God or the Daemon

8/10/2019 God or the Daemon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/god-or-the-daemon 1/21

1

God or the Daemon? Platonic Astrology in a Christian Cosmos

Angela Voss

The Renaissance has been described as a time when the sleeping beauty of Platonic ph ilosophy

was awakened in the West after her thousand-year slumber;1 th is rebirth of pagan wisdom,

part icularly in its magical aspects, posed a great inte llectual challenge to the prevail ing Chr istian

orthodoxy. In th is paper I want to look at some of the issues arising from the revival of what

was perhaps the most contentious dimension of Neop laton ism —astro logical theurgy—in a

society that off icially condemned it as illicit. The man who negotiated the dangerous path

between the two worlds most successfully (although himself on ly narrowly escaping censure)

was Marsilio Ficino in fifteenth-century F lorence: a ph ilosopher, priest, astro loger and magus

whose life and work were dedicated to re-integrat ing not on ly Platonic th inking but also ritual

practice into what he saw as the rather sterile and lifeless Chr istian scho lasticism of the

med ieval fo llowers of Aristotle.

2 For F icino, Platonic philosophy was a vital inte llectual

preparation for the ultimate revelation of the Christian faith , and he be lieved he had been sent

by Divine Prov idence to revitalise re ligion through its revival.3 He exhorted all priests to take up

the study of ph ilosophy, and all ph ilosophers to follow the path of true re ligion , for the

interpenetration of these two modes of knowledge—divine revelation and human reason—

was, for the Platonist, the alchem ical goal of philosoph ical enquiry. It was no less than the way

for the human sou l to realise its innate divinity, and thus its immortality.

4 But when it came to

active ritual, qu ite how far ‘true re ligion ’ cou ld legitimate ly include interacting with a living

cosmos and appealing to the daemon ic powers of the stars and p lanets was a problematic

question of wh ich Fic ino was acutely aware ; and as a Chr istian priest he never challenges the

1 See John Add ington Symonds, ‘Beginn ing and Progress of the Renaissance (Fourteenth to Sixteenth

Century)’, in T h e Gr e at E v e nt s B y F amou s H i s tor i an s , ed . Rossiter Johnson et a l., vo l. 7 (London and New

York: The Nationa l A lumn i, 1905), pp . 110-29. This sta tement should not be taken to imply that the flowering of Neop laton ism in the eleventh and twe lfth centuries, part icularly in the Islamic wor ld, was an

intellectual movement of lesser importance. 2 Art icu lated most eloquently in h is Pre face to the translat ions of Plot inus, quoted in J. Hank ins, P l ato i n

th e I ta li an R e na i ss an c e (Leiden-New York: Brill , 1991), p .274. 3 See Ficino , letter to Johannes Pannonius, T h e Le tt e r s o f Mar s ili o F ici no , vo l. 7 , trans. members of the Language Department of the Schoo l of Economic Science (London: Shepheard-Walwyn , 2003), pp . 21-4. 4 See Ficino , D e C hr i s t i ana r e li g i on e , in Op e ra omn i a (Base l, 1576, repr. Paris, 2000), p . 1; quoted in

Hank ins, P l ato i n th e I ta li an R e na i ss an c e , p . 289 .



2

authority of orthodox doctrine on magic.

5 But when he te lls us, in the Preface to his

commentaries on Plato, that in the heart of his Academy ‘ph ilosophers wil l come to know their

Saturn, contemp lating the secrets of the heavens’,6 he is qu ite openly re ferr ing to the furthest

planet of the known un iverse as ho lding the metaphorical key to se lf-knowledge, ga ined

through veneration of a cosmos mirrored with in the ind ividual sou l.

Ficino’s ‘internalisat ion ’ of the heavens certainly foreshadowed modern psycho logical

approaches to astro logy,7 and arose through his assimilation of the Hermetic teachings

concern ing the sou l’s dynamic—and initiatory—re lationsh ip to the cosmos in its descent to

embodiment and ascent to God through the seven spheres.

8 Indeed the trad ition of the Ancient

Theology—the perennial wisdom wh ich was be lieved to have been transmitted from Zoroaster

and Hermes Trismegistus through Pythagoras and Orpheus, reaching ‘abso lute perfection ’ in

the teachings of Plato9— was revered prec isely because it gave vo ice to a vital, personal

connection between humans and the d ivine realm through the analogous correspondence of

macrocosm and microcosm. Most important ly for the Chr istian revival of esoteric wisdom,

Plato himself had testif ied to certain truths that wou ld be con firmed by Chr ist, such as the

Prov idence of God or the supreme be ing, the salvific purpose of virtue, and - central to Ficino ’s

pro ject - the immortali ty of the sou l.10

Even if he and his followers had failed to achieve the

supreme insight of Chr istian theology—the three-in-one of the Holy Trinity—nevertheless, in

5 Detailed in B. Copenhaver , ‘Scho lastic Philosophy and Rena issance Magic in the D e v i ta of Marsilio Ficino ’,

R e na i ss an c e Quart e r l y 37:4 (1984 ) 523-54. 6 F icino , Preface to the commentaries on Plato , Op e ra omn i a pp . 1129-30 . 7 On Ficino ’s astro logy, see for example M.Bu llard, ‘The Inward Zod iac: A Development in Ficino ’s Thought on

Astro logy’ in R e na i ss an c e Quart e r l y 42 (1990) 687-708; T. Moore, T h e P l an e t s W i th i n (1985; repr. Hernden VA:

Ste iner Books, 1992); Angela Voss, ‘The Astro logy of Marsilio F icino : Div ination or Science?’ in C u l tur e and C o s mo s 4:2 (2000) 29-45; eadem, Mar s il i o F ic i no (Berkeley CA: North At lant ic Books, 2006). 8 As described in C orpu s H e rm e t ic um I, trans. B. Copenhaver, H e rm e t ic a (Cambridge Un iversity Press,

1992), pp . 1-7. 9 F icino , Preface to the C orpu s H e rm e t ic um , trans. Copenhaver , p . xlvii i. 10

F icino ’s great exposit ion of Christ ian Platon ism, the P l aton ic T h e o l ogy in 13 books (1469-74), is sub titled

‘On the Immortality of Sou ls’. See Hankins, P l ato i n th e I ta li an R e na i ss an c e part IV for a comprehensive

survey of Ficino ’s rev ival of Plato .



3

Fic ino ’s op inion , ‘Plato had approached as close as the Prophets, as c lose, that is, as is possible,

to a revelation not yet revealed , to a truth not yet te llab le’.11

How had he done this? F icino wou ld say through the vision of his ‘th ird eye’, the eye in the

centre of his forehead wh ich comb ined the vision of the two ‘natural’ and ‘human ’ eyes with

that of the intuitive intell igence. This was the eye of contemp lative wisdom inherited from the

Pythagorean trad ition; and , as Michael Allen has described it, ‘[it] was the counterpart and

image of the infinite Orphic eye of the divine mind’.12 In other words, th is was the faculty with

wh ich, accord ing to Apu leius, Plato homed in directly to ‘the infinite present of intelligible

reali ty’,13 the eternal, t ime less place of the Real beyond past, present and future, the place of

prophetic insight , the source of the Ideas, the living reali ty of God. The division between

‘human’ and ‘divine ’ modes of vision is central to both Platon ic and Christian traditions, fue lling

the debate about the provenance of divinatory ‘truth’ in both camps, as we shall see .

14 The

‘divine ’ reality lies beyond human reason (although it can only be interpreted through rational

discourse), and it is most effective ly commun icated through a mythic , metaphoric or symbolic

mode wh ich ‘sees through ’ the literal reality of the created world to its mysterious centre,

wh ich is also the centre of the human soul. Here we come to the crux of the problem of

astro logy, and of the questions that dominated theo logical debate concern ing its legit imacy.

Are the stars material c au s e s , binding the human soul to an immutable fate? Are they s i gn s of

divine wil l, whose symbolic meanings would unlock the destiny of the human sou l? Or are they

living, daemonic b e i ng s , to be invoked through prayers and ritual in an attempt to gain their

favour or harness their power?

Traditionally, astro logical practice as handed down via the Te trab i b l o s of Claud ius Pto lemy

(90-168 CE) conformed to the Aristotelian mechan istic view of the cosmos as a natural sc ience

of causes and effects. Th is was perfectly acceptable to the Church if the stars’ operations

11 M . J. B. Allen , ‘Marsil io Ficino on Plato , the Neoplaton ists, and the Christ ian Doctrine of the Trinity’, in

P l ato ’ s T h i rd E y e: S tud i e s i n th e M e taphy s ic s o f Mar s ili o F ic i no (Aldershot : Variorum, 1995), IX, pp . 559,

583. 12

Idem, ‘Marsilio F icino on Plato ’s Pythagorean Eye ’, in P l ato ’ s T h i rd E y e , VII, p .178 . 13

Ibid. 14

The d iv ision originates in Plato ’s T i ma e u s , where the two orders of the ‘unchanging’ and ‘changing’

respect ive ly embodied in the ecliptic and equator govern the created cosmos and are intrinsic to both the world sou l and human sou l (34b-38e ).



4

remained firmly in the domain of natural influences on the materia l world or the human body;

but the art of jud ic ial astro logy (making judgements from an ind ividual’s horoscope) was seen

to encroach on the territory of the sou l, seek ing to determine the free wil l given by God , and

was therefore fiercely condemned.

15 Ficino too would re ject such determinism, his pro ject

be ing to show that the ‘truth’ of astro logy is not causal or mechanistic at all , but m e taphor ic

and divinatory.

16 If the stars ind icate divine wil l in the manner of omens and oracles, revealing

the path of good fortune to those who can engage imaginative ly with their patterns, then

astro logy enters the domain of the sacred, and the stars compete with God as the source of

prophetic truth. Indeed, one might say that their revelations are sacred prec isely because they

facil itate such a level of insight .

F ic ino was indeed in a diff icult position as he sought to bring such an imaginal awareness to

an orthodox Chr istian perspective that tended to be litera l and dogmatic. Furthermore, he was

not so much concerned with abstract theory or speculation about the stars, as with the

question of r i ght a c t i on that aimed to ‘realise’, as it were, the alignment of heaven and earth at

part icular moments. For examp le, F ic ino understood the two modes of knowledge wh ich the

Platon ists termed human and divine to be symbolised by the planets Jup iter and Saturn.

17 In

November 1484, when they were con junct in the heavens, F ic ino chose to pub lish his comp lete

translat ions of Plato , de liberate ly marking the event as a histor ical and spiritual nexus in his

mission to rekind le the ancient wisdom.

18 He did this, not for some poetic effect, but because

he was convinced that understand ing the metaphorical significance of heavenly patterns and

15 E.g. by St August ine , D e G e n e s i ad li tt e ram , ii.17, quoted in Thomas Aqu inas, S umma T h e o l og ic a , II.2,

question 95, art.5. 16

As he clearly does in his unpublished D i s putat i on aga i n s t th e j udg e m e nt o f th e a s tro l og e r s of 1477, ed .

P.O. Kriste ller , in S upp l e m e ntum F ici n i anum , vo l. 2 (Florence: O lschki, 1937 repr. 1999), pp . 11-76; see

extract in Voss, Mar s ili o F ic i no , pp . 79-81. I also exp lore the question of the oracular imp lications of Ficino ’s

astro logy in ‘D ili g e nt i a e t D i v i na S ort e: the Components of Marsilio Ficino ’s Astra l Magic in D e v i ta c o e li tu s

c omparanda ’ (forthcoming, 2011). 17

For one of many passages concern ing the Saturn/ Jup iter rela tionsh ip see Ficino , On f i tt i ng your li f e to th e

h e av e n s (D e v i ta c o e li tu s c omparanda , hen ceforth DV CC ), ch . 2, trans. C. Kaske & J. Clark, T hr ee B oo k s on Li f e

(Binghamton NY: Society of Renaissance Stud ies, 1989), pp . 248-55. Using a similar metaphor in his P h il e bu s

commentary, Ficino refers to the right eye as the eye of divine wisdom , and the left as the eye o f human

know ledge, both together constitut ing the inte lligence of the sou l (see Ficino , T h e P h il e bu s C omm e ntary , ed . M.J.B.

Allen , [Berkeley CA: Un iversity of Ca liforn ia Press, 1975], p . 164). 18

On the significance of the 1484 con junct ion for Ficino , see J. Hankins, P l ato i n th e I ta li an R e na i ss an c e , pp .

302-304; Hankins quotes Ficino (P l aton i s op e ra , p . 1491, f . 327vb), on the con junction o f Jup iter and Sa turn

as signify ing the jo in ing of power and wisdom .



5

acting accord ingly facil itated an alignment of the human soul with the an i ma mund i and thus

with the Ideas in the Divine Mind .

19 In comb ining a symbolic att itude with se lf-directed

part ic ipation , F icino comp letely re formed the fatalistic astro logy of h is day and re instated a

divinatory approach to reading the heavens wh ich, as we shall see , cou ld attain the level of

prophetic utterance.

Now for the pagan Neoplatonic theurgists such as Iamb lichus (250-325 CE) or Proclus (412-

485 CE), the ultimate a im of working with the ‘occult’ or spiritual propert ies of matter in a ritual

context was to achieve the d i v i n i s at i on of the soul through aligning and eventually assimilating

it with its divine or igins.

20 Theurgy was ‘divine action ’, not human, initiated by the gods when

the ‘human ’ ritual was perfected, and often invo lving experiences of spirit possession and

ecstasy. In th is context, wh ich for Iamb lichus is essentially divinatory, there cou ld be no ‘higher’

authority than the gods, whose inte lligence partook of the Divine M ind and whose bodies were

visib le in the heavens. But , although c learly resonating with the d ivinatory aims of Iamb lichus,

21

Fic ino cou ld not as a Chr istian dare to aff irm that the sou l cou ld achieve its divine potential by

invoking cosmic (or even hyper-cosmic) deities. The Judaeo-Christian God had to be the on ly

source of grace, situated above and beyond the cosmos, His interventions falling strictly with in

the realm of the miraculous and free from the order of nature.

