The microcosm–macrocosm analogy (or, equivalently, macrocosm–microcosm analogy) refers to a historical view which posited a structural similarity between the
human being (the
microcosm, i.e., the small order or the small universe) and the
cosmos as a whole (the
macrocosm, i.e., the great order or the great universe).[b] Given this fundamental analogy, truths about the nature of the cosmos as a whole may be inferred from truths about human nature, and vice versa.[1]
One important corollary of this view is that the cosmos as a whole may be considered to be alive, and thus to have a mind or soul (the
world soul), a position advanced by
Plato in his Timaeus.[2] Moreover, this cosmic mind or soul was often thought to be divine, most notably by the
Stoics and those who were influenced by them, such as the authors of the Hermetica.[3] Hence, it was sometimes inferred that the human mind or soul was divine in nature as well.
Apart from this important psychological and noetic (i.e., related to the
mind) application, the analogy was also applied to
human physiology.[4] For example, the
cosmological functions of the
seven classical planets were sometimes taken to be analogous to the physiological functions of human
organs, such as the
heart, the
spleen, the
liver, the
stomach, etc.[c]
In contemporary usage, the terms microcosm and macrocosm are also employed to refer to any smaller system that is representative of a larger one, and vice versa.
History
Antiquity
Among
ancient Greek and
Hellenistic philosophers, notable proponents of the microcosm–macrocosm analogy included
Anaximander (
c. 610 – c. 546 BCE),[8]Plato (c. 428 or 424 – c. 348 BCE),[9] the
Hippocratic authors (late 5th or early 4th century BCE and onwards),[10] and the
Stoics (3rd century BCE and onwards).[11] In later periods, the analogy was especially prominent in the works of those philosophers who were heavily influenced by
Platonic and Stoic thought, such as
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE),[12] the authors of the early Greek Hermetica (c. 100 BCE–300 CE),[13] and the
Neoplatonists (3rd century CE and onwards).[14] The analogy was also employed in
late antique and early medieval religious literature, such as in the Bundahishn, a
Zoroastrian encyclopedic work, and the Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, a Jewish
Rabbinical text.[15]
Middle Ages
Medieval philosophy was generally dominated by
Aristotle, who despite having been the first to coin the term "microcosm",[16] had posited a fundamental and insurmountable difference between the region below the Moon (the
sublunary world, consisting of the
four elements) and the region above the Moon (the superlunary world, consisting of a
fifth element). Nevertheless, the microcosm–macrocosm analogy was adopted by a wide variety of medieval thinkers working in different linguistic traditions: the concept of microcosm was known in
Arabic as ʿālam ṣaghīr, in
Hebrew as olam katan, and in
Latin as microcosmus or minor mundus.[17] The analogy was elaborated by
alchemists such as those writing under the name of
Jabir ibn Hayyan (
c. 850–950 CE),[18] by the anonymous
Shi'ite philosophers known as the
Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ ("The Brethren of Purity", c. 900–1000),[19] by Jewish theologians and philosophers such as
Isaac Israeli (c. 832 – c. 932),
Saadia Gaon (882/892–942),
Ibn Gabirol (11th century), and
Judah Halevi (c. 1075–1141),[20] by
Victorine monks such as
Godfrey of Saint Victor (born 1125, author of a treatise called Microcosmus), by the
Andalusian mystic
Ibn Arabi (1165–1240),[21] by the German cardinal
Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464),[22] and by numerous others.
Renaissance
The revival of
Hermeticism and
Neoplatonism in the
Renaissance, both of which had reserved a prominent place for the microcosm–macrocosm analogy, also led to a marked rise in popularity of the latter. Some of the most notable proponents of the concept in this period include
Marsilio Ficino (1433 – 1499),
Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa (1486–1535),
Francesco Patrizi (1529–1597),
Giordano Bruno (1548–1600), and
Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639).[23] It was also central to the new medical theories propounded by the Swiss physician
Paracelsus (1494–1541) and his many
followers, most notably
Robert Fludd (1574–1637).[24]Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) in his anatomy text
De fabrica wrote that the human body "in many respects corresponds admirably to the universe and for that reason was called the little universe by the ancients."[25]
Analogies between microcosm and macrocosm are found throughout the history of
Jewish philosophy. According to this analogy, there is a structural similarity between the human being (the
microcosm, from
ancient Greek μικρός κόσμος, mikrós kósmos;
Hebrewעולם קטן, Olam katan, i.e., the small universe) and the
cosmos as a whole (the
macrocosm, from
ancient Greek μακρός κόσμος, makrós kósmos, i.e., the great universe).[26]
The view was elaborated by the Jewish philosopher
Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE–50 CE), who adopted it from
ancient Greek and
Hellenistic philosophy.[27] Similar ideas can also be found in early
Rabbinical literature. In the Middle Ages, the analogy became a prominent theme in the works of most Jewish philosophers.
Rabbinical literature
In the
Avot de-Rabbi Nathan (compiled c. 700–900 CE), human parts are compared with parts belonging to the larger world: the hair is like a forest, the lungs like the wind, the loins like counselors, the stomach like a mill, etc.[28]
Nevertheless, the analogy was already in use by earlier Jewish philosophers. In his commentary on the Sefer Yetzirah ("Book of Creation"),
Saadia Gaon (882/892–942) put forward a set of analogies between the cosmos, the
Tabernacle, and the human being.[32] Saadia was followed in this by a number of later authors, such as Bahya ibn Paquda, Judah Halevi, and Abraham ibn Ezra.[32]
Whereas the physiological application of the analogy in the Rabbinical work Avot de-Rabbi Nathan had still been relatively simple and crude, much more elaborate versions of this application were given by Bahya ibn Paquda and Joseph ibn Tzaddik (in his Sefer ha-Olam ha-Katan, "Book of the Microcosm"), both of whom compared human parts with the heavenly bodies and other parts of the cosmos at large.[33]
The analogy was linked to the ancient theme of "
know thyself" (Greek: γνῶθι σεαυτόν, gnōthi seauton) by the physician and philosopher
Isaac Israeli (c. 832–932), who suggested that by knowing oneself, a human being may gain knowledge of all things.[32] This theme of self-knowledge returned in the works of Joseph ibn Tzaddik, who added that in this way humans may come to know God himself.[32] The macrocosm was also associated with the divine by Judah Halevi, who saw God as the spirit, soul, mind, and life that animates the universe, while according to
Maimonides (1138–1204), the relationship between God and the universe is analogous to the relationship between the intellect and the human being.[32]
^From
Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, 1617–21
^The terms microcosm and macrocosm derive from
ancient Greekμικρός κόσμος (mikrós kósmos) and μακρός κόσμος (makrós kósmos), which may mean 'small universe' and 'great universe', but whose primary meaning is 'small order' and 'great order', respectively (see
wiktionary; cf.
Allers 1944, pp. 320–321, note 5).
^See the illustration shown on the right (from
Robert Fludd's Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia, 1617–21), which correlates the sun (considered to be a planet in the
geocentric model) with the heart.
^The Greek terms may mean 'small universe' and 'great universe', but their primary meaning is 'small order' and 'great order', respectively (see
wiktionary; cf.
Allers 1944, pp. 320-321, note 5). The terms also occur in medieval Arabic sources as ʿālam ṣaghīr and in medieval Latin sources as microcosmus or minor mundus (see
Kraemer 2007; on the Latin terminology, see
Finckh 1999, p. 12).
^The Epistles of the Brethren of Purity were of much less importance to
Maimonides (1138–1204), who also ignored Joseph ibn Tzaddik's work on the microcosm–macrocosm analogy; see
Kraemer 2007.
De Callataÿ, Godefroid; Moureau, Sébastien (2017). "A Milestone in the History of Andalusī Bāṭinism: Maslama b. Qāsim al-Qurṭubī's Riḥla in the East". Intellectual History of the Islamicate World. 5 (1): 86–117.
doi:
10.1163/2212943X-00501004.
Hahm, David E. (1977). The Origins of Stoic Cosmology. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
ISBN978-0814202531.
Kranz, Walther (1938). "Kosmos und Mensch in der Vorstellung frühen Griechentums". Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse (in German). 2 (7): 121–161.
OCLC905422149.
Krinis, Ehud (2016). "The Philosophical and Theosophical Interpretations of the Microcosm–Macrocosm Analogy in Ikhwān al-ṣafā' and Jewish Medieval Writings". In Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad Ali; De Cillis, Maria; De Smet, Daniel; Mir-Kasimov, Orkhan (eds.). L'Ésotérisme shi'ite, ses racines et ses prolongements – Shi'i Esotericism: Its Roots and Developments. Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences Religieuses. Vol. 177. Turnhout: Brepols. pp. 395–409.
doi:
10.1484/M.BEHE-EB.4.01178.
ISBN978-2503568744.
Miller, Clyde Lee (2009–2017).
"Cusanus, Nicolaus [Nicolas of Cusa]". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition).
Olerud, Anders (1951). L'idée de macrocosmos et de microcosmos dans le 'Timée' de Platon: Étude de mythologie comparée (in French). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.
OCLC680524865.
Svärd, Saana; Nokso-Koivisto, Inka (2014). "The Microcosm–Macrocosm Analogy in Mesopotamian and Medieval Arabic History of Science". In Lindstedt, Ilkka; Hämeen-Anttila, Jaakko; Mattila, Raija;
Rollinger, Robert (eds.). Case Studies in Transmission. The Intellectual Heritage of the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East, 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. pp. 159–187.
ISBN978-3868351248.
Widengren, G. (1980). "Macrocosmos-microcosmos speculation in the Rasa'il Ikhwan al-safa and some Hurufi texts". Archivio di Filosofia. 48: 297–312.
Wilberding, James (2006). Plotinus' Cosmology: A Study of Ennead II.1 (40). Text, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ISBN978-0199277261.