Celestial Influence as an Aid to Pluralism from Antiquity to the Renaissance

Christie, James E.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22169-0_2

James E. Christie²²

Part of the book series: International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées ((ARCH,volume 228))

197 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter begins in the classical period, discussing Plutarch’s On the Face which Appears in the Orb of the Moon as an example of how closely connected theories of influence and inhabitation were when considering the nature of the moon as a potential ‘other earth’. The importance of teleology in the discussion is highlighted, as is the prominence of Platonic and Stoic cosmological elements. The chapter then proceeds to the medieval period and looks at the development of an ‘astrologizing Aristotelian natural philosophy’ and in particular its relevance in two areas: the question of natural generation and the question of divine providence. This astrological natural philosophy was the dominant cosmological paradigm against which (but also within which) the plurality of worlds tradition would eventually develop. The chapter then moves on to Nicholas of Cusa, whose work On Learned Ignorance demonstrates how celestial influence was connected to the question of pluralism. After Cusa, the chapter looks at other philosophers who introduced novelties into celestial natural philosophy, such as Marcellus Palingenius, Thomas Digges, Giambattista Benedetti, Francesco Patrizi and Giordano Bruno. In each case the question of celestial inhabitation is shown to be closely linked to questions of influence.

Certain people have said that there are as many species of things in the earth as there are stars. If the earth thus contracts the influence of all the stars into individual species, why does it not happen similarly in the regions of other stars, which receive the influences of the others?

Nicholas of Cusa

Cusa 1932, 109: ‘Dixerunt quidam tot esse rerum species in terra, quot sunt stellae. Si igitur terra omnium stellarum influentiam ita ad singulares species contrahit, quare similiter non fit in regionibus aliarum stellarum influentias aliarum recipientium?’

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 79.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 99.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For a discussion of the Greek sources for the pluralist philosophy, see McColley 1936, 385–92.
2.
Pseudo-Plutarch , Placita philosophorum, II.25–30; Stobaeus, Eclogues, I.17–25.
3.
Consider this quote from Jaki 1978, 10: ‘If there was a saving grace in the cosmological dicta of Epicurus and Lucretius , it consisted in the absence of fantasy and astrology.’
4.
A good summary of this process is given in von Stuckrad 2016.
5.
Lucretius, De rerum natura, I, 127–30: ‘…qua propter bene cum superis de rebus habenda / nobis est ratio, solis lunaeque meatus / qua fiant ratione, et qua vi quaeque / gerantur in terris.’ English verse from Lucretius 2004, 4.
6.
Lucretius , De rerum natura, II, 991: ‘Denique caelesti sumus omnes semine oriundi…’; ibid., II, 1000–1: ‘…quod missumst ex aetheris oris, / id rursum caeli rellatum templa receptant.’ Lucretius 2004, 64.
7.
See also Hardy 2015, 208; Porter 2016, 486–88.
8.
Quotations are from Plutarch 1957 .
9.
Knox argues that Copernicus probably didn’t read De facie. However, Knox mentions two other works by Plutarch which repeat this theory of gravity: Plutarch, De Stoicorum repugnantiis, XLIV, 1054E–55B; De defectu oraculorum, XXVI, 424E. See Knox 2005, 182–89.
10.
This does conflict, however, with Plutarch’s cosmological dualism, which contrasted the changeable sublunary realm with the regular celestial realm, as stated in Isis and Osiris, 369b–d. See Chlup 2000, 150.
11.
See Campion 2008, 218–19.
12.
This extension of terrestrial deserts to a cosmic scale would be later echoed by Kant . See Kant 1981.
13.
See Coones 1983, 366. On Plutarch’s negative attitude towards atomist principles, see Hershbell 1982.
14.
The idea of the moon as a ‘point of confluence’ that relays other celestial influences to the earth will be echoed by later thinkers. See Sects. 2.3, 2.5 and 3.3.
15.
Plutarch’s source is probably Theophrastus, Historia plantarum (IV, 3.7; VIII, 1.1, 1.4, 2.6, 3.2, 6.6) and De causis plantarum (II, 1.2–4; III, 1.3–6).
16.
It should be noted that works on astrology and magic were those most eagerly searched for and translated by the Latin translators. See Burnett 2009.
17.
For a comprehensive study of Avicenna’s synthesis of cosmology and medicine, see Jouanna 2001.
18.
On the tradition of critical days, see Pennuto 2008.
19.
On this topic, see the various contributions in Oestmann et al. 2006.
20.
For an example of this practice, see Kassell 2005.
21.
While it may now seem bizarre, the idea of spontaneous generation is central to the history of astrobiology as a precursor to abiogenesis—the idea that, under the right circumstances, inanimate matter can give rise to living organisms. On the subject of astrobiology’s engagement with questions about the origin of life, see Dick and Strick 2005, 224–26; Świeżyński 2016.
22.
See also Averroes , Long Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, VII.31.
23.
Averroes, Epitome of the Metaphysics, Section 28, translated in Davidson 1992, 239.
24.
Averroes , Epitome of the Metaphysics, Section 65, translated in Davidson 1992, 161. See also Freudenthal 2002, 120–21.
25.
See Saif 2015, chap. 4.
26.
Thomas Aquinas , Summa theologiae, I, q. 91, a. 2. For further scholastic opinions about the role of the heavens in generation, see the discussion of the question ‘Can celestial bodies generate living things?’ in Grant 1994, 579–86.
27.
Plotinus , Enneads, IV.4, 22, 26–7; ibid., VI.7, 11; Proclus , Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, IV.4. See Hirai 2008, 274–75.
28.
Averroes , Epitome, 168 (77), quoted in Freudenthal 2002, 122, n. 32. Averroes was influenced in this respect by Alexander of Aphrodisias’ De providentia.
29.