The question of sp iritual agency was a fundamental po int of content ion in Chr istian critiques

of pagan magic, and Ficino was compelled to defend h is astral magic against charges of demon-

worsh ip. As a Platonist, he understood the cosmos not on ly to be the home of the planetary

de ities, but also to be teeming with intermediary beings sub ject to them. He was therefore

faced with the task of persuading his ecc lesiastical crit ics that these daemons were ‘natural

forces’, not supernatural intell igences.

22 But where exactly was the line to be drawn between

19 The mechan ics of th is are exp la ined by F icino in DV CC 1 (Kaske & Clark, pp . 242-9) draw ing on Plot inus,

E nn e ad s 4.3.10-11, 3 .2.2, 4 .4.40 , 2.3.14. 20

Two exce llen t sources on the history and principles of theurgy are G. Shaw, T h e urgy and th e S ou l (Un iversity

Park PA: Pennsy lvan ia State Press, 1995) and A. Uždavinys, P h il o s ophy and T h e urgy i n Lat e Ant i qu i ty (San

Rafael CA: Soph ia Perennis, 2010). 21

F icino had translated Iamblichus’ manifesto o f theurgy, D e my s t e r ii s , along with other Neop laton ic texts by

Porphyry , Pse llus and Synesius, shortly before composing his own text on astral magic in 1489. 22

Accused of magic in 1489, F icino was ob liged to write an apo logy to h is DV CC , in which he argues tha t his astral magic is simp ly tapp ing in to the un iversal life force in the same way as a farmer cultivates the soil, and does not invo lve the operat ion of daemons. See Kaske & C lark, op . cit ., pp . 394-401 .



6

daemons as personifications of life forces, part of the natural order of creation , and as spirits

with wil ls of their own , usurp ing the power of God and his ange ls?

In 1462, when Ficino was twenty-n ine and need ing financial support in order to devote his

life to the study of Platonic ph ilosophy, he wrote a letter to the great Cosimo de ’ Med ic i, ru ler

of Florence.

23 He had, he said, been singing an Orphic hymn to the Cosmos when a letter from

Cosimo was brought to h im by his father. In the hymn, Orpheus prays to the Cosmos, ‘Cosmos,

hear our prayers and grant a qu iet li fe to a pious youth’. The letter from Cosimo granted F ic ino

his patronage and a vil la in wh ich to work, and F icino conc luded that Cosimo must have been

wr it ing it at exactly the same time as he was singing the hymn; furthermore, since Cosmos was

Greek for Cosmus (the Latin for Cosimo), it seemed as though Orpheus was directing the hymn

to Cosimo himself, and that Cosimo, ‘through a heavenly incitement’, heard ‘a certa in divine

breath’ and was moved to grant the request of the hymn. In other words, the cosmic daemon

inspired Cosimo through the sympathetic resonance of their names, in response to the musical

invocation of Ficino . A playful synchronic ity—a ‘secret mutual conn ivance’ of inner intent and

outer circumstance, as C.G. Jung would put it24—but it raises a ser ious question . Why should

Fic ino , as a Christian, be call ing on a cosmic daemon in the first place? Why not God , or a

Christian saint? And how cou ld it possibly be ascertained by the outcome whether the power

that answered the call and moved Cosimo was God himself or an intermediary, beneficent

intell igence? F icino gives no explanation , and his tone is obviously intended to amuse h is

patron. We know that at th is t ime he was translating and perform ing the Hymns of Orpheus,

pagan texts exto lling the virtues of the Olymp ian deities as we ll as the spirits of nature, but did

not dare to pub lish them for fear of be ing accused of ‘reviving the ancient cult or worsh ip of the

gods and daemons so long and deservedly condemned’.25 Michae l Allen has suggested that the

assignment of spec ific incenses for the ritual performance of the hymns wou ld have enhanced

the danger, for it had been observed by the Neoplatonic theurgists that daemons cou ld make

23 ‘To Cosimo de ’ Medici’ (Ad C o s mum M e d ic e m ), trans. A. Voss in Mar s ili o F ici no , pp . 59-60 (original in

S upp l e m e ntum F ici n i anum , ii.87-8). 24

C.G. Jung, S yn c hron ic i ty : An Ac au s a l C onn e c t i ng P r i n ci p l e , trans. R. F. C. Hu ll (London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul, 1972), p .85 . 25

F icino , Op e ra omn i a , p . 1453, quoted in M.J.B. Allen , ‘Ficino , Smoke and the Strangled Chickens’, in

P l ato ’ s T h i rd E y e , XIV, p. 77 .



7

themselves visible in smoky air.26 Indeed Ficino may we ll have seen them himself, as he

describes them in his Commentary on Plotinus as spherical po ints of light , ‘ imitating the c ircuits

of the heavenly stars’ in their swift circular motions.

27

Nevertheless, although not widely disseminated , the Orphic Hymns were to be revered by

Fic ino , Pico and their c ircle for their power in ritua ls involving music, song and light, rituals that

were ev idently theurgic and divinatory.

28 Furthermore, they offered to the Christian magus a

justification for appealing to cosmic powers as differentiations of the supreme One, for in h is

‘Palinode’ Orpheus announces the supremacy of the one Ru ler of the un iverse.

29 The reason for

their eff icacy lay in the ir symbolism, for the poetic concealment of re ligious truth in pagan

imagery ensured that they would not be taken as a threat to scriptural authority. As Pico

observed, ‘as was the practice of the ancient theologians, Orpheus covered the mysteries of his

doctrines with the wrapp ings of fab les, and d isguised them with a poetic garment, so that

whoever reads the hymns may be lieve there is nothing underneath but tales and the purest

nonsense ’.30

What are these Orphic mysteries? Pico h ints here at the numinous essence that he be lieved

to lie at the heart of the anc ient wisdom, suggesting that it might on ly be accessib le to those

who have ears to hear or eyes to see. Indeed he wrote en igmatically in h is ‘Orphic Conc lusions’:

‘Anyone who does not know how to intellectualise sensible properties perfectly through the

method of secret analogising understands nothing sound from the Orphic Hymns’.31

Another

question arises here then, wh ich is how one moves from appearing to worsh ip and entreat

pagan de ities, to ‘secret analogising’; and th is br ings us to the theme of different mod e s or

senses of perception . For underlying the question of whether stars are seen as causes or signs is

26 Ibid., pp . 80-81. 27

Ibid., p . 68 . 28

Pico de lla Mirando la wrote in h is ‘Orphic Conclusions’ XXXI, 2: ‘Nothing is more eff ective in natura l

magic than the Hymns of Orpheus, if the correct music, intent of the soul and other circumstances known

to the wise were to be app lied ’. See S. Farmer, S yn c r e t i s m i n th e W e s t : P ic o ’ s 900 T h e s e s ( 1486 ) (Tempe AZ: Arizona State Un iversity , 1998), p. 505. 29

On the Orphic Palinode, see D.P. Walker , ‘Orpheus the Theo logian and Renaissance Platon ists’, J ourna l

o f th e Warburg and C ourtau l d I n s t i tut e s 16 (1963) 100-120. 30

Pico de lla Mirando la , Orat i on on th e D i gn i ty o f Man , trans. C.G. Wa llis in P ic o d e ll a M i rando l a , On th e

D i gn i ty o f Man trans. C. Carmichael, P.J.W. Miller & C.G. Wallis (Ind ianapo lis: Bobbs-Merrill , 1965, repr. Hacket t Pub lishing, 1998), p.33 . 31

Pico de lla Mirando la , ‘Orphic Conclusions’ XXXI, 7 , in S. Farmer, S yn c r e t i s m i n th e W e s t , p.507 .



