Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy

Living Edition
| Editors: Marco Sgarbi

Omnia in Omnibus

  • Guy ClaessensEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02848-4_411-1

Abstract

Omnia in omnibus (“everything in everything” or “all in all”) is a Neoplatonic principle used to indicate that all things are in all things, but in each thing according to its proper nature. Renaissance philosophers invoke the principle to express the idea that everything – be it an intelligible Form, a sensible object, or an ontological level of reality – represents the totality of things in its own proper way. In Antiquity, the principle was anticipated by Anaxagoras and Plotinus, before being fully developed and canonized in the writings of Porphyry (Sent. 10) and Proclus (El. Theol. prop. 103). Via Proclus, it found its way to the works of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, although, here as elsewhere, the theological meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:28 (ut Deus sit omnia in omnibus) should be taken into account as well. In the fifteenth century, Nicolaus Cusanus adopts the principle in his doctrine of quodlibet in quolibet, which states that each thing is a contraction of the entire universe. The notion occupies a central place in Marsilio Ficino’s commentary on the Timaeus, where it is applied to the multilayered existence of the four elements. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola restates the principle in his Conclusiones secundum Proclum and gives it a key role in his biblical hermeneutics. Finally, Giordano Bruno integrates the various meanings of omnia in omnibus into a comprehensive view of the cosmos as simultaneously one and many.

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

References

Primary Literature (Editiones Principes)

  1. Bruno, Giordano. 1583. Sigillus sigillorum. London: John Charlewood.Google Scholar
  2. Bruno, Giordano. 1584. De la causa, principio et uno. London: John Charlewood.Google Scholar
  3. Bruno, Giordano. 1591. De innumerabilibus, immenso et infigurabili. Frankfurt: Johann Wechel & Peter Fischer.Google Scholar
  4. Bruno, Giordano. 1891. Lampas triginta statuarum. Florence: Felice Tocco & Girolamo Vitelli, written in 1587.Google Scholar
  5. Cusanus, Nicolaus. 1488a. De docta ignorantia. In Opera omnia, vol. I, 3–72. Strasbourg: Martin Flach, written in 1440.Google Scholar
  6. Cusanus, Nicolaus. 1488b. De venatione sapientiae. In Opera omnia, vol. II, 371–407. Strasbourg: Martin Flach, written in 1463.Google Scholar
  7. Ficino, Marsilio. 1496. Compendium in Timaeum. In Commentaria in Platonem. Florence: Lorenzo d’Alopa.Google Scholar
  8. Ficino, Marsilio. 1496/1497. Dionysium Areopagitam De divinis nominibus. Florence: Lorenzo d’Alopa.Google Scholar
  9. Ficino, Marsilio. 1497. Proclus. De sacrificio et magia. [included in a volume of translations]. Venice: Aldus Manutius.Google Scholar
  10. Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. 1486. Conclusiones sive theses DCCCC. Rome: Eucharius Silber.Google Scholar
  11. Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni. 1489. Heptaplus. Florence: Bartolomeo di Libri.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Allen, Michael. 1987. Marsilio Ficino’s Interpretation of Plato’s Timaeus and its Myth of the Demiurge. In Supplementum Festivum: Studies in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. James Hankins, John Monfasani, and Frederick Purnell Jr., 399–439. Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies.Google Scholar
  2. Aquilecchia, Giovanni. 1973. Giordano Bruno. De la causa, principio et uno. Torino: Guilio Einaudi editore.Google Scholar
  3. Beierwaltes, Werner. 1980. Identität und Differenz. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
  4. Black, Crofton. 2006. Pico’s Heptaplus and Biblical Hermeneutics. Leiden-Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  5. D’Ancona, Cristina. 2005. Les Sentences de Porphyre entre les Ennéades de Plotin et les Éléments de Théologie de Proclus. In Porphyre. Sentences. Études d’introduction, texte grec et traduction française, commentaire, ed. Luc Brisson, vol. I, 139–274. Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  6. Dodds, Eric Robertson. 1964. Proclus. The elements of theology. A revised text with Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hankins, James. 2004. Humanism and Platonism in the Italian renaissance. II. Platonism. Roma: Edizioni di storia e letteratura.Google Scholar
  8. Hopkins, Jasper. 1978. A concise introduction to the philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. 1987. Proclus as a reader of Plato and Plotinus, and his influence in the middle ages and in the renaissance. In Proclus. Lecteur et interprète des anciens. Actes du colloque international du C.N.R.S., Paris 2–4 octobre 1985, ed. Jean Pépin and Henri Dominique Saffrey, 191–211. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
  10. Leinkauf, Thomas. 1993. Mundus combinatus. Studien zur Struktur der barocken Universalwissenschaft am Beispiel Athanasius Kirchers SJ, 1602–1680. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Leinkauf, Thomas. 2005. Aspekte und Perspektiven die Rezeption des Timaios in renaissance und Früher Neuzeit. In Plato’s Timaeus and the foundations of cosmology in late antiquity, the middle ages and renaissance, ed. Thomas Leinkauf and Carlos Steel, 363–385. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Miller, Clyde Lee. 2003. Reading Cusanus. Metaphor and dialectic in a Conjectural Universe. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
  13. Whittaker, Thomas. 1918. The Neoplatonists: a study in the history of hellenism. Second edition with a supplement on the commentaries of Proclus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Philosophy (HIW)KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Section editors and affiliations

  • Anna Laura Puliafito
    • 1
  1. 1.Universität BaselBaselSwitzerland