Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science, 2022 (13): 1-22 ISSN 2526-2270 Belo Horizonte – MG / Brazil © The Author 2022 – This is an open-access journal Article A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism — Demonstrating the Importance of Scientific Historiography by Way of a Discussion between a Student and one of His Professors Jean-François Stoffel1 – https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0321-3875 Abstract: According to the Copernican myth, geocentrism was a form of anthropocentrism because it showcased humankind as being both the centre and the purpose of the Cosmos, whereas heliocentrism, in dethroning humankind from this privileged position, luckily provided a means to quash this point of view, which was illusory and vain, and that even went against scientific progress. According to the anthropocentric myth, which is a part of it, geocentrism 1 is a form of anthropocentrism, while heliocentrism is really an anti-anthropocentrism and not simply a non-anthropocentrism. This article, in the form of a dialogue, questions these two myths, looking in particular for the causes of their appearance, among which is a guilty anach- ronism. Keywords: Anachronism; Anthropocentrism; Geocentrism; Heliocentrism; Worldview Received: September 25, 2022. Reviewed: October 20, 2022. Accepted: November 11, 2022. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24117/2526-2270.2022.i13.05 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License _____________________________________________________________________________________________ To Lucas Trappeniers A Request LUCAS. — Excuse me, Professor, but as part of our research methodology coursework, we are required to complete a project demonstrating the importance of paying attention to the 1 Jean-François Stoffel is a Professor at the Haute École Louvain-en-Hainaut. Address: Département paramédical du Campus de Montignies, 136 rue Trieu Kaisin, 6061 Montignies-sur-Sambre, Belgium. Email: [email protected] Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel historiography of science, which means — if I’ve understood correctly — the way in which the history of science was previously written and how we ourselves write it today. PROFESSOR. — Well, that seems rather interesting… on my behalf, please congratulate the teacher who assigned you this project! LUCAS. — Will do! Although, we have to do it based on an interview with a teacher who has already dealt with this issue either directly or indirectly during the course of their re- search. We also have to read and use the article that they published as a result of that re- search. So, I immediately thought of you… because, as you mentioned before, I know that you are very attuned to the issues of methodology due to your thorough reading of Alexan- dre Koyré’s works. Do you have a publication on this subject, and would you accept my asking you a few questions after having read it? PROFESSOR. — No, not really, but the research I’m currently doing involves exposing a his- toriographical myth, while making sure to avoid merely substituting it with another one that is simply its opposite! I’m also looking to understand how this myth came about and why it persisted... LUCAS. — Great! I think that fits our assignment. But do you already have the article? PROFESSOR. — No, not yet. I’ve only just chosen the title: Centralities of the Earth and cen- tralities of humankind: towards a nuanced expression of the relationship between geocentrism, heliocentrism and anthropocentrism. I think there’s a solution to this, though: you could simply help me to write it, by playing the role of the innocent. So, at the end of the day, you will not only have asked me loads of questions, but you will also be in possession of the article 2 you need! What do you think of that? LUCAS. — That’s fine by me because I need a text! According to your title, it seems that your research is about the history of cosmology? PROFESSOR. — Yes, it concerns the idea that geocentrism was a form of anthropocentrism because it showcased humankind as being both the centre and the purpose of the Cosmos, whereas heliocentrism, in dethroning humankind from this privileged position, luckily pro- vided a means to quash this point of view, which was illusory and vain, and that even went against scientific progress. LUCAS. — With all due respect, everyone knows that! It’s the first of the three humiliations: Copernicus, Darwin and Freud! I’d really like to get a good mark. Do you think that with a subject like this… PROFESSOR. — I do… because this idea is still to be found everywhere: you just proved that to me yourself! It is, however, largely incorrect. A fact that was established nearly a cen- tury ago already in various incontestable texts! LUCAS. — Sorry, but that’s surely because this myth, as you say, isn’t entirely incorrect. Con artists, I’m told, know only too well that they have to blend a little truth in with their lies, at least if they hope to avoid being found out too easily! PROFESSOR. — Exactly, Lucas! That is indeed the case! And even twice over. Firstly, because this myth makes a fundamentally true statement, although less in relation to those who lived through this cosmological upheaval