LECTURE
Giordano Bruno & the Hermetic Tradition.
I. The Hermetic Corpus: Origins and Early Reception.
A. Hermes Trismegistus.
B. Marsilio Ficino.
II. The Rise & Fall of Christian Hermeticism.
A. Giordano Bruno.
B. A Program of Religio-Magico-Scientific Reform.
C. The Influence of the Hermetic Tradition.
III. The Decline of the Magical World View
[References: Eamon 1983; Hanson 1986; Hine 1976; Kristeller 1979;
Malinowski 1982; Thomas 1971; Walker 1975; Wright 1975; Yates 1964;
Yates 1968]
I. The Hermetic Corpus: Origins and Early Reception.
(Neo-Platonic, Neo-Pythagorean Complex of Ideas).
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT AND ONE WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN
INFLUENCE THE WORKS OF COPERNICUS AND KEPLER, WAS
RENAISSANCENEO-PLATONISM -- SOMETIMES ALSO CALLED NEOPYTHAGOREANISM.
ALTOUGH THIS CORPUS OF LITERATURE HAD ITS ORIGINS AT ABOUT
THE SAME TIME AS THE ARISTOTELIAN CORPUS -- PLATO WAS OF
COURSE ARISTOTLE'S TEACHER -- AND ALTHOUGH PLATONIC
PHILOSOPHY HAS CONSTITUTED A TRADITION JUST AS LONG AND
ALMOST AS IMPORTANT ASARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY, THE
HISTORY OF THE PLATONIC TRADITION IS QUITE DIFFERENT
FROM THAT OF THE ARISTOTELIAN.
UNLIKE ARISTOTLE, THE WHOLE OF PLATO'S WORKS HAVE BEEN
PRESERVED.
PLATO'S DIALOGUES WERE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE SCHOOL HE
ESTABLISHED IN ATHENS, CALLED THE ACADEMY, AND THE
SCHOOL ITSELF HAD A CONTUNUOUS TRADITION FROM THE TIME
OF PLATO UNTIL IT WAS CLOSED IN 529 A.D..
THE LYCEUM, THE SCHOOL ARISTOTLE FOUNDED, HAD PASSED OUT OF
EXISTENCE SOME 300 YEARS EARLIER .
BETWEEN THE 3RD AND 6TH CENTURIES A.D. PLATONISM UNDERWENT
ADRAMATIC REVIVAL, AND SCHOLARS HAVE CALLED THIS PHASE
OF THE PLATONIC TRADITION 'NEO-PLATONISM'.
BECAUSE OF THE UNDISCIPLINED AND DESULTORY NATURE OF
PLATO'SORIGINAL DIALOGUES, PLATONISM HAS ALWAYS TENDED
TOWARD THE SYNCRETIC -- THAT IS, ELEMENTS FROM OTHER
PHILOSOPHICAL SYSTEMS COULD BE EASILY ASSIMILATED INTO
THE PLATONIC VIEW.
THIS WAS ESPECIALLY TRUE OF NEO-PLATONISM, WHICH
APPROPRIATEDA NUMBER OF IDEAS FROM THE NEOPYTHAGOREAN TRADITION AS WELLAS FROM WHAT HAS COME
TO BE CALLED THE HERMETIC TRADITION.
SINCE THIS TRADITION, THE HERMETIC, IS MORE DIRECTLY RELEVANT
TOTHE HISTORY OF RENAISSANCE NATURAL PHILOSOPHY THAN
PLATO'S PHILOSOPHY, WE WILL FOCUS BRIEFLY ON THE HISTORY
AND CHARACTEROF THIS TRADITION AND LEAVE THE BIGGER
AND MORE DIFFICULT HISTORY OF NEO-PLATONISM BEHIND.
A. HERMES TRISMEGISTUS.
ONE OF THE MORE IMPORTANT OF THESE REVIVED TRADITIONS WAS
HERMETIC PHILOSOPHY.
THE HEREMTIC TRADITION HAS ITS ROOTS IN THE BODY OF WRITINGS
TRADITIONALLY ATTRIBUTED TO 'HERMES TRISMEGISTUS,' THE
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN GOD WHO HAD GIVEN THE ANCIENT
EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION ITSVAUNTED KNOWLEDGE IN THE ARTS
AND SCIENCE.
THE EGYPTIAN NAME WAS ACTUALLY 'THOTH,' BUT THE GREEKS
IDENTIFIED THEIR GOD HERMES WITH THOTH -- AND THE EPITHET
'TRISMEGISTUS' MEANS 'THRICE-GREAT' AND WAS USED TO
DISTINGUISH THIS HERMES FROM THE MANY OTHER GODS
NAMED HERMES.
UNTIL THE 17TH CENTURY, IT WAS UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED THAT
HERMES TRISMEGISTUS WAS THE AUTHOR OF A CONSIDERABLE
BODY OF RELIGIOUS, PHILOSOPHIC, AND SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
AND THAT HE LIVED WELL BEFORE THE TIME OF PLATO AND THE
PRE-SOCRATIC PHILOSOPHERS OF ANCIENT GREECE.
IN FACT, THE MAIN BODY OF WORKS ATTRIBUTED TO HERMES, CALLED
THE 'CORPUS HERMETICUM,' WAS COMPOSED BY A CIRCLE OF
GREEK-SPEAKING EGYPTIANS WORKING IN AND AROUND
ALEXANDRIA IN THE 2ND AND 3RD CENTURIES A.D..
