Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:49:19.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Johannes Kepler: A Man Without Confession in the Age of Confessionalization?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Maximilian Lanzinner
Maximilian Lanzinner
Affiliation:
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, Bonn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Johannes Kepler's most important publication on questions of religion and confession, his Profession of Faith appeared in 1623 when the universal scholar Matthias Bernegger had an edition of one hundred copies printed in Strasbourg — at Kepler's expense — under the title: Glaubensbekandtnus vnd Ableinung allerhand desthalben entstandener vngütlichen Nachreden. With this booklet, Kepler intended to demonstrate that his religious convictions did indeed stand in harmony with the Bible; in addition, he strove to refute the accusations of heterodoxy brought against him, the “gossip” or “Nachreden” as he called it. His argument peaks in the next passage: “It is indeed quite an irksome matter, and one very much a matter of great agitation for the average, uninformed man, that someone could be so foolhardy, proud, and swollen-headed as to join no [religious] party. But I swear by God that I have not found joy in the situation nor found any peace therein. It causes me great grief that the three large factiones have torn the truth so terribly among themselves that I am forced to search and piece the truth together where I find it.”

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 531 - 545
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. “Es ist zwar wol ein ergerliche vnd bey dem gemeinen vnberichten Mann ein sehr kitzelige Aufflag/das jemand so verwegen/stolz vnd auffgeblasen sein solle/vnd es mit keiner Parthey halten wölle. Aber ich bezeug es mit Gott/das ich mich dessen nicht frewe/noch auch mir drinnen wolgefalle […]. Es thut mir im hertzen wehe/das die drey grosse factiones die Warheit vnder sich also elendiglich zurissen haben/das ich sie stucksweise zusamen suchen muß/wa ich deren ein stuck finde.” From “N.N., Glaubensbekandtnus vnd Ableinung … Printed in the year of MDCXXIII,” in Hübner, jürgen, ed., vol. 12: Theologica, Hexenprozess, Tacitus-Übersetzung, Gedichte, 22–38, here 27Google Scholar in Johannes Kepler's Gesammelte Werke, ed. von Dyck, Walther/Caspar, Max (Munich, 1990)Google Scholar. Kepler's Gesammelte Werke are cited subsequently as KGW.

This article is based primarily on Kepler's own writings and correspondence. See Hübner, Jürgen, KGW 12:269–303Google Scholar, for an excellent commentary on the “Glaubensbekandtnus”. Regarding Kepler's theological thought, see the works listed in Caspar, Max, ed., Bibliographia Kepleriana, (Munich, 1936, 2d ed., Munich, 1968)Google Scholar; Hamel, Jürgen, ed., supplement to the 2d ed. (Munich, 1998)Google Scholar; also Martha, List's bibliography in the Kepler Festschrift, Acta Albertina Ratisbonensia 32 (Regensburg, 1971), 266–73Google Scholar; also Martha, List's bibliography Bibliographia Kepleriana, 1967–1975, in “Kepler Four Hundred Years: Proceedings of Conferences held in Honour of Johannes Kepler,” Vistas in Astronomy 18, ed. Beer, Arthur/Beer, Peter (Oxford, 1975), 957–1010Google Scholar. For a bibliography of Kepler's works and a short commentary on the most important writings, see Bialas, Volker, Astronomie (§23), in: Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie des 17. Jahrhunderts. vol. 4, Das Heilige römische Reich Deutscher Nation: Nord- und Ostmitteleuropa, ed. Holzhey, Helmut/Schmidt-Biggemann, Wilhelm (Basel, 2001), 903–19Google Scholar, here 906–19.