than to those who, a little later on, would create and Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel even sustain it. As I’d like to demonstrate in my article, it also contains a second piece of truth, since there is actually a form of anthropocentrism within geocentrism, but it isn’t as a direct result of this so-called vain centrality of the Earth! LUCAS. — I got it right with my con artist story then. So, can I be your Candide? PROFESSOR. — Of course! Here’s some reading material for you so you can immerse your- self in the subject. We’ll start working on this next Wednesday. Day One LUCAS. — Good morning, sir. I imagine we should start by better defining our subject. So, what exactly is this historiographical myth that the historians so hotly contested, that we still seem to find everywhere despite it all, and for which the two true parts were underesti- mated? PROFESSOR. — Here’s a very brief summary. The Earth, after having been placed at the centre of the world by human vanity, was debased because it lost this noble and prestigious position and took up an ordinary seat among the many meandering heavenly bodies; because in doing so, it became just a mere planet like all the others; and, lastly, because it was seen to be an incredibly small body compared to the vastness of the universe. As for humans, their self-esteem had taken a blow because they were no longer the centre of a world made purely for them; because they no longer occupied this central position that was a sign of their unique nature as sons and daughters of God; and because the possibility of there being other living species on other inhabited worlds had even deprived them of their uniqueness. 3 For the sake of brevity, let’s call this historiographical schema “the Copernican myth”, whereas others have named it “the great Copernican cliché” (Danielson 2001, 1029 & 2014, 159; Keas 2015, 25), and even “the modern historical interpretation” (Špelda 2014, 76). By the same token, let’s call the works of those who challenge this myth “the Copernican revision”. Have you been able to identify, from the description I just gave you, the part that we’ll need to focus on more specifically? LUCAS. — Yes, that would be the double comparison whereby geocentrism is a form of anthropocentrism, while heliocentrism is really an anti-anthropocentrism and not simply a non-anthropocentrism. And, naturally, you’ll call that… PROFESSOR. — …the anthropocentric myth and the anthropocentric revision! In this way, we’ll be able to distinguish between the overall interpretive schema and the more specific part that we’ll be examining. The latter is intrinsically linked to the notion of centrality, as implied at first glance by the term “anthropocentrism”. LUCAS. — Well, that’s perfectly clear! But I’m still not entirely convinced that I’ll get a good mark! When I came to see you, you told me that the Copernican myth has already been chal- lenged for nearly a century, but to no avail, it seems. So, why do you think that our article would succeed in changing anything? And also, who is going to want to read it, since even I admit to having my doubts about the relevance of your research? Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel PROFESSOR. — Your concerns are entirely justified, so I think I’ll toy with you a bit first and begin by reinforcing them… and then you’re going to tell me how we’re going to take that into account! I think we can separate our future readers into three groups: the more or less conscious supporters of the Copernican myth; the relatively few proponents of the Copernican revision; and, lastly, all those who, devoid of any preconceived ideas, are curious enough to make the effort to read our work. Leaving the last group aside, let’s try to guess what the two others will make of it. The supporters of the myth will say that the ties between geocentrism, heliocentrism and anthropocentrism were already firmly established in the second half of the 17th century (Dan- ielson 2001, 1033): geocentrism is a form of anthropocentrism; anthropocentrism is a form of geocentrism; and it’s thanks to the eternal glory of Nicolaus Copernicus, who inaugurated our modernity, that we were delivered, through heliocentrism, from these equally unified and puerile illusions. For them, our work will be seen as useless… since it’s superfluous! The proponents of the revision, on the other hand, will perhaps enjoy arguing with the former by pointing out that their attempt to set the Polish astronomer up as the flagbearer for the triumphant rejection of all anthropocentrism is, to say the least, paradoxical: on the contrary, the latter viewed the world as having been created for man (Copernic 2015, vol. 2, 8; Blumenberg 2000, xii-xiii, 38, 172). But having the distinct impression that their protests have thus far gone unheard, I imagine that they’ll above all be thinking: “What’s the point in yet another article?”. For them, our work will be considered equally useless… since it’s des- tined to fail! 4 LUCAS. — Well done on the pep talk, sir! So, how do you expect me to convince these people to read our work anyway? PROFESSOR. — Think about your assignment… LUCAS. — My assignment is about historiography… PROFESSOR. — So… LUCAS. — So, it needs to examine how we wrote scientific history… in this case, how the authors of the Copernican revision wrote theirs? PROFESSOR. — Yes, in order to… LUCAS. — …to see how we could go about things a little differently so as to increase our chances of success a bit? PROFESSOR. — Precisely! LUCAS. — But I guess that this exercise will teach us many other things… PROFESSOR. — Absolutely! It will be up to you to make sure this comes across in your work. So, this is my take on the contemporary history of the Copernican revision. To my mind, it began around ten years after the Copernican myth had acquired, between 1835 and 1925, its Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel particular set of features chiefly influenced by positivism, Darwinism and Freudianism (Stof- fel 2012). I’d suggest dividing it into three periods. As a starting point, seeing that it’s emblematic, I take the year 1936 because that’s when Arthur O. Lovejoy’s book, The Great Chain of Being, was published. This initial period was char- acterized by publications that either refuted the main idea of the myth or furnished a certain number of elements that went towards refuting it. Although in both cases, these publications did so in a partial, scattered and relatively discrete manner, with hardly any explanation or textual justification, simply because that wasn’t their main objective. I’d say the second one began in the early 1970s, with the debate between Cl. Savary (1969, 1970) and R. Montpetit (1970). It distinguished itself from the first in that its works provided a far more explicit and well-reasoned refutation. Lastly, the third one, which began around the year 2000 and is essentially based on the English translation of the prominent article by R. Brague (1997), is that of dissemination and vulgarisation. What have you gleaned from this quick presentation? LUCAS. — That it seems to demonstrate a growing awareness of the Copernican myth’s basic inaccuracy. We see this not only from the increasing number of publications but also from the rise of popularisers. PROFESSOR. — Right! So, this is the first point in favour of remaining hopeful when it comes to your legitimate concerns about our chances of success. 5 LUCAS. — There’s a second one? Let me figure it out… I feel that it must be linked to either the humiliation or to the truthful part that we already talked about, but I don’t really get the connection. PROFESSOR. — It’s linked to both! Let’s address the truthful part first. The resistance that the authors of the revision kept coming up against was a sign that the myth possessed a certain power that must have been, in one way or another, as a result of its truthful part. Consequently, it isn’t enough to merely explain the reasons for its falsehood, one must also, and perhaps above all, identify those that contributed to its success. Since once we’ve managed to identify what this success is the “symptom” of (Savary 1970, 399), it will be easier for us, even if we don’t manage to entirely cure our historical myopia, at least to become aware of why we remain so attached to this historiographical schema in spite of everything. LUCAS. — Then it’ll be easier for us to free ourselves from it. That’s the second point in favour of us remaining hopeful! PROFESSOR. — Exactly! In order to identify the reason behind this attachment, let’s now turn to the aspect of humiliation. You surely agree that it’s paradoxical, to say the least, to cling to a myth that we know to be quite far from the truth, and one that is also regarded as rather degrading for the human race! LUCAS. — Agreed! Although, to my mind, this myth seems fairly straightforward to explain, simple to understand and easy to remember. Also, the fact that it doesn’t entirely fit with Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel historical truth is quite secondary at the end of the day… Of course, we still have the humili- ation! PROFESSOR. — …humiliation for which the myth provides us with different interpretations. As far as I can make out, there are three that we can show as having succeeded one another over time: the first one is optimistic as it’s liberating; the second is nostalgic since it’s destruc- tive (Koyré 1957, 281; Stoffel 2018a, 426-427); and, lastly, the third is quite simply resigned. Now, according to the optimistic version — which is, above all, typical of the rational mind — this demotion, albeit real, was not only necessary but even deeply gratifying. Necessary, because the sudden awareness of these individuals having been ousted from their cosmic centrality allowed humankind to free itself of two prejudices responsible for ge- ocentrism and opposed to scientific progress: the authority granted to senses and the inces- sant use of finalistic reasoning. Gratifying, because this awareness served to reveal not only a rare strength of character but also the importance of the intellectual effort required in order to see through deceptive appearances. LUCAS. — So the humiliation of no longer being the centre and the end of the world was presented, by those who wrote this history, as having been largely offset by the triumphant revelation of the eminently human values of courage, power of reason and the ability to thenceforth ensure the progress of the