marsilio ficino and the irrational
Marsilio Ficino and the Irrational
Maude Vanhaelen
i
I
Our greatest blessing comes to us through madness,
when it is sent as a gift of the gods.
Plato, Phaedrus, 244a
n the final pages of his seminal 1951 study The Greeks and the Irrational,
E. R. Dodds famously describes the struggle of humankind to get
rid of what he calls the “irrational elements in human nature” and
submit to the power of reason:
We too have experienced a great age of rationalism, marked by
scientific advances beyond anything that earlier times had thought
possible, and confronting mankind with the prospect of a society
more open than any it has ever known. And in the last forty years we
have also experienced something else – the unmistakable symptoms
of a recoil from this prospect.1
In reference to the Phaedrus’ winged chariot Dodds compares our
reluctance to embrace rationalism fully with the horseman’s hesitation
before making the final jump:
Is it the horse that refused, or the rider? That is the crucial question.
Personally, I believe it was the horse – in other words, those irrational
elements in human nature which govern without our knowledge
so much of our behaviour and so much of what we think is our
thinking.…the men who created the first European rationalism were
never – until the Hellenistic Age – ‘mere’ rationalists: that is to say,
1. Eric Robertson Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley 1951, p. 254.
438
they were deeply aware of the power, the wonder, and the peril of the
Irrational. But they could describe what went on below the threshold
of consciousness only in mythological or symbolic language; they had
no instrument for understanding it, still less for controlling it…2
The essential point of Dodds’s study is that Greek thought was not
immune to irrational ways of thinking. It rests upon the notion that
‘irrational’ beliefs are those of ‘primitive’ people, that intellectual progress
is intrinsically linked to reason, and that there is a strict separation between
what constitutes philosophy (which is based upon reason and method)
and what constitutes superstition (defined as anything that appeals to the
irrational forces of the human mind). History is naturally progressing
towards rationalism, only to be interrupted by periods of ‘regression’ in
times of crisis, when it is inevitably drawn back to irrational practices
such as healing magic and ‘foreign cults’. But Dodds fails to take into
account another, perhaps more important point: not only did these
irrational ways of thinking exist, but, far from being the symptoms of a
regressive or ‘primitive’ form of thought, they were actually crucial for
the development of philosophy, religion, and science.3
Talking about hermeticism, Wouter Hanegraaff argued that it is “due
to ingrained ideological biases – ultimately grounded in the biblical and
theological rejection of paganism as idolatry – rather than for scholarly reasons that this entire domain was severely neglected by academic
research until far into the 20th century”.4 This is also true of our understanding of the Renaissance revival of Neoplatonic demonology, the
science of the pagan ‘demons’, those intermediate spirits, good or evil,
that constituted the link between men and gods and were objects of a
religious cult called theurgy, a set of magical rituals used by Neoplatonic
philosophers to purify the soul and achieve its deification. With a few
exceptions, these doctrines have been seen by Renaissance specialists as
2. Dodds (as in n. 1), p. 254.
3. See, on this point, Stuart Clark, Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in
Early Modern Europe, Oxford 1997, pp. 151–160.
4. Wouter Jacobus Hanegraaff, “Introduction”, in Dictionary of Gnosis and Western
Esotericism, ed. Wouter Hanegraaff et al., Leiden 2005, pp. ix–x.
439
maude vanhaelen
marsilio ficino and the irrational
‘Neoplatonic delusions of the Roman decadence’,5 or, at best, as ‘strange’
and ‘weird’ practices.6 This view still shapes, at least in part, our view
of Renaissance culture: the ‘occult’ works of Renaissance philosophers,
from Ficino to Newton, are often seen as the remnants of a primitive
attraction towards the dark forces of occultism. For instance, studies of
Ficino remain too often based upon a separation between what is seen as
Ficino’s mainstream philosophy, expounded in his Platonic Theology and
his Plato Commentaries, and his ‘deviant’ magico-astrological writings,
such as De Vita, even though these two trends are drawing upon the same
Platonic and Christian sources.
Historically, the notion that demonology could not be anything other
than some pagan occult doctrine comparable to black magic stems from
Augustine. In open opposition to paganism, Augustine devoted several
books of the City of God to demonstrating that pagan religion, including
Neoplatonic theurgy, was idolatrous and impious. He stated that all
daimones – the Greek spirits that Neoplatonists invoked in their rites – were
equivalent to the Bible’s fallen angels and thus evil spirits.7 Hence, the
word demon (or daemon), which initially designated any spirit, acquired
a negative connotation that is still in use today, while theurgy – a set
of religious invocations to divinities – is still perceived as a dangerous
magical practice. This also explains why Dodds felt compelled to establish
a strict, and largely unfounded, distinction between the first Neoplatonist,
Plotinus, and his successors. Plotinus was heralded as the great defender
of “the Greek rationalist tradition”, who had never practiced theurgy,
while his successors were seen as decadent promoters of irrationalism
who defended the use of theurgical rituals – notwithstanding the fact that
Plotinus had devoted two treatises to demonology and was described by
his pupil Porphyry as practicing theurgy.8
The view that demons were the fallen angels described in the Bible
remained largely unchallenged in the Middle Ages, despite the growing
interest in Latin Neoplatonic sources such as Apuleius and Macrobius, who
had dealt extensively with pagan demons.9 In contrast, the revival of Greek
demonology that occurred in fifteenth-century Florence had profound
implications for the way in which Augustine’s apologetic description of
ancient paganism was received. To begin with, the religious context had
manifestly changed from a nascent Christianity surrounded by pagans
who had the monopoly of culture to a Church that dominated everyday
life to such an extent that there was no strict line of demarcation between
science and religion. Secondly, there was a growing realization that these
demonological texts had been misrepresented by Augustine, and could
actually provide specific answers to questions that had tormented all
philosophers since Plato: the mechanisms that determined the process of
divine inspiration and demonic possession and, more importantly, the way
in which one could describe the relation between body, soul, and God.
Until fairly recently little had been made of Marsilio Ficino’s prolonged
study of Neoplatonic demonology in the years 1486–89.10 At that time the
Florentine humanist decided to interrupt his monumental commentary
on Plotinus’ nine-book treatise, the Enneads, and devote three years to the
translation of other Neoplatonic texts on demonology, theurgy, astrology,
5. Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilisation of Renaissance Italy: An Essay, Oxford and
London 1945, p. 322.
6. Paul Oskar Kristeller, L’état présent des études sur Marsile Ficin, in Platon et Aristote
à la Renaissance, XVIe colloque international de Tours, ed. Jean-Claude Margolin
and Maurice de Gandillac, Paris 1976, p. 63.
7. See e.g. Augustine, City of God, ed. and trans. George E. McCracken et al.,
7 vols., London and Cambridge, Mass., 1960–1981, III, pp. 62–69 (VIII.14), and
pp. 286–297 (X.9–10).
8. Dodds (as in n. 1), pp. 283–311, esp. 285–287; more recently, Luc Brisson,
“Plotin et la magie. Le chapitre 10 de la Vie de Plotin par Porphyre”, in Porphyre, La
Vie de Plotin, II: Études d’introduction, texte grec et traduction française, commentaire, notes
complémentaires, bibliographie, ed. Luc Brisson et al., Paris 1992, pp. 465–475. See, in
contrast, Porphyry, The Life of Plotinus, chap. 10, in Plotinus, Enneads, ed. and trans.
Arthur Hilary Armstrong, 6 vols., Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1966–88, vol. I,
pp. 32–35; and Plotinus, Enneads, 3.5.6.35–40, ed. cit., vol. III, pp. 188–189.
9. On medieval discussions regarding the nature of pagan demons, see Eugenia
Paschetto, Demoni e prodigi. Note su alcuni scritti di Witelo e di Oresme, Turin 1978.
10. �������������������
For the texts, see Marsilio Ficino, Iamblichus De Mysteriis Aegyptiorum,
Chaldaeorum, Assyriorum. Proclus In Platonicum Alcibiadem de anima atque daemone…
Marsilii Ficini Liber de voluptate. Fac-similé de l’édition de Venise, Alde Manuce, 1497, intr.
Stéphane Toussaint, Paris 2006.
440
441
maude vanhaelen
marsilio ficino and the irrational
and magic.11 Ficino’s motivation in translating these texts was that of a
scholar who obeys the needs of exegesis rather than cedes to the dark forces
of occultism. As he states in a letter addressed to Braccio Martelli, Ficino
turns his attention to these texts with the intention of clarifying some
imprecise and obscure aspects of Plotinus’ doctrine regarding the nature
of demons.12 Ficino was thus confronted with the very paradox that had
led Dodds to establish an opposition between Plotinus the ‘rationalist’ and
the other ‘irrational’ Neoplatonists: Plotinus had made but few allusions
to the role of demons in the Enneads, but had been described by his pupil
Porphyry as a practicing theurgist, capable of attracting or countering
the influence of demonic spirits. Ficino’s response differs markedly,
however, from that of Dodds: he considers that Plotinus had deliberately
dissimulated his views on demons and theurgy behind obscure allusions,
and that it was the task of the right interpreter to unveil these views, by
turning towards Plotinus’ successors (Iamblichus, Porphyry, Synesius, and
Proclus), who had treated the question extensively.
One must not neglect, however, the fundamentally spiritual context
in which Ficino operated. For Ficino no longer considered these pagan
demons as the evil spirits described in the Bible, but as good angels which
could be invoked through music and incantations.13 In one passage of
the Platonic Theology he goes as far as equating demonic inspiration with
Christian grace;14 in another, he equates Neoplatonic theurgy with
Christian rituals of fasting and prayer.15 He explains that the soul of the
philosopher itself, when appropriately purified, could be called a demon
and acquires supernatural powers, such as that of knowing the future.16
From testimonies of the ancients’ impiety these Neoplatonic texts on
demonology thus become sources of spiritual guidance for any question
related to angelology, divine inspiration, and the power of prophecy;
they also play a crucial role in Ficino’s main mission: the renovation of
Christianity. When Ficino equates Neoplatonic theurgy with Christ’s use
of fasting and prayer to expel evil spirits, he invites us to return to the
early, uncorrupted phase of Christianity, when rituals, far from being the
marks of religious ostentation, played a role of purification in the same
way as Neoplatonic theurgy.
While the later reception of Ficino’s demonology still remains to be studied,
its immediate influence can easily be traced, from Francesco Buonaccorsi
to Girolamo Savonarola. Examination of Ficino’s correspondence indicates
that the revival of ancient demonology had an intrinsic value in the realm
of natural science and religion. Demonology, like science, concerned the
study of Nature, in which the actions of demons were seen as natural
causes of phenomena such as prophetic vision and demonic possession.
This is perfectly illustrated by letters Ficino and a fellow humanist,
Francesco Buonaccorsi, exchanged a few years before Ficino undertook
his translation of demonological texts.17 At some point, Buonaccorsi asks
Ficino to explain through natural rather than theological arguments (“non
theologice sed naturaliter”) the possibility that demons could interact with
human souls. It seems that the translations Ficino undertook a few years
later, and particularly that of Priscianus, sought to respond to this query
by using Neoplatonic doctrines of light to explain the meeting of demonic
beings with human souls. Other texts provided more detailed explanations
regarding the doctrine of the “vehicle of the soul”, which sought to describe
the way in which human souls could receive and store demonic inspiration.
Other letters and manuscript annotations by Ficino and his colleagues
reveal that many fifteenth-century intellectual figures shared this
fascination for demonology, especially in the context of prophecy. These
included Lorenzo de’ Medici’s physician Pierleone da Spoleto; Giles of
Viterbo, who was to play a crucial role during the Fifth Lateran Council;
11. ���������������������������������������������������������������������������
The episode is documented by a letter Ficino wrote to Francesco Bandini on
6 January 1489, in Marsilio Ficino, Opera & quae hactenus extitere & quae in lucem
nunc primum prodiere omnia…in duos tomos digesta…una cum gnomologia [Basileae,
Henricpetri, 1576], reprint, Paris 2000, pp. 895–896.
12. Ficino (as in n. 11), p. 875.
13. See e.g. Ficino’s argumentum to Plato’s Apology of Socrates (published in
1484), referring to Socrates’ demon as a “good angel”: Ficino (as in n. 11), p. 1388.
14. Marsilio Ficino, Platonic Theology, XVIII.10.3, ed. and trans. Michael J. B.
Allen and James Hankins, 6 vols., Cambridge, Mass. and London, 2001–2006, vol.
VI, pp. 182–183.
15. Ficino (as in n. 14), XVI.7.18, vol. V, pp. 310–311.
16. Ficino (as in n. 14), X.2.13, vol. III, pp. 130–131.
442
17. ������������������
For the text, see Paul Oskar Kristeller, Supplementum Ficinianum. Marsilii Ficini
Florentini philosophi Florentini opuscula inedita et dispersa…, 2 vols. [Florence 1937],
reprint, Florence 1958, II, pp. 225–228.
443
maude vanhaelen
and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, often heralded (incorrectly) as the
champion of the anti-astrological polemic against Ficino.18 But the
importance of Ficino’s revival can perhaps best be measured by the strong
opposition it generated on the part of the prophet and religious leader
Girolamo Savonarola. We know that the Ferrarese friar had carefully read
a few chosen passages of Ficino’s doctrine on the soul’s prophetic powers,19
and used these to develop a virulent criticism against recourse to the
powers of ‘pagan spirits’ to predict the future.20 That Savonarola would
feel the need to formulate repeated attacks against Ficino so as to establish
himself as the only legitimate messenger of God’s will clearly indicates
the impact Neoplatonic demonology had on Florentine religious culture.
In sum, the Renaissance revival of Neoplatonic demonology opened
up avenues that the apologetic reading of paganism had closed off for
nearly a millennium. The importance it had in the field of religion, as
a way to return to an age of intense and uncorrupted spirituality, and
in the field of science, as a way to respond to the growing skepticism
towards the very existence of demons, undermines the modern tendency
to regard the ‘occult’ as merely a set of ‘weird’ doctrines. Perhaps more
importantly for the development of scholarship, the study of Renaissance
demonology illumines, and partly explains, contemporary prejudices
towards important philosophical trends that existed both in antiquity and
in the Renaissance; it invites us to reconsider the pertinence of seeing
‘irrationality’ as a mark of cultural regress.
18. On this point, see Maude Vanhaelen, “L’entreprise de traduction et d’exégèse de
Ficin dans les années 1486–89: Démons et prophétie à l’aube de l’ère savonarolienne”,
Hvmanistica, IV, nos. 1–2, 2010–2011, forthcoming.
19. For the text, see Lorenza Tromboni, “Girolamo Savonarola lettore di Platone.
Edizione e commento del De Doctrina Platonicorum”, Rinascimento, new series, XLVI,
2006, pp. 133–213.
20. ���������
See e.g. Girolamo Savonarola, Triumphus Crucis, IV.1–3 (ed. Mario Ferrara,
Rome 1961, pp. 210–211, 219–220, 225–226). For the Ficino–Savonarola controversy,
see Maude Vanhaelen, “Ficino and Savonarola on Prophecy”, The Rebirth of the
Platonic Theology: Volume in Honour of M. J. B. Allen, ed. James Hankins and Fabrizio
Meroi, Florence, forthcoming.
444