8

the question of litera l or symbolic vision, and much of the confusion that arises when

attempting to define the limits of astro logical or magical practice in re lation to re ligion is due to

a muddling of these two levels of discourse.

32 As Ficino was acute ly aware , it is impossible to

square a symbolic mode of ‘seeing through’ the materia l world with a hierarch ical literalism

wh ich insists on the concreteness of its metaphor. Exoteric Chr istianity, deriving its cosmology

from Aristotle, envisioned creation as a ladder, ascend ing from the mineral, plant and animal

worlds, through the human realm, the seven planets, the fixed stars and the angels to the Divine

Mind at the top. This image locates God firmly beyond His creation , presid ing over all its

elements, govern ing the mot ions of the spheres, occupy ing the furthest extreme from the

earth . It is certainly true that both Platon ic and Christian cosmologies can be hypostasized in

th is way, and it can easily be seen how such an image gives rise to dualist th inking and the

denigration of earth ly and bod ily reali ty as infer ior to the transcendent spiritual. However, if the

planetary spheres are not seen as arranged vertically in a quasi-literal space, but more as a

series of on ion rings surrounding a central core, then God is immanent, at the centre of all

th ings as the Sun is at the centre of the cosmos, and therefore by the power of analogy, the Sun

becomes the supreme symbol for God . These schemes are of course expressions of two

different human perspectives and modes of apprehension , but where the former tends towards

a metaphysical detachment, the latter perceives the symbolic power of the natural world.

33 The

manner of the Neoplatonists, despite our temptat ion to view their hypostases as a static

hierarchy, is always to see through the physical form in a dynamic process of ever deepening

perception . This can be seen in Proc lus’ fourfold exegesis of the Sun, described by Lucas

Siorvanes as follows:

32 The early Church Fathers (follow ing the Platon ic mode l) laid out a specif ic framework of leve ls of

interpretat ion progressing from the literal to the allegorical, tropologica l (or moral) and the mystical. This was taken up by Dante in h is D i v i na C omm e d i a and expounded by him in his famous letter to Can Grande; it a lso

and deeply informed Renaissance symbo lic art. Such a framework a lso serves to clarify how the deeper levels

of meaning imp licit in astro logical and magical symbolism are perceived . See e.g. G. Cornelius, T h e Mom e nt o f

As tro l ogy (Bournemouth: Wessex Astro loger, 2003), ch. 14; Henri de Lubac, M e d i e va l Exe g e s i s , th e F our S e n s e s

o f S c r i ptur e (repr. London: Continuum International Pub lishing Group , 1998 & 2000). F icino explicit ly uses th is

framework in his B oo k o f th e S un (see p. 18, note 67). 33

Further on th is d iv ision , see J. M ilne , ‘Cosmos as Div ine Reve lat ion ’, in M e taphy s ic s and th e C o s m ic

Ord e r (London: Temenos Academy, 2008), ch . 2 .



9

The One is the divine sun . The inte llective Sun is the creator. The supra-cosmic

sun wh ich shines in the median levels [of sou l and nature] is person ified by

Apo llo. F inally there is the sun as we norma lly see it. Beh ind the visible Sun lie

the metaphysical, inv isible suns, wh ich give it power and substance.34

Thus the Platonic path of knowledge leads to a revision ing of the world which is

simu ltaneously a union with it, be cause the soul can on ly ‘see ’ to the extent to wh ich it

resonates with what is seen. However, although Chr ist cou ld be identified with Apollo at the

med ian, or allegor ical, level, to see the Sun a s God Himself implies the power of the symbolic

to lead to a transmutation of nature through a transmutation in vision . From such a level of

insight all past, present and future outcomes wou ld be seen as one eternal present, and th is

is a very different k ind of prophetic knowledge from attempts to con jecture and speculate

based on merely human powers of reason ing and deduction . A similar dist inction is drawn by

Christian th inkers, except that for them d ivine prophecy cannot depend on any med iation of

the natural order as a signifier. So let us look a little more closely at the Christian position

regarding prophetic insight , as it bears directly on how F ic ino was to redefine the limits of

astro logy.

Thomas Aqu inas stipu lated two forms of prophecy: divine and natural.35 The former is a

gift of the Ho ly Spirit, received by the Prophet’s mind without any med iation of natural

causes; wh ile the latter re lies on the contact of the imaginative and intellectual faculties of

the sou l with angelic inte ll igences. The angelic light , deriving directly from God , says Aqu inas,

strengthens the mind and allows it to form images of th ings. ‘Natural’ here is de fined as ‘that

wh ich a creature performs by its own power’: hence, if a prophecy derives from the natural

knowledge of an angel, it is natural. ‘But ,’ Aquinas says, ‘that wh ich takes its origin from an

angel in so far as the angel receives revelation from God is supernatural prophecy.’ Divine

prophecy on the other hand needs no angelic mediation , and is judged superior, indeed

miraculous. Aquinas does not deny that the power of the heavenly bodies might impress on

the human imagination some signs of future events, but such prophecy would on ly extend to

34 L. Siorvanes, P ro cl u s : N e o - P l aton ic P h il o s ophy and S ci e n c e (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Un iversity Press, 1996), p.

242. 35

Aqu inas’ views on prophecy are cited here from S umma th e o l og ic a , 2.2.171-4.



10

th ings wh ich are determined in nature and in any case cou ld not predict ‘infall ibili ty’, on ly

‘those th ings that are true for the most part’. A prophetic dream wou ld be considered

‘natural’, and all such med iated exper iences wou ld be on ly ‘an imperfect likeness of divine

prophecy’. It is not explained exactly how a miraculous prophecy would be experienced by a

human be ing if not through a dream or vision.

For the Neoplaton ist, there is no clear ontological distinction between ‘supernatural’ and

‘natural’ realms of influence. The wor ld soul disseminates the power of the divine mind

throughout creation , becom ing increasingly differentiated and material the further it extends

from the absolute or One, but always seeking to return to it. At each stage of emanation it

infuses the cosmos with divine life in the form of gods and daemons, be fore becoming

‘hidden’ in the materia l world of animals, plants and minerals. The spiritual c ircuit is

unbroken , and cou ld be considered a ‘natural’ process in that all elements act in accordance

with their own nature. In th is sense, the Chr istian Platon ic magus cou ld argue that to harness

the powers of cosmic intelligences is to remain with in the natural order of correspondence

and sympathy , and does not encroach upon the ‘supernatural’ territory of God. This was

indeed to be F icino ’s de fence of his astral magic.

36 But Platonic theurgy goes further than

th is, as its ult imate goal is initiatory—to achieve gno s i s or un ion of the human sou l with the

divine mind . Here the ro le of the daemons as intermed iaries or activators is central.

As we saw earlier , F icino playfully imp lied that his synchronistic experience with Cosimo

was engineered by a cosmic daemon. The function of these immater ial beings is described by

Socrates in the S ympo s i um :

They are the envoys and interpreters that p ly between heaven and earth ,

flying upward with our worsh ip and our prayers, and descend ing with the

heaven ly answers and commandments, and since they are between the two

estates they we ld both sides together and merge them into one great who le.

They form the med ium of the prophetic arts, of the priestly rites of sacrifice,

initiation , and incantation, of divination and of sorcery, for the divine will not mingle directly with the human , and it is on ly through the mediation of the spirit world that man can have any intercourse, whether waking or sleep ing,

with the gods.

37

36 As in his ‘Apology’ (see n. 22).

37 Plato , S ympo s i um 202e , trans. M. Joyce in P l ato , T h e C o ll e c t e d D i a l ogu e s , eds E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Princeton: Princeton Un iversity Press, 1989), p .555 .



11

In the D e amor e , his Commentary on the S ympo s i um , Ficino e laborates on the ro le of the

daemons, assigning them the task of transmitt ing seven gifts to the incarnating sou l as it

descended towards the earth ‘wrapped in a spec ial transparent and astral body.38 These gifts

derived from the symbolic qualities of the seven plane ts, from Saturn to the Moon, from skill

in contemp lation to fert il ity and generation . Thus daemons, cosmos and human sou l are

interlinked and interpenetrating; daemons are both ‘with in’ and ‘without’, acting accord ing

to the humours and temperaments of the bodies wh ich the sou ls inhabit yet a lso

part ic ipating in the an i ma mund i that pervades creation . Fic ino , follow ing Plot inus,

understood the ranks of these intell igences to correspond to the two parts of the sou l, the

divine and unchanging and the discursive and temporal. The higher daemons were identified

with the ange lic, corresponding to the divine mind, their mode of knowledge be ing direct

reve lation . The lower daemons then had varying degrees of identity and con form ity with the

human condition and nature, and Platonically th inking, each individual human w ill resonate

with the daemon to whom his soul corresponds. But they are not ev il in any dualist sense,

simp ly more or less material.39

This differs radically from the orthodox Christian view of the cosmos established by the

ecc lesiastical authorities of the Midd le Ages, part icularly Augustine and Thomas Aqu inas, in

re lat ion to the ro le of the daemonic.

40 For the Chr istian, the coming of the Saviour effective ly

removed the spiritual powers of the cosmos as agents of reve lation . The angels, as the new

med iators between the divine and human realms, lost all assoc iation with nature or the

cosmos, wh ilst the pagan daemons were severed into two opposing groups, those bound to

matter and leading men astray, and those metamorphosed into the hierarch ies of ange lic

be ings. For the Neop latonic theurgist, all daemons cou ld be agents of divine revelation

through sacred ritual, divination and invocation .

41 The Christian orthodox position however,

represented by Aqu inas, states that the on ly agent for divine revelation is God Himself, and in

38 F icino , D e amor e VI.4, trans. S. Jayne , Mar s ili o F ici no , C omm e ntary on P l ato ’ s S ympo s i um on Lov e (Da llas:

Spring Pub lica tions, 1985), p. 112 . 39

On Ficino ’s relat ionship with the daemons and the principles of Neop laton ic daemonology , see M.J.B.

Allen , ‘Ficino , Smoke and the Strangled Chickens’, op .cit. 40

See Augustine , D e G e n e s i ad li tt e ram , 2. 17; C i ty o f God , Book IX; Aqu inas, S T 2.2.95. 41

On the role of daemons in theurgy , see Iamb lichus, D e my s t e r ii s , Book II, trans. E.Clarke , J. D illon & J.

Herschbell, I amb li c hu s , On th e My s t e r i e s (At lanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), pp . 83-117.



12

his S umma T h e o l og ic a we find the statement: ‘If anyone presumes to foreknow or foretell

such like future th ings by any means whatever, except by divine reve lation , he manifestly

usurps what be longs to God.’42 Such diviners on ly pr e t e nd to be ‘fil led with the Godhead’,

and Aqu inas de fines as ‘divination ’ an act wh ich somehow presumes to ‘cause ’ something

divine : that is, a human usurp ing divine knowledge for themselves and not receiving it

through revelation . Foretell ing future events is therefore legit imate on ly ( a ) if it occurs

through rational deduction , or ( b ) if it is revealed directly from God. Aqu inas pronounces all

divinations to be unlawful ‘if they be extended beyond the limits set accord ing to the order of

nature or of divine providence ’. 43

We may note that Aquinas does not deny that divinations and omens may arise through

the workings of Prov idence; but he does not te ll us how to distingu ish between a divine

reve lation , and a divinatory insight given by a fraudu lent demon—for either, it appears, may

be ‘true ’. The problem is the amb iguous ‘midd le ground’ of the Neoplatonists for whom

divine revelation is a s ee i ng through , not a r i s i ng abov e , nature. Both Platonists and Chr istians

acknowledge that human reason is severely limited and to be distinguished from the

reve lations of divine truth, but for the Chr istian the intell igent li fe of the pagan cosmos,

wh ich mediates between the two realms, has become suspect and misleading: man must

strive to go as far as he can accord ing to his reason , then await revelation of the world

beyond the stars through grace—there cannot be divine intell igence w i th i n creation that is

apprehended through the human inte llect as revelat ion , as in a divinatory interpretat ion .

Divinatory methods in themse lves c annot fac ili tate a d ivine revelation because th is wou ld

confuse two orders of be ing. In other words, the interpretation of a symbol or sign cannot

lead to an apprehension of meaning beyond the human realm—it cannot be prophet ic,

because it arises from human reason , or through the influence of ev il demons. Augustine

suggests that if diviners such as astro logers do ‘get it right ’ in their pronouncements, th is is

due to the intervention of ‘unclean and lying spirit’ hidden in their minds.

44

42 Aqu inas, S T 2.2.95, 1-8 on d iv ination . This quotat ion , art. 1 .

43 Ibid. art . 7

44 August ine , D e G e n e s i ad li tt e ram , ii.17 . Somewhat iron ically, Augustine’s own conversion to Christ ianity was prompted by an omen ; he heard children’s vo ices call ing ‘take up and read’ and interpreted th is as a

sign to take up the Bible and read the first passage that fell open. For an ana lysis o f the divina tory



13

Plato too is qu ick to condemn practitioners of divination who re ly on their own limited

op in ions and con jectures, just as he critic ises the art ists who make cop ies of cop ies wh ich

on ly serve to keep the pr isoners in the cave bound to their illusions.

45 In the P ha e dru s he

distinguishes between the tru ly prophetic utterance of the individual possessed by a god and

in a state of ‘divine madness’, and the merely human assumptions of the ‘sane prophets’ who

‘inquire into the future by means of birds and other signs’.46

Such a d iviner, says Plato ,

‘attained understand ing and information by a purely human activity of thought be longing to

his own inte ll igence’ whereas ‘the prophecy of inspiration ’ is of ‘superior perfection and

value’. However, Plato does not insist that ‘human’ d ivination is necessarily wrong or illicit,

nor that the ‘possessed ones’ cannot achieve the ir know ledge through divinatory practices as

such—indeed he cites the enraptured state of the Pyth ia and pr iestesses at the orac les of

De lph i and Dodona as examples of god-possession .

47 In a famous passage in I on he equates

the inspired poet with the prophetic diviner, imp lying that the art ist too may become a

receptacle for divine revelation , and that the vo ice of the gods may be heard through poetic

narrative :

Here in lies the reason why the de ity has bereft them of their senses, and uses

them as ministers, a long with soothsayers and god ly seers; it is in order that we listeners may know that it is not they who utter these precious revelations

wh ile the ir mind is not with in them, but that it is the god himse lf who speaks,

and through them becomes art iculate to us.

48

Later Neoplaton ists took up the question of divine possession in different ways, the

theurgists such as Iamb lichus and Proclus follow ing the path of ritual ecstasy, wh ilst Plotinus

offered a more sober intellectual explanation for divinatory insight . For Plot inus, the cosmos is

like a great ballet, all the d ifferent parts moving, interacting w ith and affecting each other in a

imp lications o f th is ep isode see G. Cornelius, ‘F ield of Omens’, Ph .D. thesis, Un iversity o f Kent, 2010, pp .

389-96. 45

See Plato , R e pub lic X, 598 , and the a llegory of the cave , R e pub lic VII, 514-518 (trans. P. Shorey in P l ato , T h e C o ll e c t e d D i a l ogu e s , pp .832 and 747-751). 46

Plato , P ha e dru s , 244a-e (trans. R. Hackforth in P l ato , T h e C o ll e c t e d D i a l ogu e s , p.491). 47

Ibid. 48

Plato , I on , 534 c-d (trans. L. Cooper in P l ato , T h e C o ll e c t e d D i a l ogu e s , p.220).



14

single harmonious disp lay, and the magic ian is the one who knows how to enter into th is ‘play

of forces’ and consc iously work with and manipu late them for the greater good.

49 But he is not

out of h is mind with frenzy, rather he has cultivated a knowledge of the laws of creation

through intellectual contemplation and knows how to disengage from their effects. The

magic ian is the one who knows how to enter and withdraw at wil l: ‘He pu lls knowing the pu ll of

everything toward any other th ing in the living system.’50

Plot inus is concerned with raising consciousness towards what he termed the h igher part of

the sou l, the part wh ich contemp lates divine reality directly and remains unaffected by the

spells or fasc inations that enchant the ord inary man, who remains bound to the lower,

‘unreason ing’ e lement of his sou l. The wise man is ‘immune from magic’ and has no use for

rituals or techn iques. From Fic ino’s po int of view, Plot inus offered a theory for astro logy that

was safely compatible with Christian doctrine since it required no daemonic agency or

determinist mechanism. In h is On f i tt i ng your li f e to th e h e av e n s he re lies heavily on Plotinus’

tractate ’Are the Stars Causes?’ (E nn e ad s II.3) in wh ich Plotinus dismisses any notion that

planets or stars li terally ‘cause ’ either events on earth or personality traits, but stresses that

everything in the cosmos wil l have the function of s i gn i f ic at i on by virtue of the fact that it is part

of a whole organism: ‘All teems with symbol,’ he says; ‘the wise man is the man who in any one

th ing can read another, a process familiar to all of us in not a few examp les of everyday

experience.’51

The stars as signs may be interpreted in the same way as any other part of the cosmos by the

diviner or augur, as po int ing to the underlying divine pattern of th ings:

We can but be lieve that their c ircuit is for the protection of the entirety

of th ings wh ile they furnish the inc idental serv ice of be ing letters on

wh ich the augur,

acquainted w ith that alphabet,

may look and read the future from their pattern - arriving at the th ing sign ified by such

analogies as that a soaring bird te lls of some lofty event.52

49 See Plotinus, E nn e ad IV.4.40 on the theory of magical attract ion ( trans. S. MacKenna in P l ot i nu s , T h e

E nn e ad s [London: Faber & Faber 1956, rev . 1969]), p. 323. 50

Ibid. 51

Plotinus, E nn e ad s II.3.7 , trans. S. MacKenna, p.96. See a lso E nn e ad s III.1.5-6 on astro logy as d ivination . 52

Plotinus, E nn e ad s III.1.6, trans. S. MacKenna, p. 158 .



15

For Plot inus, divination is thus the art of understand ing the hidden workings of the cosmos,

wh ilst the stars themselves are deprived of all agency or wil l. It is most effective ly accomp lished

by one who has raised his mind to the level of the gods (i.e. fully identified w ith his higher soul)

and thus attained the level of prophetic insight .

Ficino takes up the question of human and divine levels of knowledge re lated to astro logical

practice in his D i s putat i on aga i n s t th e J udg e m e nt o f As tro l og e r s of 1477.

53 The ‘human’

astro logers think they are practicing some form of natural sc ience, where planets and stars

literally cause pred ictable effects. These ‘petty ogres’make fated pronouncements and bind the

sou l to a fixed fate , precisely b e c au s e they remain at the li teral level of understand ing and can

go no further than their limited power of thinking allows – thus sub jecting the ir clients to a

similar limitat ion of thought and action . They make the terrible mistake of reduc ing the

symbolic to the literal, to ‘sil ly simil itudes’ as Ficino puts it, and thus deprive it of its power to

move the sou l.54 Having dismissed these astro logers and their be liefs, however, F icino then

makes a very bold move. Challenging Aqu inas, he suggests that astrology may be understood

qu ite differently, as a d i v i natory method. The diviner may receive a revelation via the stars that

is indeed prophetic , in three ways: by means of ‘divine infusion ’ by daemons, by ‘natural

instinct’ (such as via a me lancho ly temperament), or by ‘art’ - astro logy and augury be ing two

instances of th is last. The augur or diviner needs techn ique, needs to know the ru les, but his or

her insight comes from another place, it is a divine inspiration , a ‘gift of the sou l’ through wh ich

true prophecy may flow . 55 Thus the wise astro logers read the signs to reveal God ’s Prov idence.

Th is is a rad ical assertion indeed: that astro logical practice may lead to divine knowledge, and

that th is knowledge is already sown in the sou l’s very fabr ic . Truth in astro logical judgment,

says F icino , comes ‘not so much through inspecting the stars as through a certain

foreknowledge innate to you’.56

In support of th is statement he quotes the C e nt il oqu i um of

pseudo-Pto lemy, with the suggestion that the Platonic th ird eye of intu itive intell igence—the

53 See n . 16.

54 FIcino , D i s putat i o in Kriste ller, S upp l e m e ntum F ici n i anum ii.43, 68.

55 Ibid., p. 50; trans in A. Voss, Mar s ili o F ici no , p.80.

56 Ibid.



16

divine eye—is activated by reading signs in the wor ld, and interprets them not through any

human con jecture but through the immortal, a ll-see ing part of the sou l.

