Renaissance Interpretations of Life in Heaven and Earth
Annual Meeting of the Renaissance Society of America • San Diego • April 4, 2013
Session 3
Chair: Jennifer Rampling (University of Cambridge)
Were the Heavens Alive in the Renaissance? Ficino’s and Pico’s Contrasting Views on the Animation of the Heavens
H. Darrel Rutkin (Stanford University)
In 2013, we often ask if there is life—intelligent or otherwise—in the heavens, but almost never whether the heavens themselves are actually alive or animated, that is, infused somehow with a soul, the anima mundi or some such entity. This was not the case in the Renaissance. Although Aristotelians normally answered no to this question, Marsilio Ficino took a decidedly Platonic turn when he answered the question positively, insistently and consistently in a broad range of works over his entire philosophical career. By contrast, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Ficino’s younger contemporary, began by embracing the new Platonic position but returned to the Aristotelian fold in his later works. In this talk, I will compare and contrast Ficino’s solid and consistent position with the changing trajectory of Pico’s views over the course of his short but intense career.
In 2013, we often ask if there is life—intelligent or otherwise—in the heavens, but almost never whether the heavens themselves are actually alive or animated, that is, infused somehow with a soul, the anima mundi or some such entity. This was not the case in the Renaissance. Although Aristotelians normally answered no to this question, Marsilio Ficino took a decidedly Platonic turn when he answered the question positively, insistently and consistently in a broad range of works over his entire philosophical career. By contrast, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Ficino’s younger contemporary, began by embracing the new Platonic position but returned to the Aristotelian fold in his later works. In this talk, I will compare and contrast Ficino’s solid and consistent position with the changing trajectory of Pico’s views over the course of his short but intense career.
Giordano Bruno on the Life and Motions of the Celestial Bodies
Dario Tessicini (University of Durham)
Giordano Bruno’s conception of a physically infinite and homogeneous universe entails a cosmological animism according to which the infinite planetary systems that populate the universe are conceived as self-sustaining organisms. The existence of these beings is granted by the exchange of elements from one celestial body to another. The motions and distances between the celestial bodies also appear to be regulated by their ‘vital’ necessities. The aim of this paper is to reconsider Bruno’s ‘astrobiology’ and its sources, motives, and philosophical consequences in light of new research on late sixteenth-century astronomy and cosmology.
Giordano Bruno’s conception of a physically infinite and homogeneous universe entails a cosmological animism according to which the infinite planetary systems that populate the universe are conceived as self-sustaining organisms. The existence of these beings is granted by the exchange of elements from one celestial body to another. The motions and distances between the celestial bodies also appear to be regulated by their ‘vital’ necessities. The aim of this paper is to reconsider Bruno’s ‘astrobiology’ and its sources, motives, and philosophical consequences in light of new research on late sixteenth-century astronomy and cosmology.
A New Star and a Novel Philosophy: The Challenge of Change in Early Modern Astronomy
Patrick J. Boner (Johns Hopkins University)
The ‘new star’ of 1604 was a great spectacle that inspired many scholars to fathom novel natural philosophies. In this paper, I explore the accounts of astronomers who deployed the star in favor of new views about the nature of the cosmos. My analysis focuses on Johannes Kepler and his circle of peers who actively exchanged observations and opinions about the new luminary. As debate raged over the cause and origin of the star, Kepler and his contemporaries confronted the consequences of change beyond the sublunary sphere. For some, the solution involved applying ancient philosophy and a system of ‘living physics’ that assigned to the heavens the same cycle of generation and corruption that occurred on earth. This was not only a rejection of the radical division of the celestial and terrestrial spheres, but a re-affirmation of the ancient principle of universal perfection.
The ‘new star’ of 1604 was a great spectacle that inspired many scholars to fathom novel natural philosophies. In this paper, I explore the accounts of astronomers who deployed the star in favor of new views about the nature of the cosmos. My analysis focuses on Johannes Kepler and his circle of peers who actively exchanged observations and opinions about the new luminary. As debate raged over the cause and origin of the star, Kepler and his contemporaries confronted the consequences of change beyond the sublunary sphere. For some, the solution involved applying ancient philosophy and a system of ‘living physics’ that assigned to the heavens the same cycle of generation and corruption that occurred on earth. This was not only a rejection of the radical division of the celestial and terrestrial spheres, but a re-affirmation of the ancient principle of universal perfection.