Iamblichus, Synesius and the Chaldaean Oracles in Marsilio Ficino’s De libri tres : Hermetic Magic or Neoplatonic Magic ?

Ren An ¢ S ame CLA Qecenly , ORA- MARSILIO CHALDAEAN IN. DE the -ITAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND_ THE -CLES. FICINO’S VITA LIBRI TRES: HERMETIC: MAGIC OR NEQPLATO— NIC MAGIC? TER DAME FRANCES YATES PUBLISHED her Giordano Bruno and Hermetic Tradition in 1964, the word “Hermetic” and its cognates s conjure with, Following Yates’s lead. other scholars have became termto al,” treated “Hermetic” as if it were roughly synonymous with “magic words - and they have often tried to-understand the meaning of these two io Ficino. for Renaissance culture by referring to the thought of Marsil gical mediespecially his De vita coelinus comparanda, This treatise on astrolo vita libri tres, cine. hereinafter called De vita III, is the third part of De ant statecompleted in. 1489 and widely read thereafter as the most import n period.’ ment of a philosophical theory of magic in the early moder an thinkWhile I agree that Ficino’s philosophy became the basis of Europe argued elsewhere ing about magic’in the post-medieval centuries, | have not be called that Ficino’s contributions to the theory of magic should from Greek, and “Hermetic.” The Hermetic yor that Ficino translated A Pau. 3") lay \y . n (London, 1964), 44-82: idem, “The Her4. BoYates, Giordano Bruna and the Hermetic Traditio Art, Science and History in the Renaissance Science,” in C. 5. Singleton, ed., metic Tradition’in ce in this regard on other writers, see Renaissance (Baltimore, 1968), 255-74. For Yates's influen n Science,” forthcoming in Reap“Natural. Magic, Herinetism and Occultism in Early Moder edition as Ficine, Opera. my Lindberg. See also Marsilii Ficini « praisals of the Scientific Revolution, ed. R. Westman and D.' 2, hereafter cited as Bicine, DVCC. Other references to Ficino’s works will be to this sante opera et quae hactenus extiteré (1576; repr. Turin, 1959),

IAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND CHALDAEAN ORA-— CLES IN MARSILIO FICINO’S DE VITA LIBRI TRES: HERMETIC MAGIC OR NEOPLATO~ NIC MAGIC? FTER DAME FRANCES YATES PUBLISHED her Giordano Bruno and the ermetic Tradition in 1964, the word “Hermetic” and its cognates became terms to conjure with. Following Yates’s lead, other scholars have treated “Hermetic” as if it were roughly synonymous with “magical,” and they have often tried to understand the meaning of these two words for Renaissance culture by referring to the thought of Marsilio Ficino, especially his De vita coelitus comparanda. This treatise on astrological medicine, hereinafter called De vita III, is the third part of De vita libri tres, completed in 1489 and widely read thereafter as the most important state~ ment of a philosophical theory of magic in the early modern period.’ While I agree that Ficino’s philosophy became the basis of European thinking about magic in the post-medieval centuries, I have argued elsewhere that Ficino’s contributions to the theory of magic should not be called “Hermetic.” The Hermetic \6yo1 that Ficino translated from Greek, and 1. F. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London, 1964), 44-82; idem, “The Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science,” in C. S. Singleton, ed., Art, Science and History in the Renaissance (Baltimore, 1968), 255-74. For Yates’s influence in this regard on other writers, see my “Natural Magic, Hermetism and Occultism in Early Modern Science,” forthcoming in Reappraisats of the Scientific Revolution, ed. R. Westman and D. Lindberg. See also Marsilii Ficini - - opera et quae hactenus extitere (1576; repr. Turin, 1959), 1: 529-572, hereafter cited as Ficino, DVCC. Other references to Ficino’s works will be to this same edition as Ficino, Opera.