sciences? PROFESSOR. — Exactly. Incidentally, I really like the way you worded that sentence because 6 you said: “…by those who wrote this history…”. Therefore, it’s…? LUCAS. — Historiography! PROFESSOR. — Yes, in the sense that you are attempting to figure out the true motivation behind such a story, in this case, the desire to get people to accept their loss of privilege by immediately replacing it with another one that is presented as being far superior! I’d like to take this opportunity to assure you that I’m in no way losing sight of the subject of your assignment. But that I’ll be trying to imitate Koyré, who never wrote a manual, or even a single article, on how to write scientific history. Instead, he peppered his publications with numerous methodological musings, because for him it wasn’t about mastering them theoretically but rather applying them day by day — as it were — article by article! This is why I’ll hardly ever mention historiography to you during our discussions. I would, however, like you to experience for yourself how different our little research project would have been had we not constantly remained mindful of the way in which history was written by our prede- cessors and the way in which we intend to write it ourselves. LUCAS. — Yes, we tend to believe more strongly in what we’ve experienced ourselves! But you know, I’ve read a little Koyré. I presume that the methodological principles you’ve just alluded to represent our need to set aside what we know, the dangers of searching for pre- decessors, and even the challenge of thinking like those we’re studying thought… PROFESSOR. — Quite so, but you are forgetting the most important one: the dangers of anachronism! That should remain etched in your mind! Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel LUCAS. — Done! I promise to watch out for any signs of the subdued yet fundamental ap- plication of these principles that should govern our way of writing history. But to come back to the values of courage, intelligence and scientific progress, are they really enough to make one forget such a major loss and humiliation? Because after all, being the centre and the end of the world was quite a big deal! PROFESSOR. — For the most part, yes! Since, other than this humiliating consequence of the new astronomy, it revealed another consequence which was seen to be even greater and which was presented as a major breakthrough for the human intellect. Allow me to sum up the reasoning behind it for you. With geocentrism, the Ancients were happy to derive their dignity from the special position they’d been assigned in the Cosmos. With heliocentrism, the Moderns certainly suffered humiliation, although this allowed them to realise that their true dignity resided in the very courage they’d displayed and in the intellectual effort they’d man- aged to make. This was a vital step forward since this passively received dignity, which was purely positional in nature and provided by an Other, was replaced by an actively acquired dignity that was intellectual in nature. Due to this substitution, the criteria establishing the nobility of the human race were greatly improved: no longer passive, but active; no longer dependant, but self-sufficient; no longer occupying a prime position in space, but endowed with the power of intelligence! That was more than enough, according to this interpretation, to help them forget the humiliation tied to a naïve and now outdated concept of the world and of humankind! LUCAS. — I fully understand that, and yet this feeling of humiliation, which should have been resolved along with the growing awareness of the substitution, still remains! One just needs to read the titles of many current publications… 7 PROFESSOR. — Of course, but don’t forget that where there’s an optimistic interpretation, there’s also a nostalgic one. What’s more, as you’ll come to understand shortly, the optimistic interpretation might also benefit from highlighting this humiliation. In any case, now you’re able to better understand why the battle being led by the revision authors is bound to be difficult despite the reasons that we’ve found for remaining hopeful: no matter the amount and pertinence of the arguments that these authors continue to produce, it’s never going to be easy for them to obtain a renunciation of this founding narrative of our modernity, which continues, under the guise of humiliation, to flatter the human pride to such a large degree! LUCAS. — So, hiding behind the humiliation lies a pride that’s at least as inflated as the one the Moderns criticised the Ancients for due to their central position in the Cosmos? In the end, is this not then just a case of one pride attempting to drive out another? PROFESSOR. — If we stick to this interpretation of the myth, then there are indeed those who argue in favour of that perspective (Polanyi 1962, 4), even pointing out that the latter is certainly not the lesser of the two (Gilson 1948, 246-247; Barth 1949, 21-22)! Because, don’t forget, that the revision consists precisely in denying the fact that the cosmic centrality of their dwelling might have been a favourable setting for the Ancients to get this impression. So, this would be a more accurate way of putting it: while harshly condemning the pride that supposedly belonged solely to the Ancients, the Moderns displayed a pride that was very real, albeit somewhat concealed behind their feelings of humiliation. Obviously, as I’m sure you realise, the truth of the matter is far more complex than this quick and provocative state- ment would suggest. Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel LUCAS. — I must admit that I still need time to digest this series of paradoxes… But at least I can tell my methodology teacher that my project, despite the issues you’ve just pointed out, is neither superfluous nor destined to fail — which is a pretty good thing! PROFESSOR. — You could even add to that: tell him it’s original! Think about it. What’s our position in the history of the Copernican revision? LUCAS. — We’re part of the third phase! PROFESSOR. — I’m not so sure! I think we could reasonably argue that we are inaugurating a fourth phase, or rather a new sub-phase within the third one. Think back to what I said to you when you were talking about con artists… LUCAS. — That I was right twice over because there wasn’t just one, but two truthful parts to the myth. We already discussed the first one: this feeling of humiliation that was present in both the optimistic and nostalgic interpretations. So, I presume you’re referring to the sec- ond one: the presence of a certain anthropocentrism within geocentrism! That’s why you told me that the revision, in its desire to correct the myth’s simplicity, had to be careful not to fall prey to equally simplistic statements, because they’d merely be reversing them! PROFESSOR. — Precisely! To my mind, it might even be necessary to go through two new sub-phases: the first being the one that you just mentioned relating to geocentrism, and the second being the transition period during which geocentrists and heliocentrists coexisted! Let’s take a look at the first one now. Remind me to tell you about the second one when you hear the word “topography”, okay? 8 LUCAS. — All right! PROFESSOR. — The first should then be characterised by paying closer attention to this an- thropocentric dimension, but without giving the impression of regressing, since it’s a ques- tion of trying to refine the revision rather than going back to the myth! LUCAS. — So, if we succeed, I’ll be able to tell my teacher that our work is original since the movement it’s trying to establish isn’t cyclical but rather helical! PROFESSOR. — I’m impressed! But we still have to prove it. Let’s examine this revision his- tory a little more closely. Aside from a few rare exceptions (Del Prete 1998), it consisted in implementing one of two strategies. The first and least frequently encountered in the field of scientific history, refutes the idea that within essentially Christian geocentrism the importance afforded to humankind was in any way linked to its position in space, or as is the case here, to its cosmic centrality (Vince- lette 2021, 148-149). This thus cuts all ties between geocentrism and anthropocentrism. The second, and most predominant, involves consistently contradicting all those claims put forward by the anthropocentric myth. Where the latter describes geocentrism as a form of anthropocentrism, the revision instead presents it as a form of diabolocentrism (Lovejoy 1936, 102; Nowicki 1973, 100), an infernocentrism (Slagle 2003, 291) or a theocentrism, which seems more relevant to me. Although, the revision immediately adds the fact that, from a human standpoint, it can also undoubtedly be seen as an anthropoperipherism (Lewis 1964, Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel 58). So, it’s not about deleting but rather inverting the link between geocentrism and anthro- pocentrism: instead of being seen as central, the position of humankind’s dwelling is qualified as peripheral, commonplace and insignificant… LUCAS. — And so, as opposed to deleting or inverting, we’ll be adding! But, in my role as Candide, I still have two more questions! Firstly, are you sure that we are the first to attempt reintroducing, as it were, a “dose” of anthropocentrism back into the Christian geocentric world? Just to see how high my mark could actually go… PROFESSOR. — Your question gives me the opportunity to better explain, and so to better define, our originality. As you’ve gathered, challenging the anthropocentric myth is denying the idea that human- kind’s dignity could have resulted from its cosmic centrality, since this was deemed con- temptible rather than glorious. But the fact remains that on the scale of beings typical of medieval thinking, the human race was positioned, to put it briefly, above the stars and only slightly below spiritual beings. Within the revision as we know it, we’re thus faced with a paradox: how are we to understand that humankind, even though positioned in the armpit of the Cosmos, could have been considered nobler than all other corporeal creatures, be they terrestrial or celestial? Aware of this issue, some authors (Slagle 2003, 297) made use of cer- tain elements belonging to Christian doctrine — the Imago Dei, the Incarnation, the Redemp- tion — in order to counterbalance the baseness of this dwelling place... LUCAS. — …and thereby explain how humankind, despite it all, managed to find itself so high up on the ladder! 