THESE WRITINGS ARE, AT BOTTOM, THE RECORD OF THE HUMAN SOUL
SEARCHING FOR MYSTICAL SALVATION AND UNION WITH A
TRANSCENDENT GOD AND OFTEN TAKE THE FORM OF
DIALOGUES BETWEEN A SPIRITUAL MENTOR AND A DISCIPLINE
STRIVING FOR WISDOMAND REDEMPTION.
THE HERMETIC WRITINGS SHOW CONSIDERABLE INFLUENCE FROM
PLATONIC AND STOIC PHILOSOPHY AS WELL AS FROM MYSTIC
JEWISH TRADITIONS.
THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO INDICATION OF ANY EARLY CHRISTIAN
INFLUENCE.
YET THERE ARE MANY PHRASES AND IDEAS THAT SEEM LIKE THEY
BELONG TO THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION:.
IN THE 'PIMANDER' THERE IS AN ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION THE
WORLDBY THE 'LUMINOUS WORD' WHO IS THE 'SON OF GOD' AND
HOW THE SOUL MUST STRUGGLE TO FREE ITSELF FROM THE
MATERIAL WORLD ANDASCEND TO UNION WITH GOD.
NOW THE REASON WHY THIS APPEARS TO BE CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE
BUT IN ACTUAL FACT IS NOT, IS BECAUSE BOTH THE HERMETIC
CORPUS AND THE EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS WERE
INFLUENCED BY THE SAME SOURCES.
JUST AS GREEK NEO-PLATONISM PROVIDED MANY OF THE LEMENTS OF
HERMETIC THOUGHT SO TOO DID IT PROVIDE PRACTICALLY ALL
LATER GREEK CHURCH FATHERS AND THEOLOGIANS WITH THEIR
PHILOSOPHICALTERMS AND CONCEPTS.
IN OTHER WORDS -- TO ADOPT A EVOLUTIONARY METAPHOR -- BOTH
HERMETICISM AND EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT, ESPECIALLY
CHRSITIAN MYSTICISM, OWE THEIR STRIKING SIMILARITIES TO
THE FACT THAT THEY ARE DESCENDED FROM THE SAME
ANCESTRAL PHILOSOPHIC WORLDVIEW.
ELSEWHERE IN THE CORPUS HERMETICUM THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS
OF THE ASTROLOGICAL CONTROL OF MAN THROUGH THE SEVEN
PLANETS AND THE 12 SIGNS OF THE ZODIAL; THERE IS A
DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN MAGI -- OR
PREIST-MAGICIANS -- COULD ANIMATE STATUES; AND THERE IS
MUCH ON ALCHAMEY AND THE NATURE OF MATTER.
ALTHOUGH THE HERMETIC CORPUS HAD BEEN LOST TO THE LATIN
WESTTHROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE AGES, SOME OF ITS BASIC
IDEAS WERE KNOWN THROUGH SECONDARY REFERENCES AND
EXTRACTS.
IN 1460, THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE 'CORPUS HERMETICUM' WERE
DISCOVERED IN CONSTANTINOPLE BY THE AGENTS OF COSIMO
MEDICI -- THE RULING PRINCE OF TUSCANY AND ANCESTOR OF
THE COSIMO MEDICIWE ENCOUNTERED IN CONNECTION WITH
GALILEO'S SEARCH FOR PATRONAGE.
AS PART OF THE GREAT HUMANIST FASCINATION WITH ANCIENT GREEK
CIVILIZATION, COSIMO I ESTABLISHED AN ACADEMY MODELED ON
THE ANCIENT ACADEMY OF PLATO AND COMMISSIONED AGENTS
TO SEARCH FOR GREEK MANUSCRIPTS.
WHEN THE HERMETIC MANUSCRIPTS WERE RECOVERED AND
RETURNED TO FLORENCE IN 1460, COSIMO I WAS ALREADY OF AN
ADVANCED AGE AND WAS EAGER TO LEARN OF THE CONTENTS
OF THE HERMETIC WRITINGS.
HE FELT THAT THEY WERE SO IMPORTANT THAT HE DIRECTED
MARSILIO FICINO, HIS LEADING PLATONIC SCHOLAR AT THE
FLORINTINE COURT, TO INTERRUPT HIS TRANSLATION OF THE
WORKS OF PLATO IN ORDER TO DEVOTE HIS ENERGIES ENTIRELY
TO THE TRANSLATION OF THE HERTEMICCORPUS.
B. MARSILIO FICINO.
FICINO COMPLETED THE TRANSLATION IN 1464 AND PUBLISHES THE
TRANSLATION WITH AN EXTENSIVE COMMENTARY SHORTLY
THEREAFTER.
AS THE FOREMOST HUMANIST SCHOLAR OF PLATONISM, FICINO WAS IN
AN EXCELLENT POSITION TO WRITE A COMMENTARY ON THER
HERMETIC CORPUS, AND HE WAS QUICK TO SEE THE PLATONIC
ELEMENTS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE CORPUS.
NOW ALL AUTHORITIES AVAILABLE TO FICINO AGREED THAT HERMES
TRISMEGISTUS WAS THE SOLE AUTHOR OF THE CORPUS AND
THAT HE HADLIVED AND WROTE LONG BEFORE PLATO -PROBABLY AROUND 2000 B.C..