the Latin Asclepius that he cited say little of theoretical interest about magic. Hence Ficino looked to other sources from antiquity and the Middle Ages for the metaphysical and cosmological ingredients of his magic, ingredients lacking in the Hermetica. In three previous papers I have tried to show how Ficino found the principles of his magic not in the Corpus Hermeticum but in Plotinus, Proclus, Thomas Aquinas and other thinkers of comparable stature.” Here, I shall extend this line of argument to three texts of later Neoplatonism—the De insomniis of Synesius, the De mysteriis of Iamblichus, and the Oracula Chaldaica. Synesius, Iamblichus and the Chaldaeans all appear in the twenty-sixth and concluding chapter of De vita III, where Ficino picks up threads of his commentary on Plotinus which had originally inspired his iatromathematical treatise and which formed the substance of its first chapter. Because Ficino cites Plotinus regularly in De vita III and because he wrote a long commentary on the Enneads, the reader can consult the commentary to illuminate Ficino’s use of Plotinus as a theoretician of magic; the influence of Hermes Trismegistus is more difficult to determine.? Most of what scholars have mistaken for Ficino’s commentary on the Hermetica (despite Professor Kristeller’s identification of the material) was actually written by Lefévre d’Etaples. Moreover, Ficino mentions Hermes in only three passages of De vita III, only twice by name.‘ To discover Ficino’s attitude toward the meager magical content of the Hermetica, we must examine the context of those parts of De vita III in which Hermes appears. Ficino’s use of various Neoplatonic philosophers in those contexts will be especially enlightening. All three sections of De vita III that make use of Ficino’s Hermetica refer 2. Copenhaver, “Hermes Tristmegistus, Proclus and the Question of a Theory of Magic in the Renaissance,” read at the Folger Library Conference on Hermes Trismegistus in March, 1982, and forthcoming in the papers of that conference; idem, “Scholastic Philosophy and Renaissan ce Magic in the De vita of Marsilio Ficino,” RQ, 37 (1984): 523-554; idem, “Renaissance Magic and Neoplatonic Philosophy: Ennead 4.3-5 in Ficino’s De vita coelitus comparanda,” forthcomi ng in Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi sul Marsilio Ficino, Naples, Florence, Figline Valdarno, May, 1984. 3. Ficino, DVCE, 570-72; on DVCC, the Ennead and s Ficino’s Plotinus , see Copenhaver, “Ennead 4.3-5.” no gis “a 4. Ficino, DVCC, 548, 561, 571-2; cf. 540-41, 550 where the references are not to Ficino’s Greek Hermetica ot to the Latin Asclepius but to the Liber Hermetis de XV stellis and the De virtuti. bus septem herbarum, two of the “popular” Hermetica of the Middle Ages, on which see A,-J. Festugitre, La Révélation d’Hermés Trismégiste (Paris, 1950-54), 1: 146-186, esp. 169; Kristeller, Supplementum 1; cxxix-cxxi; cf. Yates, Bruno, 28-35, and especially 40, note 1. IAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND FICINO ~ 443 ~ to the same two “god-making” passages of the Asclepius.* Ficino made no attempt in De vita HI to ground his theory of magic in a close reading of the fourteen Hermetic Aéyot which he had translated because, as I believe, any attempt to derive such material from the eclectic and philosophically jejune Hermetica would have been fruitless. The three passages that use the Asclepius are not so much references to philosophical arguments as appeals to authority, the venerable authority of the Hermes whom Fcino thought to be a contemporary of Moses.° Ficino’s clearest intention in the three passages is to show that the god-making magic described in the Asclepius is efficacious, i.e., that the artificial, material structure of a talisman or statue can cause it to be inhabited or animated by a spiritual being, a demon. Analysis of Ficino’s reasoning and sources in these passages will also reveal an obscurer purpose: to admit that this efficacious magic might nonetheless be illegitimate, an idolatrous breach of the first and second commandments and a sin against religion. Ficino’s reader waits until the thirteenth chapter of De vita III for his first encounter with Hermes, a single sentence in a list of authorities— including Synesius, lamblichus and the Chaldaeans—who claim that magicians can cause spiritual beings to enter material objects. Arguing at this point for the efficacy of talismanic magic, Ficino makes no clear statement about its legitimacy.” But in chapter twenty, having announced his suspicion that the evident power of talismans arises naturally from the matter ‘that constitutes them rather than artificially from the figures that they bear, he hesitates, writing that the Egyptians attribute so much to statues and images fabricated with astrological and magical technique that they believe spirits of the stars are sealed inside them. But some think that these spirits of the stars ... are demons. . ., [and] whatever they may be, . .. they think they are implanted in statues and talismans no differently than demons 5. Asclep. 23-24, 37-38; subsequent references to this work will include page and line numbers ‘from the Budé text (Paris, 1946) of Nock and Festugiére, ; 6. On the use of fom in doxographic or genealogical as opposed to theoretical contexts, ‘see Copenhaver, “Natural Magic.” : : : 7. Ficino, DVCC, 548: Quales [imagines quae moverentur] et Trismegistus ait Acgyptios ex solitos certis mundi materiis facere consuevisse et in eas opportune animas daemonum inserere " atque animam avi sui Mercuri; Asclep. 23 (326.1-2), 37 (347.13-20, 348.3-6), 38 (348.19-349.1); for other authorities listed in this passage, see infra, notes 13, 16, 27, 29, 33 and Copenhaver, “Proclus.”