9 PROFESSOR. — Exactly! And without denying the significance of these elements, our goal is nevertheless different: we aim to point out that which, within the very heart of the geocen- tric worldview and not within Christian doctrine, could have constituted proof of a certain anthropocentrism. Therein lies the relative originality of our approach. LUCAS. — Got it! Second question: why are you less partial to “diabolocentrism” and “in- fernocentrism”, while favouring “theocentrism”? PROFESSOR. — I won’t be able to answer that for you until I’ve explained why, in geocen- trism, the centre of the world was considered to be the most contemptible one. LUCAS. — Okay, well I’m really looking forward to hearing that explanation because I hon- estly don’t see the logic in it. I think that being in the centre is a rather good thing! I mean when you’re teaching a class, you’re the one in the middle of the lecture theatre and not some other halfwit… PROFESSOR. — You’re entirely correct, so much so that I’ll make that next Wednesday’s topic… right after you give me a brief summary of what we discussed today. In the mean- while, keep reading! Day Two PROFESSOR. — Good morning, Lucas. Would you mind refreshing my memory as discussed, please? Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022 A Persistent Myth: Comparing Geocentrism to Anthropocentrism and how this Vain Illusion Was Shattered by Heliocentrism Jean-François Stoffel LUCAS. — Of course, I’ve prepared a summary. Let me read it to you. Endeavouring to better explain geocentrism, heliocentrism and anthropocentrism may seem somewhat superfluous to the proponents of the myth, and even futile to those sup- porting the revision. However, we shouldn’t allow the latter’s feelings of impotency to un- dermine our efforts because, on the one hand, we’re witnessing an increasingly widespread dissemination of the revision and, on the other hand, we plan to reveal not only the reasons for the myth’s falsehood but also those that have contributed to its success. The latter, albeit multifaceted, is largely due to the fact that the myth, under the guise of humiliation, flatters human pride by appealing not to the position of our dwelling, but rather to the power of our intelligence. By substituting this intellectual criterion for a spatial one, it’s perfectly in keep- ing with modern thinking which is partly founded on this narrative. This is why we remain so attached to it. Its endurance can also be explained by the truthful part that it contains. Whereas the revision either severed any ties between geocentrism and anthropocentrism or reversed the link that traditionally united them, it seems essential to recognise the fact that there’s indeed an element of anthropocentrism within the geocentric worldview. It’s for this reason that our efforts will be neither superfluous nor destined to fail, and even quite origi- nal! PROFESSOR. — Not bad! As I remember, you’re eager to understand why the cosmic cen- trality of the Earth was considered humiliating as opposed to glorious, as claimed by the myth. Here’s the explanation for you (Stoffel 2018b, 414-420). As such, the study of the different cosmological systems only pertains to the history of astronomy, or, depending on one’s point of view, to that of cosmology, providing one adopts 10 the current meaning of the term. However, when one also takes into account the particular topography that comes with each of these systems, they go towards defining a certain worldview. Studying them thus pertains either to the history of natural philosophy or to the history of cosmology, this time used in a broader sense. By “topography”, I mean that set of characteristics — of a scientific, philosophical, religious and symbolic nature — which, whether spatial or temporal (or at least reputedly so), mean that these cosmological systems serve not only to scientifically order and arrange these celestial bodies but also to determine a certain worldview, or a Weltanschauung, as Koyré would’ve put it. LUCAS. — You mentioned “topography”, which is when I was to remind you that… PROFESSOR. — Yes, I remember. But please wait a little longer! Our topic concerns the value that’s ascribed to humankind according to the centrality at- tributed, or not, to its dwelling. This thus involves two worldviews and not just two cosmo- logical systems. Consequently, we need to take these topographies into account. We can identify two main ones, without it being necessary, for our purposes, to go into any further detail. The first one, which is essentially vertical, is obtained imaginatively by omitting the south- ern hemisphere, both terrestrial and cosmic, and by the perfect, albeit purely fictive, align- ment of the “planets” along an axis perpendicular to the horizon while defining a range of values (fig. n°1). Seeing that in this worldview, all movement and efficiency — the source of which is generally to be found beyond the sensory world — are communicated to the rest of the cosmos from the sphere of fixed stars, this axis is traversed in a downward direction: from the sphere of fixed stars (seen as the top) down to the Earth (seen as the bottom), Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science 13 (December) 2022