The article covers the so called Thesis of Frances Yates, concerning the "hermetical key" to understanding of the Scientific Revolution. The author shows historians' attitude to Yates's Thesis and assumes, that in general it depends on what exactly these historians study - the history of science or the history of culture. Also the article shows the role of metahistorical orientation of historians in their attitude to Yates' Thesis. The author pays attention to the positive role of Christianity in the rise of the Scientific Revolution.

Keywords: F.Yates, Scientific Revolution, Hermetical tradition, religion and science.

OUR analysis concerns the structure of the historiographical field of the problem of the role of the Hermetic tradition in the scientific revolution. The literature devoted to this issue and, especially, the discussion caused by Frances A. Yates ' book on Giordano Bruno provide such rich material that they allow us to analyze once again and in a new way the entire concept of HP proposed by an outstanding English historian.1
One version of this article was published in Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of History of Science (Liege, July 20 - 26, 1997) Volume XVIII: Alchemy, Chemistry and Pharmacy ed. by Michael Bougard. Turnhout, Belgique: Brepols, 2002. P. 61 - 66. The author is grateful to the University of Liege (Belgium) for its assistance in carrying out this research. The text has been updated for this edition.

1. Let us mention only a few names of authors whose works are devoted to the analyzed problem: H. Clulee, B. P. Copenhauer, A. G. Debus, P. Delpiano, A.-J. Festugiere, P. J. French, E. Garin, M. Gliozzi, A. R. Hall, M. Hesse, K. Hutchison, P. O. Kristeller, J. M. McGuire, E. Metaxopoulos, W. Pagel, P. M. Rattansi, P. Rossi, Ch. B. Schmitt, B. Tannier, B. Vickers, D. P. Walker, R. S. Westfall, R. S. Westman, Fr. A.Yates, P. Zambelli, and others.

page 92
Cultural and scientific history

The undoubted advantage of historical discourse is due to the strategy of its construction, which is based on the following questions: for whom and how is it constructed? The answer to these questions determines the typology of historical discourses, which differ in their degree of persuasiveness. An analysis of the discussions surrounding F. A. Yates ' thesis on the decisive role of Hermeticism in the scientific revolution shows that what seems plausible within the historical and cultural discourse is not so for the historical and scientific approach.

In both cases, we are dealing with different ways of argumentation. The English historian offers a hermetic reading of not only the intellectual life of the Renaissance itself, but also the processes in art, politics, etc., thus interpreting history in the spirit of the history of mentalities. The reader of her works, paying more attention to the fascinating images and symbols contained in them, rather than to the logic of argumentation inherent in the traditional history of science, no longer doubts that the hermetic code is really inherent in the cultural message of this unstable, transitional era.

But ultimately, is Hermeticism really the main trend of Renaissance culture? This is indeed an important question, because doubts remain, even if - let us emphasize once again-we read the works of F. A. Yates through the prism of cultural history, and not the history of science.

When historians of astronomy, mechanics, and physics attempted to verify the concept proposed by F. A. Yates, the attitude to it in most cases turned out to be negative. We will focus only on two points of its criticism. The first objection concerns the fact that F. A. Yates underestimated the conceptual reasoning inherent in all science. The second is an almost complete disregard for trends and traditions outside the hermetic circle, that is, those that are not" tied " directly to the Corpus Hermeticum. If we generalize this criticism, we can determine the point of divergence of the discursive strategies inherent in these types of history: for the historian of science (as opposed to the historian of culture) its a priori hero is a scientist. Therefore, all the characteristics that may be significant within the historical and cultural context are instantly erased, disappear as soon as the scientist becomes the object of the historian of science.

page 93
Take Giordano Bruno, for example: he may have been a mystic, a neo-Platonist, a Hermeticist, a magician practicing more than suspicious rituals, a vitalist, an animist, a Lullist, etc., etc. To sum up, although the historical-scientific approach is legitimate for verifying the historical-cultural concept, at least to the extent that it concerns historical-scientific subjects, however, in this case it cannot be considered sufficient in itself to ensure that the last word remains with him.