sometimes possess human bodies. . . We believe that these things can actually be done by demons not so much because they are constrained by a particular [kind] of matter as because they enjoy being worshipped. We will discuss this elsewhere more carefully.® Having once again established the efficacy of talismans, imputing it either to material or demonic agency, Ficino then raises the issue of legitimacy IAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND FICINO =~ 44§ ~ a suitable power and mixed it in [with the statues]. Plotinus followed him... .? This last point on which Ficino heard Hermetic echoes in Plotinus in_ troduces an allusion to Plotinus’ theory of seminal reasons, an important technical component in the metaphysics of Plotinus’ magic and also in Ficino’s.!° Given Plotinus’ importance for Ficino in De vita III and elseby comparing the animation of statues to demonic possession and by identifying an obviously evil motivation for the activity of the demons. Then Ficino abruptly suspends this religiously sensitive discussion of the Hermetic where, his filiation with Hermes in chapter twenty-six would seem to imply a positive evaluation of Hermetic statue-magic. When Ficino finds Hermes and Plotinus agreeing that only cosmic—as opposed to Mercurius enters this concluding chapter as a precursor of Plotinus, the inspiration of Plotinus’ belief that come the basis for a theologically cautious approach to lower cosmic powers rather than high gods. On the other hand, the numina mundana of the Asclepius are demons lured by an idolatrous rite to enter statues where statues, which make their final appearance in the final chapter of De vita III. the ancient priests or magicians used to capture something divine and wondrous in statues. . . . [Plotinus] along with Trismegistus supposes that, strictly speaking, divinities altogether separated from matter are not captured through material objects but cosmic [divinities] only, as I have said from the beginning and as Synesius agrees. .. . Mercurius, whom Plotinus follows, says that these are aerial demons —not celestial, much less anything higher— . . . [and] he adds songs resembling the heavens in which, he says, they take delight and thus remain longer in the statues and do good for men or else do them harm. [Mercurius] also says that when the wise men of Egypt, who were also priests, could not convince people by rational means that the gods existed..., they devised this magical enticement (illicium) by which, attracting demons into statues, they declared them to be divinities. But Iamblichus condemns the Egyptians because they not only took the demons as steps, as it were, on the path to higher gods but also frequently adored them. ... Mercurius says that the [Egyptian] priests took from the nature of the world 8. Ficino, DVCC, 561: Aegyptii tantum statuis imaginibusque attribuunt arte astronomica et magica fabricatis ut spiritus stellarum in eis includi putent. Spiritus autem stellarum intelligunt alii quidem . . . demonas. . . quales sint, inseri cun statuis etque imaginibus arbitrantur, non aliter ac daemones soleant humana nonnunquam corpora occupare. . . . Quae quidem nos per daemonas fieri posse putamus non tam materia certa cohibitos quam cultu gaudentes. Sed haec alibi diligentius; Asclep. 24 (326.9-11), 37 (347.15-18), 38 (349.5~6); Aug. Civ. D. 8.24, 10.11; D. P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella, Studies of the Warburg Institute, 22 (London, 1958), 41, note 2, hypercosmic—numina enter the statues, the Asclepius and the Enneads bethey can do harm to humans, and (as Augustine had warned) the Egyptians who first made the statues used a deception, a “magical enticement,” to trick their people into a blasphemous belief. The demons take delight in astrological song, recalling the illicit worship condemned in chapter twenty and the demonic chants scorned by Michael Psellos in chapter thirteen.'! If chapter thirteen was silent on the legitimacy of statue-magic and if chapter twenty seemed to condemn it, what may we conclude from the ambiguities of chapter twenty-six? Can we learn anything from the other authorities—Synesius, Iamblichus, the Chaldaeans— associated with these ambivalent references to the Asclepius? 9. Ficino, DVCC, 571: Plotinus .. . Mercurium imitatus ait veteres sacerdotes sive magos in statuis . . . divinum aliquid et mirandum suscipere solitos. Vult autem una cum Trismegisto pet materialia haec non proprie suscipi numina penitus a materia segregata sed mundana tantum, ut ab initio dixi et Synesius approbat. . . Mercurius ipse, quem Plotinus sequitur, inquit daemonas aerios non coelestes nedum sublimiores. . . . Adiungit cantus coelestibus similes quibus, ait, eos delectari statuisque sic adesse diutius et prodesse hominibus vel obesse. Addit sapientes quondam Aegyptios, qui et sacerdotes erant, quum non possent rationibus persuadere populo esse deos, . z excogitasse magicum hoc (illicium) quo, demonas allicientes in statuas, esse numina yaaa Sed Iamblichus damnat Aegyptios quod daemonas non solum ut gradus quosdam ad ope deos investigandos acceperint sed plurimum adoraverint. . . . Mercurius sacerdotes ait accep! virtutem a mundi natura convenientem eamque miscuisse. Sequutus hunc Plotinus. i the Basel, 1576, edition has illicitum in the passage above; for the important emendation to illicium | . grateful to the editorial work of Carol Kaske and John Clarke on DVCC; Asclep. 24 er 11, 14-15), 37 (347.10-15, 18-19; 348.8-10), 38 (349.3-7, 8-11); Plot. Enn. 4.3.11.1-2, 8-10, 5 » 16-18, 23-24. tn On seminal reasons in Plotinus and Ficino, see Copenhaver, “Ennead 4.3-5. 11. Aug. Civ. D. 8.24; supra, n. 8; for Michael Psellos, infra, note 27.

Ficino, who translated Synesius’ treatise On Dreams, calls on that work in chapter twenty-six to confirm that hypercosmic gods play no part in statue-magic; the matter of statues, which are artificial forms of lower nature, attracts only numina mundana, cosmic divinities. Ficino had made the same point in his first chapter, where he also cited De insomniis to show that lower material forms, acting as baits or lures for higher entities, can attract at least some powers of Soul. “Such congruities of forms to reasons of the World-Soul,” wrote Ficino, “Zoroaster called divine baits (illices), and Synesius also confirmed that they are magical lures (illecebrae).”"” Synesius appeared again in chapter thirteen in the list of authorities on animated statues, where Ficino’s purpose was to show that matter can receive demonic and divine as well as celestial gifts. Ficino took all this material on magical enticement (though not on pneumatology, another important influence from Synesius) from the first two sections of De insomniis. He found these preliminaries useful, no doubt, because of their evident derivation from Plotinus’ exposition of natural magic in Ennead 4.4.30-45. “Nature is everywhere a sorceress, as Plotinus says and Synesius also, everywhere enticing particular things with particular baits.” Recapitulating Plotinus’ account of cosnic sympathy as the basis of natural magic, Synesius insisted that such magic can provoke divine responses. All members of the cosmos are parts of one living organism. ... Even to some god, of those who dwell within the universe, a stone from hence and a herb is a befitting offering; for in sympathizing with these he is yielding to nature and is bewitched. ... [But] whatsoever of the divine element is outside the cosmos can in no wise be moved by sorcery.” 12. Ficino, DVCC, pp. 531, 571: Congruitates igitur eiusmodi formarum ad rationes animae mundi Zoroaster divinas illices appellavit quas et Synesius magicas esse illecebras confirmavit; cf. Syn. Insomn. 132c3—4: xatt wh nore al udeyeow tuyyes abtat, which in his translation of Synesius (Opera, p. 1969) Ficino renders: Consideratione vero dignum est utrum huc tendant illices vel motacillae magorum; see also infra, note 13. The edition of De insomniis by N. Terzaghi in Synesii Cyrenensis opuscula, Scriptores graeci et latini consilio Academiae Lynceorum editi (Rome, 1944), supersedes the text in Migne, PG. For an English version, see A. Fitzgerald, The Essays and Hyrins of Synesius of Cyrene (Oxford, 1930), which contains an extensive introduction and notes. See alsoJ. Bregman, Synesius of Cyrene, Philosopher-Bishop (Berkeley, 1982), 145-154; C. Lacombrade, Synésios de Cyrine, Helléne et Chrétien (Paris, 1951), 150-169. Walker, Magic, 39, note 1 also mentions Synesius as an important source for Neoplatonic pneumatology, another important ingredient in Ficino’s magic. 13. Ficino, DVCC, 549, 570: Ubique igitur natura maga est, ut inquit Plotinus atque Synesius, ~ 447 ~ IAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND FICINO ¢ or magical To this Plotinian material Synesius added the notion of tuyye es charms, which he would have found in various Neoplatonic commentari are on the Oracula Chaldaica. The toyyes of the Chaldaean Oracles —which — r Fathe the from sions both magical material objects and immaterial proces powe became Ficino’s illices and illecebrae, magical lures to attract divin ng beers. Since the original tyy§ was a bird, the wryneck, whose striki havior seemed a visible sign for invisible powers capable of attracting the gy between " circling heavenly gods, Synesius used it to introduce an analo (8¢Ayewv) and the act of giving a signal (onpatvew). act of casting a spel illegitiie other seni of his era, he wished to distinguish a base, n on mate magic from a nobler, licit magic, and he drew his distinctio signs the basis of the distance between matter and mind. As a magic of e anteles rather than things, divination had a greater share in the divin to matter. than the lower yontefa that bound the magus downward no danger Thus, at the end of his introductory remarks, Synesius saw se” he in explaining pavtelo. or divination, but in his “law-abiding treati “exsncally as found no place for teAetat, which Ficino translated posea piationes ... solennitatesque,” “purifications and rituals. his own acWhat were the rituals to which Synesius objected? From 1p tv is ubique certis inescans. . .; Syn. Insomn. 132d10-13: bvdgray low ideli tir Ges xal BH xak a* SAAnA Eon oe, pes ee bxépov mpdc dpotoralay etxet tH pdoer wast aaliese tod xdonov Boe evbévde xat Botdvn mpoorixet, ol sunt membra. ... Atqui et ger Ficino, Opera, 2: 1969: Ambo enim ills et unius animalis quibus quasi compatiens “ — t, congrui e ex deorum numero mundanorum lapis hic herbav (my italics); Plot. Enn, 4.4.40.1-"2, 30 329-3 , Hymns ae Essays ald, ac veluti fascinatur; Fitzger ; ver, “Proclus.” 43.12-19; Co A. Smith, Porphyry's ae in = aan gee Insomn. es tas, 133b14-15; , 1974), % ff., cen a Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism (The Hague such earlier au ee an x. of higher and lower theurgies (infra, note 19), beginning with . 132c3~4 (supra, note a Poko Lewy and Sodano. From Ficino’s translation of Syn. Insomn motacilla or wagtail s ; seeds the things, other among that he identified the physical tuy§ as, Jynx torquilla. gaa! - say k, wrynec the was s ancient the of tuy§ the gh 37.156), althou see Orac. G s gS. Au eh tuy§, the of aspects the motacilla in DVCC, 533. On various 0-b13; Psellos,— dog Souk Places); Michael Psellos Comm. in Orac. Chald. 133a3-b4, 1149a1 iras ne Mirandols, della Pico G. in ulani, 1149c1-1152a6; Oratio Ioannis Pici Mirand i- a ce spi 152; 1942), Heptaplus, De ente et uno ¢ scritti vari, ed, E. Garin (Florence, Oracles and Dheay i SOK ean Chalda Wissowa, RE, 20/2, coll. 1384-86; Hans Lewy, : eet oe d’arc s francai l’institut and Platonism in the Later Roman Empire. Publications de Us is WF : Vy dnodéfuabat; Ficino, Opera, 2: 1969: Pa wees sisi cena Oba aia m legi fidem adhibens; Fitzgerale, solennitatesque sed nihil in praesentia setmo moveat civili tantu Essays and Hymus, 330.

IAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND FICINO gy were count we may gather that illicit teAetat were those magical procedures that trapped the magus in matter, unlike the higher rites of divine mantic that released him. That statue-magic (which Proclus called teheotx7 from powers transcended the cosmos, the material rites of lower theur teAetv, “to consecrate”) was the ritual that offended Synesius seems likely when we turn to Iamblichus’ views on the subject —Iamblichus, whom norance, not from any fault of the gods. If human operators were evil, Ficino cited along with Synesius as an authority on the statues. lamblichus wrote De mysteriis, which Ficino also translated, in response to Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo, a skeptical query into divination, theurgy and the role of gods and demons therein.’” In general, lamblichus’ strategy was to make the cause for efficacious, legitimate theurgy and divination through a series of distinctions and exculpations. He ascribed any evil detected in these practices to human rather than divine agency, or to demons rather than higher divinities, or to bad demons rather than good demons. He also distinguished bad ritual, marred by human error and evil, from good rites guided by divine intention.’ In particular, he described theurgy, including its ritual components, as a continuous process of two stages, a lower initiatory theurgy and a higher culminating theurgy. Lower theurgy, which appealed to cosmic gods, depended principally on the ritual manipulation of material obuBoAa and cuvOyato appropriate to such lower divinities; its efficacy came from the cupndéGere that unified and vitalized the living cosmos. But the efficacy of higher theurgy addressed to hypercosmic gods originated in divine love, gtA(a, that transcended cosmic sympathy. Although the higher theurgy still included ritual elements, its final stage was immaterial vénot¢ or intellection that led to union with the divine; the theurge reached these heights, however, from lower initial rites more dependent on material objects. These lower rites had their own sphere of efficacy, but since their power flowed from cosmic sympathy such effects were confined to the world of nature and to the lower divinities assigned to that realm. Unless they led the operator to the immaterial, noetic stages of higher theurgy, whose autonomous 16. Ficino, DVCC, 549, 571; E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley, 1968), 291-95. 17. R. T. Wallis, Neoplatonism (London, 1972), 105-110, 120- 23; on Iamblichus, theurgy and De mysteriis, see also Les Mysttres d'Egypte, ed. E. Des Places (Paris, 1966), 5-33; B. D. Larsen, Jamblique de Chalcis, Exégete et philosophe (Aarhus, 1972), 148-196; A. H. Armstrong, ed., The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, 1970), 283-301; and especially, Smith, Porphyry’s Place, 81-150. 18. Iamb. Myst. 82.9-15, 83.16-84.4, 91.9-92.7, 103.2-10, 114.3-115.15, 142.18-143.3, 144,1-8, 155.18-156.3, 160,15-161.2, 176.3-178.2, 219.12-18. worse than incomplete. They were dangerous.” The perils in lower theurgy stemmed from human evil or human igif they confused the special rites required by the differing natures of hyper- , cosmic and cosmic gods, if they made mistakes in conducting the rituals if they forgot that the lower theurgy of sympathies was only antecedent to the higher theurgy of intellection, they might find themselves not rising to divine union but mired in the depths of otherness and vulnerable to the fierce, capricious powers governing there.” Even worse than failed or incomplete attempts at theurgy were other rituals that were not theurgic at all. To distinguish such practices from theurgy, Iamblichus called them pavracudrav Qaupacoupyla, the “thaumaturgy of phantasms” or mplat- “wonder-working through illusions.” The genuine theurge conte ed the true essential forms (et8n) of the gods, but the thaumaturge only handled their false artificial images (eX0wAca). If this trickery derived any g heavens, good from power descending from on high, through the cyclin y physical; down to the darkest margins of the All, such good was merel In describit came from magical technique, not theurgic contemplation. onotla, ing this non-theurgic magic, lamblichus had especially in mind eidcoh is. ee mysteri the making of images, which he condemned at length in De ent that ended his critique of the thaumaturgy of statues with a comm s but not aprecalls Ficino’s claim in De vita III to be describing image thaumaturgy proving them: “One must know about the nature of this but by no means use it or trust it.”” a from theurlamblichus shunned statue-magic not only as a distraction s who deceived ee gy but also as an invitation to evil, perverse demon and harmed them: “If we were to speak truthfully now about images an demons, . is the evil demons who pretend to appear as gods and good from ‘nat clear that a great maleficent host streams into them source... .” Ficino knew what Iamblichus feared. He cited his anxieties lamb. Myst. 96.11-98.15, 126.17-127.3, 19. Smith, Porphyry’s Place, 90-99, 105-107, 110, 149; A4-136.10, 139.1-4, 184.1-13, 209.4-211.18. , 176.13-177.12, 196.13-197.11, ae lamb. Myst. 70.18-71.18, 72.12-17, 82.9-15, 88.5-9 232.9. 231.5- 0.2, .17-230.6,169.1-17 ae=ee ee 170.710, 171.5-13, 175.13-14: Sore eidévan wy ah r adti pndapas; Ficino, xa cabeny thy Oavparoupylay viva Eyer pbaw, xpfiotan 88 H morede3. = hae dite note 42, Magic, Walker, DVCC, 530; cf. Opera, 1; 573; 2: 1891; xal tav y elbdAw ta nepl v aéyoue don &Anbas yap El 22. Iamb. Myst.

in chapter fifteen of De vita III while describing correspondences between types of images and varieties of demons, and again in chapter eighteen, after having set forth warnings from St. Thomas on demonic images: Iamblichus says that those who neglect sanctity and the highest piety, who put their trust in images alone and expect divine gifts from them, are most often deceived in this regard by evil demons who tush in under the guise of good divinities. Yet he does not deny that certain natural goods can result from images constructed according to legitimate principles of astrology.” Ficino’s most strikingig restatement of Iamblichus’ view that statue-magi agic was demonic thaumaturgy rather than divine theurgy comes in chapter twenty-six, where Jamblichus condemns the Egyptians . . . because they frequently adore the demons. In fact, he prefers the Chaldaeans to the Egyptians as not possessed by demons—Chaldaeans, 1 maintain, who were ministers of religion, for we suspect that Chaldaean as well as Egyptian astrologers tried somehow to attract demons through celestial harmony into earthen statues. The demon-ridden Egyptians whom Iamblichus repudiates here are, of course, the deorum fictores of the Asclepius, for the gods they made were mere eldwha, mere baits for evil demons, no true gods at all. The Chaldaeans whom lamblichus admired were, according to Ficino, “ministers of religion”; they were not makers of demonic astrological images. Chaldaeans or Magi or followers of Zoroaster appeat frequently in unrelated to the issue of demonolatry and traceable sar, Peter of Abano and other sources. Another 23. Ficino, DVCC, 551, 558: Iamblichus ait eos qui, religione summa sanctimoniaque posthabita, imaginibus duntaxat confisi, ab eis divina sperant munera, hac in re a malis daemonibus saepissime falli sub praetextu bonorum numinum occurrentibus, Contingere tamen ex imaginibus legitima astrologiae ratione constructis naturalia quaedam bona non negat; lamb, Myst. 91.9-15, 130.3-6, 172.15-17, 176.13-177.10, 178.4-5, 190.9-191.5; Ficino, Opera, 2: 1881, 1886, 1891-93; Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 104-105; De occultis operibus naturae, 17, 20; Copenhaver, “Scholastic Philosophy.” 24, Ficino, DVCC, 571: Sed Iamblichus damnat Aegyptios quod daemonas . . . plurimum adoraverint. Chaldaeos vero daemonibus non occupatos Aegyptiis anteponit — Chaldaeos, inquam, religionis antistites, nam astrologos tam Chaldaeorum quam Aegyptiorum quodammodo tentavisse daemonas per harmoniam coelestem in statuas fictiles trahere suspicemus; cf. Iamb. Myst. 167.9-176.2, 246.16-20, 247.11-248.2; Ficino, Opera, 2: 1890-92, 1901; Asclep. 38 (349.8). set of Ficino’s Chaldaean y contain thene ological teachings. Zoroaster, for example, called material forms divi n disciples enbaits” for powers of Soul, and a precept of his Chaldaea find in Fithat we coutaged the mix of medical and theological concerns will save a cino: “Raise up a fiery mind to the work of piety, and you the Chaldaean Oracles fallen body.” From Michael Psellos’ Commentary on ” referred to the Ficino would have known that this “work of piety lichus he also knew stat lamb methods of the rituals,” i.e., to theurgy, but of demonolatry. More probtreated pious theurgy as just the antithesis list of authorities on animated lematic is the following item from Ficino’s statues in chapter thirteen: irit from Hecate, the Magi, . . - followers of Zoroaster, acters and a Letokies ball marked with celestial char ae about on ing a sapphire within; as they chanted, it was ly omit t — a sort of thong made from bull’s hide. 1 glad disapproves an tions, of course, for Psellus the Platonist also them. entire description of esi — Actually, it was in reference to the g is silly talk,” but, as : ie? Wyyes that Psellos said “the whole thin s P ab a recipe for demon-wor no knew, this bit of nonsense—clearly Nothing corresponding t ie, not come from the Oracles themselves. lable in his time.”” Moreover, curs in the compilation of Oracles avai ici 176,13-178.11, 190.4-191.11, to Macrobius, Albumareferences, however, comes from the Oracula Chaldaica. The De vita III as proponents of various astrological doctrines, most of them Baupdveov tav dnoxpwoutviay ty raw Oediv nal raw dyalldv Saxudvasy napovatay, nohd Siow tt xortopatvetat évreibev emtpptov rd xaxorordv pbAov. Ibid. 82.9-15, 129.18-130.6, 172.15-17, ~ ASI 4$1 ~s SAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND FICINO oe ' Gopusis CC, 542, 552, 556, 560, 562, 567;: The Platortism of Macrob. Comm. 19.1; Yates, ae Brune, 54, 2ben Marsilio Ficino: A oe j bedigeaate ee (Berkeley, 1984), 118-19; C. Bezold, F. Boll and W. Gundel, a ste opus u cree yo eal Lt ct ino Be Cosi is so ; Orac. Chald. frg, 128: a aoe abis r: orients nicest caducum serv oers; igre reer ene - iy vo aaco a cap xal rdv g beva Bin Boe bx ov Epy v voil ; s l r P U S 10; 1/0.2Karsatore al rev telerew wéBoSor; lamb. Myst. -13, ci-11. Paice d. feg. ChalMagi Oe49: es 2b1 r no. etiam Psel C. 548Mae VCia ee quin150; ZorolosastrComsectm.ator113 ad evocandum ab Hecate SPT ee oC erat inse it ribus insignita coclestium cui et saphyrus ae pc oe adam pila characte e e Sed ant. ntab i corio vertebatur atque interim excadet; Psellos gig a te se incl facts taur ito. Nam et Psellus Platonicus eas improbat atque deri 8a <b xv Mbapav; Oracula magica Zoroastris cur scholiis Plethonis et Pselli, in <¢ Lag HOR E ze oo atii Gallaei (Amsterdam, eae Sd es polar cea. .. opera et studio Serv entaires anciens (Paris, 1971), frgs. 7 , es wn choix de comm ed., Oracles Chaldaiquavec

