U tekstu se propituju Petrićevi stavovi o nebeskim utjecajima izloženi u radovima rane i zrele faze njegova djelovanja. Poredbena analiza nekolicine djela iz rane faze, u kojima on obrađuje uglavnom humanističke teme poput ljubavi, ljepote, pjesništva, povijesti itd. i djela iz zrele faze u kojoj piše svoje najznačajnije djelo, Novu sveopću filozofiju, pokazuje da se njegovi stavovi u vezi s navedenom temom u djelima iz tih dviju faza razlikuju. Namjera nam je u tekstu istražiti u čemu se te razlike sastoje.
U djelima iz rane faze, govoreći o utjecajima nebeskih tijela Petrić je fokusiran uglavnom na njihove učinke na ljudske duše. Pitanje tih utjecaja tu je usko vezano uz sudbinu duše, uz njeno »putovanje« unutar ontologijske hijerarhije, njeno »silaženje« iz viših regija bića u tvarni svijet. Petrić pritom precizno određuje specifičnost djelovanja svakog planeta. Njegovi opisi specifičnog djelovanja planeta sadrže dosta astroloških elemenata. Djelovanje planeta usto je usko povezano s djelovanjem muza.
Analiza djela zrele faze, tj. njegove Nove sveopće filozofije pokazuje da se tu, s obzirom na to da se radi o sveobuhvatnom pogledu na sveukupnost (universitas), promatra položaj i uloga nebeskih tijela u sveukupnosti. Tu se propituje djelovanje nebeskih tijela unutar hijerarhije bića, ali bez osvrtanja na njihovo djelovanje na sudbine ljudskih duša.
No posve je jasno da su temelji Petrićeva raspravljanja o nebeskim utjecajima i u djelima rane i u onima zrele faze ontologijski.
Osobita se pozornost u tekstu posvećuje dvadeset i prvoj knjizi Pancosmije u kojoj Petrić razmatra pitanje čine li zvijezde nešto. Pritom on razmatra astrologiju/ astronomiju pod dvojakim vidom: kao vještinu proricanja budućeg i kao razmatranje djelovanja zvijezda u sveukupnosti. Napose se osvrće na kritiku prediktivne astro¬logije od strane nekih novoplatoničkih autora, prije svega, Plotina, Marsilia Ficina i Pica della Mirandole.
Premda odbacuje astrologiju kao vještinu proricanja, poput Plotina, Petrić ne isključuje mogućnost da bi se prema njihovu položaju moglo predviđati buduće s obzirom na novoplatonički stav o povezanosti svih dijelova svemira. Takvu djelatnost međutim smatra ispraznom. Zanimljivo je da pritom ni jednom riječju ne spominje svoje stavove o djelovanju planeta izložene u ranim radovima.
Bez obzira na kritički stav spram prediktivne astrologije, Petrić nipošto ne osporava utjecaje nebeskih tijela koja su po njemu božanska živa bića. Štoviše, on drži da svaki planet pa i zviježđa imaju, zahvaljujući sjemenju koje posreduju nižem svijetu, određena specifična djelovanja na tvarni svijet. No u Novoj sveopćoj filozofiji, točnije u Pancosmiji on ne ulazi u detalje u vezi s tim djelovanjima, već se zadržava na općim konstatacijama o nebeskim utjecajima.
Dakle, pišući o nebeskim utjecajima u djelu zrele faze, u Novoj sveopćoj filozofiji, on ne osporava ono što je o tim utjecajima tvrdio u djelima iz rane faze, samo im pristupa s posve drugačijeg polazišta i promatra ih iz jedne drugačije perspektive.The text questions Petrić’s views on celestial influences presented in the works of the early and mature phases of his activity. A comparative analysis of several works from the early phase, in which he deals mainly with humanistic topics such as love, beauty, poetry, history, etc. and the work from the mature phase in which he writes his most significant work, Nova de universis philosophia shows that his views regarding the mentioned topic in the works from those two phases differ. Our scopus in the text is to investigate what these differences consist of.
In works from the early phase, talking about the influences of heavenly bodies, Petrić is focused mainly on their effects on human souls. The question of these influences is closely related to the fate of the soul, to its “journey” within the ontological hierarchy, its “descent” from the higher regions of being into the material world. At the same time, Petrić precisely determines the specificity of the activity of each planet. His attitudes about the specific activity of the planet contain a lot of astrological elements. The activity of the planets is also closely related to the activity of the muses.
The analysis of the work of the mature phase, i.e. Nova de universis philosophia, shows that due to the fact that it is a comprehensive view of the universitas, the focus is on the observation of the position and role of heavenly bodies in universitas. This is where the activity of heavenly bodies within the hierarchy of beings is questioned, but without referring to their impact on the destinies of human souls.
It is quite clear that the foundations of Petrić’s discussion of celestial influences in both early and mature works are ontological.
In the text special attention is paid to the twenty-first book of Pancosmia, in Nova de universis philosophia, in which Petrić considers the question of whether the stars are doing something. At the same time, he considers astrology/astronomy under dual vision: as a skill for predicting the future and as a consideration of the activity of the stars in universitas. In particular, he looks at the criticism of predictive astrology by some Neoplatonic authors, primarily Plotinus, Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola.
Although he rejects astrology as a skill of divination, like Plotinus Petrić does not rule out the possibility that, regarding the Neoplatonic attitude about the connection of all parts of the universe, one could predict the future according to the position of the heavenly bodies. However, he considers such activity to be vain. It is interesting that he does not mention, not even in a single word his views on the specific activity of the heavenly bodies in his early works.
Regardless of his critical attitude towards predictive astrology, Petrić by no means brings to the question the influences of heavenly bodies, which according to him are divine living beings. Moreover, he maintains that every planet and even stars have, thanks to the seeds that they convey to the lower world, certain specific impact on the material world. But in the Nova de universis philosophia, more precisely in Pancosmia, he does not go into details regarding their activity, but dwells on general statements about celestial influences.
Thus, writing about heavenly influences in the work of the mature phase, i.e. in the Nova de universis philosophia, he does not dispute what he claimed about these influences in the works from the early phase, he just approaches this topic from a completely different starting point and observes it from a different perspective