Cardano 1554 , fol. A2^r. Quoted in Ernst 1991, 252. See also Ernst 2001.
30.
See Westman 1975; Kusukawa 1995; Brosseder 2005. On the role of astrology in the Reformation more generally, see Barnes 2015.
31.
Melanchthon , De dignitate astrologiae, in Corpus Reformatorum, XI, 263: ‘Astrologia pars est Physices, quae docet, quos effectus astrorum lumen in elementis et mixtis corporibus habeat, qualia temperamenta, quas alterationes, quas inclinationes pariat.’ Translated in Methuen 1996, 396.
32.
Questions about the nature, extent and theological dimensions of celestial influence were far more complex in the medieval and early modern periods than is being presented here. A good place to start is the chapter on ‘Celestial Influence’ in Grant 1994, 569–617.
33.
Melanchthon 1550, fol. 43. Translated in Dick 1982, 89.
34.
For a look at some of the main theological controversies up to and including Cardano , see Vescovini 2014.
35.
According to Dick, the crucial development in this period was from ‘outright rejection of other worlds to the insistence that they were possible according to natural law’ (Dick 1982, 23). See also the rest of his chapter on the medieval tradition, in ibid., 23–43, and also Grant 1994, 150–68.
36.
Robert Grosseteste, Hexaemeron, III, vi, 1–3; viii, 3. Translated in Dales 1980, 541.
37.
Citations will be to the edition in Cusa 1932. Available English translations are Cusa 1985, 1997, 85–206. The translations here have been altered from those in Cusa 1985.
38.
Cusa 1932, 61: ‘Caeli etiam dispositio … praecise scibilis non est.’
39.
It is known that he did acquire a copy of Plutarch’s Vitae and Moralia on this trip (British Library, Cod. Harl. 5982), although this particular manuscript does not contain De facie.
40.
Cusa 1932, 98: ‘Nam dum omnia moventur singulariter, ut sint hoc, quod sunt, meliori modo et nullum sicut aliud aequaliter, tamen motum cuiuslibet quodlibet suo modo contrahit et participat mediate aut immediate, sicut motum caeli elementa et elementata et motum cordis omnia membra, ut sit unum universum. Et per hunc motum sunt res meliori quidem modo, quo possunt. Et ad hoc moventur, ut in se aut in specie conserventur per naturalem sexuum diversorum connexionem, qui in natura complicante motum sunt uniti et divisive contracti in individuis.’
41.
See Hopkins’ introduction to Cusa 1985, 17.
42.
Cusa 1932, 105: ‘Unde ista terra inter regionem solis et lunae videtur situata et per horum medium participat aliarum stellarum influentiam…’
43.
This seems to be what Cusa means by ‘…quas [stellas] nos non videmus propter hoc, cum extra earum regiones simus; videmus enim tantum regiones earum, quae scintillant’ (Cusa 1932, 105–06). The other alternative is that he means other ‘dark’ stars which do not shine.
44.
See Hopkins’ introduction to Cusa 1985, 27.
45.
But again, Cusa would stress our ignorance about astronomical specifics such as these.
46.
Cusa 1932, 108: ‘suspicantes in regione solis magis esse solares, claros et illuminatos intellectuales habitatores, spiritualiores etiam quam in luna, ubi magis lunatici, et in terra magis materiales et grossi; ut illi intellectuales naturae solares sint multum in actu et parum in potentia, terrenae vero magis in potentia et parum in actu, lunares in medio fluctuantes. Hoc quidem opinamur ex influentia ignili solis et aquatica simul et aërea lunae et gravedine materiali terrae, consimiliter de aliis stellarum regionibus suspicantes nullam inhabitatoribus carere, quasi tot sint partes particulares mundiales unius universi, quot sunt stellae, quarum non est numerus…’
47.
On Cusa’s astrology, see Roth 2001a, b.
48.
Cusa 1932, 109: ‘Dixerunt quidam tot esse rerum species in terra, quot sunt stellae. Si igitur terra omnium stellarum influentiam ita ad singulares species contrahit, quare similiter non fit in regionibus aliarum stellarum influentias aliarum recipientium?’
49.
For the English translation, see Palingenius 1947 [1560]. References here will be to the Latin text in Palingenius 1996.
50.
See Johnson and Larkey 1934.
51.
Palingenius 1996 , 443: ‘Quid virtutis habet coelum? Est vis omnis in astris: Astra regunt orbem terrarum, atque omnia mutant: Astra creant cuncta in terris, et cuncta gubernant.’
52.
On Palingenius and Lucretius , see Haskell 2015. See also Bacchelli 1999, 2001.
53.
Palingenius 1996, 451: ‘Quis, nisi vidisset pisces habitare sub undis, sub limo ranas, salamandras vivere in igne, aëre chameleonta, et pasci rore cicadas, crederet? At vera haec tamen et mira esse fatemur. Plurima sunt, quae cum fieri non posse putemus, saepe tamen fieri possunt, et facta videmus. Cur non ergo Deus potuit quoque condere tales, Coelicolas, qui per coelum facile ire valerent, nulliusque cibi vel potus prorsus egerent?’
54.
This was argued by Foster Watson in 1908, who was relying on earlier work by Gustave Reynier on the sources of the Zodiacus vitae. Reynier had found that much of the occult material in the poem was taken from Agrippa’s De occulta philosophia (1529). Watson saw Palingenius’ spiritual approach to ‘older philosophies’ as similar to Agrippa’s (Watson 1908, 69–70).
55.
Palingenius 1996, 255: ‘Singula nonnulli credunt quoque sidera posse dici orbes, terramquae appellant sidus opacum…’
56.
A Perfit Description is reproduced in Johnson and Larkey 1934, 78–95. On Digges and Palingenius , see ibid., 101–4.
57.
See also Roos 2001, 88.
58.
