Fernand Hallyn - Metaphor of The Center A

C h a p t e r F o u r
Synecdoches
Copernicus replaced Ptolem aic m echanism with organistic sym

m etry, but to ex p lain m o tio n he m aintained - and even rein
forced the form ism o f antiquity. M otion in the heavens is the
teleo lo g ica l realizatio n o f c irc u lar p erfectio n . T he circle and
sphere are endow ed w ith on tological dignity. Through circular
m otion, the spherical body o f a planet expresses its form as the
sim plest body, w herein neither beginning nor end can be found,
nor can the one be distin guish ed from the other (O R , p. 10).
Apparent irregularities in planetary m ovem ents m ust be under
stood as illusory phenom ena, which scien ce is obliged to elim i
nate for reasons that are accep ted a priori:
For this n o n u n ifo rm ity w ould have to be caused either by

an inconstancy, w hether im posed from w ithout or generated
from w ithin, in the m oving force or by an alteration in the
revolving body. From eith er alternative, however, the intel
lect sh rinks. It is im p ro p e r to con ceive any such defect in
o b je c ts c o n stitu te d in the b est order. It stan ds to reason,
therefore, that their uniform m otions appear nonuniform to
us. (O R , p. 11)
10
C oncretely, the fo rm istic ap p ro ach e x a c te d , am o n g other
things, three transformations o f the circle and sphere concern
ing respectively physics, the elim ination of the eq u an t, and the
anagogical role o f the suns centrality. B ecause o f its m agnitude,
1 will take up the last point in a separate chapter, but it is impor
tant to recognize that these three innovations clearly correspond
to operations described in rhetoric as tro p e s. In the follow ing
chapter 1 will discuss m etaphor, in this ch ap ter the tw o princi
pal relationships that synecdoche brings into play: the w hole and
the part, the genus and the species.
The Whole and the Parts
Order and Unity in Physics

Some contemporary objections to the earths m otio n were based
on Aristotelian physics, which d istin gu ish ed supralunary from
sublunary motion, associating each with specific elem ents. Celes
tial matter, or ether, moves naturally in a circle around the cen
ter of the universe, while lighter elem ents of the sublunary world
(tire and air) tend naturally to move upward (from the center),
and heavy elements (w'ater, earth) downward (toward the center).
Gravity is the propensity o f heavy o b jec ts to m ove to the center
i the universe, which coincides with the c e n te r o f the earth.
Because of its heaviness, the earth naturally seeks a state o f rest
at the lowest place. As Copernicus rem inds us, Earth is in fact
the heaviest elem ent.. . . AH the m ore, then, w ill the entire earth
i at rest in the middle, and as the recipient o f every falling body
it will remain motionless thanks to its w eight (O R , p. 14).
the earth s central position can be exp lain ed by a natural
*ncy arising from its heaviness, we m ust add that each ele-
I ' a<^ rc^ n^ tw A ristotle, has only one natural m o t io n .1 If
* k tart s motion were circular, this, in co m b in atio n w ith a
i of>
SYNECDOCHES
natural m o tio n tow ard the center, would produce a necessarily

violent m o tio n , and like all violent m otions, would be incapable
o f p e rsistin g . M o reo v er, a c c o rd in g to an argum ent also m en
tioned bv C opern icus, this violent m otion would be o f such rapid
ity that it w ould in evitably lead to the earths explosion: But
things w hich undergo an abrupt rotation seem utterly unsuited
to gather [b o d ies to th em selv es], and seem m ore likely, if they
have been p ro d u ced by com b in atio n , to fly apart unless they are
held togeth er by so m e b o n d (O R , p. 15). At the very least, the
violence and speed o f the earths m otion would produce effects in
direct op p ositio n to those we experien ce. How are we to explain
the fact that birds and clo u d s are able to move from west to east?
And an o b je c t in free fall from a tower, representing rectilinear
m otion toward the cen ter o f the universe, would never strike the
earths surface at the foot o f the tower if the earth were itself in
m otion. Du Bartas c o lle c te d a num ber of these exam ples in his
refutation o f the C op ern ican system :
So, never should an Arrow Shot upright,

In the sam e p lace upon the sh ooter light:
But w ould d o o (rath er) as at Sea, a stone
Aboord a Ship upw ard uprightly throwne,
W hich not w ithin-boord falles, but in the Flood
A-stern the Sh ip, if so the wind be good.
So, should the Fou les that take their nim ble flight
From W esterne M arshes toward Mornings Light
and Zephirus , that in the Sum m er-tim e
D elights to visit Eurus in his clim e,
And B u llets th un d red from the Canons throat,
(W h ose roaring drow nes the H eavnly thunders note)
Sh o u ld se e m e r e c o y le : sith e n s the q u ick e careere,
That ou r round Earth should daily gallop heere,
107
COPERNICUS OR T H E RENAISSANCE OF THE COSMOS
Must needs exceed a hundred-fold for sw ift,

Birds, Bullets, W inds; their w inds, th eir force, their d rift.2
Elsewhere, some o f these argum ents were articulated with greater

subtlety. According to a rem ark by T ycho B rah e, a cannonball
shot toward the west should strike a m ore distant target than one
shot toward the east, since the earths m otio n w ould bring the
projectile and the target toward each oth e r in on e case and away
from each other in the other.3
To explain the effective m otion o f terrestrial b o d ie s, to ac
count for the absence o f an atm osp h eric hurricane or even an
explosion induced by the earth s m o tio n , C o p e rn ic u s in tro
duced another physical theory. In the first p lace, he postulated
that if the earth does move, its m otion is natural, and therefore
cannot produce violent effects that w ould lead to a hurricane or
explosion:
Yet if anyone believes that the earth rotates, surely he will hold
that its motion is natural, not violent. But w hat is in accord
ance with nature produces effects contrary to th ose resulting
from violence, since things to w hich fo rce o r v io le n c e is
applied must disintegrate and cannot lon g en d u re. O n the
other hand, that which is brought into e x iste n c e by nature is
well-ordered and preserved in its best state. (O R , p. 15)
At the same time, Copernicus defined gravity as the tendency

>f the parts of a whole to maintain their unity in a spherical shape
stead o f a natural tendency toward the ab solute ce n te r o f the
erse. For my part I believe that gravity is nothing b u t a cer
tain natural desire, which the divine providence o f the C reator
k* i ^ ,m P'antetl in parts, to gather as a unity and a
" o e y combining in the form o f a g lo b e (O R , p. 18). If the
108
SYNECDOCHES
earth is ch arac terized by e c c e n tricity and m otion, everything

possessing earth in ess w ill naturally follow the circular motion
o f the w hole to w hich it belongs. T herefore rectilinear motion
occurs only to things that are not in proper condition and are not
in c o m p lete accord w ith their nature, when they are separated
from their w hole and forsake its unity (O R , p. 17). Rising and
falling, the m o tio n o f the parts of a w hole is double, at once cir
cular (accom p an yin g the w h ole) and rectilinear (from or toward
the center of the w h ole).
Thus, rather than ord erin g m otions in term s o f absolute loca
tions, as did A risto tle, C op ern icu s relates them to as many cen
ters as there are w h oles:
Each such m o tio n en circles its own center:
This [fact that the earth is not the center of all revolutions]
is in dicated by the p lan ets apparent nonuniform motion and
their varying d istan ces from the earth. These phenomena can
not be explained by circles concentric with the earth. There
fore , since there are many centers, it will not be by accident that
the further question arises whether the center o f the universe
is identical with the cen ter o f terrestrial gravity or with some
other p o in t .. . . T h is im pulse [C opernican gravity] is present,
we may su p p o se , also in the sun, the m oon, and the other
brilliant p lan ets, so that throughout its operation they remain
in that spherical shape which they display. Nevertheless, they swing
round their circuits in divers ways (O R , pp. 17-18).
In contrast to A risto tle, C op ern icus attributed in effect a varia

ble referen ce to th e id ea o f physical totality. For A ristotle
the universe as a w hole m aintains its physical integrity. Coper
nicus tran sfers th is p ro p erty to the sun and planets, each of
109
which he treats as a totality. From the physical p o in t o f view,
Copernicus sets up an internal relation of eq u ivalen ce between
the parts o f the universe, thereby c o m p le tin g the internal rela
tion o f the order o f the planets estab lish ed by the m athem atical
ratio between distance and period o f o rb it. Insofar as he attri
butes to the parts what hitherto only ap p lied to the w hole uni
verse, his physical theory is the result o f a sy n ecd och e, and more
particularly a particularizing sy n e c d o c h e .4 A m u ltip lic ity o f
centers take the place of a unique ce n te r; the parts take the
place o f the Aristotelian whole and them selves b e c o m e totalities
with a tendency to take on a spherical shape:
I mean the sun, m oon, p lan ets, and stars, are seen to be o f
this shape; or that wholes strive to be circu m scrib e d by this
boundary, as is apparent in drops o f w ater and oth er fluid bod
ies when they seek to be self-contained. (O R , p. 8)
The consequence o f this synecdoche is that physics can no longer