Jürgen Hübner's work on the question of confession in Kepler's thought has become the standard work in the field: Die Theologie Johannes Keplers zwischen Orthodoxie und Naturwissenschaft (Tübingen, 1950)Google Scholar; idem, ed., Johannes Kepler: Unterricht vom H. Sacrament des Leibs und Bluts Jesu Christi unsers Erlösers (1617) (Nova Kepleriana NF 1), (Munich, 1969); idem, “Johannes Kepler als theologischer Denker,” in Kepler Festschrift 1971 (Regensburg, 1971), 21–44; idem, “Kepler und Daniel Hitzler,” in Johannes Kepler. Werk und Leistung (Catalogue of the Austrian Landesmuseum 74, Catalogue of the Stadtmuseum Linz 9), (Linz, 1971), 73–80; idem, “Natural Science as Praise of the Creator,” in Kepler Four Hundred Years, 383–85; idem, “Johannes Kepler als Theologe,” in Heimatverein Weil der Stadt, Berichte und Mitteilungen 22, nos. 2–4 (1971): 2–8; idem. “Naturwissenschaft als Lobpreis des Schöpfers: Theologische Aspekte der naturwissenschaftlichen Arbeit Keplers,” in Internationales Kepler-Symposium, Weil der Stadt 1971: Referate und Diskussionen (Hildesheim, 1973), 335–56;Google Scholaridem, Die Theologie Johannes Keplers zwischen Orthodoxie und Naturwissenschaft (Tübingen, 1975). In the abovementioned volume Beer/Beer, Kepler Four Hundred Years, see also Martha List, “Kepler und die Gegenreformation,” 45–63; Edward Rosen, “Kepler and the Lutheran Attitude Towards Copernicanism in the Context of the Struggle Between Science and Religion,” 317–37; Egon Gerdes, “Kepler's Theological Self-Understanding and its Origin,” 391–94. See also Nitschke, August, “Keplers Staats- und Rechtslehre,” in Internationales Kepler-Symposium, 409–24Google Scholar. Schiffers, Norbert, “Das Verhältnis von Theologie und Naturwissenschaft bei Kepler,” in Internationales Kepler-Symposium, 321–34Google Scholar. Hamann, Günther, “Johannes Kepler, das Haus Habsburg und die katholische Kirche,” in Internationales Kepler-Symposion. Zu Johannes Keplers 350. Todestag. Bericht, Linz 1981, 45–66Google Scholar. Krafft, Fritz, “Astronomie als Gottesdienst. Die Erneuerung der Astronomie durch Johannes Kepler,” in Der Weg der Naturwissenschaft von Johannes von Gmunden zu Johannes Kepler, ed. Hamann, Günther/Grössing, Helmuth (Vienna, 1988), 182–96Google Scholar. Somewhat problematic, but still of value: Schuster, Leopold, Johann Kepler und die grossen kirchlichen Streitfragen seiner Zeit (Graz, 1888)Google Scholar.

2. KGW 12:37.

3. Caspar, Max, Johannes Kepler, 2d ed. (Stuttgart, 1950), 54Google Scholar.

4. KGW 13:274 (11/12 January 1599).

5. KGW 14:56. “Sed et hoc monendus est, non posse me gravissimis de causis Ecclesiasticum munus obire.” (to Maestlin, 19/20 August 1599).

6. To Maestlin, 16 December 1600. Caspar, Max/von Dyck, Walther, eds., Johannes Kepler in seinen Briefen (Munich, 1930), vol. 1, 148. KGW 14:158Google Scholar.

7. Sutter, Berthold, “Johannes Kepler zwischen lutherischer Orthodoxie und katholischer Gegenreformation,” in Katholische Reform und Gegenreformation in Innerösterrich 1564–1628, ed. Dolinar, France M./Liebmann, Maximilian/Rumpler, Helmut/Tavano, Luigi (Graz, 1994), 483Google Scholar (with further titles on Kepler), who explains that Kepler's renewed push was a result of his “anxious foresight” and his loyalty to his homeland, Württemberg. See also Hammer, Franz, “Keplers Bemühungen um eine Professur in Tübingen,” Schwäbische Heimat 22 (1971): 209–18Google Scholar.