On Copernicus’ impact on pluralism, see Dick 1982, 66–105.
59.
See ‘Defensio Ephemeridum’, in Benedetti 1585, 228–48. See also Omodeo 2014, 145–49.
60.
See Westman 1975. Westman characterised this interpretation as involving the adoption of Copernican mathematical models and ephemerides, while ignoring the physical implications.
61.
Benedetti 1585 , 195: ‘Minus sufficienter explosam fuisse ab Aristotele opinionem credentium plures mundos existere.’
62.
Benedetti 1585, 195–96: ‘ut exempli gratia, si doctissimi Aristarchi opinio est vera, rationi quoque consentaneum erit maxime, ut quod lunae contingit, cuilibet etiam ex aliis quinque planetis eveniat, idest, ut quemadmodum Luna suorum epicyclorum ope circum terram voluitur, quasi per circumferentiam alterius cuiusdam epicycli, in quo terra sit instar centri naturalis (idest sit in medio) delati ab orbe annuo circa Solem; Sic etiam Saturnus, Iupiter, Mars, Venus, atque Mercurius, circum aliquod corpus in medio sui epicicli maioris, situm habens, volvantur; quod quidem corpus, et aliquem quoque habeat motum circa suum axem, sit opacum, iis conditionibus, quae terrae sunt similes, praeditum existat, et in dicto epyciclo sint res similes istis lunaribus.’
63.
On Benedetti’s interpretation of Copernicus , see also Omodeo 2014, 175–78.
64.
‘De fine corporum coelestium, et eorum motu’, in Benedetti 1585, 255–56: ‘… si absque lumine superiori, in quem finem facta fuerint corpora coelestia scire desideras, et humanam rationem sequi volueris, putandum tibi non erit ea. solum effecta esse, ut tam vile corpus, ut est terra aquis irrigata, animalia, et plantas regant, cum ea. corpora sint divina, an numero incomprehensibilia, maximis magnitudinibus, et motibus velocissimis, praedita, id etiam minus putabunt hii, qui opinionem Aristachi Samii, et Nicolai Copernici sequuntur, quorum ratione fieri non potest, ut credant; eius, quod ex uni[verso reliquum] est, alium finem non habere, quam regimen huius centri epicycli Lunaris, ut illorum more loquar. Quam enim turpe esset si centra aliorum epicyclorum planetarum tali regimine privarentur, id quod nullo modo cum ratione consentit, [si tam] vera est ea. opinio, quemadmodum rationabiliorem eam existimant.’
65.
Benedetti 1585 , 413: ‘Motus corporum coelestium fit ratione situs, et varietatis virtutis stellae in diversis locis, haec autem varietas absque diverso situ eiusdem stellae, nec diversus hic situs absque motu fieri posset, ita ut motus stellarum sit ratione diversitatis situum ipsarum, ergo motus, et diversitas situum, fit, ob diversam influentiam.’ Translation: ‘The motion of the celestial bodies takes place in order that the position and influence of a star vary in diverse parts [of the earth]. This variety, however, cannot be achieved without the diverse position of that star, nor can this diverse position be achieved without motion. Thus, as the motion of the stars occurs on account of the diversity of their positions, the motion and the diversity of positions occurs in order to create a diverse influence.’
66.
Benedetti 1585 , 255: ‘quasi specula, lumen Solis suo centro ex reflexione, deferentia’.
67.
See Lindberg 1986, 28–29. On issues related to atomism, see Henry 2001.
68.
This was actually a common scholastic distinction. See Grant 1994, 392–93.
69.
See Muccillo 1986; Vasoli 1989.
70.
Patrizi 1591 , fol. 113^r: ‘Luna ergo, aetherea terra esto. Et terra nostra, elementalis esto luna. Neque duae hae terrae, sive duae hae lunae, a Conditore frustra sunt conditae. Similitudine enim mutua, altera alteram fovet, et sibi invicem favent, et influxus, quibus et ipsae, et utriusque partes, tum vivant, tum conserventur, altera ab altera suscipiunt.’ In this and other cosmological areas, Patrizi was greatly influenced by Proclus . See Fabbri 2012, 2016.
71.
Patrizi 1591 , fol. 113^v: ‘Et quia foeculenta corpora, torpidissima, sui sunt natura, et ignobilissima, necesse habuerunt, ut praeter ea. quae a sole, beneficia hauriunt, sese propriis, luna et terra mutuo iuvarent, altera alteri vires suas influendo. Qua in re, quid terra in lunam agat, sicut est nobis ignotum, sic est fere nobis cognitum, quae luna agat in terram.’
72.
See Fabbri 2016.
73.
Patrizi 1591, fols 114^v–117^r: ‘An stellae aliquid agant.’
74.
Plotinus , Ennead, II.3, ‘Utrum stellae aliquid agant’, in Plotinus 1580, 137–59.
75.
On Patrizi’s theory of space , see Henry 1979; Grant 1981, 199–206.
76.
Patrizi 1591 , fols 105^v–106^r: ‘Suntque non uti Astronomorum, et philosophorum plerumque vulgus existimavit, corpora inanima. Sed sunt, ut vere eos appellavit Zoroaster, et post eum Plato , et Aristoteles, animalia. Igitur, et natura quae actiones eorum peragit, et spiritu, qui eorum est vector, et animo, qui motus eis dat initia, et intellectu, a quo omnis rerum venit ac pendet ordo, ipsa vivunt, et feruntur, et agunt, et Conditoris nutibus obtemperant, et universi harmoniam contemperant, et ut mundo expedit, cursus obeunt, et actiones alias suas peragunt, et generationis tam variae rerum nostratium, semina, atque spiritus influunt.’
77.