îvc us any assurance concerning the global arrangem en t o f the
universe, a task which now falls to m ath em atics.
A ccording to the A ristotelian sc h e m e , i f th e earth w ere car-
a \ay from the center, the various fragm ents of earth would
move not toward it but to the place in w hich it now is, that
t ie absolute center o f the universe. 5 For A risto tle, space,
* certain influence, and p la c e s d o n o t d iffe r m e re ly in
ive positio n , but also as p o sse ssin g d is t in c t p o t e n c ie s . 6 S p a c e
if^ I r } e in m o v e m e n t o f th in g s t h a t p a s s th ro u g h
consp 'S attracte(l % *ts proper place. O n e im portant
ical as! t nCe t t,1e A n s to te lia n P * n t o f v ie w is t h a t m a th e m a t -
be dcsrr ^ T SeCOrK,ary t o physical astronom y; its role can
that m ake u p ^ h c * e X p lan ato | > 7 P h y scs a n a ly z e s t h e p la c e s
c o s m o s , e x p la in s t h e ir d i f f e r e n c e s a n d th e ir
1 10
SYNECDOCHES
place in the global order. M athem atical astronomy must conform

to the physical fram ew ork, com pared to which its constructions
appear increasingly h yp oth etical, even fictitious.
C opern ican ph ysics, on the oth er hand, lim its itself to the
description o f local system s. Every fragm ent of earth seeks its
own center. Physical laws are no longer linked to qualitatively
differentiated sp ace. T h ere is no opposition between the sublu
nary world and the supralunarv; the sam e principle governs both.
Suddenly, the relation betw een physics and m athem atics is re
versed. Physics can n o t ascertain the global organization o f the
universe, the cosm icality o f the cosm os. For this, we must turn
to m ath em atics, in con fo rm ity with the fundamental theme o f
sym m etry that we to u ch ed on in the preceding chapter.8
Neoplatonic Connections
Copernican physics was d o u b tless to som e degree dependent on
m edieval p h ysics. T h e arg u m en ts and exam p les had been pre
figured by Buridan and O resm e.9 Duhem has suggested the influ
ence of N ich olas o f C usa, w ho had already rejected the idea o f
the particularity o f place in favor of hom ogeneous and continu
ous space, and had reflected on the rotation of the sphere based
solely on the sp h e re s geo m etrical p ro p erties.10 But the differ
ences are equally im p ortan t. T he cardinal denied the possibility
of a m athem atical study o f nature; his universe was indetermi
nate and lacked a cen ter; the sun also m oved, and so on .11
Pierre K erszberg has looked for sim ilarities with Plato. The
Timaeus d e sc rib e s the p rop u lsive function of the world soul as
expansion from the center. C ircular m otion is conceived as the
m ost ap p ro p ria te form of m o tio n for this soul, which has no
determ ined physical lo catio n , but everywhere radiates outward,
and g e n e ra te s the o rd e r and m ath em atical harmony o f ce le s
tial b o d ie s.12
11 1
Z. Horsky has em phasized that it is m ore appropriate to make

comparisons with M arsilio Ficin os N e o p lato n ic te x ts than with
Plato himself.13 Horskys point is w'orth dw elling on for a moment.
Even though Ficinos thinking always rem ain ed bound to a geo
centric conception o f the universe and was o fte n exp ressed in
Aristotelian term s,14 a num ber o f its e lem en ts prefigu re charac
teristics o f Copernican physics. 1 am not trying to establish Ficino
as the model or source o f Copernican physics, only to indicate
tendencies and com m on patterns o f thinking.
Ficino consistently asserted that circular m otio n is natural to
all the elements. And while he believed that the earth is station
ary and at the center o f the universe, he no n eth eless argued that
if the earth did move, its m otion would be circu lar:
Fire and air turn in a circle, like the m oon , as the m otion of
the com ets dem onstrates. W ater turns in a c ir c le , flow ing
back without interruption. If the earth m oved , as H igesias
thought, its motion would be circular, although according to
the opinion o f most it is at re st.15
This hypothesis asks us to im agine the p o ssib le m o tio n o f the

earth as naturally circular (as Copernicus argu ed ); conspicuously
absent is any mention o f the violent and d estru ctiv e effects that
according to Aristotelian physics would inevitably accom pany the
earths circular motion.
Ficino also tended to disregard the d istin ctio n betw een sub
lunary and supralunary regions. He attributed a soul to each celes-
sphere as well as to the four terrestrial elem en ts:
has its soul, fire its, for the sam e reason th at earth and
l C ^ e *rs Likewise, the eight heavenly spheres have
Cl SOuU ancients had eight h eavens.16
112
SYNECDOCHES
Likewise (similiter): the consideration o f likeness, allowing only dif

ferences o f d egree, tends to replace the radical Aristotelian dis
tinction b etw e e n th e sublunary and the supralunary.17 Ficino
insists, m oreover, on the specifically Platonic character o f attrib
uting life to the elem ents: But if for the Platonists it is absolutely
obvious that the sp h eres o f the elem ents live, the ancient Peri
patetics did not treat this problem . 18 The language with which
Copernicus sp eaks o f m o tio n is tinged with anim ism and could
indicate a N e o p la to n ic a p p ro a c h .19 C op ern icu s typically terse
ascription o f life to the earth, which has intercourse with the
sun, and is im p regn ated for its yearly parturition (O R , p. 22),
recalls Ficinos am plification o f the them e in Theologica platonica:
We see the Earth give birth, thanks to varieties o f seeds, to a

m ultitude o f trees and anim als, nourish them, and make them
grow ; we see her cause even ston es to grow as her teeth, veg
etable life as hairs, as long as they remain connected to their
roots, w h ile if they are rem oved or unearthed, they cease
growing. C ould we say that the breast o f this female lacks life,
she w ho sp o n ta n e o u sly gives birth and nourishes so many
offspring, w ho sustains h erself and whose back carries teeth
and hair?20
We see that F icin o , like C opernicus, distanced himself from

the Aristotelian theory o f attraction in favor o f empty and abstract
space. W hereas C o p ern icu s conceived of gravity as the natural
tendency of parts to coalesce into their specific wholes (the earth,
the m oon, e tc .), Ficino reasoned in terms o f the attraction proper
to the soul o f each sp h ere: And, if we ask about the rise and
fall o f elem en ts and c o m p o site o b jec ts, the Platonists reply that
they are acco m p lish ed by the soul, I mean by the soul o f their
sphere, w hich, ju st as a m agnet attracts iron, attracts the parts
>'3
o f their sphere. 21 Here also, we find a sy n ecd och e at work and

the abandonm ent o f the n o tio n that a b str a c t p la c e s exercise
individual forces.
Art: The Circle

If such points o f likeness ex ist betw een C op ern ican physics and
the rebirth o f N eoplatonism as rep resen ted by F icin o, we have
yet to mention Ficinos insistence on nature the artist. He com
pared nature to the intelligence o f the ge o m e trician when he
inwardly constructs imaginary matter. 22 Art and geom etry: Koyre
also discerns in Copernican physics an aesth e tics of geometry. 23
Need we recall that R enaissance art g e n e ra lly so u g h t to unify
the representation o f the human body in term s o f the circle,
that with the Vitruvian drawings o f L eonardo da V inci, Durer,
and others, a kind o f gram m ar was so m e tim e s co n stru cted , ac
cording to which the parts of the body were su b je c te d , as they
completed the most varied m ovem ents, to circular units of meas
urement? The Codex Huyghens, a sixteen th -cen tu ry Italian man
uscript inspired by L eon ardos (lo st) Libro del moto actionole,
includes striking illustrations o f an analysis of th e m o tio n s o f
e human body, using a system of circles and ep icy cles; it makes
t ie analogy with the motion o f celestial b o d ies e x p lic it, since
thor declared that he was proceeding, accord in g to our
P y order of the m otion of the c e le stial b o d ie s [sequendo
P ' o nostro hordine del moto de corpi celesti] . 24 L eon ard o da
| resented the growth o f the bran ch es o f a tree as an
| ansionary motion in concentric circles around a geom etrical
of a f 1 ^ 1 m USt a i^ e r e t o l ê re alization o r m ain ten an ce

lie ad 1. \ A " 10*e 3 uni*iec* ed s- To this circu lar m easure,
metrv ,. m0reover a Pr,nciple of com m en su rability or sym-
'h ick n o sscs'o f a'l'u h T l1' V he C irC u m feren ce' th e su m o f the

ranches m ust equal the th ickn ess o f the
"4
SYNECDOCHES
trunk.25 T h is brings to m ind R aphaels paintings, where
the co m p o sitio n is organized in term s o f a circle into which

the human figures m ust fit; the circle is an emblematic form;
it reflects unity o f o r d e r .. . . Beyond m ere ease o f gesture and
liberty o f line, each ch aracter in the painting rigorously fits
within this geo m etry and subm its to it effortlessly, naturally,
is w itness to the harm onious m otion that the circle inevita
bly p rod u ces and that co n firm s its theological meaning.
In spite of this im agination o f a geom etrically autotelic circle, it

is true that art theory c o n tin u ed to conceptualize motion in an
essentially A risto telian fash ion .27 In Leonardo s texts on astron
omy, however, we en co u n ter som e fragm ents that employ a syn
ecdoche sim ilar to the one that characterizes Copernicus physics.
Som etim es L eo n a rd o c o n c eiv ed o f the universe as containing
hom ogeneous space, with m ultiple centers o f attraction replacing
an absolute center. T h e earth is not the center o f the universe,
but of its ow n e le m e n ts.28 T h e m oon also contains water, air,
and fire; th ese are drawn to their own center, just as terrestrial
elem ents are draw n to th e irs.29 But elsew here Leonardo main
tained a c o n c e p tio n of sp ace in which direction and absolute
location are significant. W hen he hypothesized that the earth was
removed to a p oin t d istan t from the center o f the universe,
argued that w ater w ould con tin u e to form a sphere around
center o f the universe, rather than around the earth Such
thinking is not coh eren t, but one direction in which it is draw
is toward C o p ern icu s.
Art: Perspectiva Su perior

Once the d istin ctio n betw een physical and metaphysical reg^
had been erased, the Copernican universe was free to impl)
COPERNICUS OR THE RENAISSANCE OF THE COSMOS
geometrization o f space - that is, the su b stitu tio n o f the homo

geneous and abstract space o f E u clid ian g e o m e try for a qualita
tively differentiated and con crete c o sm ic sp ace. 31 T h is space is
like the perspective space o f Renaissance paintin g, which in prin
ciple is also continuous and h om ogen eo u s; every part is subject
to the same laws. Moreover, the q u estio n o f the infinity o f space
torm ented d iscussion s o f a rtistic p e r sp e c tiv e beg in n in g with
Alberti (1404-1472) as well as c o sm o lo g ical sp ecu lation s begin
ning with Nicholas o f Cusa (1 4 0 1-1464). G io rg io de Santillana
has emphasized the relation betw een the o p tical vanishing point
and Nicholas o fC u sas notion o f complicatio :
We are asked to see longitudinal p ersp ectiv e in term s o f that

other inverted pyramid ending in the fligh t-poin t placed on
the infinite circle: that m ath e m atic al p o in t at in finity in
which all the forms and ratios of reality are absorbed or rather
contracted. No one could deny that we are here on Cusan
territory, although there could be no question of d irect influ
ence Alberti is fully aware that the longitudinal perspec
tive carries the them e o f c o n te m p la tio n ; it lo se s it s e lf as
otinus suggests in that one fligh t-po in t. In fact, it is the
quivalent o f the medieval golden background: But the imag-
ensemble o f flight points is, with resp ect to that sensu-
... UUerly abstract a true in tellectu al construction,
t at of N ich o las o f C u sa , e n d in g u p o n th e c ir c le o f
'
infinite radius. 32
Diace mo8eneous space o f the C opernican universe, every
ticular b o d y " " ^ 3 P SS,b,e Center N o ,aw Predisposes a par

cel law only determ" ne,plaCe rather than another, sin ce physi-
nfinite spacc w i t h o u t !^ C SpheriCal Unity o f individual bodieS
( 'fferentiated locations is nevertheless not
1 16
SYNECDOCHES
the cosmos that C opernicus postulated. If each motion has its own
center, the created universe also possesses an absolute center,
which d istin g u ish e s it from the h om ogen eous space o f pure
potentiality: We w ill finally grant that the sun itself occupies
the c en te r o f the u n iverse. 33 T h e universe may no longer be
organized in term s o f different substances, each provided with
its own proper lo catio n , but it is organized according to the prin
ciple o f sym m etry as it relates to this center. Two grand math
em atical q u alities are assigned not to space, but to Creation
possession of a privileged center and symmetry of distance and
m otion. T h ese c o n fer a quality on the Copernican cosm os that
also characterizes how human figures are inscribed in the universe
o f the artistic work.
For B ru n ellesch i and L eon ardo, there already existed what
Guido Argan has called dram atic perspective34 and what Robert
Klein characterizes as com positional perspective. 35 In De sculp-
tura, G auricus called it perspectiva superior.ib In effect, the artist
must do m ore than inscribe figures in a given space. He must con
struct a space that is adaptable to the requirem ents o f history, suf
ficient intervals betw een actors, coordination of the number of
actors and the rational filling o f space, the effective staging that
gives istoria duration by referring to a before and an after, and so
on. This o th er p e rsp ectiv e is no longer tied to optics, but to
poetics (th e dem and for clarity, verisim ilitude, unity) and rhet
oric (G auricus constantly borrow s from Q uintilian).37
Perspectiva superior is present in Copernicus. It is true that
space in the C op ern ican universe is hom ogeneous and that al
though De revolutionibus d oes not speak of the infinite extension
o f the universe, at least it calls the universe immense (L6)- But
the cosm os that is in scribed in that hom ogeneous space is sti
provided w ith an ab so lu te cen ter, an anchorage point for t
sy m m etry of m o tio n . C o p e rn ic u s enthusiasm for the su n s
117
centrality reveals his desire to p ro te c t c re ate d sp ace from the

homogeneity o f Euclidian space w here ail lo catio n s are like all
others. The suns place arises from the d istin c tio n ( eukrineia)
that Gauricus presented as one of th e tw o p rin cipal aspects o f
pcrspectiva superior and w hich m eans that a thing pleases by its
adornment and suitability. *8 For C o p ern icu s, the suns location
is eminently suitable: it is not located at a random point in infi
nite space but at the predom inant p lace w ithin created space.
We are reminded of Lom azzos follow ing lines: T h e universal
perspective shows how to arrange an iso lated figure in terms of
placem ent and necessary ac c o m p a n im e n t, su ch as arranging a
King in a posture o f m ajesty that su its his c o n d itio n , on a raised
and predominant p la ce ... . 39
The other quality o f perspectiva superior lies still according
to Gauiicus - in the purity (sapheneia) that results when the clar
ity of an image impresses itself upon the eyes of a spectator. 40
This clarity is com parable to C o p ern ican sy m m etry , which
replaces the uncertainty of the Ptolem aic com position o f the uni-
erse, in which it is im possible to d ecid e the e x ac t placem ent
some of the planets, with a clear and pure ordering by time
and distance.
. . * ^'Pcrn*cat> universe is distant from h om ogeneous space.

* cosmos obeys som ething like a co m p o sitio n al perspective,
so in art supplem ents the geom etrization o f space.
The Genus a n d the Species

.L i. * stronomy, there is no c o m m e n s u ra b ility betw een
therm *^ ^ ^ ^ anets an(^ p e rio d s o f th e ir o r b its. Fur-
o! im iform ilv o n l- T ^ be made t0 be>' ^ ^

c^ a n t , whoSC c e n V re.C UrSe t0 a su p p le m e n ta ry c ir c le , the
planets nrlw |t r C o,nc'^ es w ith n e ith e r th e c e n t e r o f the
1 nr the center o f the u n iverse (F ig u r e 4.1). Such a
118
SYNECDOCHES
Fig u r k 4.1. T he equant. A planets angular velocity is not uniform P

to the center o f its deferent (O ), but w ith respect to the ccnter ol an0t
cle (Q). For the o uter planets and Venus, the equant point Q
formed by the apsides (conn ecting the apogee and perigee, p ? ^

and T, the earth), w h ile O Q = O T ( bisection o f the eccentric ) For \ er .
Q is between the earth and the center o f the circle carrying the g
ent point. For the m oon, Q is itself a moving point.
119
construction contradicts a p rin cip le that P to lem y h im self had

articulated:
it is first necessary to assum e in general that the m otions of

the p la n e ts.. .are all regular and circu lar by natu re___That
is, the straight lines, conceived as revolving the stars or their
circles, cut off in equal tim es on absolutely all circumferences
equal angles at the centres o f e a c h ... .4I
The artifice involved in the equant c irc le had already been criti
cized in antiquity.42 In the sixteen th century, F racastoro, who
wanted to revive hom ocentric astronom y, saw the equant as an
impious invention, unworthy o f H eaven. 43 In the opening
lines of his Commentariolus, C op ern icu s also ex p ressed forcefully
his dissatisfaction with this device:
Yet the planetary theories o f P tolem y and m o st oth er astron

omers, although consistent with the n um erical data, seemed
likewise to present no small difficulty. For these theories were
adequate unless certain equants w ere also con ceived ; it
en appeared that a planet moved with uniform velocity nei-
on its deferent nor about the center o f its epicycle. Hence
y m of this sort seem ed neither su fficien tly ab solute nor
sufficiently pleasing to the m ind.
k become aware o f these d efects, I often considered
there could perhaps be found a m o re reasonable
itv 8 drCleS ^rom w ^ ic ^ every apparent inequal-

uniformlv al and in which everything w ould move
motinn Ut ltS ProPer c e nter, as th e ru le o f ab solu te
0t,0n requires.44 (3CT, pp. 57-58)
u,fl repeat in De revolutionibus (4 .2 , 5 .2 ), C o p e r n ic u s
120
SYNECDOCHES
refused to c o n ced e that the uniform ity o f circular motion should

be m easured on a foreign, unsuitable circle, where the motion does
not really take place. R ed u cin g phenom ena to regular and suitable
circular m otio n is the principle o f art. And so Copernicus con
sidered the elim ination o f equants one o f the principal advantages
o f his system . R h eticu s also em phasized this point:
Furtherm ore, m o st learned Schoner, you see that here in the

case o f th e m o o n w e are lib erated from an equant by the
assum ption o f this theory, w hich, moreover, corresponds to
e x p e rie n ce and all th e ob servation s. My teacher dispenses
w ith eq u an ts for the o th e r p lan ets as w ell, by assigning to
each o f the three superior planets only one epicycle and eccen
tric; each o f th e se m oves uniform ly about its own center,
while the planet revolves on the epicycle in equal periods with
the e ccen tric. To Venus and Mercury, however, he assigns an
eccentric on an e c c en tric.
[M ]y teach er says that only on this theory could all the
circles in the universe be satisfactorily m ade to revolve uni
formly and regularly ab ou t their own centers, and not about
other centers an essential property o f circular motion. (3CT,
pp. 135 and 137)
On the first page o f his copy o f De revolutionibus, Reinhold,

astronomer o f W ittenberg and author o f the Prutenic Tables, noted.
A stronom ical ax io m . C elestial m otion is uniform and circular
or com posed o f uniform and circular m otions. 45 The punctum
aequans [eq u an t p o in t, cen ter o f the equant] effectively intro
duced a new p oin t o f reference, thereby creating a divergenc
between the representation o f circular m otion and the represen
tation o f uniform velocity. T h is device represented an attempt t
satisfy the form istic axiom requiring uniform velocity. The rep
121
construction contradicts a p rin ciple that P to lem y h im self had

articulated:
it is first necessary to assum e in general that the m otions o f

the planets. . . are all regular and circu lar by natu re---- That
is, the straight lines, conceived as revolving the stars or their
circles, cut off in equal tim es on absolutely all circum ferences
equal angles at the centres o f each ---- 41
The artifice involved in the equant circle had already been criti
cized in antiquity.42 In the sixteen th century, F racastoro, who
wanted to revive hom ocentric astronom y, saw the equant as an
impious invention, unworthy o f H eaven. 43 In the opening
lines o f his Commentariolus, C opernicus also exp ressed forcefully
his dissatisfaction with this device:
Yet the planetary theories o f Ptolem y and m o st oth er astron

