The three cosmic systems: Ptolemaic, Copernican and Tychonic with the inscription ALY ET ALIA VIDENT

At the base of this piece of paper in tiny but very precise writing are the Latin words “ALY ET ALIA VIDENT” meaning “Others see it yet otherwise”, suggesting that the three systems presented here are not exhaustive. Could this be a reference to Johannes Kepler who proposed that the planets orbit the sun in elliptical paths, did not believe Tycho’s system was physically plausible and abandoned Copernicus’s solid crystalline spheres? Behind the diagram of the cosmic systems is an astrological geniture for an as yet unidentified person born in the month of March. Perhaps the artist is suggesting the extremely close link between astronomy and astrology in the seventeenth century –  Tycho Brahe and Kepler both earned income from casting horoscopes.

It is interesting that ALY ET ALIA VIDENT is such a central phrase to the painting, almost like a caption — Others see it yet otherwise — the universe is amenable to different forms of interpretation. This is a strikingly casual stance for the period just a few years prior to Galileo’s Inquisition trial for Copernicanism. References to Galileo’s telescopic discoveries, incidentally, are surprisingly absent from the Linder Gallery, here we seem to be much more in the realm of precision measurement.

ALY ET ALIA VIDENT. What is behind this intriguing phrase? Could it be an oblique reference to Kepler? Or is it just a lack of cosmic committment? Given its prominence in the painting, could it be a suggestion that the painting itself is open to radically different forms of interpretation, or is that just a 21st century way of reading too much into a scrap of painted paper?

Again, this drawing seems to relate to the frontispiece of Kepler’s Rudolphine Tables, the book present on the green table, where we behold the Temple of Urania, muse of astronomy, inhabited by great astronomers of the past. Tycho Brahe points at the ceiling which is marked with his own cosmic system, asking the words “Quid si sic?” — “What if it is like that?”. Kepler himself is not included in the temple but sits in the base, looking at an architect’s model as the “humble” architect of a new edifice of astronomy. Another puzzle: given that the painting is all about measurement, geometry and perspective and their relationship with the arts, why is the perspective of the octagonal green table itself so wonky, apparently tilting forward?

Temple of Urania, Georg Celer's frontispiece for the Rudolphine Tables

Giovanni Battista Caravaggio, letter to Muzio Oddi, 28 March 1629

Here is an excerpt from the translation Alex and I made of the letter:

Three days ago, spurred on in part by my duty and in part by curiosity, I went to visit Signor Pietro Linder [...]. He offered to show me various beautiful objects in his study, where, as well as the little ivory statues and others of less noble material, and the casket arranged beautifully with various mathematical instruments, I saw in particular, among many other paintings which had appeared since I was there last, a painting of decent size in which a gallery is shown in perspective, adorned with various paintings, depicted with no less study than skill, both in the extreme diligence used in them, and in that one can see there the styles of different individual painters imitated.

Three tables are then depicted in a well-proportioned position, on which are various beautifully feigned mathematical instruments, concave mirrors, crystal lenses, pieces of prints, demonstrations and mathematical figures, and finally various medals, among which I saw the one with the image of your Lordship represented there with better fortune than the good Signor Pietro had with the cast, as in addition to displaying an extremely good likeness of your Lordship, there are also the letters that spell your name, carried out with such precision that, however small they may be, they can be read without difficulty. In sum it appeared to be that this painting, both for the inventione, which I understood to be in a large part due to your Lordship, and for the work, was worthy of the cabinet of any great prince.

There are a few interesting points to raise about this letter:

First, can we be sure he is really talking about the same painting? Although he describes the three tables and the astronomical instruments in detail, it seems strange that Caravaggio (not to be confused with the famous painter) makes no mention of the two figures — the bearded old man and the woman — dominating the foreground. Could it be that the allegorical figures were added later? Technical analysis makes that seem very unlikely. Given that Caravaggio cites Linder as the owner of the painting, and the Linder coat of arms appear in the upper left-hand window of the painting it seems pretty certain that he is describing this painting.

Second, Caravaggio suggests that his tutor the Urbino mathematician Muzio Oddi had a very important role in the “invention” of the painting. He also mentions that Oddi’s portrait medal is included in the painting. Close inspection of the Linder Gallery painting reveals Oddi’s portait on the octagonal table, the darkest and most illegible of all the medals (see the zoomable detail of the Green Table in particular). Oddi would appear to be a key figure in coming up with the strong mathematical emphasis of the painting (though curiously Oddi is not known to have had any particular interest in Kepler — strange given the strong references to Kepler in the painting).

Third, Caravaggio’s letter helps us date the completion of the painting. There are two objects represented in the painting that date from 1627 (Kepler’s Rudolphine Tables and the Muzio Oddi portrait medal) so it seems likely that the painting was completed between 1627 and 1629, while it may have been commenced well before then. It is of course possible that the painting was completed by a different artist to the artist who commenced it (gallery interiors were frequently collaborative works).

It is somewhat frustrating that Caravaggio doesn’t bother to mention the name of the artist in his lengthy description of the Linder Gallery. His letter does demonstrate clearly that the artist wasn’t working in isolation but in close consultation with at least two other people — merchant and collector Peter Linder and mathematician Muzio Oddi.

Detail of Linder Gallery showing books by Kepler and Napier

The title of the uppermost book is very difficult to read but it has recently been identified by Paolo Galluzzi as John Napier’s Description of the Admirable Table of Logarithms (1614), which Kepler used in performing the calculations of planetary motions in his Rudolphine Tables.

The Rudolphine Tables frontispiece contains a small portrait of Kepler, and it is possible that the male “Disegno” figure in the foreground of the Linder Gallery is intended as a likeness of Kepler.

Why Kepler? There are a number of reasons. First of all, the books and the cosmic diagrams point to Kepler. Secondly, I believe there is a strong likeness, especially with the portrait of Kepler in the frontispiece of the Rudolphine Tables, apart from the length of the beard. Finally, if a Northern artist was seeking an individual to personify measurement, mathematics and astronomy in the late 1620s, wouldn’t Kepler as Imperial mathematician and author of the most important planetary tables for a century be a highly likely candidate?

Documentary evidence linking Peter Linder or Muzio Oddi directly to Kepler has not yet been discovered. The idea of Kepler being used to inspire the Disegno figure in the painting does not imply direct acquaintance with Kepler on the part of the artist — he could simply have adapted the portrait from the published Rudolphine Tables (though why the longer beard one wonders). It is interesting that Disegno is wearing exactly the same skull cap and tabard (short coat) as Kepler in the Rudolphine frontispiece, which shows him in the base of the temple of astronomy.

Kepler potraits from the Rudolphine Tables and by Hans Aachen compared with the Linder Gallery