SaaSe los’ analysis of tuyye¢ that are mentioned in the Oracles known to Ficino treats them not as physical devices for working magic but as immaterial powers flowing from above, much like the “divine baits” of Zoroaster that attract soul to matter. Thus, one can discern throughout De vita III at least a rough distinction between Chaldaean piety and Chaldaean astrology, a division that corresponds to what Ficino saw as Iamblichus’ choice of the Chaldaeans over the Egyptians.” The implication of this distinction —as in general of Ficino’s use of Iamblichus in the “Hermetic” contexts of De vita III—is to devalue Hermetic statue-magic and elevate the status of Chaldaean theurgy.”” One may call Ficino’s iatromathematics “Chaldaean” or “Hermetic” with equal imprecision. Thus far, our analysis of Iamblichus, the Chaldaean Oracles and Synesius in De vita III indicates that Hermetic statues and astrological talismans are to be avoided as demonic thaumaturgy. Even genuine but lower theurgy is a danger unless it leads to vénote and the higher gods. For Ficino, as philosopher and Platonist, the attractions of noetic theurgy were powerful. His whole philosophical career was a pledge of fealty to what lamblichus called the “intellectual and incorporeal law of the priestly [art ~ 453 ~ IAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND FICINO i i Jatonism by Porphyry. Magic for Plotinus was en- Speer Jere oe All. Like all else, sympathy ~~ be traced to causes transcending the cosmos, but it opened no route to those thy, all causes for the sage. Because there was no magic without sympa advomagic for Plotinus was natusal magic. Had Ficino been content to cate nothing more than non-demonic, natural magic for medical uses, this as pe constraint might have suited his purposes. But from such — t . blichus, Psellos and the Chaldaean Oracles, Ficino learned of a magic reached beyond sympathetic effects and acted as a bridge to el an #veore, intellection and union.*! Knowledge of these more am = F practices put temptation and complication in Ficino’s way. As the hig the : : noetic theurgy, initiated in a lower magical theurgy, approached pay or vine Mind, it appealed strongly to the fundamental Platonist pure immaterial union in the One, yet from a Christian point of view gravely "the unorthodox rituals required to satisfy such yearnings were at best Faced with these conflicts, Ficino brought his treatise on magic suspect. that governs] ... every part of theurgy.” But the laws of theurgy that ee to ees perplexing conclusion in its twenty-sixth c us, lambli The last authority whom Ficino cites in this last chapter is a point that whom he calls upon to reinforce a point taken from Plotinus, blichus' view, only men of poor character would show much interest in mic magic. Given the proper connections among ideas, forms Iamblichus proclaimed gave small comfort to Ficino the physician. In Iamthe merely physical efficacy —including therapeutic efficacy —of lower theurgy which, when confined to its own material sphere, kept the operator vulnerable to demonic affliction. The ambitions of a perfected theurgy were, for Iamblichus, necessarily hypercosmic.” If the Platonist in Ficino was perhaps tempted to follow this sublime path in his magic, the Christian in him must have trembled to aim so high except through rituals sanctioned by the Church. Had Plotinus been Ficino’s only guide in constructing a theory of magic, his choices would have been simpler and his results—if one may speculate —clearer. Plotinus never mentioned theurgy, a Chaldaean novelty 28. Oracula magica Zoroastris, 80-81, 89; Orac. Chald. frg. 77; Psellos Comm. notes 12, 24. 1149a10-b11; supra, 29. Ficino, DVCC, 549, 571; for other uses of Iamblichus in DVCC not yet discussed, see ibid., 538, 549, 562-65, 571-72; lamb. Myst. 100. 3-7, 11-18, 108.1011, 111.5-9, 114.7-9, 118.16-119.4, 134.7-9, 169.4-14, 175.15-178.2, 215.1-7, 230.4-6 , 232.10-234.4, 253.5-6, 255.9-11, 258.6-11, 269.9-270.7, 271.3~12; Ficino, Opera, 2: 1882-87 , 1891-92, 1901-02, 1904. 30. lamb, . 