omers, although consistent with the num erical data, seemed
likewise to present no small difficulty. For these theories were
not adequate unless certain equants w ere also con ceived ; it
then appeared that a planet moved with uniform velocity nei
ther on its deferent nor about the center o f its epicycle. Hence
a system of this sort seemed neither su fficiently ab solute nor
sufficiently pleasing to the mind.
Having become aware o f these d efects, I often considered
whether there could perhaps be found a m o re reason able
arrangement o f circles, from which every apparent inequal-
ty would be derived and in which everything w ould move
unilormly about its proper center, as the ru le o f ab so lu te
motion requires.44 (3CT, pp. 57-58)
As he would repeat in De revolutionibus (4 .2 , 5 .2 ), C o p e r n ic u s
120
SYNECDOCHES
refused to con ced e that the u n iform ity o f circu lar m otion should
be measured on a foreign, unsuitable c ircle, w here the m otion does
not really take place. R ed u cin g p h en om en a to regular and suitable
circular m otion is the p rin ciple o f art. And so C opernicus con
sidered the elim ination o f equants one o f the principal advantages
of his system . R h e ticu s also em p h asize d th is p o in t:
Furtherm ore, m ost learned Schoner, you see that here in the
case o f the m o o n w e are lib e ra te d from an e q u an t by the
assum ption o f this theory, w hich, m oreover, corresp on d s to
experien ce and all th e o b se rv a tio n s. M y te a c h e r d isp e n se s
with equan ts for th e o th e r p la n e ts as w e ll, by assign in g to
each o f the three superior planets only one epicycle and eccen
tric; each o f th ese m o v es u n ifo rm ly a b o u t its ow n cen ter,
while the planet revolves on the epicycle in equal periods with
the eccentric. To Venus and M ercury, how ever, he assigns an
eccentric on an e c c e n tric .
[M ]y teach er says that only on this theory cou ld all the
circles in the universe be satisfactorily m ade to revolve uni
formly and regularly ab o u t th eir own cen ters, and not abou t
other centers an essen tial property o f circu lar m otion . (3C T,
pp. 135 and 137)
On the first page o f his co p y o f De revolutionibus, R ein h old,

astronomer o f W ittenberg and author o f the Prutenic Tables, noted:
Astronomical axio m . C e le stia l m o tio n is uniform and circular
or com posed o f uniform and circu lar m o tio n s. 45 T h e punctum
Qtquans [equant p o in t, c e n te r o f th e e q u an t] effectively in tro
duced a new point o f referen ce, thereby creatin g a divergence
between the representation o f circu lar m otio n and the represen
tation o f uniform velocity. T h is d evice represented an attem p t to
atisfy the form istic ax io m requiring uniform velocity. T he repre
121
sentation o f the planets orb it failed to satisfy this requirement,

so a supplementary circle was ad d ed . T h e resu lt was ambiguous:
exp ectatio n s were both sa tisfie d and d isa p p o in te d : uniform
motion was obtained, but only by adding a c irc le invented for the
purpose, that is at the p rice o f an a d hoc d e p a rtu re from the
representational system that had been w orked o u t for the orbit.
The introduction o f the equant p oin t c o rresp o n d s to a met
onymic operation involving the relation s am o n g the contiguous
parts o f an empirical representation. T h is operation reduces these
parts to interrelated functions w ith ou t referring, as would syn
ecdoche, to a system ic necessity. U niform velocity with respect
to an equant point is only an effect o f the g e o c e n tric m odel. If
one accepts the earths im m obility at the ce n te r o f the universe,
then each planet happens to m ove in an effectively uniform man
ner around a point (Figure 4.1) for w h ose lo c atio n there is no
physical explanation. This is an u n ex p ected (and fundamentally
undesired) empirical effect. T h ere is no cau se w ithin the sys
tem or point predisposed by the system to assu m e this function;
is follows from the principle articulated by Ptolem y in the pas-
L ak ve" equant point is not the ce n te r o f m otion,
should serve as a unique reference. By a m etonym ic shift
vhat properly should be the c e n te r to th is im proper
is possible to save the principle o f uniform m otion. The
\vh , . tat' n a Pânet s path is the unwanted cause o f an effect
ti t tUm kecom es the reference point for the representa
tion of un.form velocity.
tern s .'k e l,m m a t,o n o f the e q u a n t p o in t , th e C o p e m ic a n sys-
f o m i n * t o T * ", P r0 p e r r s ys t e m { c p o in t o f r e f e r e n c e (co n -
for an im ^ 'n c 'p le s and o rg a n ic u n ity o f th e re p re s e n ta tio n )
of u n i f o r m l X i t v r r nt ifre fe re n C e H e n c e fo rth the CenteI*

doche renhr 0 ,ncides with the cen ter o f m o tio n . Synec-
es metonomy. Synecdoche activ ate[s] a relation o f
122
SYNECDOCHES
perceived in tegration betw een tw o unities. 46 The tropological

operation co rresp o n d in g to the living synecdoche, neither banal
in and o f itself, nor banalized by usage, resides in a redistribution
of the relations betw een w holes and parts, categories and partic
ulars. The h elio cen tric m od el enables just such an operation: the
particular , h ith erto acco u n te d for by the equant, is integrated in
a generic rep resen tatio n w ith a unique center.
This integration o f uniform velocity into a global system with
a unique cen ter earned C op ern icu s Tycho Brahe s highest praise:
But in ou r days, N ich o las C opernicus, who not without rea

son is called a new Ptolem y, discovered, by his own observa
tions, that som eth in g was m issing in Ptolemy and judged that
Ptolem ys h ypoth eses granted som ething that was unsuitable
and contrary to the ax io m s o f m ath em atics.. . . For this rea
son, he c o n stru c te d , w ith an adm irable subtlety o f mind, his
own hypotheses in another manner, and he revived the science
of celestial m o tio n w ith such success that no one before him
had philosophized as precisely about the course o f the stars
For Ptolem ys hypotheses and others that were in mode repre
sented the m o tio n s o f the stars on their epicycles and eccen
tries in an irregular m anner with respect to the center o f their
circles - which is absurd - and they saved in an improper man
ner the regular m o tio n of the stars by an irregularity. All that
in our days is evid en t and known concerning the revolution
of the stars was elab o rated and transm itted by these two arti
sans, P tolem y and C o p ern ic u s.47
We m ust retain Brahes rem ark that no one had ever philos
phi/ed so well on the stars. I f C opernicus refused the artifice o
the equant and required regularity o f m otion to be measured on
the circles o f the p lan ets, it was because these circles could
123
be reduced, in his eyes, to sim ple to o ls for calcu lation . The cir
cle is invested with intrinsic value and cannot be utilized in ad hoc
constructs that locate the planets along a periphery not related to
their own center. De revolutionibus (4 .2 ) exp licitly poses the prob
lem in terms o f the opposition proper-foreign. L ikew ise, Rheticus,
in the passage cited above, interjects the essential property o f the
circle. The significance o f the true cen ter can only be explained
if we refuse to consider a center as a purely instrum ental point
o f reference, if we grant it an on tological d istin ctio n or superi
ority, as did the Renaissance N eoplaton ists:
Thus the point that is traced on a line o f the circle is neither

on all the other lines, nor extended on the entire line or in
the entire circle. But the point that is the cen ter o f the cir
cle, which is restricted to no line, is in a certain m anner in
all the lines that lead from the center to the circum ference.
And although no point on the circu m feren ce relates equally
to the entire circle, nonetheless the center, which is not fixed
on a circumference, looks equally on the entire c irc le .48
Even if there is no direct link betw een th ese lines by Ficino

and C opernicus rejection of the eq u a n t, they d e fin e an a ttitu d e
vard mathematics as a representational system with sym bolic
ônance, which respects the preem inence o f the center, and
formism rejoins organicism. Only the true cen ter is pres-
ntained, diffused in each o f its radii, w ith ou t belonging to
y ne o f them in particular. The center o f the equant certainly
not possess these qualities. Its relation to the p lan ets orbit
P ^ ^ e s c r '^ ed ' n te rm s o f a c e n t e r b e lo n g in g t o its ow n
li^ ^ su fficien cy and c l sure attrib u ted to the c irc le could
thi k 1 i-S m e re ^ c o m p u tatio n al d e v ic e to b e a c c e p t e d as any
thing but a fic tio n . P
124
SYNECDOCHES
Some historians co n d em n C o p ern icu s for ob jectin g in prin

ciple to the equant. Such a p h iloso p h ical p reju dice, they argue,
hardly belongs in the d om ain o f m ath em atical astronom y.49 It is
true that the rein trod u ctio n o f the equant helped put K epler on
the road to the discovery o f ellip tic al o rb its.50 N oneth eless, it
may seem illegitim ate to im pose on Copernicus a dogm atic con
ception o f w hat belo n gs and d o es not belong to m athem atical
astronomy, and to require that he not be influenced by any exter
nal elem en ts. 51 Is th e im p o rta n c e attac h e d to c irc u larity an
external element ? D o e sn t th e d e c isio n to d istin gu ish betw een
interior and e x terio r itse lf b elo n g to the interior o f a particular
conception o f astron om y and its history? For C opernicus, in any
case, the p reoccu patio n w ith circu lar perfection d oes not com e
from som ew here else, from a kind o f d iscou rse foreign to the
work o f the astronom er. Sin ce the universe is the work o f a per
fect artist, the astro n om er can n o t help but be concerned with
the perfection o f the q u alities that he sees there. We find our
selves confronting an effect o f the presuppositions at work within
Copernicus discou rse.
2?
C h a p t e r Five
M e t a p h o r of the Center
A Controversial P assag e
In Book One, chapter 10 o f De revolutionibus, after he has finished
laying out the sy m m etric al o rd e r of the universe, C opernicus
turns to lyrical praise of the suns centrality in the universe he
proposes:
At rest, however, in the m id dle o f everything is the sun.

in this m ost beautiful tem p le , w ho would place this lamp in
another or b etter p o sitio n than that from which it can light
up the w h ole th in g at th e sam e tim e? For, the sun is
inappropriately called by som e peop le the lantern of the un
verse, its m ind by o th ers, and its ruler by still others. T
Thrice G reatest [H erm es Trism egistus] labels it a visible g o c ,
and Sophocles E lectra, the all-seeing. Thus indeed, as tho g
seated on a royal throne, the sun governs the family o f plan
ets revolving around i t . 1 (O R , p- 22)
This is an often c ited passage. Koyre goes so far as to say t ^

identifies for us the deep est m otivation of Copernican thoug
Frances Yates calls particular attention to the reference to H
Trismegistus and n o tes that it is, in short, in the atm osphere
127
the religion o f the world that the C opernican revolution is intro

duced. 3 For Yates, the passage b e c o m e s an im portant argument
affirming the role o f the herm etic trad ition in the birth o f mod
ern science.4
W ithout a doubt, Edward R osen is righ t to ju d ge that one
should not isolate the allusion to H erm es T rism egistu s from its
context. It appears, after all, in the m id st o f references to other
figures - to Plato, Cicero, Sophocles, and Pliny not all o f whom
can be classified as w riting in the h erm etic trad itio n .5 It is true
moreover, as we shall see, that the g e o c e n tric co sm o s did not in
any way obstruct the developm ent o f a sign ifican t solar symbol
ism. The passage to C opernicanism was not ab solutely necessary
for the development o f that them e.
Should we go farther and agree w ith Jean Bernhardt that the
entire passage is suspect o f being purely literary ? Given that
the Copernican sun plays no dynam ic role in the m otion o f the
planets, Bernhardt con clu des that the m e tap h o rs likening the
sun to a ruler or governor are e x ag g e rate d and unsatisfac
tory. Throughout the passage, C op ern icu s see k s solely to pro
vide external support for his argu m en ts and to m ake the posi
tion that he assigns the sun appear less o f an innovation than it
really is. *
An expression like su sp ect o f b ein g p u rely literary is of

course itself suspect. It would be m ore neutral to speak o f a sty-
marking, without introducing by c h o ice o f term s the idea
erse proportionality betw een the relevance o f the infor
mation conveyed and the visibility that a style guarantees for the
P ge. On the other hand, although the sun d oes not effectively
it i ^ V n 3 ^^narnc relation with the m otion o f the planets,7
center " 7 ^ ^ U8overns that is the ruler, the
betwe 1- C SymmCtry according to w hich the relationship
f lstance an(l time is organized. A p o in t o f reference for
128
m e t a p h o r o f t h e c e n t e r
the cosm icality o f the c o sm o s, it in trod uces into hom ogeneous

space, as we have seen , a perspectiva superior.
The d ecision to treat the passage as an ex te rio r elem ent
obviously arises from a m od ern p reju d ice concerning the sepa
rations am ong sc ie n c e , lite ra tu re , philosophy, and so on.
Elsewhere, C op ern icu s w rote that astronom y leads to the con
templation o f the h ighest g o o d (O R , p. 7). H is m editation on
the meaning o f the suns cen trality invites precisely such an act
of con tem plation , and that ex p la in s the passages lyricism and
proliferation o f d evices such as the rhetorical question, enum er
ation, asyndeton, m etap h or, and com pariso n . R ather than con
sider such p assag es as lite ra ry , why not recogn ize in their
coherence and in sisten ce a sp e c ific con stituen t elem ent in the
com prehensiveness and unity o f the C opernican enterprise.
In any case, it is u n d en iable that this stylistic m arking influ
ences how the passage is read, and that it has acted as a stim ulus
on readers as different as Brahe, Kepler, and M ersenne.8 Thus we
cannot ignore it. T h e issue for us is to exam ine how the passage
makes sense with resp ect to the in tertextual unit that it m obi
lizes, how by ap p rop riatin g traditional m etaphors it establishes
a new sym bolic p ersp ective on the organization o f the universe.
From the M idpoint to the Center
Sun Worship
Copernicus im ages and so u rces m u st be understood in the con
text o f a larger m ovem ent that from the fifteenth century on, and
especially in Italy, gave rise to veritable sun w orship. Eugenio
Garin has em ph asized that the d ev elo p m en t of a solar myth is
linked to the reaw akening o f Platonism and return to the prisci
philosophi [ancient p h ilosoph ers], and that it becam e widespread
n non-Aristotelian w ritin g .9 Ficin o played a dom inant role, not
12 9
only translating H erm es T rism egistu s, but also w riting long cel
ebrations o f the sun (D e sole) and light (D e lumine ), and lavishing
praise on the solar star in his oth er w orks. T h u s we read in Theo-
logica platonica :
W ho is G od? A spiritual circle w h ose c e n te r is everywhere

and circum ference now here. But if th is d iv in e cen ter pos
sesses in some part o f the universe an im aginary or visible seat
for his operation, it is rather from the m id d le that he reigns,
like the king in the m iddle o f his city, the heart in the mid
dle o f the body, the sun in the m id d le o f the p lan ets. He
placed his tabernacle in the sun and in the third essence, the
median essen ce.10
Numerous authors took up this solar them e. Pico della Miran-

dola delivered a long eulogistic com m entary on the Biblical verse
In sole posuit tabernaculum suum [H e has set his tabernacle in the
sun], emphasizing that the sun occupies the m iddle o f the entire
heavens. 11 Celebration o f the sun persisted through the sixteenth
century and spread into all g e n r e s.12 T h e sc h o o l n o te s o f the
young Galileo, whose Pisan professor adhered to the geocentric
concept o f the universe, show traces o f the th em e:
The sun is the king and like the heart o f all the planets, from
which it follows that it m ust be placed at the cen ter, for the
,j k 'S 'n mi(ldle o f his people and the heart in the mid-
the animal so that they can provide eq u itab ly for the
needs o f the people or the m em bers o f the body.13
is G rl tê SUn as governor or king o f the stars

wit-hi u r 6 rePresentatlve> also exercised a d eep fascination
ramework of a g eo c e n tric c o sm o s. A m o n g oth er
130
METAPHOR OF THE CENTER
things ou tside the literary and philosophical dom ains, the spread
o f solar m onstrances shows evidence o f the im pact o f the theme
at the level o f a general m ental set unlinked to a transformation
o f the im age o f the universe.14 At first consideration, no symbolic
necessity requires a shift to a heliocen tric cosm os. It is none
theless fittin g to n ote that C op ern icus universe, while drawing
support from an existin g tradition that developed within another
co sm ological fram ew ork, profoundly transform ed what it bor
rowed and realized p oten tial m eanings that hitherto had been
blocked. T he De revolutionibus d oes not reflect a solar myth, but
works it, rem akes and p erfects it, thanks to its new cosm ologi
cal prem ises.
Copernican Svmholism
In the g e o c en tric universe, approbation for the suns position
flow s from a sp atial sy m b o lism that gives priority in the first
instance not to the center, but to the high and the low. This posi
tion, moreover, d oes not represent an absolute center, but a mid
point. Finally, it is the p o sitio n o( a celestial body in m otion,
not at rest.
C om p osed o f tw o sup erim p osed parts, the sublunary region
and the supralunary region, the geocen tric universe is hierarchi
cal, arranged in tiers. A risto tle is em phatic: T he view, urged by
som e that there is no up and no down in the heaven, is absurd.
According to this conception, the upper extrem ity is in nature
primary. 15 A lth ough the universe is sp h erical, it is organized
along a vertical axis that d iv id es it into qu alitatively different
regions. In such a c o n te x t, the notion of center lends itself to
pluralistic usage:
* In addition to the cen ter of the sphere, it is possible to dis
tinguish several cen ters or m idpoin ts according to the divisions
along the vertical axis betw een different regions.
' 3*
C O P E R N I C U S OR THE RENAISSANCE OF THE COSMOS
Since a qualitative distinction is su p erim p osed on the distinc

tion am ong places, the term s ce n te r and m id d le lend them
selves to uses m otivated by such qu alitative d istin ctio n s.
Quantitatively, the geom etric cen ter o f the sphere o f the uni
verse corresponds to the earths cen ter, that is the low est place,
the least dignified, the place w here C h ristian ity locates H ell.16
But two other centers or m idpoints are to be found along the rec
tilinear axis that links the geom etric cen ter to the circumference:
the earth s surface, situated halfway betw een the cen ter o f the
universe and the center o f the m oon, is the m id d le o f the physi
cal universe, whereas the sun occu p ies the m id d le o f the meta
physical universe, around which the planets are ranged as around
a king. O f these three centers, the sun is in co n testab ly preemi
nent, because it is the highest. But a co n c e p tio n that grants pre
eminence to the highest location in sures that solar sym bolism
v\ill be subjected to certain reservations and d iffic u ltie s. In De
sole, Ficino emphasized the opposition (and subordination) o f the
celestial sun to the divine super-celestial p rin c ip le .17 T h e fron
tispiece o f Gafurios Practica musice (Figure 5.1) clearly illustrates
the subordination o f circular thinking to axial thinkin g. To be
re, there are concentric spheres, but they are dom inated by the
cal figure of a three-headed serpent c o n n ectin g the highest
'n to the center o f the earth. A po llo the sun g o d , moreover,
presented twice. He appears in the em b lem accom panying
' p ere o f the sun, but also and m ore prom in en tly above the
mon \ is r i f 6 ^ * reCt'n chorus o f m u ses and celestial har-

1 \v C ôrn'nat'on f the vertical over the circular and the
< u i mg of Apollo with a qualitative d ifferen ce show ju st how
A f CrSe 'S 'magine^ primarily from b o tto m to top .

c o n J T W,rk by KaPhae1 fhe Disputa del sacramento (1509),
conclusion.Vrom" m m ' rin ce <Fi8 ur<= 5 .2 ), su p p o rts a sim ilar
our perspective, tw o findings are im portant.
132
On the on e hand, a preparatory study preserved at the British

M useum show s that R aphael had in itially envisaged a chalice
under the H o st. T h e su b stitu tio n o f the solar m onstrance for
these ob jects associated with the Mass is another sign o f the new
taste. On the oth er hand, the com po sition o f the whole remains
firmly co m m itted to the traditional cosm os. It even recalls the
plate in Practica musice show ing su p erim p osed half-circles; an
appropriate figure (m on stran ce, Holy Spirit, C hrist, the Father)
is associated with the m id dle o f each circle. Here also, the solar
sym bolism is subjected to a spatial sym bolism based on the oppo
sition betw een high and low.
A vertical hierarchy o f m atter and being m akes it possible,
m oreover, to co m b in e the quantitative notion o f center with
the idea o f in tersectio n betw een en tities with distinct quali
ties. T hus the hum an soul can also becom e a m iddle, both quan
titative and qualitative. On the one hand, it corresponds to the
third o f the five o rd e rs o f b ein g and thereby c o n stitu te s, for
Ficino, the arithm etical center in the hierarchy o f creation .19 On
the other hand, the soul participates in two different natures, one
celestial and the other terrestrial: it represents a qualitative medi
ation, a m idpoint w here the inferior m eets the superior, an inter
section, the m id dle term o f all things, the link and juncture o f
the Universe. 20
In term s o f sy m b o lic activity in general, the proliferation o f
centers in the geocen tric cosm os is not an exceptional phenom
enon. A ccording to M ircea Eliade, the sym bolism o f the center
usually d isp en ses w ith geo m etric im p lication s.21 Ficino, m ore
over, is exp licit on this point; he does not seek mathematical pre
cision, because such calculation s are often less useful than they
assuredly are d ifficu lt. 22
If the sym bolism is m athem atically inaccurate, Ficino is con
scious of that inaccuracy. And so are others, who echo A ristotle s
'33
5.1 . Frontispiece from Franchino Gafurio, Practica musice (M ilan, 1496).
34
F i g u r e 5.2. Raphaels La Disputa del sacramcnto (Vatican, Sala della Segnatura,

1509). The interference of vertical itv and circularity in the organization o f space.
>35
discussion o f this p oin t.23 In his com m en tary on the Pimandros

(where he grants a strictly instrum ental value to the Copernican
system ), Foix de Candale accep ts the im p erfectio n in a geocen
tric cosm os o f the solar m etaph or for G o d . T h e im age is based
on a sym bolism that is p h ilosoph ical not geo m etric. To be
the latter, it would have to consider quantity and m otion. 24 To
take on a geom etric m eaning, the sun w ould have to be at the
center, and occupy the geom etric c e n te r o f the universe, not
the m iddle o f the sph eres: the C o p e rn ic an sy stem w ould be
required. M oreover, in a g e o c e n tric c o s m o s , the sun moves.
Although this m otion is m ore p e rfe ct than the m o tio n o f the
other planets (it has no epicycle), it is n on eth eless opposed to
the divine quality o f repose.25 O n ce again, th e C opernican uni
verse is more in accord with the sym bolism than is the geocen
tric universe. The sun is at rest, stationary, as though seated on a
royal throne (O R , p. 22).
Even though the sym bolism o f the sun can dispense with geo
metric precision, we m ust still acknow ledge that such precision
augments its suitability. Eliminating the distinction betw een high
and low, basing its sym bolic m eaning on the relation betw een a
center at rest and its periphery, the C opernican co sm o s realizes
more perfectly the conditions that allow solar sym bolism to flour
ish. We cannot say that Copernicus sim ply picked up a traditional
theme. He perfected it, overcoming acknow ledged im perfections.
Doesn t that happy outcom e m otivate a lyrical ou tb u rst?
Parallels
e panegyric o f the sun enthroned at the cen ter o f the universe

hoes a debate concerning the sy m bolism o f an o th er sacred
1 , the church. Francesco di G iorgio and oth ers engaged in a
ersy over the appropriate location for the church altar:
at cen*er of the church or on the periph ery?
136
m e t a p h o r o f th e c e n t e r
Those in favor o f placin g it on the periphery interpreted the dis

tance from the entrance to the altar as a sym bol o f the infinite
distance separating m an from G od: Many say that to show that
God surpasses us infinitely in nobility and perfection, the taber
nacle should be as far as p ossible from the main entrance, and
this place is only found near the part o f the circum ference oppo
site the entrance. 26
The altar should be as far away as possible, like the Empyrean
heaven in the geocen tric cosm os. For Ptolemy, the original prin
ciple o f Creation is absolutely apart from sensible things. Placed
at a distance that m akes it inaccessible to human thought, it coin
cides with the first cause o f the first m ovem ent of the universe,
located high above, som ew h ere near the loftiest things o f the
universe. 27 T he pertin en t sym bolic opposition is not between
the cen ter and the periphery but betw een the near and the far,
the low and the high. T h e n oblest place is the highest or most
distant place.
Those, on the oth er hand, who preached that the altar should
be placed at the c en ter o f the church, used the sam e argument
as C opernicus. T h e right place in the church for G od s image is
at the cen ter of the fam ily of the faithful, as it is right that his
cosm ic sym bol sh ould be at the cen ter of the planetary family:
just as God is present in every place and every creature, and

as He is, for this reason, the preserver to whom all creatures
are b o u n d , it se e m s ap p ro p ria te that the sacram ent or the
im age should be at the cen ter o f the tem ple, since all radii
from the circum ference converge on the center and are linked
to it. On the other hand, just as Christ teaches us, there where
several are jo in ed in his N am e, He is in the m iddle [o f all]. It
is right therefore that the sacram ent and im age should be at
the cen ter o f m en jo in ed to praise Him in the tem ple. And
>37
tem ple. And since at the c ircu m feren ce th ere are numerous
places o f com m on value and d ign ity, and sin ce the center
is unique and ab so lu te, raised ab ove all o th e rs, this center
seem s suitable [for G o d ], by an alo gy w ith H im w ho alone
truly is and with respect to w hom all oth e r things are merely
shadows.28
Giorgio was doubtless inspired by the sam e Platonic and Pythago

rean sources as Copernicus. It is im p o ssib le not be be struck by
the similarity. W ittkower notes that m ost ch u rch es with a cen
tral altar were constructed betw een 1490 and 1530 (correspond
ing, interestingly, to C opernicus stay in Italy), after Brunelleschi
set an exam ple, as early as 1434, with his plan for Santa Maria
degli Angeli in Florence.29 T hus the ap p licatio n to architecture
preceded the application to cosm ology.
From church architecture, the exaltation o f the center spread
to town planning, the planning of utopian tow ns in particular.
Robert Klein emphasizes this relationship, and its larger ties with
the Renaissance: The radial town is no m ore than the urban var-
ation on the central plan of religious arch itectu re. It is a Ren
aissance form, and valuable as such. At the sam e tim e, he finds
ese tov\ns a cosm ic m odel: T h e u top ian tow n is easily a
on o f the cosm os. O f special in terest from ou r point o f
dds. But the characteristic o b session o f the Utopians
t ie image o f the sun. *o Radial tow n, solar tow n ___ To be
onl i- C m plexity and diversity o f utopian m otivations (not
on ^ klous but also political, econ o m ic, so cial) m u st put us
n o n eT 'l aga," St Senera*n ation s and assim ilatio n s. It is
center a ^ 3 8 d numbcr these tow ns have at their
ual or intellectual ' w T k " Pr fane) re P re se n tin S the 5P ir it '

Ch.ir/'U , e com m unity.3'
hutches and towns; these ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
l}8
unim portant in an in tertextu al reading o f the Copernican enter

prise. T he universe is a temple (O R , p. 22); it is sacred, perm e
ated with sym bolism . A rtists tested and developed the symbolic,
sacred p o ten tialities o f the form used by Copernicus. This form
appeared in a c o n te x t w here it m ade sense, or rather, where it
made m ore and m ore Sense. A rtistic treatm ent added sym bolic
prestige to astron om ical gram m aticality.
The predilection for the cen ter and its periphery is expressed
not only in the im agination o f con crete places like a church or
town, but even m ore in the work o f Erasmus and the evangelical
conception o f the relation o f the faithful to G od. The idea of a
concentric com m unity, with the G ospels at the center as the solar
principle, replaces the co n cep tio n o f a Church organized hier
archically from high to low. A faith where hierarchical interces
sion is c o n te ste d in favor o f d ire c t com m u n ication betw een a
center and a h o m o gen eo u s periphery rises up against a m ulti
tiered faith w here c o m m u n ic atio n passes betw een levels and
interposing au th o rities, and where the sim ple believer is fur
ther from G od than the th eo lo g ian thus w hat is known by
the learned is believed by the sim p le [Quod ergo a docte scitur, a
simplice creditur] 32:
There are few learned m en, but no one has ever been forbid
den to be a C h ristian , to have faith, I even dare say, to be
a th e o lo g ian .33
W e ...d e f i n e so m any th in gs that w'ithout harm to our
salvation co u ld be e ith e r unknow n or left in d ou b t. Is the
man who d oes not know how to explain what distinguishes
the F ath er from the S o n , and both from the H oly Spirit,
to be d en ied p artic ip a tio n in the Father, the Son, and the
I loly S p irit?34
>39
tem ple. And since at the circu m feren ce there are numerous
places o f com m on value and d ign ity , and sin ce the center
is unique and ab so lu te, raised above all o th e rs, this center
seem s suitable [for G o d ], by an alogy w ith H im w ho alone
truly is and with respect to w hom all o th e r things are merely
shadows.28
Giorgio was doubtless inspired by the sam e Platonic and Pythago

rean sources as Copernicus. It is im p o ssib le not be be struck by
the similarity. W ittkower notes that m ost ch u rch es with a cen
tral altar were constructed betw een 1490 and 1530 (correspond
ing, interestingly, to Copernicus stay in Italy), after Brunelleschi
set an exam ple, as early as 1434, with his plan for Santa Maria
degli Angeli in Florence.29 Thus the ap p licatio n to architecture
preceded the application to cosm ology.
From church architecture, the exaltation o f the center spread
to town planning, the planning o f utopian tow ns in particular.
Robert Klein emphasizes this relationship, and its larger ties with
the Renaissance: The radial town is no m ore than the urban var
iation on the central plan o f religious arch itectu re. It is a Ren
aissance form, and valuable as such. At the sam e tim e, he finds
in these towns a cosm ic m odel: T h e u top ian tow n is easily a
reduction o f the cosm os. O f special in terest from ou r point of
view, he adds: But the characteristic ob session o f the Utopians
v%as.. .the image o f the sun. 50 Radial tow n, solar tow n ----To be
sure, the com plexity and diversity o f utopian m otiv ation s (not
only religious, but also political, econ o m ic, so cial) m ust put us
on guard against abusive generalizations and assim ilatio n s. It is
nctheless true that a good num ber o f these tow ns have at their
i r a place (religious and/or profane) representing the spirit
ual or intellectual sun o f the com m unity.*'
Churches and tow ns: these form s favorin g th e c e n t e r are not
.38
unim portant in an in tertextu al reading o f the Copernican enter

prise. T he universe is a temple (O R , p. 22); it is sacred , perm e
ated with sym bolism . A rtists tested and developed the symbolic,
sacred p o ten tialities o f the form used by C opernicus. This form
appeared in a c o n te x t w here it m ade sense, or rather, where it
made m ore and m ore Sense. A rtistic treatm ent added sym bolic
prestige to astron om ical gram m aticality.
The predilection for the cen ter and its periphery is expressed
not only in the im agination of con crete places like a church or
town, but even m ore in the work o f Erasm us and the evangelical
conception o f the relation of the faithful to God. The idea of a
concentric com m unity, with the G ospels at the center as the solar
principle, replaces the co n cep tio n o f a Church organized hier
archically from high to low. A faith where hierarchical interces
sion is co n te ste d in favor o f d ire c t com m u n ication betw een a
center and a h o m o g en eo u s periphery rises up against a m u lti
tiered faith w here c o m m u n ic a tio n passes betw een levels and
interposing au th o rities, and w here the sim ple believer is fur
ther from G od than the th eo lo g ian thus what is known by
the learned is believed by the sim p le [Quod ergo a docte scitur, a
simplice creditur] 32:
T here are few learned m en, but no one has ever been forbid
den to be a C h ristian , to have faith, 1 even dare say, to be
a th eo lo g ian .33
W e ...d e f in e so m any th in gs that w ith ou t harm to our
salvation co u ld be e ith e r unknow n or left in d ou bt. Is the
man who d oes not know' how to explain what distinguishes
the Fath er from the S o n , and both from the H oly Spirit,
to be d en ied p a rtic ip a tio n in the Father, the Son, and the
Holy S p irit?34
>39
The Language of Mystics

Like the solar m etaphor, the quest for the ce n te r appeared regu
larly in mystical discourse. T h u s, accord in g to T h eresa o f Avilas
biographer, the entire narrative o f the M oradas grew out o f her
vision o f a beautiful crystal globe (crystal sphere: figure o f the uni
verse) at the center o f w hich d w ells the K ing o f heaven : God
showed her a very beautiful crystal g lo b e , m ade like a castle with
seven dw ellings, and in the seventh, w hich was at the center,
dwelt the King o f Heaven in great sp le n d o r, illu m in atin g and
embellishing all those d w e llin g s.... 35 A g lo b e in the form o f a
castle: it is significant that in the tex t o f the M oradas, the globe
disappears. The center becom es uniquely the cen ter o f a castle.
For of course Theresa o f Avila was not con cern ed with the trans
positions involved in the Copernican universe. And from the geo
centric point o f view, the c o sm o s d o e s n o t lend it s e lf to the
metaphor o f the search for a radiant center. T h e initial unrationa
lized vision is Copernican. The te x t, allegorized and recoded, is
no longer Copernican.36
The quest for the center and the solar m etap h or are neces
sarily dissociated in a discourse that refers to the geocentric uni-
erse. Thus, St. John o f the Cross d oes not m en tio n the sun in
s long commentary on his verse: In the d e e p e st cen ter o f my
soul St. John s gloss does not appeal to the sun or to Heaven;
quite to the contrary, he refers to the A ristotelian physics o f a
su unary, low world. The m ovem ent o f the soul is com parable
t e natural motion of a stone toward the c e n te r o f the earth,
cally, discourse on the m ost elevated ex p erien ce must
rely on comparison to the lowest:
we assert that when a rock is in the earth, it is

^ ter a fashion in its center, even though it is not in its deepest
r it is within the sphere o f its center, activity, and
140
m ovem ent; yet we do not assert that it has reached its deepest
center, w hich is the m id d le of the earth. Thus it always pos
sesses the power, strength , and inclination to go deeper and
reach the u ltim ate and d eep est center; and this it would do
if the hindrance w ere rem oved. W hen once it arrives and has
no longer any pow er or inclination toward further movement,
we declare that it is in its d eep est center.
T he so u ls c en ter is G o d . W hen it has reached God with
all the capacity o f its bein g and the strength o f its operation
and inclination, it w ill have attained to its final and deepest
center in G o d ___ 37
Pierre de Berulle e x p lic itly uses the Copernican m etaphor in a

passage worth citin g in its entirety:
The A EG Y PT 1A N S w orsh iped the Sun, and through excess

called it the v isib le Son o f the in visible G od. But Jesu s is
the true Sun w ho lo o k s u pon us w ith the rays o f H is light,
who b lesses us w ith H is c o u n ten an c e, who rules us by His
m otions: Sun that we m u st always keep our sight fixed upon
and always w orship. Je su s is truly the one Son o f G od; and no
oth er th in g , n e ith e r th e Sun nor any o th e r created thing,
whether in Heaven or on Earth, can com pare to H im . Jesus is
the only Son, and the visible Son o f the invisible Father, as we
will say elsew here. L et us say now that He is the Sun, not o f
the Aegyptians, w ho were deceived by their fables, but o f Chris
tians in structed in the school o f truth and born o f the light
o f that Sun, w hich is the Sun o f the supernatural w orld, and
a Sun that wanted to d ep ict and represent H im self in this Sun,
which is only H is shadow and figure. For the Sun is the image
o f G od, the Father o f N ature, the universal Principle o f life.
And Jesu s is the true and living Im age o f the Eternal Father.
141
He is His im age, and sacred in H is divin e person, and even in

His humanity He is united to the D ivinity. He is the Author
o f the world, the Father o f hum an nature, both by His Power
in producing it, and by H is Love in red eem in g it. He is the
Source o f grace, and the Principle of the true life, in Earth
and in Heaven, in T im e and in Eternity, in m en and in Angels,
in Grace and in Glory. T h e Sun was form ed in the m iddle of
the days devoted to the C reatio n of the W orld, and it was
placed in the m iddle o f Creatures, above so m e and below oth
ers, to bring light to all. And Jesu s, S p len d o r o f the Father,
appeared in the W orld, and cam e in to the W orld through
grace, to the m iddle o f T im e, at the end o f the old Law and
the beginning o f the new Law, illu m in atin g w ith the light of
His giace the Fathers wrho had c o m e befo re, and th ose who
followed, both according to Scriptu re, as the lum inous stars
in the light o f the Sun, in the m id dle o f w hom He rose and
appeared to the W orld. And like c re ate d lig h t, w hich had
subsisted from the first day o f the w orld, [H e ] was united
to the body o f the Sun on the fourth day, to be in him and
through him a body and a principle o f light on Earth and in
Hea\en. Thus the eternal light, light not created bu t uncre
ated, the inherent light o f the Divinity, is in the fourth mil
lennium united and incorporated in the hum anity o f Jesus to
make in Him and through Him a Body and a Principle o f life,
8 ce, o f glory, and o f light for all Eternity. O ne o f the most
s Astronomers o f Antiquity was so m uch in love with
P cipal object of his scien ce, which was the Sun, that
nted to be able to see and contem plate it from close up,
L, i Urne^ an(l consum ed by looking d irectly at it. Jesus
Christ *eCt SC,ence salvation and the scien ce o f
on hi * "I* T uC D Ct0r and APostle the W orld publishes
is science is knowing Jesu s. Are not Christians
142
seized with love and d esire to see and contem plate this prin
cipal o b ject o f their Belief, o f their Science, and o f their Reli
gion? W ill they not have m ore affection for the Sun o f their
Souls than this P h ilo sop h er had for the Earths Sun; Son ex
posed to sight and for the benefit o f both men and beasts? And
do they not ardently d esire to approach this Sun o f Justice to
be not con su m ed but ign ited with the fire of Love and Char
ity w hile lo o k in g at H im ? An excellent mind of this centurv
wanted to m aintain that the Sun is a t the center of the World and
not the Earth; that it is immobile and that the Earth in propor
tion to its circular form moves in the sight of the Sun: bv this con
trary position satisfying all the appearances that oblige our senses
to believe that the Sun is in continual motion around the Earth.
This new opinion, little followed in the science of the Stars, is use
ful, and must be followed in the science of salvation. For Jesus is
the immobile Sun in His greatness, and the mover of all things.
Jesus is like His Father, an d seated to His right, He is immobile
like Him, and gives motion to all things. Jesus is the true Center of
the World, and the World must be in continual motion toward Flim.
Jesus is the Sun of our Souls, which receive all grace, light, and
influence from Him. And the Earth of our Hearts must be in con
tinual motion toward Him, to receive in all its powers and parts
the favorable countenance, and the benign influence of this great
Star. And so let us direct the motions and affections of our Souls
toward Jesus . . .. ^
Henri Brem ond m ade fam ous the last part of this passage (cited
in italics) in his analysis o f B erulles theocentrismJ9 1 he whole pas
sage elicits the follow ing com m en tary:
1- It begins w ith an allusion to A egyptians, that is to wor
ship of the sun as v isib le g o d , m id poin t in heaven, thus recalling
the revelations of H erm es T rism egistu s, and accordin g to Jean
43
Dagens probably influenced by Francois de F o ix s com m entary