Patrizi 1591 , fol. 115^v: ‘Quaestio est nobis proposita, utrum stellae aliquid agant. Haec quidem universalior est, quam ut ad homines solos, uti hi tres magni fecere viri, redigatur. An scilicet stellae, hominum tantum, vel curam gerant, vel ipsis solis boni, vel mali influant aliquid. Sed in amplius, est quaestio fundenda, utrum omnino agant aliquid stellae? Actio haec, vel inter eas versatur, vel per totum extenditur coelum, vel per partes eius omnes, et singulas vagatur, et proximas, et longinquas, et procul maxime positas. Vel etiam in superum mundum Empyreum porrigitur, vel in inferiorem hylaeum descendit, et per aerem pervadit universum, et aquam, et terram occupat universas, tum horum partes. Nec non etiam, an quid in metalla, in tot generum lapides, in plantas in Zoophyta, in tot animalium species, non minus quam, an in homines tantum agerent, considerare si non Astrologi, qui pecuniarum suam artem fecerunt aucupium, philosophi saltem debuerunt, quibus, veritatis vestigandae proprium est munus, et rerum causas inquirendi. Nos igitur ita dicamus. Astra confessione tum Astrologorum, tum philosophorum omnium, corpora sunt. Corpora aut omnia, sunt substantiae. Substantiae aut omnes vires habent suas. Vires in actiones sibi proprias exeunt. Siderum substantiam iam antea sumus contemplati. Vires modo eorum, et actiones sunt cognoscendæ. Astra a Deo sunt creata. Deus nihil frustra facit. Igitur, astra, corpora tam insignia, tam ingentia, tanto numero, quis dixerit eum fecisse frustra? Neque igitur vires eis indidit frustra, neque ex iis viribus, frustra exeunt actiones.’ Emphasis added.
78.
Patrizi 1591 , fol. 116^r: ‘At quid producunt? Empyreos nimirum partus, Empyrea animalia, Zoophyta, plantas, lapides, metalla, reliquorum entium genera, Empyreo convenientia, Empyreo propria.’
79.
Patrizi 1591, fol. 116^r: ‘…ita in stellis singulis semina erunt singula, ita ut in omnibus stellis, semina sint omnia’.
80.
Patrizi 1591 , fol. 116^r: ‘Actiones, quæ singulis illis competunt, quæque propria sunt cuique, notas partim, partim nobis ignotas.’
81.
Patrizi 1591, fols 116^r-v: ‘Stellae, semina quae habent singulae. Vel in se ipsas iaciunt, vel in socias mutuo, vel enim ea. iaciunt, vel non iaciunt. Iacere hoc, foecundare intelligimus. Si non foecundant, ociosa, et semina sunt, ociosae et stellae, et frustra a Conditore conditae sunt. At id dicere est nefarium. Foecundant igitur. Id vero, vel in se ipsis, vel extra se? Et in se et extra se. In se quidem, ut modo quo illis convenit, foecundentur et prolificent. At sensus noster id non cognoscit. Cognoscit tamen ratio. Dictat enim, Deum stellas non frustra fecisse. Frustra autem essent, si operarentur nihil. Semina ergo quaeque sua in se foecundant primo. Atque ita Pythagoreis assentiendum illis, qui singulas stellas singulos esse mundos affirmarunt. Qui suos aeres, suas aquas, suas terras continerent, et animalia in eis habitarent puriora, nostrisque diviniora. Idque longe est probabilius, quam putare, aut asserere, tot, ac tanta, et tam pulchra corpora, vel frustra esse a Conditore fabrecta, aut quasi frustra. Aut si hoc nulla admittit philosophia, necesse est illud admittere, aut aliquid simile, ut scilicet, et ipsa sidera, mundi sint coelestes, spiritu, animo, menteque propriis viventes, et viventes mundi totius vita communi, ex communi tum mente, tum animo, tum spiritu. Extra vero se, agant procul, quam procul lumina sua iacere possunt et cum luminibus etiam seminum vires, quibus sese mutuo foveant, et sibi mutuo faveant, et inter se invicem conspirent, et sibi invicem, et toti, bona inspirent, et bonitate, sibi a Conditore data, omnia perspirent, et in unum ita conspirent, ut harmoniam illam divini artificis, omnia consonant, et personent. Non eam quam fatue in Pythagoreis irrisit Aristoteles, sed eam, quam et ipsi in coelestibus, et nos in universo, dictatu necessariae rationis esse, et asserimus, et contendimus. Nam si stellae in se tantum agere dicerentur, frustra quidem non esse factae dicerentur, sed quasi frustra, si dicerentur, non in se mutuo quicquam agere, et non ope mutua, sese iuvare. Aut si tanta in hylaeum mundum lumina tot numero funderent, quae ad eum vix pertingunt. Aut si solius tanta terrae gratia factae esse crederentur.’
82.
Patrizi 1591 , fol. 116^v: ‘Ad quam, lumina ipsarum, aut non, aut vix pertingunt. Ac certe ratio affirmare, aut credere non audet, tam ingentia corpora, terra multo maiora, tot numero, et pulchritudine tanta, fuisse a Conditore Deo, unius tantum, et tam exigui, et tam deformis corporis, qualis terra est, gratia procreata.’
83.
Patrizi 1591, fol. 116^v: ‘Agere quoque ea. extra se, tum in astra alia, tum in Solem, tum in Lunam, tum in hyleum, eadem dona, quae sibi a superis venerunt, in infera transfundendo.’
84.
Patrizi 1591 , fol. 117^r: ‘…ut nulla in eo sit dissonantia, nulla discordia, quae ad universi, tum ornamentum, tum perfectionem, tum conservationem, non conferat’.
85.