THUS FICINO INTERPRETS PLATO'S WORK AS DERIVATIVE OF HERMES -THAT IS, HE BELIEVED THAT PLATO GOT HIS BASIC IDEAS FROM
THE EVENMORE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN SAGE.
FICINO'S MISDATING OF THE HERMETIC CORPUS LETS HIM BELIEVE
THATHE IS HOLDING IN HIS HANDS THE OLDEST -- AND THUS, IN
THE HUMANIST CONCEPTION OF THINGS, THE MOST PRISTINE
AND PROFOUNDEST -- KNOWLEDGE THERE CAN BE.
IN THE CHRISTIAN/HUMANIST VIEW, IT WAS BELIEVED THAT ALL
KNOWLEDGE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO MAN BY GOD IN THE
BEGINNING AND HAD BEEN CORRUPTED OVER TIME.
PLACING HERMES IN THE 2ND MILLENIUM B.C. MEANT THAT THE
KNOWLEDGE CONTAINED IN THE HERMETIC CORPUS STOOD AT
THE VERYFOUNTAINHEAD OF ALL WISDOM, PURE AND
UNCORRUPTED.
FICINO'S MISDATING OF THE CORPUS AND CONCOMMITANT
INTERPRETATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HERMES AND
PLATO GAVE THE HERMETIC CORPUS TREMENDOUS AUTHORITY,
AND SCHOLARS TOOK IT VERY SERIOUSLY.
WHAT IS MORE, FICINO GIVES A CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION TO THESE
WRITINGS BY ASSERTING THAT HERMES AND MOSES WERE
CONTEMPORARIES, PERHAPS EVEN FRIENDS -- INDEED, HE EVEN
SPECULATES THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE SAME PERSON!.
THUS OF THE TWO GREATEST STREAMS TO FLOW FROM THE PURE
WELL OF ALL WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE, ONE BECAME
EMBODIED IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS OF PLATO AND THE
OTHER IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
FOR A CHRISTIAN-PLATONIST LIKE FICINO, THIS MADE THE HERMETIC
WRITINGS DOUBLY IMPORTANT.
AND IT ALSO EXPLAINED WHY THE HERMETIC WRITINGS SEEMED TO
CONTAIN SO MANY CHRISTIAN IDEAS AND SYMBOLS.
THE INTERPRETATION FICINO SUPPLIED IN HIS TRANSLATION AND
COMMENTARY HELPED ESTABLISH A CHRISTIAN-HERMETIC
TRADITION THAT FLOURISHED UNTIL WELL INTO THE 17TH
CENTURY.
IN THE 150 AFTER FICINO'S PUBLICATION, THE HERMETIC CORPUS
WENT THROUGH 22 EDITIONS AND FORMED THE BASIS OF ONE
OF THE MOST IMPORTANT TRADITIONS IN RENAISSANCE
PHILOSOPHY
II. The Rise & Fall of Christian Hermeticism.
A. GIORDANO BRUNO.
AS SHOULD BE CLEAR FROM THE INTERPRETATION FICINO GAVE THE
HERMETIC CORPUS WHEN HE FIRST TRANSLATED AND
PUBLISHED THEM, THERE IS MORE TO THE HERMETIC
PHILOSOPHY THAN MERELY AN ANIMISTIC VIEW OF THE WORLD.
FICINO HAD LINKED THE HERMETIC WRITINGS TO CHRISTIANITY IN A
PROFOUND WAY.
OR MORE PRECISELY, HE HAD GIVEN THE HEMERTIC PHILOSOPHY A
CHRISTIAN FAÇADE THAT SOONER OR LATER WAS BOUND TO
FALL AND REVEAL THE PAGAN ORIGINS THAT LAY BEHIND IT.
GIVEN THE RELIGIOUS TURMOIL GENERATED BY THE PROTESTANT AND
CATHOLIC REFORMATIONS, ONE CAN WELL IMAGINE THE
EXCITEMENT AND DANGER THAT A CHRISTIANIZED HERMETICISM
PRESENTED.
INDEED, THE MOST DRAMATIC TWIST IN THE STORY OF CHRISTIAN
HERMETICISM IS GIVEN IN THE LIFE OF GIORDANO BRUNO.
BRUNO WAS BORN IN 1548 IN NOLA, ITALY, NEAR NAPLES AND THAT HE
ENTERED THE DOMINCAN ORDER AT AGE 15.
AT AN EARLY AGE, BRUNO CAME UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE
HERMETIC PHILOSOPHY AS WELL AS THE WORKS OF
GIAMBATTISTA DELLA PORTA, WHO, IN 1560, HAD ESTABLISHED
HIS ACADEMY IN NAPLES FOR THE INVESTIGATION OF THE
SECRETS OF NATURE.
IN BRUNO THERE EXISTED A DEEP CONFLATION OF THE CATHOLICISM
OFHIS ORDER AND THE MAGICAL WORLDVIEW OF THE HERMETIC
CORPUS --AND HE WAS PASSIONATELY COMMITTED TO BOTH.
AFTER CHARGES OF HERESY WERE BROUGHT AGAINST HIM IN NAPLES,
HE FLED TO ROME HOPING TO BE EXONERATED.