The trap of Platonism and Paracelsus ' Support: Two opposing strategies

The strategy that we have called "the trap of Platonism" can be expressed in the words of J. M. McGuire: "Hermeticism was neither an independent historical force nor a separate intellectual tradition, but it was a very important element of Hermeticism... almost always, it arose and spread on the basis of the revival of Neoplatonism. Neo-Platonism was an independent historical reality, but the same cannot be said for the intellectual elements of Hermeticism"2. The critical strategy expressed in these words, which is directed against the history that places hermeticism (histoire hermetisante) at the center of the explanatory construction, has already been formulated by A. J. Festugier: "[From the hermetic corpus] it is impossible to extract a single teaching that could be designated as Hermeticism"3. C. B. Schmitt agrees with D. M. McGuire, when he says: "It is important to emphasize the fact that the basic structure of the Hermetic Corpus (and the underlying metaphysics) is Neoplatonism." 4 Although A. A. Yates does not deny the heterogeneous structure of the hermetic corpus, in her opinion, the relationship between Neoplatonism and Hermeticism is expressed in statements that are opposite to those used by J. M. McGuire. Commenting on his interpretation of the Hermetic tradition as the legacy of the legendary Hermes Trismegistus, she says: "I include in this concept the hermetic core of neo-

McGuire J. E. 2. Neoplatonism and Active Principles: Newton and the Corpus Hermeticum// Westman R. S., McGuire J. E. (eds.) Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution. Los Angeles, 1977. P. 127.

3. Corpus hermeticum. 7e ed. T. 1. 1991. P. 85.

Schmitt Ch.B. 4. Reappraisals in Renaissance Science//Studies in Renaissance Philosophy and Sciences. 1981. P. 207.

page 94
Ficino's platonism"5. According to this statement, the possible positive contribution of the Hermetic tradition to the scientific revolution is provided precisely by Neoplatonism (for example, the role of active principles in the construction of Newtonian dynamics).

The trap of neo-Platonism, into which the Hermetic-centrist approach thus risks falling, is balanced by the support of F. A. Yeats ' thesis, which is given to it within the historiography of the Paracelsian current of thought.6 Therefore, it is not surprising that historians of chemistry or medicine are more positive about the concept of F. A. Yates than their colleagues in such exact sciences as mathematics, astronomy, physics or mechanics. The reason is obvious: these disciplines are closer to the animistic and hermetic mentality than to the mechanistic or mathematical mentality. But they played a very significant role in the scientific revolution as a whole, as the aforementioned historians of these sciences have shown us.

Metahistorical settings

The acceptance or refutation of F. A. Yates ' thesis is conditioned by philosophical positions that, as a rule, remain unchanged throughout the work of the historian and therefore can be called metahistorical. Naturally, the tradition of scientific rationalism is very strong in the historiography of science. The very dichotomy "history of culture - history of science" can be presented as caused by the divergence of the basic metahistorical attitudes of historians A. Koire and V. P. Zubov, to whom we refer - the most significant representatives of the tradition of scientific rationalism, who studied Renaissance science in connection with the problem of HP. Indeed, when analyzing the cosmology of D. Bruno, A. Coire deliberately leaves aside the tendency of his hero to vitalism and magic. "Indeed," writes the historian, " my sketch of his cosmology is a little one - sided and far from complete: Bruno's concept of the world is vitalistic and magical; his planets are living beings who are not fully understood.-

Yates Fr.A. 5. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Chicago, 1964. P. 448 [rus. ed.: Yeats F. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2000].

6. Here we should mention the works of the following authors: W. Pagel, A. G. Debus, Ch. Webster and others.

page 95
they move freely in space at will, just like Plato's or Patrizi's planets"7. However, according to Coire, Bruno's influence on scientific cosmology overcomes such hermetic rudiments of his thought, even if they do not completely disappear from him. F. A. Yates, on the contrary, argues that Bruno's contribution to the scientific revolution is enormous precisely because of the elements of Hermeticism.

We see the same divergence of metahistorical attitudes when we compare the interpretation of Leonardo's image by V. P. Zubov and E. Garen. In his reflections, Leonardo Zubov notes typically hermetic points. But the Russian historian constantly seeks to minimize their significance: "Can we characterize Leonardo as a vitalist because of this? Only with very serious reservations. It should not be forgotten that Leonardo used the concepts of "soul" and" life force "only when he did not find a suitable explanation of life phenomena using the principles of mechanics or when he was unable to artificially reproduce the complex movements and variability of living beings by mechanical means"8. In addition, V. P. Zubov emphasizes the fundamental difference between Leonardo and Ficino in their attitude to the significance of the Sun: "In the end, "he says,"The Sun for Ficino was nothing more than a symbol directing his thought to the 'supernal light'. Such heliosophy, characteristic of Florentine Platonism, was alien to Leonardo. " 9
Eugenio Garin, the Renaissance cultural historian, on the other hand, when speaking of the problem of the existence of vital or spiritual forces in Leonardo, solves it quite differently: "He believed," he says, " that the spirit is nothing but the breath of life, force and energy (and it is in this sense that Leonardo calls the force spiritual) and in this he found a high image of" reason "hidden in the bosom of nature as in a deep "cave" " 10. In addition, in the image of the cave, he sees the influence of the eighth treatise of the Hermetic Corpus. In contrast to Zubov's opinion, Garen says: "This con-

Koyre A. 7. Du monde clos a l'univers infini/Trad. de l'anglais par R. Tarr. 1962, рус. ed.: [Koire A. From a closed world to an infinite universe, Moscow: Logos, 2001].

Zoubov V.P. 8. Le soleil dans l'oeuvre scientifique de Leonard de Vinci //Le Soleil a la Renaissance. Science et mythes. Bruxelles, Paris, 1965. P. 192.

9. Ibid. P. 182.

Garin E. 10. La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano. Ricerche e documenti. Firenze, 1979. P. 399.

page 96
the concept of spiritual force has very little to do with rational mechanics, while it is most directly related to the theme of life and universal animation in the spirit of Ficino and Hermeticism"11. The position of the Italian cultural historian in this regard coincides with that of F. A. Yates: "Leonardo's exceptional achievements will, according to Garen's hypothesis, be yet another proof of the impetus that Hermeticism possessed for a new vision of the world." 12 And a little further on, she adds that the animistic concept of the world is fundamental to both Leonardo's mechanics and his mathematics.

This ambivalent interpretation of Leonardo's science is dictated by the peculiarities of his very figure as a Renaissance man, for whom the connection of the magico-Hermetic tradition with rational science is completely organic and natural. But we also see another reason for this ambivalent reading, hidden in the mental attitudes of the historians we have mentioned. It should be noted that all representatives of rationalism are historians of science, while researchers who share" irrationalism", even if, so to speak," weak", are historians of culture. In other words, this divergence of positions follows from the divergence of metahistorical attitudes. A. Koire and V. Zubov are historians of science and at the same time convinced, one might even say "rigid" rationalists. And E. Garin and F. A. Yates, who are cultural historians, are noticeably less attached to the values of militant and, perhaps, therefore somewhat limited scientific rationalism. The latter remark, however, applies more to V. Zubov than to A. Koira, for obvious reasons.

Now let us consider another type of characteristic discrepancies in the historiographical field of the problem of the role of GT in HP that we are discussing. Giordano Bruno - an absolute Hermeticist, according to F. A. Yates-impresses us both with the lack of any practical or technical orientation in his vision of the world, and with his bold and poetically expressed concept of the multiplicity of worlds. It is noteworthy, in particular, that it does not have

Garin E. 11. Scienza e vita civile nel Rinascimento italiano. Bari, 1965. P. 71.

Yates Fr.A. 12. The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science//Art, Science and History in the Renaissance. Baltimore, 1968. P. 261.

page 97
some, even in a purely hypothetical form, in the form of sketches, technological projects of travel from one world to another. After all, similar projects already existed in his era and even earlier (Leonardo, Godwin, Cyrano de Bergerac). And, indeed, why develop the technique of space flight, if the worlds, that is, all celestial bodies, according to Bruno, are animate beings and, as a result, can approach each other through their own vital forces, just as terrestrial beings do? From this we conclude that, contrary to the opinion of F. A. Yeats, hermetic animism rather hinders the development of technology and science.

