Hermetic roots of Marsilio Ficino’s anthropocentric thought

37 J@RGONIA - ELEKTRONINEN JULKAISU ISSN 1459-305X © Helan u kija y 22/2013 He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though Lau i Ockens öm Ma silio Ficino’s ela ionship o he He me ic li e a y adi ion has long been a con o e sial issue in academic discussion. Al hough Ficino is commonly known as a ansla o and keen eade o he philosophical He me ica, his allegiances o he He me ic ideas ha e been ecognized only in his heo y o magic (only o be denied la e ), while in o he cases, in gene al, schola s end o deny he impac o He me ic w i ings ins ead o accep ing i . This pape explo es a opic in which he denial has been pa icula ly ha sh, namely Ficino’s P ome hean philosophy o man, highligh ed as he mos in luen ial achie emen o his hough by p e ious gene a ions (e.g. by T inkaus). Despi e he neglec , he e seems o be some e iden con e gence wo h esea ching be ween Ficino’s an h opocen ic passages and he philosophical He me ic sou ces. The compa a i e analyses may illus a e how Ficino applied He me ic concep s and ocabula y o cons uc his an h opocen icism and u ilized he name o T ismegis us o suppo his man-o ien ed ideals, which we e o ha e a conside able impac on Eu opean hough du ing he ollowing cen u ies. Fu he mo e, he e a e easons o sugges ha he inspi a ion and ein o cemen o e ed by he philosophical He me ica encou aged Ficino o exceed he bounda ies o scholas ic hough and he p eceding digni as hominis adi ion. Keywo ds: Ma silio Ficino, He mes T ismegis os, He me ism, an h opocen ism, Neopla onism, digni as hominis gen e In oduc ion Du ing he las ew decades he s udies conce ning occul and eso e ic adi ions ha e become inc easingly ashionable. The end has been e iden in he case o he He me ic adi ion, whose ep esen a i es ha e been widely s udied and ansla ed since he 1980s. The e m He me ic li e a u e – He me ica – e e s o a b anch o la e classical philosophic, magic and so e iologic ex s composed in Hellenis ic Egyp and a ibu ed o He mes (Me cu ius) T ismegis os (T ismegis us), an Egyp ian sage, who un il he se en een h cen u y was belie ed o ha e been a his o ical pe son and J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 38 con empo a y o Moses. Du ing he Middle Ages only one in luen ial philosophical He me ic opus had been ci cula ing in he Wes , namely he La in Asclepius. The si ua ion changed d as ically a ound 1460 when a G eek manusc ip con aining ou een He me ic dialogues, pa o he la ge compila ion known as Co pus He me icum, a i ed in Flo ence. [1] A young schola wi h a medical backg ound, Ma silio Ficino, keenly in e es ed in ‘ancien ’ sou ces, was commissioned by Cosimo de’ Medici o ansla e he collec ion in o La in. The ansla ion, known as Pimande a e he i s ea ise o he compila ion and comple ed in Ap il 1463, became one o Ficino’s bes selle s and launched a pan-Eu opean He me ic boom. Despi e – o because o – Ficino’s c ucial ole as an in luen ial ansla o and p ac i ione o he philosophical He me ica, he ela ionship be ween Ficino and he He me ic li e a u e has always been a con o e sial issue among schola s. The opposi e on s seem o e lec p io philosophical o eligious commi men s, whe he disapp o ing o p aising, commonly add essed o he He me ic adi ion and i s eso e ic siblings. In Ficino’s case, he He me ic in luence has been ecognized only in his heo y o magic, while o he possible connec ions ha e cons an ly been denied, neglec ed o condemned by au ho i a i e oices who ha e ega ded he eso e ic and magical sou ces as in aluable, wo hless o dubious objec s o esea ch. Pa ially due o his disc imina ion o which he He me ic and o he eso e ic ex s su e ed un il he 1980s, a comp ehensi e and c i ical s udy examining Ficino’s philosophical and ideological indeb edness o he philosophical He me ica is s ill conspicuous by i s absence. This a icle a emp s o ill in ha gap pa ly by examining he He me ic ai s in one pa icula b anch o Ficino’s philosophy, his philosophy o man, which has been ega ded as one o he mos ou s anding a eas o his hough . [2] Na u ally he aim is no o insis ha He me ica would ha e been he mos eminen sou ce o Ficino’s an h opocen icism – on he con a y, his hough appea s as a miscellany o in luences, and sou ces like he biblical Genesis, Cice o’s De na u a deo um, he Chu ch Fa he s and humanis ic w i e s om Pe a ch o Mane i ha e unques ionably shaped his opinions on man’s posi ion in he uni e se. The pu pose is o sugges ha he heo e ical He me ic ea ises amilia o Ficino migh appea aluable when ying o in e p e ce ain ones in his in luen ial man-o ien ed philosophy and o make jus ice o he as polymo phism o his philosophical oo s. Ficino’s Li e and Ideal o Human Au onomy Ma silio Ficino was bo n in Figline nea Flo ence in 1433. His a he was a physician wo king o he Medici amily, and also he son was blessed wi h he adi ional scholas ic educa ion. A e 1455 Ma silio o ien ed his in e es s owa ds Pla onic philosophy and s a ed his G eek s udies. In he ea ly 1460s, assigned by old Cosimo de’ Medici, Ficino began his decade-long p ojec o ansla ing all Pla o’s wo ks in o La in. Fo he nex hi y yea s he wo ked unde Medici pa onage and pe o med a no able ole in he hea o he Flo en ine Renaissance as a p oduc i e w i e , ansla o and well-known deba e . Besides ansla ions – many o hem emained he s anda d La iniza ions un il he nine een h cen u y – some o his own wo ks also u ned ou o be in luen ial. Among hese w i ings we e, o example, De amo e, a commen a y o Pla o’s Symposium (1469), he philosophical opus magnum Theologia Pla onica (c. 1474) and De i a lib i es (1489), an as o-medical manual ha had a J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 39 g ea impac on la e Eu opean eso e icism. (Copenha e & Schmi 1992, 143–149, 159–160.) Ficino has o en been men ioned also as he ounde and leade o he Flo en ine Pla onic Academy, which has, howe e , been p o en o be a ba e my h. (Hankins 1990, 145–146, 153–155.) The emphasis on he philosophy o man has o en been conside ed one o he mos peculia ea u es o his philosophy. Al eady Paul Oska K is elle had unde lined he mode ni y in Ficino’s iews on man’s cen al posi ion in he uni e se, and la e Cha les T inkaus saw him as an ou s anding ep esen a i e o he humanis ic digni as hominis adi ion. Acco ding o T inkaus, Ficino c ea ed he mos a - eaching ideal o human au onomy o his days, a model ha was o be in luen ial du ing he so-called scien i ic e olu ion. Fu he mo e, Da id Lea a gued ha Ficino b ough in o Neopla onism a new an h opocen ic emphasis unde lining man’s di ine quali ies and cen al posi ion in he uni e se. G an ing man a godlike dominion o e he ma e ial wo ld, as Lea assumes Ficino does, Ficino may be ega ded as a signi ican miles one in a p ocess by which he a i udes owa ds he na u al en i onmen became u ili a ian. (K is elle 1943, 400–401; T inkaus 1970, 486–487, 501–503; Lea 1994, 513–524.) He mes and He me ica The s o y o how He mes T ismegis us became a Renaissance celeb i y is long and e en ul. O iginally He mes was a Hellenis ic in e p e a ion o he Egyp ian god Tho h, he di ine sc ibe and la e god o knowledge and science, and inally o magic. He mes T ismegis us, Th ice g ea He mes, appea ed in Egyp ian eligious li e in la e hi d o second cen u y BC. Th ough (con) usions wi h Hellenism and Judaism, T ismegis us became a my hical sage, some imes ene a ed as god o c ea ion, some imes ega ded as a e sa ile demigod o he o and a con empo a y o Moses. (Copenha e 1992, xi –x i; Fowden 1993, 22–25.) The ancien cul o He mes p oduced a g ea numbe o ex s associa ed wi h he name o T ismegis us. Nowadays he He me ic w i ings a e di ided in o echnical and heo e ical He me ica – he e ms we e in oduced by Ga h Fowden, who sepa a ed be ween as ological, alchemical and o he p ac ical ex s and, on he o he hand, philosophical and heological w i ings. The an iqui y knew no such dis inc ion. The He me ic w i ings we know a e w i en mos ly in G eek in Hellenis ic Egyp and discuss cosmology, so e iology, heology, magic, as ology, alchemy, medical bo anic and s one lo e as an in e mingled o ali y, es i ying o a i id cul u al deba e. In he la e an iqui y He me ic ex s we e p obably known all o e he ancien wo ld, pa icula ly on O ien al and A ican soil. No able au ho s like Te ullian and Galen ci ed He me ic ex s, and bo h Ch is ians (like Lac an ius) and pagans (like Ammianus Ma cellinus) ega ded T ismegis us as a ema kable ancien sage and p ophe . Al hough Augus ine la e condemned He me ic ex s as alse p ophecy and hea hen idola y, he associa ion o He me ism wi h Ch is ian u hs li ed on and had la e a ema kable ole in he Renaissance dispu es. (Fowden 1993, e.g. xxi, 1–4, 56–57, 68– 69; Copenha e 1992, xxxii–xliii; Sca bo ough 1988, 22–24.) Ha ing been almos o go en o cen u ies, He me ism eappea ed in Eu opean discussions in he wel h cen u y, when no ewo hy au ho s like John o Salisbu y J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 40 and Alain de Lille discussed He me ic opics known h ough he La in Asclepius. Due o Asclepius, he only in luen ial ep esen a i e o heo e ical He me ica known a ha pe iod, ‘Me cu ius T ismegis us’ was du ing he hi een h and ou een h cen u ies a ela i ely widely ci ed au ho . Pa icula ly he chap e s 23–24 and 37–38, which desc ibe how Egyp ian p ies s we e able o ‘make gods’ by summoning di ine souls in o s a ues, we e a ge o a i id dispu e, o which all ema kable w i e s ook pa . A he same pe iod one segmen o echnical He me ica in aded Eu ope as La in ansla ions o A abic manuals o as ology, alchemy and alismanic magic. [3] The adi ion o A abic He me ism di e ed om he ancien adi ion in many espec s. In mos o he cases he A abic ea ises w i en mos ly be ween he se en h and ele en h cen u ies ha e no been connec ed wi h any pa icula ex s p oduced by he an iqui y. (Copenha e 1992, xl i–xl ii.) These sho ac a es, howe e , p obably ein o ced he my h o Me cu ius’s p imo dial o igin, and, along wi h he La in Asclepius, o med he la e medie al unde s anding o He me ic wisdom ha Ficino inhe i ed. He mes was aken qui e se iously by he I alian Renaissance. Pe a ch is known o ha e ead Asclepius, and Giannozzo Mane i, Ficino’s impo an p edecesso in he digni as adi ion, ci es ‘Me cu ius’ in his De digni a e e excellen ia hominis (On man’s digni y and excellency) comple ed in 1452 o 1453. Me cu ius was, howe e , due o Asclepius’s passage o making gods and A abic echnical He me ica, o en associa ed wi h as ological magic and demonology. I was Ficino who hen e- in oduced he ancien philosophical gnosis on a wide scale o he Eu opean audience. As he s o y ansmi ed by Ficino himsel e eals, a Pis oian monk called Leona do ound a G eek manusc ip con aining a He me ic compila ion in a Macedonian monas e y and anspo ed i o Flo ence. Ficino was immedia ely commanded o pu aside he Pla onic co pus and g asp he He me ic newcome . Ficino’s ansla ion, en i led as Pimande , was comple ed in Ap il 1463 and became la e a eal bes selle . Young Ficino was s ill inexpe ienced as a hinke and ansla o , and his a he cau ious and conse a i e ein e p e a ion con ains ce ain oddi ies. He, o example, e uses o call he human soul ‘demonic’ as he G eek o iginal equi es, and uses ins ead a Ch is ianized subs i u e ‘angelic’. [4] Ficino’s g ea ole as a ansla o and in e p e e o he He me ic co pus and as a dis ibu o o He me ic hough canno , howe e , be unde lined enough. Pimande was p in ed al eady in 1471, and by 1550 mo e han wen y edi ions had seen he ligh o day. Ficino’s Pimande emained a s anda d e sion o he so-called Co pus He me icum un il he nine een h cen u y, and because o his e o s he He me ic adi ion was o wo cen u ies a no able playe in Eu opean in ellec ual li e culmina ing in Gio dano B uno’s g ea syn hesis. (Copenha e 1992, xl iii–xlix; Sca bo ough 1988, 20–21.) The Renaissance had ega ded He mes T ismegis us as a eal pe son o di ini y da ing back o he days o Moses. The si ua ion changed in 1614, when a Swiss Cal inis Isaac Casaubon p o ed ha he He me ic ex s canno be om ea lie han he Hellenis ic age. A e Casaubon’s e ela ion he app ecia ion o he He me ica diminished and he He me ic adi ion sank in o he ma gins o Wes e n cul u e. Howe e , he change was slow and g adual: Isaac New on a he end o he se en een h cen u y and Che alie Ramsay s ill in he eigh een h cen u y used J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 41 He me ic ex s as aluable his o ical sou ces. (Copenha e 1992, l–li. Fowden 1993, xxii.) Ficino, He me ica and he Resea ch T adi ion Ga h Fowden summa ized he si ua ion qui e apposi ely in 1993 when he s a ed ha ‘his o ical and sociological ques ions abou He me ism ha e usually been ega ded as o subo dina e in e es and impo an .’ (Fowden 1993, xxi–xxii.) I is s ill somehow mys e ious how p oblema ic a opic he He me ic adi ion has been o schola s since he mode n esea ch began a he dawn o he wen ie h cen u y. In he i s hal o he cen u y ends like logical posi i ism ega ded disapp o ingly e e y hing ha was labelled as i a ional, and phenomena like He me ism and magic we e usually seen as unwo hy opics o academic esea ch. This enligh ened and ‘classical’ a i ude domina ed also he Ficinian s udies o decades. Du ing he i s hal o he cen u y T ismegis us was ne e men ioned among Ficino’s sou ces. Fo example, Paul Oska K is elle and Giuseppe Sai a, who composed in luen ial monog aphs on Ficino’s li e and hough , designa ed him as a ep esen a i e o he classical adi ion and pu ely Ch is ian scholas ic hough wi hou linkages o He me ic ex s o o he eso e ic sou ces. In he 1950s he si ua ion s a ed o change when Eugenio Ga in and Wa bu gian schola s D. P. Walke and F ances Ya es, who b ough he his o y o occul sciences in o he mode n discussion on a la ge scale, ega ded Asclepius and Co pus He me icum as cen al sou ces o Ficino’s magical and as ological hough . [5] The emphasise on he He me ic in luence led o some ambi ious and exagge a ing claims sugges ing ha he ise o expe imen al me hodologies and e en he whole scien i ic e olu ion was pa ly due o he s ong He me ic ib a ions o he six een h cen u y. This so-called ‘Ya es hesis’ has been highly con o e sial om he e y beginning, bu i gained a oo hold ne e heless and one can s ill encoun e i s echoes in his o ies o philosophy. [6] Meanwhile, he e we e s ong academic endencies o es ic he He me ic impulse me ely o magical and occul hough . These a i udes a e mani es in he wo ks o Cha les T inkaus, who in 1970 a gued ha Ficino and Pico ‘did no need He mes T ismegis us o show hem way’ o delinea e he new ideal o human digni y. T inkaus was con inced ha he biblical Genesis, pa is ic sou ces and he humanis ic adi ion we e enough o explain he an h opocen ic emphasis in Renaissance hough . He saw, in gene al, Ficino’s an h opocen ic philosophy as a classical p ojec ha had ew i any connec ions o he occul disciplines like he suspicious and non- Eu opean He me ic adi ion. (T inkaus 1970, 486–87, 501–503.) The connec ion be ween He me ic sou ces and Ficino’s heo y o magic se ed as a pa adigma ic iew un il he 1980s, when B ian P. Copenha e published no able s udies on he opic. Besides a acking ha shly he Ya es hesis he p o ed, con incingly enough, ha he heo e ical He me ic ex s amilia o Ficino o e ed li le i any ma e ial ha was usable o he heo y o magic, and ha he eal sou ces o Ficino’s magic should be sea ched among scholas ic philosophe s and la e classical Neopla onis s, such as Plo inus, Po phy ius, Iamblichus and P oclus. La e , Ca ol Kaske ag eed wi h his iew. (Copenha e 1984, 523–554; 1986, 351–369; 1988, 79–110; Kaske 1998, 47–48.) Besides, when Michael J. B. Allen in 1990 J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 42 a gued ha Ficino ‘ne e became, o a leas emained, a commi ed He me is , and he impac o he Co pus He me icum upon his hough was ea ly and limi ed’ (Allen 1990, 47), i seemed ha he supposed connec ions be ween He me ica and Ficino’s hough – bo h magical and philosophical – had been la gely demolished. Since hen he e ha e been only a ew e o s o e-examine Ficino’s He me ic linkages. In 2002 Clemen Salaman, wo king wi hin Allen’s sphe e o in luence, ied o es ablish nexuses be ween Ficino’s heo e ical philosophy and some He me ic concep ions o Egyp ian o igin. The pa allels he highligh ed, o example he sun as a symbol o di ine ligh , a e ob ious, hough he concep ions in ques ion a e no exclusi ely He me ic bu mo e likely common ea u es in all Neopla onic li e a u e, a poin ha makes i challenging o iden i y he speci ic sou ces. (Salaman 2002, 115– 135.)[7] Wha is ema kable in Salamans’s s udy, howe e , is his cau ious assump ion o con inuous He me ic in luence on Ficino h oughou his ca ee , no limi ed o magic bu sp ead also ac oss he ields o philosophy. Ficino’s Theo e ical He me ica: Asclepius and Pimande Ficino knew wo ema kable ep esen a i es o he heo e ical He me ica. A He me ic compila ion known as Asclepius is a philosophical and heological dialogue consis ing o o y-one chap e s. The ea ise was o iginally w i en in G eek in he second o hi d cen u y AD en i led as Logos eleios, he Pe ec Se mon. The La in name Asclepius de i es om G eek Asklepios, a Hellenis ic in e p e a ion o he Egyp ian god Imho ep o Imou hes, who appea s as one o he cha ac e s o he dialogue. Lac an ius seems o ha e known he G eek o iginal ha did no su i e. The La in ansla ion, which was alsely a ibu ed o he Apuleius o Madau a, he amous au ho o Me amo phoses, was men ioned in Augus ine’s Ci y o God a he beginning o he i h cen u y. The hemes ha he ea ise deals wi h a e, acco ding o John Sca bo ough, ypical o he hi d-cen u y pagan philosophical deba es. Asclepius discusses he doc ine o elemen s, he o igin o o ms and ma e as well as he mo ali y and immo ali y o li ing hings. Man as a e lec ion o God wi h God’s a ibu es and man’s anking behind God a e also subs an ial hemes. (Copenha e 1992, xiii, xliii–xli ; Sca bo ough 1988, 25.) An h opocen ic ones culmina e in chap e s 6 and 8, which p aise he di ini y o he human soul and he a ie y o human skills. The manusc ip Ficino used has no been iden i ied, bu he La in Asclepius appea s as a no able sou ce o ci a ions h oughou his ca ee . The impac is mos conspicuous in Theologia Pla onica and De i a, bu ce ain choices in his Pimande ansla ion indica e ha he was p obably well acquain ed wi h he La in Asclepius al eady in 1462. Because Pimande is o en con used wi h he so-called Co pus He me icum, some explica o y no ions migh be necessa y. Co pus He me icum is a G eek compila ion consis ing o se en een books o med by six een h cen u y edi o s. Pimande is Ficino’s La in ansla ion o he i s ou een books, and i is based on only one G eek manusc ip b ough om Macedonia. The i le, Pimande , is a La inized o m o Poimand es, he p o agonis o he dialogue. The compila ion ansla ed by Ficino in 1462–63 – as well as he whole Co pus He me icum – ep esen s a di e en ex ual adi ion han he su i ed examples o he ancien He me ica. The oldes su i ing J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 43 manusc ip con aining ex s o he mode n Co pus is he one used by Ficino (Plu . 71.33 in he Biblio eca Medicea Lau enziana, Flo ence), which de i es om he ou een h cen u y. Acco ding o some es ima ions, medie al Byzan ine schola s a e esponsible o he c ea ion o he collec ions, maybe amous Mikael Psellos who is known o ha e been amilia wi h He me ic ideas. The obscu i y o he medie al adi ion makes i , howe e , impossible o deciphe o wha ex en he ex s mig a ed o Eu ope ep esen he ‘o iginal’ and ‘au hen ic’ He me ic cul u e o ancien Egyp . P obably he anonymous Byzan ine edi o s emphasized he con e gences wi h Ch is ian doc ines and excluded occul and he e ic elemen s, which makes he con en less eso e ic compa ed o o he exempla s o he heo e ical He me ica. (Sca bo ough 1988, 23–24; Copenha e 1992, xl–xliii.) Fo mally and con en ually he compila ion is e y much like Asclepius. I is a dialogue p esen ing a e ela ion, in which a di ini y called Poimand es explains sac ed mys e ies o his disciple He mes. An h opocen ic hemes a e condensed in chap e s 10–12, which discuss he limi less capaci ies o he human mind. Ficino’s ansla ion, al eady discussed abo e, is an inaccu a e ende ing ha esembles some imes mo e a ee ein e p e a ion han a li e al ansla ion. Ca eless p in ed edi ions made since 1471 mul iplied Pimande ’s con en ual inco ec ness, bu he ex se ed as he s anda d La in e sion o he i s ou een books o Co pus He me icum o cen u ies. In Ficino’s own opinion T ismegis us was always a no able au ho . He accompanied he adi ional accoun s classi ying He mes as equal o biblical p ophe s and o he sages o he classical adi ion and he p edecesso o Pla onic wisdom. He ollowed, o example, Cice o, who cha ac e ized T ismegis us as he in en o o alphabe s, and Lac an ius, who pa alleled him wi h sibyls as a wi ness o Ch is ’s coming. (Ya es 1964, 1–2, 7–9; Copenha e 1992, xxix–xxxi.) In gene al, he Egyp ian sage had in Ficino’s w i ings almos he same s a us as canonized philosophical au ho s like Pla o, Plo inus, Augus ine and Aquinas. Al hough he He me ic impac on Ficino’s philosophy is no as ex ensi e as ha o he au ho s men ioned abo e, p obably due o he small quan i y o sou ces, he seems o ha e held T ismegis us’s a gumen a ion in equally high es eem as ha o he classical w i e s and Biblical au ho i ies. Fo example, in he p e ace o Pimande he simply passes Augus ine’s condemna ion in a ou o He mes (Op. Om. 1836, BML Plu . 21.8, . 1–2.), and in his gigan ic Theologia Pla onica he o en pa allels T ismegis us bo h wi h he Pla onic and Mosaic adi ion when p omo ing his sync e is ic ision o he philosophical- eligious amalgama ion o lea ned ancien heology, he P isca heologia: Howe e wha he uni e sal o de once los because o he ino dina e mo ion o he soul mus be es o ed o i again when o de e en ually p e ails. No jus Moses, Bu Zo oas e , He mes T ismegis os, and Pla o oo, ag ee on his. (Th. Pl.10.3.5. Pla onic Theology iii, 136–137. T ansl. Allen, Michael J. B.) In Ficino’s hough P isca Theologia o ms a sequence o philosophe s and hei disciples ending in Pla o. T ismegis us appea s usually as he i s o second link o he sequence and as he ounde o all sciences and human wisdom. (Op. Om. 1836. J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 44 Th. Pl. 6.1.7, 12.1.4. Abou P isca heologia, see Copenha e & Schmi 1992, 134– 148.) The placing is a a he illus a ing one ega ding T ismegis us’s posi ion in Ficino’s wo ks in gene al. The He me ic opuscules a e ci ed o quo ed b oadly se en y- i e imes in Theologia Pla onica, and he name o He mes is men ioned a ound wen y- i e imes, always as a ene able au ho wi h whom he Flo en ine philosophe willingly ag ees. Theologia Pla onica 13: he Heyday o Ficino’s An h opocen ism as a Miscellany o He me ic Ideas Ficino’s connec ions o he heo e ical He me ica ha e o en been sea ched h ough his popula and easily accessible wo ks like De amo e and De i a as well as his le e s and mino ea ises. Time a e ime hese alleged connec ions ha e p o en o be weak o ques ionable. A mo e comp ehensi e iew can be ound i one examines Theologia Pla onica de immo ali a e animo um, Ficino’s monoli hic philosophical mas e piece w i en be ween 1469 and 1474. As he whole i le sugges s, Ficino ea s ques ions in ol ed wi h he immo ali y o souls bo h in a eligious and philosophical con ex and ies, meanwhile, o econcile Ch is ian u hs wi h he en i e adi ion o Pla onic philosophy. Ficino also uses he oppo uni y o p esen his knowledge o he classical adi ion including his o iog aphy, my hology, poe y and a , and o p omo e his p isca heologia sequence o igina ing om T ismegis us and Zo oas e . Theologia Pla onica is also known as he climax o Ficino’s philosophy o man. Nex I am going o compa e ce ain passages con aining p aise o human capaci ies wi h simila sec ions in his Pimande and he La in Asclepius. [8] The mos amous passage is undoub edly he P ome hean p oclama ion included in Theologia Pla onica 13.3, which has o en been ea ed as he basic mani es a ion o Ficino’s an h opocen ism. The passage has been ci ed by se e al au ho s, o ins ance Cha les T inkaus, who sees Ficino’s desc ip ion as pa o he humanis ic digni as hominis gen e da ing back o Pe a ch and de i ing om he biblical Genesis and pa is ic li e a u e as well as om secula philosophy, like A is o le’s De anima and Cice o’s De na u a deo um. In T inkaus’s ou look Ficino’s Theologia is he culmina ion o he e olu ion. (T inkaus 1970, 173–174, 181–186, 484; 1986, 141–153.) In he abo e- men ioned passage Ficino, wi h en husias ic he o ic, desc ibes man as he only ea hly being capable, by his di ine a s, o exploi ing all ou elemen s, mo ing his posi ion limi lessly, comp ehending and measu ing he uni e se and uling o e he ma e ial wo ld. In doing his man akes godlike igh s, pe o ms he ole and o ice o God and is he e o e ‘a kind o god’ himsel . Ficino, who usually elies hea ily on ecognized au ho s, men ions no sou ces in he passage. Compa a i e in es iga ion, howe e , e eals ha a g ea numbe o hemes discussed he e migh ha e been inspi ed by He me ic models. Fo example, he concep ion o man as he only use and go e no o all he elemen s ecu s in a He me ic passage ha o ms pa o he wel h book o Co pus He me icum. In he ollowing exce p s Ficino’s La in ansla ion o he G eek o iginal is pa alleled wi h Theologia Pla onica. Con e gences a e indica ed by i alics in he La in ex s. J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 45 Pimande : I would like you o on ponde his in he i s place: he es o he li ing species popula e one p o ince o he globe: mois c ea u es inhabi he wa e , e es ial he ea h, lying he ai . Bu only man uses hem all ea h, wa e , ai and i e: he looks up a he hea en and comes in con ac wi h i by his eason; he eally is a god simul aneously su ounding e e y hing and o e e y hing. He is he ini ia o and he i ue o e e y hing […] (T ansl. Ockens öm.) ‘Illud au em in p imis animad e as ili mi elim; quod unumquodque genus i en ium eliquo um, p op iam mundi p o inciam habi a : humida quidem aquam, e es ia e am, ae em ola ilia: homo au em his omnibus u i u , e a, aqua, ae eque & igne: coelum suspici , sensuque illud a ingi : Deus e o ci ca omnia simul a que pe omnia. Ac us enim es omnium a que po es as […]’ (BML 21.8, 34 . BML 21.21 33 . CH 12.20.) Theologia Pla onica: […] one can obse e how man uses all he wo ld´s ma e ials and uses hem e e ywhe e as hough hey we e all subjec o him: he uses he elemen s, s ones, me als, plan s, and animals, ashioning hem in o many o ms and igu es, which he beas s ne e do. No is he con en wi h jus one o he elemen s o wi h pa icula elemen s like he b u es: he employs hem all as hough he we e he lo d o all. He amples on he ea h, u ows he wa e ascends in o he ai in he alles owe s […] He kindles i e and he alone uses and deligh s especially in he amilial hea h. (T ansl. Allen.) … animad e e e lice , quemadmodum homo e omnes e undique ac a mundi ma e ias, quasi homini omnes subiician u . T ac a , inquam, elemen a, lapides, me alla, plan as e animalia, e in mul as aduci o mas a que igu as, quod numquam bes iae aciun . Neque uno es elemen o con en us au quibusdam u b u a, sed u i u omnibus, quasi si omnium dominus. Te am calca , sulca aquam, al issimis u ibus conscendi in ae em […] Accendi ignem e oco amilia i e u i u e delec a u p aecipue ipse solus. (Th. Pl. 13.3.3, Pla onic Theology i , 172–173.) Ficino exp esses in Theologia he equi alen idea and occasionally wi h he same wo ding (omnibus u i u ) as in his ansla ion. While o he c ea u es make use o one o wo elemen s, man exploi s hem all and go e ns hem wi h his godlike capaci ies. The concep ion is ound also in Asclepius 6, and somewha la e in Theologia Ficino epea s i , p aising he capaci ies o magi o p ies s who ‘command he elemen s, ouse winds, compel clouds o ain’. (Th. Pl. 13.4.1. Pla onic Theology, i , 182–185. T ansl. Allen.) Al hough Ficino e e s mo e o he Neopla onic Iamblichean heu gy han o heo e ical He me ica and appeals o T ismegis os me ely as a wi ness o eligious mi acles, he passage also e lec s he He me ic a i udes o man as a godlike demiu ge capable o shaping ma e ial eali y. The idea o man as he only consume and go e no o all he elemen s appea ed al eady in Giannozzo Mane i’s De digni a e e excellen ia hominis, bu he ex ual compa ison indica es ha Pimande has in all likelihood been Ficino’s mos essen ial sou ce o inspi a ion. [9] J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 52 an h opocen ic a gumen s and o p omo e he u hs o ancien wisdom. The me hod sha es some simila i ies wi h he cus om Ficino u ilized in he hi d book o De i a, whe e he dubiously desc ibes he making and use o magical alismans only o in e p e Plo inus o epo wha ancien s ha e said. [16] In Theologia Pla onica, albei in his case ag eeing mo e openly wi h he o iginal sou ce, Ficino calls man godlike o a god mo e eadily employing ‘T ismegis us’s wo ds’ han his own. I is also no ewo hy o ecognize ha T ismegis us is he only au ho Ficino quo es by name in his an h opocen ic passages, and ha mos o he aceable echoes seem o de i e om heo e ical He me ic w i ings. Thus Ficino seems delibe a ely o ha e chosen T ismegis us in suppo o his ideal o man’s cen al posi ion in he uni e se. I has been sugges ed by many schola s ha Ficino o mula ed a mo e op imis ic ision o man’s capaci ies han any schola be o e him. To some ex en i is easy o ag ee. Fo ins ance, Giannozzo Mane i’s desc ip ion o he digni y o man om he ea ly 1450s is sligh ly mo e cau ious han Ficino’s ecs a ic ou pou ing: Mane i eminds he eade equen ly abou he limi s and ices o man, while Ficino emphasizes pa icula ly man’s limi less possibili ies and godlike capaci ies. I is he e o e possible ha he a i al a ound 1460 o a new Co pus, he He me ic boom i ini ia ed and he new da a i made a ailable inspi ed and encou aged Ficino o go u he han his p edecesso s in humanis ic philosophy had da ed. The La in Asclepius had been known h oughou he Middle Ages, bu he new manusc ip ound in Macedonia con i med a ious ideas and a gumen s mani es in Asclepius and s eng hened he con idence in T ismegis us’s no only magical bu also philosophical au ho i y. Hence, i could be assumed ha Ficino would no ha e b ough his an h opocen ic hough as a as he did i he had no been suppo ed by He me ic ex s, bo h he al eady amilia Asclepius and he newly ound G eek compila ion. A leas we can s a e ha Ficino, and la e his successo Pico, u ilized in pa icula he name o He mes T ismegis us when pos ula ing he new, op imis ic philosophy ocused openly on man’s capaci ies in he na u al wo ld. Al hough he s a us o He me ica collapsed in he se en een h cen u y and he He me ic adi ion aded away om he mains eam o Eu opean philosophy, i p obably had managed o lea e, h ough Ficino and his successo s, endu ing aces in he his o y o Wes e n hough . Ki joi aja iimeis elee äi öski jaansa he mee isen pe in een ja magian his o ias a Jy äskylän yliopis ossa Tai een ja kul uu in u kimuksen lai oksessa Endno es [1] The s anda d edi ions o Asclepius and Co pus He me icum a e s ill hose o Nock and Fes ugiè e (Pa is 1945–54.) The mos eliable English ansla ion is Copenha e ’s He me ica (see Sou ces). [2] The esul s o his a icle a e la gely based on my Mas e ’s hesis He mee is en Co pus He me icumin ja Asclepiuksen aiku us Ma silio Ficinon ihmiskeskeiseen aja eluun. Depa men o His o y and E hnology, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, 2007. J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 53 [3] A lis o sou ces o La in magical He me ism o he Middle Ages is gi en in Lucen i, Paolo and Pe one Compagni, Vi o ia. 2001. I es i e i codici di E me e nel medioe o. Flo ence: Edizione Polis ampa. [4] Fo u he examples, see my a icle ‘Ficino’s human demiu ge and i s sou ces: The case o He me ica’. In A. Musco-G. Muso o (eds.) 2012, Coesis eza e Coope azione nel Medioe o. In memo iam Leona d E. Boyle (1923-1999). IV Cong esso Eu opeo di s udi Medie ali della Fédé a ion In e na ionale des Is i u s d’É udes Médié ales (F.I.D.E.M.) Pale mo 23–27 giugno 2009. Pale mo: Biblio eca dell’O icina di S udi Medie ali, 993–1002. [5] See, o example Walke , Daniel Picke ing 1958. Spi i ual and Demonic Magic om Ficino o Campanella. London: Wa bu g Ins i u e, Uni e si y o London: Ya es 1964 (see below); Ga in, Eugenio. 1982 [1976 ]. Zodiaco della i a. Ba i: La e za, and Ga in 1988. E me ismo del Rinascimen o. Rome. [6] A b ie his o y o he Ya es hesis is gi en in Zambelli 2007, 218–232. Zambelli comes ac oss as a cau ious de ende o Ya es. [7] Besides some lack o cohe ence, Salaman epea edly e e s o he six een h and se en een h books o Co pus He me icum ha Ficino did no know. See, o example, Salaman 2002, 121, 125–127. [8] Since Pimande has no been c i ically edi ed and he basic edi ion o Ficino’s wo ks, he Basel edi ion o Ope a omnia (1576), is hea ily co up ed and ull o disas ous e o s, I ha e exploi ed some ea ly manusc ip s o edi he ex ac s ci ed in he a icle. [9] Mane i, Giannozzo. De digni a e e excellen ia hominis lib i qua uo , 2.21. ‘Res o he li ing hings make use o h ee a he weigh y and e es ial elemen , while only human being uses i e, which is a ligh , sublime and celes ial elemen , in his e e yday li e, and he could no li e wi hou i ’. T ansl. Ockens öm. (‘Ce e e animan es ibus dum axa elemen is quasi ponde osis ac e es ibus u un u , solus e o homo ignem u po e le e e sublime ac celes e elemen um, sin quo i e e non posse , in quo idianum i e sue usum assumi ’.) Also Mane i has possibly used Asclepius 6 as his sou ce. [10] The a gumen is epea ed in Th. Pl. 16.6.7. C . endno e 15. [11] I discuss he heme o he He me ic Genesis and i s impac on Ficino in “Ficino’s human Demiu ge and i s sou ces”. See endno e 4. [12] I iga ion is p obably eminiscen om Cice o. In addi ion, Ficino’s s a emen ha he excludes py amids and buildings o Romans and G eeks (Th. Pl. 13.3.1) e e s possibly o Mane i who had discussed hose opics in his ea ise. Fo Mane i, see De digni a e e excellen ia 2.38–40 and 3.20. [13] Michael J. B. Allen sugges s ha he passage is a e e ence o CH 10.25. (Pla onic Theology i , 360, n34.) As we ha e seen, he e is a no ion o measu ing he J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 54 hea ens, bu as he compa ison sugges s, he ci a ion should a he be aced back o Asclepius 6. [14] The e e ence o he soul (anima) as he mis ess, no he companion (comes) o bodies, is a pun e e ing o he ancien poem Animula agula blandula whe e he soul is called he comes o he body. [15] Tha Ficino connec s he same p ope ies o a human indi idual becomes ob ious om he p eceding exce p s om he hi een h and ou een h books o Theologia. La e , in he six een h book, Ficino con i ms he connec ion be ween he human soul and he soul p aised in Th. Pl. 3.2.6.: ‘Wha soe e he ea h is, man is i s mas e . He is su ely a god on ea h. No mus one suppose man’s a ional soul [animus] o be any less di ine because i is enclosed in a agile body. Ra he o ha eason i is u e ly di ine, since, e en in he il h o his ea h […] i none heless accomplishes di ine asks, such as uling o e hings in e io i ne e depa s om highe hings.’ Th. Pl. 16.6.7. Pla onic Theology , 283. T ansl. Allen. [16] E. g. De i a 3.15: ‘[...] we e i no ha all he an iqui y and all as ologe s hink hey ha e a wonde ul powe , I would deny i [ he celes ial powe o images] […] you mus no hink I app o e he use o images, [I] only ecoun i ’. Ficino, Th ee books on he li e, 320–321. T ansl. Kaske, Ca ol and Cla k, John R. Abb e ia ions Th. Pl.: Theologia Pla onica (when e e ed o a pa ag aph) CH: Co pus He me icum (when e e ed o a pa ag aph) Op. Om.: Ficino, Ma silio. Ope a omnia. Basel 1576. Sou ces Mode n edi ions and ansla ions Co pus He me icum. 1945–1954. 4 ols. Edi ed Nock, A. D., ansla ed Fes ugiè e, A.-J. Pa is. Ficino, Ma silio. (1989) 1998. Th ee books on he li e [De i a lib i es]. Edi ed and ansla ed by C.V. Kaske and J. R. Cla k. Bingham on, N. Y.: Medie al & Renaissance Tex s & S udies in conjunc ion wi h he Renaissance Socie y o Ame ica. Ficino, Ma silio. 2001–2006. Pla onic Theology. [Theologia Pla onica]. 6 ols. English T ansla ion by Michael J. B. Allen wi h John Wa den. La in ex edi ed by James Hankins wi h William Bowen. Camb idge (Mass.): Ha a d Uni e si y P ess. He me ica. The G eek Co pus He me icum and he La in Asclepius. 1992. Ed. and ansl. Copenha e , B ian P. New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 55 Manusc ip s and ea ly p in s Flo ence, Biblio eca Medicea Lau enziana [BML], Plu eo 21.8. Flo ence, Biblio eca Medicea Lau enziana [BML], Plu eo 21.21. Flo ence, Biblio eca Medicea Lau enziana [BML], Plu eo 71.33. Ficino, Ma silio 1576. Ope a omnia. [Op. Om.] Basel. Mode n acsimile, Tu in 1959. Li e a u e Allen, Michael J. B. 1982. Ficino’s Theo y o he Fi e Subs ances and he Neopla onis s’ Pa menides. The Jou nal o Medie al & Renaissance S udies 12: 19– 44. Allen, Michael J. B. 1990. Ma silio Ficino, He mes T ismegis us and he Co pus He me icum. In New Pe spec i es on Renaissance Though . Essays on he His o y o Science, Educa ion and Philosophy: In Memo y o Cha les B. Schmi . Ed. Hen y, John and Hu on, Sa ah, 38–47. London: Duckwo h. Copenha e , B ian P. 1984. Scholas ic Philosophy and Renaissance Magic in he De i a o Ma silio Ficino,Renaissance Qua e ly 37, 4: 523–554. Copenha e , B ian P. 1986. Renaissance Magic and Neopla onic Philosophy: ‘Ennead’ 4.3-5 in Ficino’s ‘De i a coeli us compa anda’. In Ma silio Ficino e il i o no di Pla one. Ed. Ca agni, G. C. Flo ence, 351–369. Copenha e , B ian P. 1988. He mes T ismegis us, P oclus, and he Ques ion o a Philosophy o Magic in he Renaissance. In He me icism and he Renaissance. In ellec ual His o y and he Occul in Ea ly Mode n Eu ope. Eds. Ing id Me kel and A. G. Debus, 79–110. London: Folge Shakespea e Lib a y – Associa ed Uni e si y P esses. Copenha e , B ian P. 1992. In oduc ion. In He me ica. The G eek Co pus He me icum and he La in Asclepius. 1992. Ed. and ansl. B ian P. Copenha e , xiii- lxi. New Yo k: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Copenha e , B ian P. and Schmi , Cha les B. 1992. Renaissance Philosophy. Ox o d, New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Fowden, Ga h. 1993. The Egyp ian He mes. A His o ical App oach o he La e Pagan Mind. P ince on, New Je sey: P ince on Uni e si y P ess. Hankins, James. 1990. Cosimo de’ Medici and he ‘Pla onic Academy’. Jou nal o he Wa bu g and Cou auld Ins i u es 53, 144–162. Kaske, Ca ol (1989) 1998. In oduc ion. In Ficino, Ma silio, Th ee books on he li e [De i a lib i es], 3–70. K is elle , Paul Oska . 1943. The Philosophy o Ma silio Ficino. New Yo k. J@ gonia 22/2013 ISSN 1459-305X Lau i Ockens öm: He me ic Roo s o Ma silio Ficino’s An h opocen ic Though 56 Lea, Da id. 1994. Ch is iani y and Wes e n A i udes owa ds he Na u al En i onmen . His o y o Eu opean Ideas 18, 4: 513–524. Salaman, Clemen . 2002. Echoes o Egyp in He mes and Ficino. In Ma silio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy. Ed. Michael J. B. Allen and Vale y Rees, 115–135. Leiden: B ill. Sca bo ough, John. 1988. He me ic and Rela ed Tex s in Classical An iqui y. In He me icism and he Renaissance: In ellec ual His o y and he Occul in Ea ly Mode n Eu ope. Eds. Ing id Me kel and Allen Debus, 19–44. Washing on – London: Folge Shakespea e Lib a y – Associa ed Uni e si y P esses. T inkaus, Cha les. 1970. In Ou Image and Likeness. Humani y and Di ini y in I alian Humanis Though . Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. T inkaus, Cha les. 1986. Ma silio Ficino and he Ideal o Human Au onomy. In Ficino and Renaissance Neopla onsim. 1986. Edi ed by Kon ad Eisenbichle and Olga Zo zi Pugliese, 141–153. Uni e si y o To on o I alian S udies 1. O awa: Do ehouse. Ya es, F ances. 1964. Gio dano B uno and he He me ic T adi ion. London: Rou ledge & Kegan Paul. Zambelli, Paola. 2007. Whi e Magic, Black Magic in he Eu opean Renaissance. Leiden: B ill.