THERE HIS PROBLEMS ONLY WORSENED; HE RENOUNCED HIS
DOMINCAN HABIT AND BECAME AN APOSTATE.
HE TRAVELLED TO ALL THE GREAT CAPITALS OF EUROPE FROM ROME
TOGENEVA, WHERE HE AND THE CALVINISTS' QUICKLY
DEVELOPED A MUTUAL DISLIKE, AND FROM THERE EVENTUALLY
TO PARIS, WHERE HE SUCCEEDED IN PERSUADING HENRY III OF
MUCH OF HIS GRAND PROGRAMOF POLITICAL, PHILOSOPHICAL,
AND RELIGIOUS REFORM.
FROM PARIS HE LEFT FOR LONDON, UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE
FRENCH EMBASSY AND STAYED THERE FOR 2 YEARS.
AGAIN CAUSING A STIR AMONG HIS HOSTS, HE RETURNS TO PARIS BUT
QUICKLY FALLS OUT OF FAVOR THERE AS WELL.
FROM PARIS TO GOES TO WITTENBERG, AND FROM WITTENBERG TO
RUDOLPH II'S PRAGUE.
UNWELCOMED THERE, HE FOOLISHLY RETURNS TO ITALY, IS
CAPTURED BY THE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES IN VENICE AND IS
BROUGHT TO TRIAL.
TRANSFERRED TO ROME AFTER THE VENITIAN TRIAL, HE LANGUISHES
IN PRISION FOR 8 YEARS BEFORE FINALLY BEING BURNED AT THE
STAKE IN 1600 FOR HIS HERETICAL VIEWS.
B. A Program of Religio-Magico-Scientific Reform.
BRUNO'S RELIGIOUS MISSION WAS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND HIS
WANDERINGS AND PROGRAM OF REFORM.
IN THE WORDS OF HIS CHIEF BIOGRAPHER: "BRUNO BELIEVED THAT HE
WAS REVIVING THE MAGICAL RELIGION OF THE ANCIENT
EGYPTIANS, A RELIGION OLDER THAN JUDIASM OR CHRISTIANITY,
WHICH THESE INFERIOR RELIGIONS HAD SUPPRESSED BUT OF
WHICH HE PROPHESIED THE IMMINENT RETURN" (DSB, P. 539).
BRUNO HAD FULLY ACCEPTED FICINO'S INTERPRETATION OF THE
HERMETIC CORPUS AS STANDING AT THE FOUNTAINHEAD OF THE
'PRISCA THEOLOGIA' -- THAT IS, THE TRADITION OF PRISTINE OR
PURE THEOLOGY.
HOWEVER, WHERE FICINO HAD PORTRAYED HERMES TRISMEGISTUS
AS AGENTILE PROPHET AND HONORED HIM AS ANCIENT HERALD
OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, BRUNO ACCEPTED THE RELIGION
OF THE HERMETICTEXTS AS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION.
AND THOUGH THIS ANCIENT EGYPTIAN RELIGION HAD BEEN
SUPPRESSED BY CHRISTIANITY, BRUNO BELIEVED THAT VARIOUS
CONTEMPORARY SIGNS AND PORTENTS WERE ANNOUNCING ITS
RETURN.
ONE OF THESE SIGNS WAS THE HELIOCENTRIC THEORY OF
COPERNICUS.
IN DE REVOLUTIONIBUS COPERNICUS HIMSELF HAD REFERRED TO
HERMES TRISMEGISTUS, WHO STATED THAT THE SUN IS THE
VISIBLE GOD AND OUGHT TO BE THE CENTER OF OUR WORLD.
BRUNO THOUGHT COPERNICUS WAS ONLY A MATHEMATICIAN WHO
FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE DEEPER MEANING OF HIS
DISCOVERY; NAMELY, THAT THIS WAS A SIGN OR THE RETURN TO
A HERMETIC AGE.
BRUNO ALSO QUOTES A PASSAGE FROM THE HERMETIC CORPUS,
WHICH STATES THAT THE EARTH MOVES BECAUSE IT IS ALIVE, IN
SUPPORT OF COPERNICUS.
THUS BRUNO MANAGES TO LINK ANIMISM, HELIOCENTRICISM, THE
NOTION OF AN INFINITE UNIVERSE, AND POLITICAL REFORM TO
THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THE HERMETIC RELIGION.
WHAT IS MORE, BRUNO BELIEVED THAT THIS ENTIRE OUTLOOK COULD
SOMEHOW BE INCORPORATED INTO THE EXISTING CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
BRUNO WAS, OF COURSE, MISTAKEN.
THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST HIM IN ROME CONCERNED HIS
DENIALOF THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST AND HIS ALLEGED PRACTICE
OF DIABOLICALMAGIC.
AND BOUND UP WITH BRUNO'S CONDEMNATION WAS THE ENTIRE
HERMETIC PHILOSOPHY, FOR HE HAD MADE HERMETICISM LOOK
DANGEROUS BY TYING IT TO RADICAL POLITICAL REFORMS AND
EXTREMELY HERETICAL BELIEFS.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH CONDEMNED CERTAIN FORMS OF MAGIC IN 1600,
IMMEDIATELYAFTER BRUNO'S EXECUTION.
THIS MARKED THE BEGINNING OF THE DECLINE IN ACCEPTANCE OF
THEHERMETIC PHILOSOPHY.