Nevertheless - and this is the paradox that is particularly interesting to us-the observations and even conclusions of F. A. Yates and the proponents of her thesis are also correct. The first observation of this type is as follows: "For Dee," the English historian rightly notes, " his mechanical operations... They were part of the same worldview as his attempts to summon angels using Kabbalistic numerology."13 Another correct observation is that Agrippa's mechanics were a type of mathematical magic. And the third: technical inventions, like those of Heron of Alexandria, are driven by an exciting mix of magic and science. This is the case in the case of Fabio Paolini, author of the treatise Hebdomades. 14 Paradoxes of this type raise, on the one hand, the problem of truth in historical research, and, on the other, the following question: how did the Hermetic tradition influence scientific life and in what direction? We can no longer isolate the history of science from the history of philosophy, as C. B. Schmitt rightly pointed out in relation to the above-quoted article by J. M. McGuire. 15
Let's sum up the results. So, the historiographic field of the problem under consideration is structured by the following main oppositions::

1) history of culture/history of science;

2) history of exact sciences/history of "Baconian" sciences (according to T. Kuhn);

3) hard rationalism/soft rationalism as two metahistorical positions.

Yates Fr.A. 13. The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science. P. 259.

Paolini F. 14. Hebdomades. Venise, 1589.

Schmitt Ch.B. 15. Reappraisals in Renaissance Science. P. 213 - 214.

page 98
Religious factor

Since Hermeticism has its origins in "pagan Gnosticism" (F. A. Yeats), an unqualified acceptance of the analyzed thesis may lead to the conclusion that a decisive rejection of Christianity favored the birth of modern science. But the analysis of a complex and conflicting historical situation shows the presence of a rather large and important socio-cultural space where the interests of religion and emerging science converged before the challenge of Hermeticism. Indeed, Renaissance naturalism, which is close to the Hermetic tradition, expands the realm of the natural, practically blurring the distance between the natural and the divine. In this naturalism, therefore, there was a general threat to both religion and science. On the contrary, the new science sought to limit the concept of the natural and encouraged religion to put up barriers to natural or natural magic, which is characteristic of the Hermetic tradition as a whole. In this context, mechanical science seemed capable of blocking the way for Hermeticism - both anti-Christian and anti-scientific at the same time.

Thus, the Hermetic tradition oriented the human will to a new practical and activist attitude of consciousness, while the Christian tradition marginalized Hermeticism, contributing to the emergence of modern science. Although the Hermetic tradition played a definite and positive role in this process, Christianity, which was renewed in the era of the Counter-Reformation, dealt it a final decisive blow, gradually displacing it from the publicly recognized space of knowledge into the cultural and social "underground" characteristic of the occult trends of recent centuries.

Authorized translation from French by Elena Shapovalova

Bibliography

F. Yates Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2000.

Coire A. From a closed world to an infinite universe, Moscow: Logos Publ., 2001.

page 99
Jejts F. Dzhordano Bruno i germeticheskaja tradicija. M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2000.

Kojre A. Ot zamknutogo mira к beskonechnoj vselennoj. M.: Logos, 2001.

Garin E. La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano. Ricerche e documenti. Firenze, 1979.

Garin E. Scienza e vita civile nel Rinascimento italiano. Ban, 1965.

Koyre A. Du monde clos a l'univers infini/Trad. de l'anglais par R. Tarr. 1962.

McGuire J.E. Neoplatonism and Active Principles: Newton and the Corpus Hermeticum// Westman R. S., McGuire J. E. (eds.) Hermeticism and the Scientific Revolution. Los Angeles, 1977.

Paolini F. Hebdomades. Venise, 1589.

Schmitt Ch.B. Reappraisals in Renaissance Science//Studies in Renaissance Philosophy and Sciences. 1981.

Yates Fr. A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Chicago, 1964.

Yates Fr.A. The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science//Art, Science and History in the Renaissance. Baltimore, 1968.

Zoubov V.P. The soleil dans l'oeuvre scientifique de Leonard de Vinci//Le Soleil a la Renaissance. Science et mythes. Bruxelles, Paris, 1965.

page 100

Permanent link to this publication: