Music and the Making of Modern Science

Mersenne’s Universal Harmony 105

Mersenne reviews the planetary observations expressed in terms of their consonances or

dissonances; where purely Copernican arguments had earlier failed to sway him, Kepler ’ s

musical treatment finally wins the day.

After explaining the Copernican system, he praises it by saying that it will

serve musicians for entertaining their spirits in the contemplation of celestial things while playing

on the spinet, lute, viol, organ, or any other wind or stringed instrument, and for admiring the provi-

dence of God, Who has preserved such beautiful proportion in the order which He has placed in all

parts of the universe, I shall clearly show that man can not imagine anything excellent which is not

found therein [in the Copernican system] with a singular perfection.^7

Mersenne ’ s “ explanation ” includes a detailed account of Kepler ’ s work, which he contrasts

with that of Copernicus and Tycho, who “ concur regarding the sizes of the sun and the

earth ” and many other interplanetary distances. Mersenne prudently refrains from flatly

asserting the motion of the Earth but strongly implies his views through his high praise of

Kepler ’ s detailed harmonies, which agree with observation and hence have the kind of

musical provenance that Ptolemy evidently lacks, in Mersenne ’ s eyes. His “ Table of the

Harmony of the Planets ” marshals the observational evidence bearing on Kepler ’ s claims,

which Mersenne examines critically. Mersenne notes a number of places in which the

consonances are not perfect, reminding his readers that, according to Kepler, we should

judge these harmonies “ as if we were seeing them from within the sun. ” Viewed from that

central perspective, “ the consonances are perfect when one considers the two points where

the planets are nearest and farthest apart and when one always places two planets together, ”

at their conjunctions.

Despite these imperfections, Kepler ’ s planets “ approach perfection so closely that the

ear would have difficulty discerning what they lack. ” Accordingly, Mersenne feels that

Kepler ’ s planetary intervals “ may serve as musical notes, not only for a simple song, but

also for the four parts. Men may be said to have imitated the apparent motion of the stars

in order to represent planetary motion in their songs. ”^8 In summary, Mersenne judges that,

though Kepler “ did not find all that he desired to find and we still do not know precisely

enough the distances or motions of the planets, he blazed the trail and said several things

never before said or even thought. ” Mersenne further speculates that the hymn to the sun

that Kepler ascribes to the pagan Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus might be read as wor-

shipping the Son of God “ under the name of Titan or Sun, perhaps out of fear of being

punished by emperors who had the Christians killed and against whom he wrote. ” If so,

the heliocentric view could be identified as Christian and would identify this Neoplatonic

sage with the Christian cause, implicitly turning the tables on those who (like the pagan

Roman emperors and perhaps their latter-day heirs in Rome) proscribed heliocentrism.

Mersenne ’ s conclusion combines a clear declaration of the immovability of the sun with

careful avoidance of language that might get him in trouble: “ May it please God that all

the musicians of the Earth should never wish to sing or compose anything but hymns and