on the Pimandros.40 The Egyptian them e o f the spatial midpoint
is associated with the cabalistic them e o f the tem poral m idpoint.
The sun was created on the fourth day o f G e n e sis, and Christ
came to earth in the fourth m illen niu m , at the m id p o in t in the
total duration o f the history o f the world. T his parallel could have
been inspired by Pico d ella M iran d o las H eptaplu s . 4 I Clearly
Berulle is heir to the R enaissance hum anism o f F icin o , Pico,
Foix de Candale, to their reverence for the prisci philosophic and
to their syncretism.
2. The last section is Copernican. T h e focu s shifts from the
m idpoint to the center. Berulles cen ter e x e rc ise s an attractive
force on souls. Jesus is the sun, the m over o f all things. He
gives motion to all things, and the W orld m u st be in contin
ual motion towards Him. Dynamic center, m otiv e force, w'hich
for this reason is no longer com pletely C op ern ican , but rather
Keplerian. The sun o f the De revolutionibus is effectively a purely
geometrical point o f reference and center o f lum inous radiation:
in the celestial mechanics o f C op ern icu s, the Sun plays a very
unobtrusive part. It is so unobtrusive that we m igh t say that it
plays no part whatsoever 42
^ 3. The Copernican system is in trod u ced w ith reservations:
new opinion, little followed in the scien ce o f the Stars. Berulle
listances and disengages him self from the qu estio n o f the valid-
y of the heliocentric m odel. Such caution notw ithstanding, the
same opinion is useful, and must be follow ed in the scien ce o f
sa vation. Even though the referential foundation o f the com -
P may be only imaginary, it still furnishes a p re te x t for an
p ious transfer o f meaning. The co sm o lo g ic al reference is
*| rea*'ty n 's an opinion, an im probable intellectual
inv U C Wanted to make use o f a m etaphor o f purely human
ent.on, uncertainly anchored, rather than a firm interpreta
144
tion o f the true order o f things. T he rhetoric o f figurative speech

is detached from the fix ed ord er o f things.
4. Concerning the C op ern ican them e, C lem ence Ram noux
notes, thus was sketched a harm onious correspondence between
infant science and classical religion. But the two sep arated... . 43
In effect, ju st as B erulles ideas began to spread, the Counter Ref
ormation attacked not only the Copernican thesis, but also the
diverse m anifestations o f a sym bolism favoring relations between
the center and the periphery. T he Council o f Trent reaffirmed the
principle o f the vertical and hierarchical organization o f the reli
gious com m unity. C aro lo B o rrom eo condem ned churches with
central altars, which he con sid ered pagan.44 In his Almagestum
novum, R iccioli took care to assign lim ited significance to the
relation betw een c e n te r and periphery. In the supernatural or
celestial order, the p lace o f greatest dignity is not the m ost cen
tral but the highest .45 T h e m ystical poetry o f a Le Moyne, for
example, returned to the orth od oxy of a geocentric universe and
traditional physics:
The spirit was raised to the circum feren ce,

And the body rem ained at the dispirited center.46
Formistic Severity
In spite o f everything that has been said about the em phasis on
circularity, the vertical axis was far from disappearing from the
Copernican universe. Special consideration was given to the rela
tion between a center and its periphery, in term s both o f the con
ception o f the universe and how that conception was interpreted.
The very fact that the universe continued to be tied to a tran
scendent m eaning was founded on a vertical interpretive schema.
The centrality o f a station ary sun was conceived not only in hor
izontal term s, linking phenom ena at the sam e level o f reality in
>4 S
i
a svntagmatic chain, but also in vertical or paradigm atic terms,

pointing to a higher level for w hich the ph en om en a are con
crete m anifestations.
Not only does this apply to the exp lan ation o f the centrality
and im m obility o f the sun; it also m otiv ates the synecdoches we
have encoun tered, syn ecd och es that c h arac terize Copernican
physics and the elim ination of the equ ant. In this physics, spher
ical perfection and the conservation o f in tegrity are final causes.
The equant is resented as a disturbance of the perfect and cir
cumscribed relation between a center and its circum ference. The
universe is conceived in terms o f teleological and form ist perfec
tion. Anything that puts that perfection at risk m ust be excluded.
The task o f astronomy and cosm ogony is to reduce the divergence
between phenomena and circular perfection in the work o f the
supreme artist.
fust as the theme that the universe is a sym m etrical work
of art confirmed and corroborated its sy m bolic character, so did
tropological effects linked to the form ist hypothesis of circularity.
The universe is the analogon o f a transcendent M eaning, which
is unrepresentable in itself. The entire thrust of the Copernican
construct is to improve the adequacy o f the analogical m odel to
its meaning:47
1. The first prerequisite for the proper functioning of an anal
ogy is a precise d escrip tion of w hat is b e in g c o m p a re d . The
Copernican universe, which unites all p h en om en a in a single
coherent system and strives for ce rtitu d e , is a b e tte r analogi
cal model than the geocentric universe, w hich is less coherent
and even appeared to som e as a m onstrous anti-m odel.
2. An internal structural requirem ent for any analogy con
cerns the clarity or precision with w hich th e c o m p a riso n is
applied. In this respect as well, the Copernican universe, with its
geom etric center, is superior to the oth er m o d el, with its
146
m ultiple, am biguous ce n te rs that are som etim es quantitative

and som etim es q u alitative.
3. The C opernican analogy is richer and denser, since it aug
ments the num ber o f p red icates com m on to the source and ob
ject o f the com parison. In particular, it adds the suns im m obility
to previous m otiv ation s for m aking it a figure for divinity.
4. The elim ination o f the equant produces a m ore systematic
analogy. For C o p ern icu s, the velocity and orbit of a planet can
be represented as a function of the sam e center. The suppression
of an unsuitable cen ter rem oves an am biguity and thereby aug
ments the p ercep tion that this analogical m odel is constituted
of mutually con strain in g elem en ts.
If the symbol appears m ore adequate for what it symbolizes in
the Copernican universe, it is appropriate to note that the Coper
nican m odel represents a shift in the orientation o f symbols. Geo
centric analogies focus on con crete elem ents (the qualities o f the
sun: heat, lig h t. . . ) and only a few in co m p lete relationships (the
sun, the ou ter and inner planets, but not the m oon or global
sym m etry ). T he C op ern ican m od el, w ithout totally ignoring
the elem ents, increases em phasis on relationships ( symmetry,
the elim ination of the equan t, the cen ter as geom etrical place).
Since, m oreover, the p rop ositio n that the earth m oves directly
contradicts sense p ercep tio n and is justified on purely rational
grounds, it is c lear that C o p ern ic an sym bolism p resu p poses a
much higher degree o f abstraction than geo cen tric sym bolism .
The transition to K ep ler w ill accen tu ate this shift.
'47

Fernand Hallyn - Metaphor of The Center A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fernand Hallyn - Metaphor of The Center A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C h a p t e r F o u r

Copernicus replaced Ptolem aic m echanism with organistic sym

For this n o n u n ifo rm ity w ould have to be caused either by

The Whole and the Parts

Order and Unity in Physics

natural m o tio n tow ard the center, would produce a necessarily

So, never should an Arrow Shot upright,

Must needs exceed a hundred-fold for sw ift,

Elsewhere, some o f these argum ents were articulated with greater

At the same time, Copernicus defined gravity as the tendency

earth is ch arac terized by e c c e n tricity and m otion, everything

Each such m o tio n en circles its own center:

In contrast to A risto tle, C op ern icus attributed in effect a varia

The consequence o f this synecdoche is that physics can no longer

place in the global order. M athem atical astronomy must conform

Z. Horsky has em phasized that it is m ore appropriate to make

This hypothesis asks us to im agine the p o ssib le m o tio n o f the

Likewise (similiter): the consideration o f likeness, allowing only dif

We see the Earth give birth, thanks to varieties o f seeds, to a

We see that F icin o , like C opernicus, distanced himself from

o f their sphere. 21 Here also, we find a sy n ecd och e at work and

Art: The Circle

of a f 1 ^ 1 m USt a i^ e r e t o l ^e re alization o r m ain ten an ce

'h ick n o sscs'o f a'l'u h T l1' V he C irC u m feren ce' th e su m o f the

trunk.25 T h is brings to m ind R aphaels paintings, where

the co m p o sitio n is organized in term s o f a circle into which

In spite of this im agination o f a geom etrically autotelic circle, it

Art: Perspectiva Su perior

geometrization o f space - that is, the su b stitu tio n o f the homo

We are asked to see longitudinal p ersp ectiv e in term s o f that

Diace mo8eneous space o f the C opernican universe, every

ticular b o d y " " ^ 3 P SS,b,e Center N o ,aw Predisposes a par

centrality reveals his desire to p ro te c t c re ate d sp ace from the

. . * ^'Pcrn*cat> universe is distant from h om ogeneous space.

The Genus a n d the Species

therm *^ ^ ^ ^ anets an(^ p e rio d s o f th e ir o r b its. Fur-

o! im iform ilv o n l- T ^ be made t0 be>' ^ ^

Fig u r k 4.1. T he equant. A planets angular velocity is not uniform P

formed by the apsides (conn ecting the apogee and perigee, p ? ^

construction contradicts a p rin cip le that P to lem y h im self had

it is first necessary to assum e in general that the m otions of

Yet the planetary theories o f P tolem y and m o st oth er astron

itv 8 drCleS ^rom w ^ ic ^ every apparent inequal-

u,fl repeat in De revolutionibus (4 .2 , 5 .2 ), C o p e r n ic u s

refused to c o n ced e that the uniform ity o f circular motion should

Furtherm ore, m o st learned Schoner, you see that here in the

On the first page o f his copy o f De revolutionibus, Reinhold,

construction contradicts a p rin ciple that P to lem y h im self had

it is first necessary to assum e in general that the m otions o f

Yet the planetary theories o f Ptolem y and m o st oth er astron

As he would repeat in De revolutionibus (4 .2 , 5 .2 ), C o p e r n ic u s

On the first page o f his co p y o f De revolutionibus, R ein h old,

sentation o f the planets orb it failed to satisfy this requirement,

of u n i f o r m l X i t v r r nt ifre fe re n C e H e n c e fo rth the CenteI*

perceived in tegration betw een tw o unities. 46 The tropological

But in ou r days, N ich o las C opernicus, who not without rea

Thus the point that is traced on a line o f the circle is neither

Even if there is no direct link betw een th ese lines by Ficino

Some historians co n d em n C o p ern icu s for ob jectin g in prin

At rest, however, in the m id dle o f everything is the sun.

This is an often c ited passage. Koyre goes so far as to say t ^

the religion o f the world that the C opernican revolution is intro

An expression like su sp ect o f b ein g p u rely literary is of