In this interview with authors from the Society for Renaissance Studies book series, we talk to Ovanes Akopyan about his forthcoming book with David Rosenthal Disaster in the Early Modern World: Examinations, Representations, Interventions, similarities between early modern and modern understandings of disaster, and how a decline in knowledge of ancient languages is shaping Renaissance studies.
1. What drew you towards Renaissance and Early Modern studies?
Before entering university, I already knew that I would like to study the history of renaissance Italy. Then, in my second year, I attended a course during which I was introduced to the work of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, a renowned fifteenth-century philosopher, who, among other things, had been one of the fiercest critics of astrology of all time. This encounter with Pico’s life and work led me to study his massive anti-astrological treatise Disputations Against the Astrologers on which I would later write my PhD. Since then, I have been particularly interested in how early modern scholars understood the correlation between the celestial and terrestrial realms, or, to put it slightly differently, how they perceived a cosmological order. The origins of disasters – and humanity’s responses to them – were undoubtedly central to that worldview.
2. Apart from your own, what book would you recommend for people to read to learn more about your field of study?
Lately, I have been particularly fascinated by the political dimension of disaster narratives. In this respect, I believe that the classical works of Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault merit rereading and reflection, despite their controversial reputation. On the formation of modern state, I would also recommend Isaac Ariail Reed’s brilliant Power in Modernity (Chicago, 2020). Gareth Williams’s work on Seneca’s Natural Questions (OUP, 2012) and Pietro Bembo’s De Aetna (OUP, 2017) have likewise greatly inspired me, particularly in analysing literary form and the classical tradition’s impact
on early modern discourse.
3. What are the key facts or arguments from your book that you would like people to take away?
I believe that our volume convincingly highlights two key points. First, societal and political developments enabled early modern society to engage with and, when necessary, alter the environment in unprecedented ways; and that was a defining moment in the history of “human-nature-relations.” Second, our early modern predecessors’ understanding of disasters – of their origins and consequences – was not fundamentally different from ours today. It would therefore be historically naïve to assume that our perception of such events is “rational,” whereas theirs was embedded in “irrational” tropes. As we sought to demonstrate, many interpretative patterns, both rational and irrational, have remained fundamentally unchanged, underscoring how much we can still learn from early modernity’s experiences.
4. How did your scholarly journey develop over the course of your research for this book? Did you end up where you always intended to?
In some ways, yes, I believe I did. However, the depth of insight one can gain about oneself through early modern sources continues to surprise me.
5. What were the most fruitful sources you found in your research?
My contribution to the collection is on the treatise titled De Terremotu. It was composed by the Italian humanist Giannozzo Manetti in response to a series of earthquakes that hit southern Italy in the mid-fifteenth century. It is a fascinating text, commissioned by Manetti’s patron, Alfonso of Aragon, ruler of the afflicted region, with the aim of absolving him from any accusations that his “fortuna” was responsible for the disasters. Thus, Manetti’s argument was meticulously crafted to serve that specific, and somewhat subservient, purpose. However, as I demonstrate, Manetti occasionally slipped, implicitly hinting at Alfonso’s misdeeds as a possible cause of the earthquakes. Ultimately, it serves as a striking example of both Renaissance-era servility and the careful concealment of an author’s true thoughts about his patron.
6. What was the biggest obstacle to conducting your research?
While this issue has not directly impacted my research, I find it unfortunate that Renaissance and early modern Latin sources are increasingly overlooked due to the language in which they were composed. Over the years, I have observed a dramatic decline in proficiency in ancient languages. Consequently, many fascinating works remain largely unexplored, while an increasing number of studies on Renaissance and early modern intellectual history rely exclusively on vernacular sources. While further exploration of vernacular traditions is certainly valuable, neglecting the Latin-based tradition risks distorting our broader understanding of the period.
7. Did you discover anything that made you rethink some of your initial ideas?
The more one studies past events, the deeper and more nuanced their understanding becomes. Rather than “rethinking,” I would call it “enhancing.” That, in my view, is the most fascinating and rewarding aspect of our work, as it is an ongoing and limitless process.
8. Was there anything that you were unable to include in the book?
A lot of things! And that is why I am currently working on a monograph on the topic.
9. Do you have a favourite discovery or favourite fact from your research?
I don’t think I have one particular favourite fact. What I find most rewarding is seeing how a combination of facts come together to form a complex picture of a cultural and intellectual phenomenon.
10. What are the most significant influences on your scholarship?
To me, my father, who is a musicologist, has always embodied what it means to be a fine scholar – unwavering passion for one’s work, the ability to think beyond conventional boundaries, and an enduring thirst for discovery.
11. What are you working on now?
I am currently working on two book-length projects. The first, as mentioned above, explores early modern interpretations of disasters – earthquakes, volcanoes, and floods – primarily in Latin literature. The second examines depictions of Russia in European Renaissance writing and the corresponding Russian responses. I began this project long before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, in light of the ongoing tragic events, I now feel a heightened responsibility to complete it, as understanding the historical roots of both Europe’s misconceptions about Russia and Russia’s hostility towards the “West” has become more urgent than ever.
12. If you were not early modernists, is there any other period or history or historical field you would like to work on?
If I were to explore a completely different historical field, I would likely study ancient Mesopotamia and Assyria. More recently, I have developed a deep interest in Japan – so if I could master the language, I would be eager to delve into its medieval past.
13. If you could instantly acquire one skill or ability to help your research, what would it be?
At first, I was tempted to say I would love to instantly learn Japanese – but that feels like cheating. A more honest answer would be to cultivate greater perseverance and assiduity.
14. Is there any advice you would give to PhD students or early career researchers for finding their feet or developing their work in your field?
Never give up! But at the same time, remember that life is far richer than academic pursuits alone.
Ovanes Akopyan is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. His co-editor for the volume, David Rosenthal, is a Research Fellow at the University of Exeter and co-director of Hidden Cities apps
Their book Disaster in the Early Modern World: Examinations, Representations, Interventions was published in 2024: https://www.routledge.com/Disaster-in-the-Early-Modern-World-Examinations-Representations-Interventions/Akopyan-Rosenthal/p/book/9781032580197