MANY THINGS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS DECLINE, BUT THE THREE MOST
IMPORTANT CAN BE QUICKLY SUMMARIZED:.
1) FIRST, PROGRESS IN GREEK PHILOLOGY IN THE 16TH AND EARLY
17TH CENTURIES ENABLED ISAAC CASAUBON TO DATE THE
COMPOSITION OF THE HERMETIC CORPUS CORRECTLY.
HE COULD PROVE THROUGH PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS THAT IT WAS A
POST-CHRISTIAN FORGERY DATING FROM THE 2ND OR 3RD
CENTURY A.D..
SINCE THE AUTHORITY OF THE HERMETIC WRITINGS RESTED IN LARGE
PART ON THEIR ALLEGED GREAT ANTIQUITY, THE CORRECT
DATING PROBABLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE DECLINE OF THE
TRADITION.
BUT OF COURSE TRUE BELIEVERS COULD ARGUE THAT CASAUBON
WAS WRONG OR, EVEN IF HE WERE RIGHT, IT DOESN'T MATTER
SINCE THE THE 2ND CENTURY DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN
COPIED FROM MUCH OLDER ONES.
2) ALTHOUGH THE RECOVERY AND DISSEMINATION OF THE HERMETIC
WRITINGS WAS A PRODUCT OF HUMANIST SCHOLARSHIP,
HUMANISTS CONTINUED TO RECOVER OTHER ANCIENT
MATERIALISTIC PHILOSOPHIESDIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE
ANIMISM OF HERMETICISM.
WITH THE REVIVAL OF SO MANY DIVERGENT VIEWS FROM ANTIQUITY,
HERMETICISM BECAME ONLY ONE AMONG MANY CLASSICAL
FOUNTAINS.
3) FINALLY, IN THE LATE 16TH AND EARLY 17TH CENTURIES THERE
OCCURRED AN INTELLECTUAL REACTION KNOWN AS THE
'SKEPTICAL CRISIS.' ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT
CONSEQUENCES OF THIS CRISIS WAS DESCARTES' ESPOUSAL OF
A MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY CONSCIOUSLY OPPOSED TO
HERMETICISM.
DESCARTES AND OTHERS PURSUED ADVOCATED THE MECHANICAL
PHILOSOPHY WITH THE EXPLICIT AIM OF DISCREDITING THE
ANIMISTIC WORLDVIEW.
MORE ON THIS IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
C. The Influence of the Hermetic Tradition.
(THE 'YATES THESIS').
NOW NO DISCUSSION OF HERMETICISM IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD
WOULD BE COMPLETE WITHOUT AT LEAST A MENTION OF THE
'YATES THESIS'.
INDEED, NO SCHOLAR HAS DONE MORE TO UNCOVER THE FACTS JUST
RESENTED CONCERNING BRUNO AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
RENAISSANCE HERMETICISM THAN FRANCES YATES.
WE OWE TO DAME YATES NOT MERELY A SCHOLARLY PRESENTATION
OFA NEGLECTED EPISODE IN THE HISTORY OF RENAISSANCE
MAGIC, WE ALSO ARE INDEBTED TO HER FOR HER PROVOCATIVE
THESIS CONCERNINGTHE INFLUENCE OF THE HERMETIC
TRADITION ON THE RISE OF EARLY MODERN SCIENCE.
PUT SIMPLY, THE 'YATES THESIS' STATES THAT - QUOTE - "THE
RENAISSANCE MAGUS HAD HIS ROOTS IN THE HERMETIC CORE
OF RENAISSANCE NEO-PLATONISM, AND IT IS THE RENAISSANCE
MAGUS . . . WHO EXEMPLIFIES THAT [CHANGE IN ATTITUDE] . . .
WHICH WAS NECESSARY FOR THE RISE OF SCIENCE".
THAT IS, THE RENAISSANCE MAGUS WAS THE IMMEDIATE ANCESTOR
OF THE 17TH-CENTURY SCIENTIST, AND THUS THE HERMETIC
CORPUS PLAYEDAN ESSENTIAL PART IN PREPARING THE WAY
FOR THE NEW SCIENCE.
THE TEXTS OF THE HERMETIC CORPUS, ACCORDING TO YATES,
ESPOUSEDTHE VIEW THAT MAN HAS THE POWER TO OPERATE
ON THE COSMOS THROUGH THE MANIPULATION OF THE OCCULT
SYMPATHIES RUNNING THROUGH THE ELEMENTAL WORLD.
STRENGTHENING HER CLAIMS FOR THE CENTRALITY OF HERMETICISM
ASSHE PROCEEDS WITH HER ARGUMENT, YATES MAINTAINS
THAT - QUOTE - .
"THE EMERGENCE OF MODERN SCIENCE SHOULD PERHAPS BE
REGARDED AS PROCEEDING IN TWO PHASES, THE FIRST BEING
THE HERMETIC OR MAGICAL PHASE OF THE RENAISSANCE WITH
ITS BASIS IN AN ANIMISTIC PHILOSOPHY, THE SECOND BEING THE
DEVELOPMENT IN THE 17TH CENTURY OF THE FIRST CLASSICAL
PERIOD OF MODERN SCIENCE" (P. 271).
FINALLY, IN A CONCLUDING SERIES OF STATEMENTS, HER THESIS
ASSUMES ITS STRONGEST FORM: YATES WRITES: - QUOTE - "THE
HERMETICATTITUDE TOWARD THE COSMOS AND TOWARD MAN'S
RELATION TO THECOSMOS . . . WAS, I BELIEVE, THE CHIEF
STIMULUS OF THAT NEW TURNING TOWARD THE WORLD AND
OPERATING ON THE WORLD WHICH, APPEARING FIRST AS
RENAISSANCE MAGIC, WAS TO TURN INTO 17TH-CENTURY
SCIENCE" (P. 272).
MOREOVER, IT WAS THE HERMETIC TRADITION THAT - QUOTE - "BROKE
DOWN ARISTOTLE IN THE NAME OF A UNIFIED UNIVERSE
THROUGH WHICHRAN ONE LAW, THE LAW OF MAGICAL ANIMISM".
HOWEVER, YATES' PURPOSE IS NOT ONLY THE ENTHUSIASTIC
PROMOTION OF THE CENTRALITY OF THE HERMETIC TRADITION
IN THE RISE OF MODERN SCIENCE, SHE ALSO WISHES TO
PROMOTE A NEW STYLE OF 'BACKWARD-LOOKING' RESEARCH
AMONG HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE SHE FINDS TOO 'FORWARDLOOKING'.
YATES ADMITS FREELY THAT, IN SOME OF HER MORE PROVOCATIVE
CLAIMS AND SUGGESTIONS, SHE IS TRYING - QUOTE - "TO
STARTLE HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE INTO NEW ATTITUDES" AND
SHE URGES THAT "THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE IN THIS PERIOD,
INSTEAD OF BEING READ SOLELY FORWARDS FOR ITS
PREMONITIONS OF WHAT WAS GOING TO COME, SHOULD ALSO
BE READ BACKWARDS, SEEKING ITS CONNECTIONSWITH WHAT
HAD GONE BEFORE.
HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE WERE CERTAINLY STARTLED WHEN THEY
FIRST READ YATES IN THE LATE SIXTIES AND EARLY SEVENTIES -AS YATES HERSELF WAS NO DOUBT 'STARTLED' BY THE SEVERE
CRITICAL REACTIONHER THESIS GENERATED.
HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE PROBABLY FOUND YATES' ASSERTIONS
SHOCKING FOR TWO REASONS:.
1) FIRST AND MOST OBVIOUSLY, EARLY MODERN SCIENCE HAD LONG
BEEN HELD ALOFT AS THE TRIUMPH OF HUMAN REASON OVER
IGNORANCE AND SUPERSTITION, AND THUS THE IDEA THAT THIS
GREAT EDIFICE OF RATIONALITY WAS SOMEHOW DERIVED
FUNDAMENTALLY FROM THE IRRATIONALITY OF MAGIC SEEMED
NOT ONLY UNTENABLE BUTSACRILIGIOUS.
2) SECONDLY, THERE WERE SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF PRESENTATION
AND EVIDENCE IN THE YATES THESIS.
YATES BEGINS HER ARTICLE MILDLY ENOUGH, CLAIMING ONLY THAT
THE RENAISSANCE MENTALITY WAS IN PART INFLUENCED BY THE
HERMETIC CORPUS AND THAT THIS MENTALITY WAS A
NECESSARY PRECONDITION TO THE RISE OF EARLY MODERN
SCIENCE.
BUT THE THESIS THEN CHANGES FROM A CLAIM OF INFLUENCE TO AN
ASSERTION OF ORGANIC DESCENDENT, WITH HERMETICISM
BECOMING THE PARENT IN THE GENESIS OF MODERN SCIENCE.
IN ADDITION TO THE CRESCENDO OF YATES' CLAIMS, THE EVIDENCE
SHEPRESENTS IN SUPPORT OF HER THESIS IS UNEVEN AND SHE
TOO OFTEN SUBSTITUTES PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENT FOR
DEMONSTRATED FACT.
WHATEVER THE MERITS OR DEFECTS OF HER PRESENTATION, YATES
HAS SUCCEEDED ENTIRELY IN HER AIM TO MAKE HISTORIANS OF
SCIENCE SIT UP AND PAY ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM OF
SCIENCE AND MAGIC IN THEEARLY MODERN PERIOD.
WHETHER ONE IS A HARD-BOILED RATIONALIST OUT TO DEFEND THE
SANCTITY OF SCIENCE OR A SOFT-BOILED ROMANTIC OUT TO
DEMONSTRATE THE MAGICAL ROOTS OF MODERN SCIENCE, ONE
HAS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND EVIDENCE RAISE BY FRANCES
YATES
III. The Decline of the Magical World View.
ANTHROPOLOGISTS STUDY CULTURAL SYSTEMS OF PEOPLES
REMOVED FROM US IN SPACE, HISTORIANS STUDY CULTURAL
SYSTEMS OF PEOPLES REMOVED FROM US IN TIME.
NOT A FEW HISTORIANS HAVE REALIZED THIS PARALLEL BETWEEN
ANTHROPOLOGY AND HISTORY AND HAVE SOUGHT TO LEARN
THE TECHNIQUES AND VOCABULRY OF CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGISTS FOR APPLICATION IN THEIR HISTORICAL
RESEARCH.
MORE PRECISELY, ANTHROPOLOGISTS HAVE LONG BEEN FASCINATED
BYTHE SIMILARIITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT THEY
CALL THE THREE GREAT SYSTEMS OF EXPLANATION (OR
SYSTEMS OF KNOWLEDGE): SCIENCE, MAGIC, RELIGION.
MANY THEMES IN THIS LITERATURE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS
COURSE; TWO-THIRDS OF THIS PAIR I TREAT IN THE OTHER
COURSE I OFF THIS SEMESTER; 'SCIENE AND RELIGION IN EARLY
MODERN EUROPE' ; WILLOFFER A COURSE ON A DIFFERENT TWOTHIRDS NEXT YEAR; 'SCIENCE, PSEUDO-SCIENCE, AND THE
OCCULT'.
SINCE I CANNOT HOPE TO PRESENT A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE
PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE, MAGIC, AND RELIGION IN EARLY
MODERN EUROPE IN ONE LECTURE, LET ME SIMPLY PRESENT
THE OUTSTANDING PROBLEMS - AS I SEE THEM - THE BAREST
OUTLIEN OF A POSSIBLE SOLUTION.
SCIENCE, MAGIC, AND RELIGION MUST BE SEEN AS DYNAMICALLY
INTERACTING, COMPLEX CULTURAL SYSTEMS EVOLVING OVER
TIME.
IN THE CASE OF ASTROLOGY, NATURAL MAGIC, AND BRUNO, WE SEE
HOW RICH THIS INTERACTION CAN BE AND HOW DIFFICULT IT IS
TO DISTINGUISH ONE FORM OF CULTURAL PRACTICE FROM
ANOTHER.
WHAT I WISH TO FOCUS ON HERE IS SIMPLY THE GRAND OVERVIEW AS
TOHOW THESE THREE SYSTEMS SEEM TO HAVE EVOLVED
TOGETHER OVER THE COURSE OF THE 17TH CENTURY.
IN A WORD, EUROPEAN RELIGIOUS CULTRE BECOME MORE COMPLEX BECAUSE OF THE PROTESTA AND CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS
MOVEMENTS.
SCIENCE IS PROFOUNDLY TRANSFORMED, I.E. THE SCIENTIFIC
REVOLUTION REACHES ITS CULMINATION BY CA. 1700.
AND MAGIC - THAT IS, THE THEORETICAL MAGIC OF HIGH CULTURE GOES INTO A TAIL SPIN FROM WHICH IT NEVER REALLY
RECOVERS.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT BY 1700 EUROPE HAD WITNESSED THE
BIRTH OF MODERN SCIENCE AS WE UNDERSTAND IT - WITH
REGARD TO IDEAS, THEORIES, INSTRUMENTS, METHODS,
INSTITUTIONS, AND VALUES.
AND, AS I ARGUE IN MY OTHER COURSE, THERE IS A RENEWED
ALLIANCEOR ACCOMMODATION BETWEEN THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCHES (BOTH PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC) AND THE NEW
SCIENCE.
AN ACCOMMODATION NOT UNLIKE WHAT EMERGED IN THE MIDDLE
AGES BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND THE ARISTOTELIAN NATURAL
PHILOSOPHY.
OF COURSE THIS ALLIANCE - BETWEEN CHRISTIANITY AND
ARISTOTLEIANISM - WAS RENDERED HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC BY
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GEO-ECNTRIC COSMOS AND
ARISTOTELIAN PHYSICS- A PROCESS WE ARE ABOUT HALF-WAY
THROUGH STUDYING AT THIS POINT IN THE SEMESTER.
PUT ALL TOO CRUDELY, THE NEW SCIENCE EFFECTIVELY DESTROYS
ARISTOTELIANISM AS A BELIEVALBE SYSTEM OF EXPLANATION
AND REPLACES IT WITH A HELIOCENTRIC, MATHEMATICAL,
EXPERIMENTAL-EMPIRICAL ENTERPRISE.
BUT WHA TIS IMPORTANT IN THIS ANALYSIS IS THAT THIS NEW SCIENCE
ACHIEVES A SORT OF INTELLECTUAL ACCORD OR AGREEMENT
WITH THE DOMINANT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS OF THE DAY (THE
CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CHURCHES) AND ENJOYS, AS IT
WERE, THEIR CULTURAL PATROANAGE.
THAT IS, PRACTICE OF THE NEW SCIENCE IS LOOKED UPON WITH
TOLERANCE AND EVEN ENCOURAGEMENT BY THE DOMINANT
CHURCHES.
HOWEVER, MAGIC IS THE BIG LOSER.
FOR WHATEVER REASONS - AND I AM THE FIRST TO SAY THAT WE DO
NOTHAVE HAVE AN ADEQUATE EXPLANATION FOR THIS - THE KEY
QUESTIONWE NEED TO ASK OF MAGICAL THEORY IN THE 17TH
CENTURY IS - WHY DID IT DECLINE?.
THE THEORY THAT MAGIC WAS CONQUORED BY DIRECT ATTACK FROM
SCIENCE DOESN'T QUITE HOLD UP - THERE IS AS MUCH
INDICATION OF MUTUAL INTERACTION, BORROWINGS, AND
COOPERATION (ESPECIALLY INTHE EARLY DECADES OF THE 17TH
CENTURY).
THIS IS OF COURSE BORNE OUT BY THE TESTIMONY OF TYCHO AND
KEPLER.
THIS THESIS - MODERN, RATIONAL SCIENCE CONQUERING THE SELFDELUSION AND SUPERSTITION OF MAGIC - RESTS ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT MAGIC IS MORE LIKE SCIENCE THAN IT IS
RELIGION.
INDEED, ONE ANTHROPOLOGIST HAS ARGUED - ALBEIT SOME TIME AGO
-THAT MAGIC IS REALLY NOTHING MORE THAN FAILED
TECHNOLOGY.
THAT WHEN OUR TECHNICAL ABILITIES TO CONTROL NATURE FAIL, OUR
IMAGINATIONS STEPS IN, WE ACT OUT RITUALS, GIVE VOICE TO
MAGICAL CHARMS AND INCANTATIONS ALL IN THE HOPE THAT
THEZE VERBAL AND SYMBOLIC GESTURES WILL SOMEHOW
'MAGICALLY' BRING ABOUT THE OBJECT OF OUR DESIRES.
HOWEVER, MORE CAREFUL HISTORICAL RESEARCH (BY KEITH THOMAS)
SUGGESTS THAT THE REAL CONFLICT WAS NOT BETWEEN
SCIENCE AND MAGIC (OR FOR THAT MATTER, SCIENCE AND
RELIGION) BUT BETWEEN RELIGION AND MAGIC.
MAGIC HAD ALWAYS ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THINGS CLOSELY RELATED
TO RELIGION; ASSUAGEMENT OF PAIN, UNCERTAINTY, DOUBT.
THERE IS ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT MINISTERS (AT LEAST IN
PROTESTANT ENGLAND) SAW MAGICIANS, ASTROLOGERS, AND
WISE WOMEN AS THEIR CHIEF COMPETITORS IN PROVIDING
PASTROAL CARE TO COMMON PEOPLE.
SO IN THIS INTERPRETATION, MAGIC IS NOT SO MUCH FAILED SCIENCE
ASFAILED (OR UN-ORTHODOX) RELIGION.
AND IT WAS THE DOMINANT CHURCHES THAT PLAYED THE CENTRAL
ROLE IN THE DECLINE OF THE MAGICAL WORLD VIEW.
WHILE THIS THESIS MAY BE APPEALING, NOTHING IS SETTLED.
IT IS, IN MY OPINION, AN OPEN QUESTION - 'WHY DID MAGIC (E.G.,
ASTROLOGY) DECLINE BY THE END OF THE 17TH CENTURY?'.
AND THIS BRINGS US BACK TO THE 'YATES THESIS'.
IF FRANCES YATES WAS ABLE TO SEEN MUCH OF THE HERMETIC
WORLD IN THE TRANSFORMED WORLD OF THE 'NEW SCIENCE' OF
THE 17TH CENTURY, IT WAS BECAUSE THERE WERE MANY
ELEMENTS IN COMMON.
WHAT SHE FAILED TO SEE, HOWEVER, WAS THAT THOSE COMMON
ELEMENTS DO NOT NECESSARILY MEAN ORGANIC RELATEDNESS
OR EVENCONCEPTUAL INDEBTEDNESS.
THE APPROPRIATION OF INDIAN LANDS AND THE USE OF INDIAN PLACENAMES DOES NOT MAKE AMERICA AN INDIAN COUNTRY;.
NOR DOES THE SUBSUMPTION OF INDIAN CULTURE UNDER THE
CATEGORIES OF WESTERN ANTHROPOLOGY MAKE
ANTHROPOLOGISTS PARTICIPANTS IN THE INDIAN WAY OF LIFE.
THE MAGUS DID NOT EVOLVE INTO THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHER
THROUGH A GRADUAL PROCESS OF CULTURAL SELECTION.
AND THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHER DID NOT SPEAK THE SAME
LANGUAGE AS THE MAGUS, EVEN THOUGH BOTH USED MANY OF
THE SAME WORDS.
WHAT YATES WOULD LIKE US TO SEE AS ORGANIC DESCENT IS, IN MY
OPINION, BETTER UNDERSTOOD THROUGH THE METAPHOR OF
APPROPRIATION: THERE IS MUCH OF THE MAGICAL WORLD IN
THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY, BUT THE OLD TERMS AND
CONCEPTS HAVE TAKEN ON A RADICALLY DIFFERNT MEANING IN
THE NEW EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONTEXT.
IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE KEEP IN MIND THE IMAGE OF THREE
INTERACTING SYSTEMS OF CULTURAL PRACTICE - MAGIC,
SCIENCE, AND RELIGION - AND IF WE KEEP IN MIND THAT THE
BOUNDARIES ARE DYNAMIC, ALLOWING FOR EXCHANGE,
GROWTH, AND DECAY - THEN I THINK WE HAVE AN IMAGE THAT
WILL ALLOW US TO APPRECIATE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE EARLY
MODERN PERIOD.
FOR MUCH OF THE 'GROWTH OF SCIENCE' IN THE EARLY MODERN
PERIOD CAME AT THE EXPENSE OF MAGIC (AS WELL AS PARTS
OF RELIGION).
INDEED RATHER THAN METAPHORS OF CONQUEST, WE MIGHT SPEAK
MORE PROFITABLY OF APPROPRIATION AND SUBSUMPTION