8. To Duke Johann Friedrich of Württemberg, early May 1609. KGW 16:240–43. He had had the impression since 1607, “das sich die Calvinische spraach in articulis des praedestinatione et providentia Dej, partim etiam de persona Christj fast beginnet zuverändern” (p. 241). But even here, Kepler emphasizes that he “gewissens halben fürgenommen, der formulae Concordiae nit anderst als conditionaliter, de non oppugnanda, vnd cum exceptione tractandae Pacis nachmahlen zu vnderschreiben.” In the question of the Eucharist, he did not take such a clear position. Apparently he had the impression that the political rapprochement of Stuttgart and Heidelberg would also have to attenuate the theological indulgence of the Formula of Concord. He underestimated the formula's canonical effect, which likewise served to reinforce the confessions, hence precluding every possible change.

9. KGW 16:368–71. To the Duke and Duchess Sibylle, 9/19 March. The advisors, including the chancellor, vice chancellor Jannowitz, Dr. Broll, Dr. Daser, Göldrich, and Däcker, recommended that Kepler could be invested with a chair “summa cum laude… beneben M. Michael Maestlinus Professor Matheseos, in collegio Philosophico der Elteste, Alß könnte subsignirter vnderthönigem erachten nach dem Supplicanten auff eine solche stelle wol eine Expectantz gemacht werden” (ibid., 370. 9 April 1611).

10. 25 September 1612. KGW 17:27–32. The consistory admonished: “Ihr seyd zwar dessen beredt/euere subtilitates seyen dem gemeinen Mann viel zu hoch. Bedencket aber darneben/dass Mysteria in scripturis revelata vnvermeßlich höher/und euerm Verstand/wann ihr gleich an Scharffsinnigkeit Platoni et Aristoteli, Ptolemaeo et Copernico weit überlegen wäret/zu begreiffen schlecht unmüglich seyen.”

11. KGW 14:17. “Vnderricht Vom H. Sacrament des Leibes vnd Bluts Jesu Christi vnsers Erlösers.”

12. 17 February 1619. KGW 17, 331–33. Hafenreffer refers insistently to the wording employed: “Et verbum caro factum est. Si amas me, si amasti vnquam, obliviscere … affectuum tuorum et tentarem: Tria verba sunt, 1 verbum, 2 caro, 3 factum: aut stultus et amens ego sum, aut tu deprehendes. quàm stulti, amentes et furentes simus in divines mysterijs, nostra stultitiae ratione scrutandis.”

13. Caspar/Dyck 2:105 (28 November 1618) (see n. 6).

14. Ibid., 2:107 (see n. 6).

15. Ibid., 2:111 (17 February 1619) (see n. 6).

16. KGW 12:50. “Jam erat adultum apud me odium hujus certaminis.”

17. Caspar/Dyck 2:111 (see n. 6).

18. KGW 12:37 (“Glaubensbekandtnus”).

19. “Hertzen erkantes vnrecht […] mit dem gemeinen hauffen vnd wahn gut heissen.” KGW XII, 36.

20. Sutter, , Johannes, 473 (see n. 7)Google Scholar.

21. Caspar, , Johannes, 309 (see n. 3)Google Scholar.

22. Kepler, Johannes, Weltharmonik (Munich, 1939), 10 (end of the dedication)Google Scholar.

23. Krafft, Fritz, “Astronomie als Gottesdienst: Die Erneuerung der Astronomie durch Johannes Kepler, in Mensch und Kosmos, ed. Seipel, Wilfried (Catalogues of the Oberösterreichisches Landesmuseum NF 33) (Linz, 1990), 132–51Google Scholar.

24. Kepler, Johannes, Neue Astronomie (Munich, 1929), 28 (Introduction)Google Scholar.

25. Otto Zöckler, “Johannes Kepler,” in idem, Gottes Zeugen im Reich der Natur, vol. 1, Die früheren Jahrhunderte (Gütersloh, 1881), 166.

26. Caspar/Dyck 2:277 (To Guldin, Prague, spring 1628) (see n. 6).

27. Rossi, Paolo, Die Geburt der modernen Wissenschaft in Europa (Munich, 1997), 22Google Scholar.