The diff iculties encountered by F ic ino in relating th is to an orthodox Christian position are

addressed in a letter to Federico, Duke of Urb ino in 1482.

57 His theme here is to dismiss the idea

that Chr istian law could be in any way ‘caused ’ by the heavens, and we see him holding in

balance litera l and imaginal conceptions of the cosmos. On the one hand , F ic ino evokes the

established order of the plane tary spheres with God beyond, ru ling the ir movements; and on

the other, the intell igib le but hidden meanings wh ich they may reveal to the ‘wise or divine

man ’. As we have seen, the former conception required an order of be ing ‘above’ the stars

wh ich operated directly through Divine Prov idence, manifesting as miraculous events on earth .

God may give s i gn s through his creation or in itiate miracles independently of it, but such a

miracle cannot be part and parcel of the natural order of planetary cyc les as it derives from a

superior order entire ly. This view clashes directly with the Sun analogy of Proc lus given earlier,

and so prevents Fic ino , as a Chr istian, from suggesting that the Star of the Magi may have been,

for example, both a ‘natural’ conjunction of Jup iter and Saturn and a mirac le.

58 For the pagan

diviners, on the other hand , there cou ld be no f urth e r miraculous level beyond the theophany of

the sign itself, and we can see by th is that orthodox theology, in seeking to establish a level of

operation b e yond what the stars may reveal, has distorted the revelatory function of the

cosmos as understood by the Platonists. Ficino thus found h imself bound by a cosmos of

hierarchical we ight ing which had to give way to the pr imacy of the ultimate Revelation of Christ,

but within wh ich the revelation of omens and signs was experienced as prophetic; furthermore,

the natural order of the cosmos with its stars and planets was also simultaneously a d ivine

intell igence—as il lustrated in Ficino’s letter to Cosimo. In actual pra c t ic e , the gods announced

their authority, wh ich is precisely why they had to be outlawed. F ic ino of course leaves th is

question unresolved, always managing skill fu lly to negot iate the two perspectives, never

allow ing ‘what the Platonists say’ to assume the status of de finitive truth. But we are left w ith a

57 D i v i na l ex f i e r i a c a e l o non pot e s t , s e d f ort e s i gn i f ic ar i , in Op e ra , pp . 849-853 , trans. In T h e Le tt e r s o f

Mar s ili o F ici no , vo l. 6 (London: Shepheard-Walwyn , 1999), pp . 23-31. 58

See F icino , ‘The Star of the Magi’, trans. T. Moore in A. Voss, Mar s il i o F ic i no ̧ pp . 95-101.



17

paradox that touches the qu ick of the exoteric /esoteric divide in Western metaphysics—or

perhaps we shou ld say the transcendent/theophanic divide.

In F icino ’s On f i tt i ng your li f e to th e h e av e n s , the tension is felt again in the distinction he

is compelled to make between ‘natural magic’ and any sort of ste llar worship or invocation : ‘Nor

do I aff irm here a single word about pro fane magic wh ich depends upon the worship of

daemons, but Imention natural magic, wh ich, by natural th ings, seeks to obtain the serv ices of

the ce lestials for the prosperous health of our bod ies.’59 But he was nervous, and continually

re-assures us (and any over-anxious prelate) that he is never overstepping the mark of

orthodoxy. 60 Drawing on Plotinus and Hermes Trismegistus as his chief authorities for the

sympathetic resonance of macrocosm and microcosm, F ic ino insists that the invocation of

planetary spirits and the collaboration with one’s guardian daemon are all part of working with

the natural, if occult, powers of the cosmos. But to return to the question raised by F icino’s

letter to Cosimo: when does an occult property become a living presence, and how far does

‘enticing the gifts of ce lestial or angelic sou ls to human sou ls through free will and affection ’

imply worship?61 It is a f ine line. P lotinus may call his ‘sem inal reasons’ ‘gods’ and thus give

them ph ilosoph ical sanction , but Plot inus was not interested in active ritual, and F ic ino here is

advocating singing hymns to p lanetary spirits.

62 As we have seen, Iamb lichean theurgy aimed

very h igh indeed, and was not just concerned with alignment to the cosmic order, but with the

divinization of the sou l—man becoming God . F ic ino knew th is, of course, and hints at the

‘higher gifts’ that may descend through ritual activity, qu ickly assur ing the reader that he wil l be

discussing ‘the impure superstition of the heathen’ and the ‘pure piety of the Gospe l’ at another

time .

63 When F ic ino speculates with Iamblichus that invoking supercelestial divinities may

redeem us from fate , he is certainly pushing the boundaries of what a Chr istian wou ld consider

‘natural’ beyond their limits.

64 The harmless natural ph ilosopher, playing cosmic music and

59 F icino , ‘Apo logy ’ in Kaske & Clark, T hr ee B oo k s on Li f e , p .397.

60 See F icino , Dv cc , ch. XXV, Kaske & Clark, T hr ee B oo k s on Li f e , pp . 380-383.

61 F icino , Dv cc , ch. XXII, Kaske & Clark, T hr ee B oo k s on Li f e , p. 369 .

62 As described in F icino , Dv cc ,ch. XXI, Kaske & Clark , T hr ee B oo k s on Li f e , pp . 354-363 . Further on Ficino ’s

performance pract ice, see A. Voss, ‘Fa ther Time and Orpheus’ in T h e I mag i na l C o s mo s : As tro l ogy ,

D i v i na t i on and th e S a c r e d , ed . J. H inson Lall & A . Voss (Canterbury: University of Kent, 2007), pp . 139-56. 63

F icino , Dv cc , ch. XXVI, Kaske & Clark , T hr ee B oo k s on Li f e , p . 393. 64

F icino , Dv cc , ch. XXII, Kaske & Clark, T hr ee B oo k s on Li f e , p.369.



18

wearing his talismanic jewe l, has suddenly become high priest, creat ing a channel through to a

forb idden world.

In 1494, the same year when Pico’s vehement attack on astro logy was pub lished, and

Savonaro la was launch ing his po lemics against Platonic ph ilosophy,65 Ficino wrote T h e B oo k o f

th e S un , a short treat ise that can be seen as his most potent attempt to br ing the Platonic vision

in line with a Chr ist ian metaphysics – and also a clear demonstration of the ultimate

impossibil ity of such a synthesis.

66 Taking the Sun as his central symbolic image, Ficino states at

the outset that ‘th is book is allegor ical and anagogical rather than dogmatic’ and that his

method wil l be ‘to advance from the manifest to the occult’ not through rational argument, but

through ‘certain correspondences drawn from the light, according to our abili ties’.67

Here is a

de liberate use of the medieval hermeneutic of the four senses to move, in the manner of

Proc lus, through the different stages of vision , but in th is case understand ing the Sun as the

symbol for the Christian God , rather than for the Neoplaton ic One.