Patrizi 1591, fol. 153^r: ‘Patitur autem a coelo maxime, ab astris videlicet, a planetis, a sole, a luna; patitur et ab aere, et ab aqua. Ab illis quidem tria maxime, duo indubia, lumen et calorem: tertium autem minus notum, influxus nimirum quosdam occultos, coelestium aetherearumque impressionum. Cum enim ipsa per se iners sit, et inefficax, cernantur autem in ea. opera quaedam, quae a rerum seminibus proximis, oriri non videantur posse, necesse est, aliunde in eam qualitates illas miras influi, et infundi.’
86.
Bruno 1584 , 11: ‘…perché io non richiedo il spacio infinito, e la natura non ha spacio infinito, per la dignità della dimensione o della mole corporea, ma per la dignità delle nature e specie corporee; perché incomparabilmente meglio in innumerabili individui si presenta l’eccellenza infinita, che in quelli che sono numerabili e finiti.’ Translated in Bruno 1950, 257.
87.
See Granada 1992; Tessicini 2007.
88.
Bruno 1584 , 85–86: ‘Burchio: Ove è dunque quel bell’ordine, quella bella scala della natura, per cui si ascende dal corpo piú denso e crasso, quale è la terra, al men crasso, quale è l’acqua, al suttile, quale è il vapore, al piú suttile, quale è l’aria puro, al suttilissimo, quale è il fuoco, al divino, quale è il corpo celeste? dall’oscuro al men oscuro, al chiaro, al piú chiaro, al chiarissimo? dal tenebroso al lucidissimo, dall’alterabile e corrottibile al libero d’ogni alterazione e corrozione? dal gravissimo al grave, da questo al lieve, dal lieve al levissimo, indi a quel che non è né grave né lieve? dal mobile al mezzo, al mobile dal mezzo, indi al mobile circa il mezzo? Fracastoro: Volete saper ove sia questo ordine? Ove son gli sogni, le fantasie, le chimere, le pazzie.’ Bruno 1950, 313–14.
89.
Thomas Aquinas , Summa theologiae, I, q. 47, a. 3: ‘Mundus enim iste unus dicitur unitate ordinis, secundum quod quaedam ad alia ordinantur.’
90.
Bruno 1584 , 98–99: ‘Di maniera che non è un sol mondo, una sola terra, un solo sole; ma tanti son mondi, quante veggiamo circa di noi lampade luminose, le quali non sono piú né meno in un cielo ed. un loco ed. un comprendente, che questo mondo, in cui siamo noi, è in un comprendente, luogo e cielo. Sí che il cielo, l’aria infinito, immenso, benché sia parte de l’universo infinito, non è però mondo, né parte di mondi; ma seno, ricetto e campo in cui quelli sono, si muoveno, viveno, vegetano e poneno in effetto gli atti de le loro vicissitudini, producono, pascono, ripascono e mantieneno gli loro abitatori ed. animali, e con certe disposizioni ed. ordini amministrano alla natura superiore, cangiando il volto di uno ente in innumerabili suggetti.’ Bruno 1950, 322–23.
91.
On Archelaus, see Laertius 1959, I, 144–49.
92.
Bruno 1584 , 106: ‘Comprenderemo, che non son disposti gli orbi e sfere nell’universo, come vegnano a comprendersi l’un l’altro, sempre oltre ed. oltre essendo contenuto il minore dal maggiore, per esempio, gli squogli in ciascuna cipolla; ma che per l’etereo campo il caldo ed. il freddo, diffuso da’ corpi principalmente tali, vegnano talmente a contemperarsi secondo diversi gradi insieme, che si fanno prossimo principio di tante forme e specie di ente.’ Bruno 1950, 328.
93.
Bruno 1879, I, 213: ‘Unum primorum corporum genus absque alio consistere minime posse, illud indicat, quod diversorum oppositorumque concursu ad motum, ad generationem et rerum consistentiam natura provideat.’
94.
Bruno 1584 , 47–48: ‘Tutta volta, essendo l’universo infinito e gli corpi suoi tutti trasmutabili, tutti per conseguenza diffondeno sempre da sé e sempre in sé accoglieno, mandano del proprio fuora e accogliono dentro del peregrino. Non stimo che sia cosa assorda ed. inconveniente, anzi convenientissima e naturale, che sieno transmutazion finite possibili ad accadere ad un soggetto; e però de particole de la terra vagar l’eterea regione e occorrere per l’inmenso spacio ora ad un corpo ora ad un altro, non meno che veggiamo le medesime particole cangiarsi di luogo, di disposizione e di forma, essendono ancora appresso di noi.’ Bruno 1950, 284–85.
95.
See Michel 1973; Bruno 1975, 91, 156, 185, 213; McMullin 1987, 216.
96.
Martinez suggests that the curate may have been Friar Celestino of Verona, born Giovanni Antonio Arrigoni. The document in question is: Report [12 February 1600, Rome], Archivo Orsini. I. Corrispondenza, b. 380, n. 385, Archivo Storico Capitolino, Roma. On the relationship between Bruno and Fra Celestino, see now Maifreda 2016.

References

Achtner, Wolfgang. 2005. Infinity in science and religion: The creative role of thinking about infinity. Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 47: 392–411.
Article Google Scholar
Al-Kindi. 1974. De radiis. Edited by Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny and Françoise Hudry. Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 41: 139–260.
Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1943. Generation of Animals. Trans. A.L. Peck. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Bacchelli, Franco. 1999. Palingenio e la crisi dell’aristotelismo. In Sciences et religions de Copernic à Galilée (1540–1610), ed. Catherine Brice and Antonella Romano, 357–374. Rome: École française de Rome.
Google Scholar
———. 2001. Palingenio Stellato e la sua fortuna europea. In Napoli Viceregno spagnolo: una capitale della cultura alle origini dell’Europa moderna (sec. XVI–XVII), ed. Monika Bosse and André Stoll, 153–166. Naples: Vivarium.
Google Scholar
Barnes, Robin B. 2015. Astrology and reformation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Benedetti, Giovanni Battista. 1585. Diversarum speculationum mathematicarum et physicarum liber. Turin: Heirs of Nicola Bevilaqua.