219.1-225,3, 225.3-5: ... vorpav xal doduarov leparixf ic Oeapdv bt. Pe leone yi tis Beoupylag t& uépn; supra, note 19. : c, cosseems to contradict the Plotinian principle of a purely sympatheti and seminal reasons, writes Ficino, higher gifts may also sometimes descend, in so far as reasons in the joined to intellectual forms of that same Soul and are joi d-Soul us also agrees. ae Gee= es of the divine Mind, as Iamblich i ’ theory of magiic was secure for attenally, the integrity of Plotinus artificial eee eesseins who, like Ficino, knew that magic, an we a sta tion, could not cause the descent of divine gifts. Men recognize the gifts simply took advantage of their presence, t = ce mare or through prayer. Magic is given in the nature of things, i Plotinus dained, and some men are clever enough to find it. When _ m ee mentioned the divinized statues of Hermes, he used the ie ney — _ lustrate the general metaphysical principle that even houg' cessible to humans could be fit receptacles for the divine—t * t ae Porphyry's 31. lamb. Myst. 162.13-164.5, 207.7-208.6; Dodds, rs 92-94, 122-127, 147; supra, notes 19, 28; Copenhaver, “Ennead =, Place,

became so as a consequence neither of divine intention nor of human manipulation.” Iamblichus broadened and transformed this principle, as Ficino noted at several points: Iamblichus confirms that not only celestial but even demonic and divine powers and effects can be caught in material objects which are naturally in sympathy with higher beings if they are collected and gathered in from various places at the proper time and in the correct manner. So taken was Jamblichus with the magic of material objects duly purified and suitably assembled that he described them as working ex opere operato.” This automatic action might have been a desirable addition to a pure- —~4S5 w IAMBLICHUS, SYNESIUS AND FICINO might have been interested in their development as much as their ideas, he in the end, other more sensitive to the contradictions among them. Yet ally those arising from Chrisespeci _ sources of tension in Ficino’s magic, i i had been notorious in Latin i Neoplatonii c magic ianity, were more basic. n Phcbtaaity since Augustine wrote the City of God, and it was to remai c with Philosophy and so despite Ficino's learned efforts to reconcile magi religion. Clarifying the tension between Ficino’s learning and his faith helps at understand the motivation of the last sentence of De vita III, a e was the supersticonfession of Christian orthodoxy: “. . . how impur the piety of the tion of the pagan people, but by contrast how pure Gospel. . . Bat BRIAN P. COPENHAVER ly natural magic, But since “higher gifts may also sometimes descend,” Ficino must have recognized that the continuity of lower with higher theurgy in lamblichus opened a path to divinity that was philosophically enticing but religiously menacing. More attention to the historicity of his sources might have resolved some of Ficino’s confusions. His admiration for the Hermetica and his interest in their efScoAomotto were, after all, results of an error in dating. In addition, it is worth recalling that the philosophy of Ficino’s Platonici saw considerable change over a period of centuries: Plotinus began to write in A.D. 253; Porphyry, who introduced the Oracles to Neoplatonism, edited the Enneads after 298; Ilamblichus wrote De mysteriis before 300; Synesius’ treatise on dreams dates from 405-406; Proclus died in 485; Psellos studied the Neoplatonists in the eleventh century.* All the successors of Plotinus altered his themes and added to them, and if Ficino had been 32. Ficino, DVCC, 572: Fieri vero posse quandoque ut rationibus ad formas sic adhibitis sublimiora quoque dona descendant, quatenus rationes in anima mundi coniunctae sunt intellectualibus ciusdem animae formis atque per illas divinae mentis ideis. Quod et lamblichus approbat ubi de sacrificiis agit; cf. ibid., 549, 565; lamb. Myst. 169.4~14, 232.5~ 234.4; Ficino, Opera, 2: 1736, 1745-48, 1891, 1898-99; Plot. Enn. 4.3.8.19-21, 11.1-6; 4.4.31.8-15, 24-29, 48-50, 32.1-32, 34.33-38, 35.4-8, 22-23, 36.25-27, 37.17-20, 40.1-9, 42.6-19; Smith, Porphyry's Place, 127-28; Copenhaver, “Ennead 4.3-5." 33. Ficino, DVCC, 549: lamblichus in materiis quae natusaliter superis consentaneae sint et opportune riteque collectse undique conflataeque fuerint vires effectusque non solum coelestes sed etiam daemonicos et divinos suscipi posse confirmat; lamb. Myst. 96.11-97.19, 232,5-234.4; Ficino, Opera, 2: 1882, 1898-99; supra, notes 13, 23, 32. 34. Walker, The Ancient Theology: Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eight. eenth Century (London, 1972), 17-21; F. Purnell, Jr., “Francesco Patrizi and the Critics of Hermes e Studies, 6 (1976): 155-178; Wallis, Neoplatonism, Trismegistus,” Journal ofMedieval and Renaissanc us, 145; Larsen, Jarablique, oe 49,46-9, 138, 162; Bergman, Sywesi de re alibi nos opportunius disputabimus, 35 Ficino DVCC, 572: Qua i superstitio i , e ianaFica bolisiet supra, notes 8, 11; Copenhaver a christ e one religi De libro in ae c gest “Scholastic Philosophy.”

medieval & Renaissance texts & studies SVPPLEMENTVM FESTIVVM Studies in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller VOLUME 49 JAMES HANKINS JOHN MONFASANI FREDERICK JR. PURNELL, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies Binghamton, New York