68 The start ing point in the

journey is the simp le, direct, visual experience of the physical universe, of the Sun and its

movements through the conste llations of the zod iac , and the end is the vision of the

‘supercelestial’ Sun to wh ich the visible Sun po ints. But F icino cannot go as far as Proclus and

declare the simu ltaneous identity of the Sun with God , although he comes very close. Beginn ing

with observation of the Sun ’s movements, he moves to the level of allegory (the astro logical

interpretations to wh ich they give rise, and the Sun seen as s i m il ar to God). In keeping with the

fourfold hermeneutic, the next stage is to see the Sun as the i mag e of God - that is, a symbol,

where a hidden or occult light is perceived which is its ‘virtue and d ivinity’.69 The two lights of

the Sun , natural and divine , are explained as re lated to the senses and the ‘inner spiritual eye ’

respective ly, and the d ivine Sun is identified as Apollo who leads men ’s minds to the truth

65 G. Pico de lla Mirando la , D i s putat i o adv e r s u s a s tro l og i am d i v i natr ic e m , published c. 1496 by his nephew

Gianfrancesco Pico. See S. Farmer, S yn c r e t i s m i n th e W e s t , ch. 4. 66

F icino , Li b e r d e S o l e , trans. G. Cornelius et al., ‘The Book of the Sun ’ in A. Voss, Mar s il i o F ici no , pp . 189-213. See also G. Cornelius, ‘Astro logy’s H idden Light : Reflections on F icino ’s D e S o l e ’, S ph i n x 6 (1994) 114-22. 67

F icino ,’The Book of the Sun ’, ch. 1, in A. Voss, Mar s ili o F ic i no , p . 190. 68

See p .8, n . 32 for sources on the fourfold hermeneutic. 69

Ibid., ch . 2, p. 192 .



19

through oracles, poetry and music.

70 Lastly, when proceed ing to the anagogic or mystical level

of perception , Fic ino relates the fecund ity, light and heat of the Sun to the threefold order of

angelic be ings and to the Divine Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit. Finally, the visible Sun unites

with the symbolic Sun as F ic ino draws the distinction between idolatry, wh ich is the worship of

the literal aspect alone, and the veneration of the supercelestial, sp iritual Sun wh ich is the

‘bounty of the Father’.71 But in the end , even such a Sun as this must bow down before a

might ier and more primordial power. If, Ficino speculates, ‘once every year the home of

omn ipotent Olympus were to be thrown open’, the splendor of the Sun wou ld be so

overwhe lming that it would be adored ‘as the highest God ’, 72 but th is is as far as he can go. In

the final chapter of the treatise, we are rem inded that the Maker of heaven is beyond the

heavens; God as the or igin of the un iverse is ‘something infinite ly loftier ’ than even the

heavenly Sun , reducing it to a shadow .

73 We have necessarily returned to the orthodox model:

God above the heavens, and the Sun far removed from the Creator of the world—for in Genesis

God creates the Sun as a secondary light after the first pr imordial separation of light and dark.

74

God as first princ iple is to be worshipped ‘with the same ritual observance that all celestial

th ings give to the Sun’,75 but He is most defin ite ly not to be identified with it .

I hope I have managed to convey something of the impossibil ity of resolving these two

modes of metaphysical understand ing wh ich characterize the Platonic and orthodox Chr istian

conceptions of the cosmos. Ficino understood only too we ll the dangers of interpreting the

Platon ic vision literally, and it is remarkable how, in the D e v i ta , he is able skill fully to

negot iate a path of symbo lic d iscourse to allow his magical operations to be seen as ‘natural’,

wh ilst fully understand ing them as the first steps of theurgy. By revision ing astro logy as

poetic metaphor that freed the imagination and paved the way for prophetic insight , Ficino

firm ly located it with in a programme of Platon ic pa i d e i a , but cou ld never explicitly align it to a

70 Ibid., ch . 11 , p . 207.

71 Ibid., ch . 13 , p . 212 . Plutarch too exp la ins the difference between con flating Apo llo w ith the physical

Sun , and understand ing the d iv inity as the crea tive source of the physical man ifestation (On th e E at

D e l ph i , XXI). 72

Ibid., ch . 12 , p . 211 . 73

Ibid., ch . 13 , pp . 212-13. 74

Genesis 1:16. 75

F icino , ‘The Book of the Sun ’, ch . 13 , in A.Voss, Mar s ili o F ic i no , p. 213.



20

theurgic context of divinization . But despite his caut ion , it is ev ident that by 1494 Ficino felt

under considerable strain, and possibly attack. He wrote to his friend the poet Poliziano

firm ly disavowing that he ever approved of or taught astro logy or endorsed the opinions of

the Platonists, and praises Pico’s condemnation of divinatory astro logy, ‘re jo ic ing that the

superstitious van ity of the astro logers was extinguished’.76 The fundamentalist regime of

Savonaro la had taken ho ld in Florence, casting a dark and menacing shadow over the Platonic

Sun , and even F ic ino appears to have felt its om inous presence.

77

As a postscript , we make a leap forward to seventeenth-century England, where William Lilly,

one of the last astro logers to uphold the Platonic idea of the inextricable connection between

the piety of the astro loger and his abili ty to make true judgments, wrote his great C hr i s t i an

As tro l ogy in 1647.

78 After Lil ly, astro logy wou ld sink into a dec line as the new scientific world

view stripped the cosmos of intell igence and sundered the human rational sou l from its ground

in a divine un ity of be ing.

In his comprehensive textbook of divinatory (or horary) astro logy, Lilly aff irms the prophetic

possibili ties of astro logy, but on ly when the astro loger speaks from the higher level of the soul,

thus achiev ing insight into Divine Prov idence and confirming astro logy as a re ligious, i.e .

Christian, practice. I w il l give h im the last word , as he adv ises the student of astro logy:

In the first place, consider and adm ire thy Creator, and be thankful unto

h im, be thou humble, and let no natural know ledge, how profound and

transcendent soever it be , elate thy minde to neglect that divine

Prov idence, by whose all-see ing order and appointment, a ll th ings

heavenly and earthly, have the ir constant motion , but the more thy knowledge is en larged, the more do thou magnifie the power and wisdom

of Almighty God , and strive to preserve thy self in his favour; be ing

confident, the more ho ly thou art, and more neer to God, the purer

Judgment thou shalt give.

79

76 F icino , ‘What He Thinks of Astro logy ’, trans. A. Voss in Mar s il i o F ici no , pp . 215-17. Th is quotat ion , p.

216. 77

After Savonarola’s death , F icino condemned him as the Antichrist in ‘Apo logia contra Savonarolam’, in

ed . P.O. Kriste ller , S upp l e m e ntum F ici n i anum , vo l. 2, pp . 76-8. 78

W. Lil ly, C hr i s t i an As tro l ogy (1647, repr. London: Regu lus Press, 1985). See A. Geneva . As tro l ogy and th e

S e v e nt ee nth C e ntury M i nd : W illi am Lil l y and th e Languag e o f th e S tar s (Manchester: Manchester Un iversity Press, 1995). 79

W. Lil ly, ‘Letter to the Student in Astro logy ’, in C hr i s t i an As tro l ogy , Introduct ion .



21

God or the Daemon

Documents

Transcript of God or the Daemon