Google Scholar
Bertolacci, Amos. 2013. Averroes against Avicenna on human spontaneous generation: The starting-point of a lasting debate. In Renaissance Averroism and its aftermath: Arabic philosophy in early modern Europe, ed. Anna Akasoy and Guido Giglioni, 37–54. Dordrecht: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Blair, Ann. 1990. Tycho Brahe’s critique of Copernicus and the Copernican system. Journal of the History of Ideas 51: 355–377.
Article Google Scholar
Breiner, Laurence A. 1978. Analogical argument in Bruno’s De l’infinito. MLN 93: 22–35.
Article Google Scholar
Brickman, Benjamin. 1941. An introduction to Francesco Patrizi’s Nova de universis philosophia. New York: Columbia University.
Google Scholar
Brosseder, Claudia. 2005. The writing in the Wittenberg sky: Astrology in sixteenth-century Germany. Journal of the History of Ideas 66: 557–576.
Article Google Scholar
Bruno, Giordano. 1584. De l’infinito universo et mondi. Stampato in Venetia [i.e. London]: J. Charlewood.
Google Scholar
———. 1879. Opera Latine conscripta. Edited by Francesco Fiorentino. Vol. 1, 8 vols. Naples/Florence: Morano and Le Monnier.
Google Scholar
———. 1950. On the Infinite Universe and Worlds. Trans. Dorothea Waley Singer in ead. Giordano Bruno: His life and thought. New York: Schuman.
Google Scholar
———. 1975. The Ash Wednesday supper = La cena de le Ceneri. Trans. Stanley L. Jaki. The Hague: Mouton.
Google Scholar
Burnett, Charles. 2009. Arabic into Latin in the Middle Ages: The translators and their intellectual and social context. Farnham: Ashgate.
Google Scholar
Campion, Nicholas. 2008. The dawn of astrology: A cultural history of Western astrology. London: Continuum.
Google Scholar
———. 2009. A history of Western astrology volume II: The medieval and modern worlds. London: Bloomsbury.
Google Scholar
Candela, Giuseppe. 1998. An overview of the cosmology, religion and philosophical universe of Giordano Bruno. Italica 75: 348–364.
Article Google Scholar
Cardano, Girolamo. 1554. In Cl. Ptolemaei IIII de astrorum iudiciis aut quadripartitae constructionis libros commentaria. Basel: Henricus Petrus.
Google Scholar
Chlup, Radek. 2000. Plutarch’s dualism and the Delphic cult. Phronesis 45: 138–158.
Article Google Scholar
Cicero. 1896. On the Nature of the Gods. Trans. Francis Brooks. London: Methuen.
Google Scholar
Coones, Paul. 1983. The geographical significance of Plutarch’s dialogue, Concerning the face which appears in the orb of the moon. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 8: 361–372.
Article Google Scholar
Copenhaver, Brian P. 1984. Scholastic philosophy and renaissance magic in the De vita of Marsilio Ficino. Renaissance Quarterly 37: 523–554.
Article Google Scholar
Cusa, Nicholas of. 1932. Opera omnia. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Felix Meiner.
Google Scholar
———. 1985. On Learned Ignorance: A Translation and an Appraisal of De docta ignorantia. Trans. Jasper Hopkins. 2nd. Minneapolis: A.J. Benning Press.
Google Scholar
———. 1997. Selected spiritual writings, ed. H. Lawrence Bond. Mahwah: Paulist Press.
Google Scholar
Dales, Richard C. 1980. The de-animation of the heavens in the Middle Ages. Journal of the History of Ideas 41: 531–550.
Article Google Scholar
Daneau, Lambert. 1578. The Wonderfull Woorkmanship of the World. Trans. Thomas Twyne. London: Andrew Maunsell.
Google Scholar
Davidson, Herbert A. 1992. Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, on intellect: Their cosmologies, theories of the active intellect, and theories of human intellect. New York: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Dick, Steven J. 1982. Plurality of worlds: The origins of the extraterrestrial life debate from Democritus to Kant. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Dick, Steven J., and James Edgar Strick. 2005. The living universe: NASA and the development of astrobiology. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Google Scholar
Digges, Leonard. 1576. A prognostication euerlastinge of right good effecte. London: Thomas Marsh.
Google Scholar
Drake, Stillman. 1970. Giovanni Battista Benedetti. In Dictionary of scientific biography, ed. C.C. Gillispie, vol. 1, 604–609. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre Maurice Marie. 1985. Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds. Trans. Roger Ariew. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Ernst, Germana. 1991. Astrology, religion and politics in Counter-Reformation Rome. In Science, culture and popular belief in Renaissance Europe, ed. Stephen Pumfrey, Maurice Slawinski, and Paolo L. Rossi, 249–273. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Google Scholar
———. 2001. ‘Veritatis amor dulcissimus’: aspects of Cardano’s astrology. In Secrets of nature: Astrology and alchemy in early modern Europe, ed. William Royall Newman and Anthony Grafton, 39–68. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
Google Scholar
Fabbri, Natacha. 2012. The Moon as another Earth: What Galileo owes to Plutarch. Galilaeana 9: 103–105.
Google Scholar
———. 2016. Looking at an earth-like moon and living on a moon-like earth in Renaissance and early modern thought. In Early modern philosophers and the Renaissance legacy, ed. Cecilia Muratori and Gianni Paganini, 135–151. Dordrecht: Springer.
Chapter Google Scholar
Feingold, Mordechai. 2004. Giordano Bruno in England, revisited. Huntington Library Quarterly 67: 329–346.
Article Google Scholar
Ficino, Marsilio. 2001. Platonic theology, ed. Michael J.B. Allen and James Hankins. Vol. 1. 6 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Freudenthal, Gad. 2002. The medieval astrologization of Aristotle’s biology: Averroes on the role of the celestial bodies in the generation of animate beings. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 12: 111–137.
Article Google Scholar
———. 2009. The astrologization of the Aristotelian cosmos: Celestial influences on the sublunary world in Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and Averroes. In New perspectives on Aristotle’s De caelo, ed. Alan C. Bowen and Christian Wildberg, 239–281. Leiden: Brill.
Google Scholar
Funkenstein, Amos. 1986. Theology and the scientific imagination from the Middle Ages to the seventeenth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar
Gotthelf, Allan. 2012. Teleology, first principles, and scientific method in Aristotle’s biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Granada, Miguel A. 1992. Bruno, Digges, Palingenio: omogeneita ed eterogeneita nella concezione dell’universo infinito. Rivista di storia della filosofia 47: 47–74.
Google Scholar
Grant, Edward. 1981. Much ado about nothing: Theories of space and vacuum from the Middle Ages to the scientific revolution. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
———. 1994. Planets, stars, and orbs: The medieval cosmos, 1200–1687. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Hardy, Nicholas. 2015. Is the De rerum natura a work of natural theology? Some ancient, modern, and early modern perspectives. In Lucretius and the early modern, ed. David Norbrook, Stephen Harrison, and Philip Hardie, 200–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Haskell, Yasmin. 2015. Poetic flights or retreats? Latin Lucretian poems in sixteenth-century Italy. In Lucretius and the early modern, ed. David Norbrook, Stephen Harrison, and Philip Hardie, 91–122. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Henry, John. 1979. Francesco Patrizi da Cherso’s concept of space and its later influence. Annals of Science 36: 549–573.
Article Google Scholar
———. 2001. Void space, mathematical realism, and Francesco Patrizi da Cherso’s use of atomistic arguments. In Late medieval and early modern corpuscular matter theories, ed. Christoph Herbert Lüthy, John Emery Murdoch, and William Royall Newman, 133–161. Leiden: Brill.
Google Scholar
Hershbell, Jackson P. 1982. Plutarch and Democritus. Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica 10: 81–111.
Article Google Scholar
Hirai, Hiro. 2008. Earth’s soul and spontaneous generation: Fortunio Liceti’s criticism of Ficino’s ideas on the origin of life. In Platonism at the origins of modernity: Studies on Platonism and early modern philosophy, ed. Douglas Hedley and Sarah Hutton, 273–299. Dordrecht: Springer.
Google Scholar
———. 2011. Medical humanism and natural philosophy: Renaissance debates on matter, life and the soul. Leiden: Brill.
Book Google Scholar
Jaki, Stanley L. 1978. Planets and planetarians: A history of theories of the origin of planetary systems. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Johnson, Francis R., and Sanford V. Larkey. 1934. Thomas Digges, the Copernican system, and the idea of the infinity of the universe in 1576. The Huntington Library Bulletin (5): 69–117.
Google Scholar
Jouanna, Jacques. 2001. Hippocrates. Trans. M.B. DeBevoise. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1981. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. Trans. Stanley L. Jaki. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Kassell, Lauren. 2005. Medicine and magic in Elizabethan London: Simon Forman, astrologer, alchemist, and physician. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Google Scholar
Knox, Dilwyn. 2005. Copernicus’s doctrine of gravity and the natural circular motion of the elements. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 68: 157–211.
Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre. 1957. From the closed world to the infinite universe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Google Scholar
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. 1964. Eight philosophers of the Italian renaissance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar
Kruk, Remke. 1990. A frothy bubble: Spontaneous generation in the medieval Islamic tradition. Journal of Semitic Studies 35: 265–282.
Article Google Scholar
Kusukawa, Sachiko. 1995. The transformation of natural philosophy: The case of Philip Melanchthon. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Laertius, Diogenes. 1959. Lives of eminent philosophers, ed. R. D. Hicks, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA/London: Cambridge University Press and Heinemann.
Google Scholar
Lennox, James. 1982. Teleology, chance, and Aristotle’s theory of spontaneous generation. Journal of the History of Philosophy 20: 219–239.
Article Google Scholar
Lindberg, David C. 1986. The genesis of Kepler’s theory of light: Light metaphysics from Plotinus to Kepler. Osiris 2: 4–42.
Article Google Scholar
Lovejoy, Arthur O. 1948 [1936]. The great chain of being: A study of the history of an idea. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Lucretius. 2004. On the Nature of Things. Trans. William Ellery Leonard. Mineola: Dover.
Google Scholar
Maifreda, Germano. 2016. Giordano Bruno e Celestino da Verona. Un incontro fatale. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.
Google Scholar
Martinez, Alberto A. 2016. Giordano Bruno and the heresy of many worlds. Annals of Science 73: 345–374.
Article Google Scholar
McColley, Grant. 1936. The seventeenth-century doctrine of a plurality of worlds. Annals of Science 1: 385–430.
Article Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1987. Bruno and Copernicus. Isis 78: 55–74.
Article Google Scholar
Melanchthon, Philip. 1550. Initia doctrina physicae. Wittenberg: Johannes Lufft.
Google Scholar
Methuen, Charlotte. 1996. The role of the heavens in the thought of Philip Melanchthon. Journal of the History of Ideas 57: 385–403.
Article Google Scholar
Michel, Paul-Henri. 1973. The Cosmology of Giordano Bruno. Trans. R.E.W. Maddison. London: Methuen.
Google Scholar
Mosley, Adam. 2007. Bearing the heavens: Tycho Brahe and the astronomical community of the late sixteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Muccillo, Maria. 1986. Marsilio Ficino e Francesco Patrizi da Cherso. In Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone: studi e documenti, ed. Gian Carlo Garfagnini, II, 615–679. Florence: Olschki.
