed his own cosmology, deplanetizing the sun and making it stationary. Copernicus did not

5 Ficino, Opera, 644, 738, 776; English translations in The Letters of Marsilio Ficino (London, 1975-81), I, 125-27; II, 50; III, 63-64.

6 Edward Rosen, "Copernicus and his Relation to Italian Science," Accademia na- zionale dei Lincei (Problemi Attuali di Scienza e di Cultura), Convegno Internazionale sul Tema: Copernico e la cosmologia moderna (Rome, 1975), 29.

7 Phyllis W. G. Gordan, Two Renaissance Book Hunters (New York and London,

1974), 217. Marescalchi's death in 1482, coupled with the dates of Ficino's letters to him, distinguishes him from Francisc(h)us de Ferraria, author of an unpublished man- uscript dated 10 December 1352; Lynn Thorndike and Pearl Kibre, A Catalogue of Incipits of Mediaeval Scientific Writings in Latin, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), 1284; Marshall Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, I (Madison, 1964), 445, n. 20.

8 Edward Rosen, Three Copernican Treatises, 3rd ed. (New York, 1971), 111. 9 Kuhn, Copernican Revolution (op. cit., n. 1 above), 128. '0 T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 1970), 69. " Der Briefwechsel des Konrad Celtis, ed. Hans Rupprich, 438/51-53 (Munich, 1934;

Veroffentlichungen der Kommission zur Erforschung der Reformation und Gegenrefor- mation, Humanistenbriefe, III).

12 Carlo Malagola, Monografie storiche sullo Studio Bolognese (Bologna, 1888), 417: phoebi... meatus.



WAS COPERNICUS A PLATONIST? 669

continue his teacher's adherence to the Ptolemaic theory. Had Novara been a Neoplatonist, would Copernicus have followed meekly in his footsteps?

Neither Novara nor Copernicus was a Neoplatonist. Yet we are told that

When Novara's pupil Copernicus complained that the Ptolemaic astron- omers "seem to violate the first principle of uniformity in motion" and that they have been unable to "deduce the principal thing-namely the shape of the Universe and the unchangeable symmetry of its parts," he was participating in the same Neoplatonic tradition.13

But we are not told whether Novara or Copernicus was familiar with any Neoplatonic anti-Ptolemaist.

In his Revolutions Copernicus eulogized the sun.'4 "His authorities are immediately Neoplatonic," we are told."5 The authorities named are two in number. One of them, Sophocles, wrote all his plays before Plato composed his earliest dialog, so that this dramatist was pre-Platonic rather than "immediately Neo- platonic." The other authority is a collection of non-scientific and anti-rationalist writings attributed to a divinity whose name Copernicus did not get quite right, and to whom he ascribed a saying not to be found in that strange jumble.16

Copernicus' astronomy teacher at the University of Bologna was not a

Neoplatonist. The sources of Copernicus' eulogy of the sun were not "immediately Neoplatonic." Since his own philosophical outlook was not Neoplatonist, what was it?'7 Demonstrably familiar with some of Plato's dialogs, he was still not a confirmed Platonist. Better acquainted with Aristotle's writings,18 he dreaded the unswerving Aristotelians of his own time as potential adversaries, because he converted Aristotle's motionless earth into a solar planet, revolving in the heavens. The resulting abolition of the traditional distinction between heaven and earth made him fear the hostility of the theologians. Neither a Platonist nor a Neoplatonist nor an Aristotelian, he was a Copernican.

To his only disciple "lofty metaphysical dithyrambs, resonating with their

deeply rooted Neoplatonic assumptions" have been ascribed,'9 without any sup- porting evidence. Like master, like pupil: if Copernicus was a Neoplatonist because his teacher Novara was, by simian logic why should not Copernicus' disciple Rheticus be a Neoplatonist too? Like master, like pupil: neither Novara nor Copernicus nor Rheticus was a Neoplatonist.

City University of New York, Graduate Center.

3 Kuhn, Copernican Revolution, op. cit., 128. 14 Nicholas Copernicus Complete Works, II (Baltimore, 1978), 22:3-10; translation and

commentary by Edward Rosen. 15 Kuhn, Copernican Revolution, op. cit., 130. 16 Copernicus Complete Works, II, 359 on 22/7; Edward Rosen, "Was Copernicus a

Hermetist?," Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 5 (1970), 164-69. 17 Copernicus' philosophical outlook has been studied in his Revolutions (Complete

Works, II). His other writings (Complete Works, III), scheduled to be published in Poland, have been waiting for years to be released by the editor to the printing shop.

18 Aleksander Birkenmajer, "Copernic philosophe," Studia Copernicana, IV (Wro- claw, 1972), 614-24, 644.

'9 Robert S. Westman, The Copernican Achievement (Berkeley, 1975), 301; reviewed in Polish Review, 21 (1976), 225-35.



Documents

Was Copernicus A Neoplatonist?