Google Scholar
Oestmann, Günther, H. Darrel Rutkin, and Kocku von Stuckrad, ed. 2006. Horoscopes and public spheres: Essays on the history of astrology. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Google Scholar
Omodeo, Pietro Daniel. 2014. Copernicus in the cultural debates of the renaissance: Reception, legacy, transformation. Leiden: Brill.
Book Google Scholar
Palingenius, Marcellus. 1947 [1560]. The Zodiake of Life. Trans. Barnabe Googe. Delmar: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints.
Google Scholar
———. 1996. Le zodiaque de la vie (Zodiacus vitae): XII livres. Trans. Jacques Chomarat. Geneva: Librairie Droz.
Google Scholar
Patrizi, Francesco. 1591. Nova de universis philosophia. Ferrara: Benedetto Mammarello.
Google Scholar
Pennuto, Concetta. 2008. The debate on critical days in Renaissance Italy. In Astro-medicine: Astrology and medicine, East and West, ed. Anna Akasoy, Charles S. F. Burnett, and Ronit Yoeli-Tlalim, 75–98. Florence.: Sismel – Edizioni del Galluzzo.
Google Scholar
Plotinus. 1580. Opera philosophica omnia. Trans. Marsilio Ficino. Basel: Pietro Perna.
Google Scholar
Plutarch. 1936. Isis and Osiris. In Moralia. Trans. F.C Babbit, V, 6–191. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann.
Google Scholar
———. 1957. Concerning the face which appears in the orb of the Moon. In Moralia. Trans. W.C. Helmbold and H.F. Cherniss, XII, 34–226. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press and Heinemann.
Google Scholar
Porter, James I. 2016. The sublime in antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Roos, Anna Marie Eleanor. 2001. Luminaries in the natural world: The sun and the moon in England, 1400–1720. New York/Oxford: Peter Lang.
Google Scholar
Rosen, Edward. 1984. Francesco Patrizi and the celestial spheres. Physis 26: 305–324.
Google Scholar
Roth, Ulli. 2001a. Die astronomisch-astrologische ‘Weltgeschichte’ des Nikolaus von Kues im Codex Cusanus 212. Einleitung. Mitteilungen und Forschungsbeiträge der Cusanus-Gesellschaft 27: 1–29.
Google Scholar
———. 2001b. Cusanus’ Weltgeschichte im Codex 212. Astronomisch-astrologische Überlegungen. Litterae Cusanae. Informationen der Cusanus-Gesellschaft 1: 2–14.
Google Scholar
Rutkin, H. Darrel. 2002. Astrology, natural philosophy, and the history of science, c. 1250–1700: Studies toward an interpretation of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem. PhD Dissertation, University of Indiana.
Google Scholar
———. 2013. Astrology and magic. In A companion to Albert the Great: Theology, philosophy, and the sciences, ed. Irven Resnick, 451–505. Leiden: Brill.
Google Scholar
———. 2018. How to accurately account for astrology’s marginalization in the history of science and culture: The central importance of an interpretive framework. Early Science and Medicine 23: 217–243.
Article Google Scholar
Saif, Liana. 2015. The Arabic influences on early modern occult philosophy. Houndmills/Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Book Google Scholar
Siraisi, Nancy G. 1973. Arts and sciences at Padua: The studium of Padua before 1350. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
Google Scholar
Spruit, Leen. 2002. Giordano Bruno and astrology. In Giordano Bruno: Philosopher of the renaissance, ed. Hilary Gatti, 229–249. London: Ashgate.
Google Scholar
Stuckrad, Kocku von. 2016. Astrology. In A companion to science, technology, and medicine in ancient Greece and Rome, ed. Georgia L. Irby-Massie, I, 114–129. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Chapter Google Scholar
Świeżyński, Adam. 2016. Where/when/how did life begin? A philosophical key for systematizing theories on the origin of life. International Journal of Astrobiology 15: 291–299.
Article Google Scholar
Tessicini, Dario. 2007. I dintorni dell’infinito: Giordano Bruno e l’astronomia del Cinquecento. Pisa and Rome: Serra.
Google Scholar
Vasoli, Cesare. 1989. Francesco Patrizi da Cherso. Rome: Bulzoni.
Google Scholar
———. 2002. Sophismata putida: la critica patriziana all dottrina peripatetica dell’eternità e immutabilità del cielo. In Francesco Patrizi filosofo platonico nel crepuscolo del Rinascimento, ed. Patrizia Castelli, 167–180. Florence: Olschki.
Google Scholar
Vescovini, Graziella Federici. 2014. The theological debate. In A companion to astrology in the renaissance, ed. Brendan Maurice Dooley, 99–140. Leiden: Brill.
Google Scholar
Volk, Katharina. 2009. Manilius and his intellectual background. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Warren, James. 2004. Ancient atomists on the plurality of worlds. The Classical Quarterly 54: 354–365.
Article Google Scholar
Watanabe, Morimichi, Gerald Christianson, and Thomas M. Izbicki, eds. 2013. Nicholas of Cusa: A companion to his life and his times. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Google Scholar
Watson, Foster. 1908. The Zodiacus vitae of Marcellus Palingenius Stellatus: An old school-book. London: P. Wellby.
Google Scholar
Westman, Robert S. 1975. The Melanchthon circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg interpretation of the Copernican theory. Isis 66: 165–193.
Article Google Scholar
———. 2011. The Copernican question: Prognostication, skepticism, and celestial order. Berkeley. London: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Yates, Frances Amelia. 1964. Giordano Bruno and the hermetic tradition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Sydney, Australia
James E. Christie

Authors

James E. Christie
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Christie, J.E. (2019). Celestial Influence as an Aid to Pluralism from Antiquity to the Renaissance. In: From Influence to Inhabitation. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 228. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22169-0_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22169-0_2
Published: 02 October 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22168-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22169-0
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics