Table Of ContentCRITICAL POLITICAL THEORY AND RADICAL PRACTICE
MARSILIO
FICINO AND
HIS WORLD
Sophia Howlett
Critical Political Theory and Radical Practice
Series Editor
Stephen Eric Bronner
Rutgers University
New Brunswick , New Jersey , USA
Mainstream political theory has been experiencing an identity crisis for as long as
I can remember. From even a cursory glance at the major journals, it still seems
preoccupied either with textual exegesis of a conservatively construed canon, fash-
ionable postmodern forms of deconstruction, or the reduction of ideas to the
context in which they were formulated and the prejudices of the author. Usually
written in esoteric style and intended only for disciplinary experts, political theory
has lost both its critical character and its concern for political practice. Behaviorist
and positivist political “scientists” tend to view it as a branch of philosophical
metaphysics or as akin to literary criticism. They are not completely wrong. There
is currently no venue that highlights the practical implications of theory or its
connections with the larger world. I was subsequently delighted when Palgrave
Macmillan offered me the opportunity of editing Critical Political Theory and
Radical Practice.
When I was a graduate student at the University of California: Berkeley dur-
ing the 1970s, critical theory was virtually unknown in the United States. The
academic mainstream was late in catching up and, when it fi nally did during the
late 1980s, it predictably embraced the more metaphysical and subjectivist trends
of critical theory. Traditionalists had little use for an approach in which critique
of a position or analysis of an event was predicated on positive ideals and practical
political aims. In this vein, like liberalism, socialism was a dirty word and knowl-
edge of its various tendencies and traditions was virtually non- existent. Today,
however, the situation is somewhat different. Strident right-wing politicians have
openly condemned “critical thinking” particularly as it pertains to cultural plural-
ism and American history. Such parochial validations of tradition have implications
for practical politics. And, if only for this reason, it is necessary to confront them. A
new generation of academics is becoming engaged with immanent critique, inter-
disciplinary work, actual political problems, and more broadly the link between
theory and practice. Critical Political Theory and Radical Practice offers them a
new home for their intellectual labors.
The series introduces new authors, unorthodox themes, critical interpretations
of the classics and salient works by older and more established thinkers. Each
after his or her fashion will explore the ways in which political theory can enrich
our understanding of the arts and social sciences. Criminal justice, psychology,
sociology, theatre and a host of other disciplines come into play for a critical politi-
cal theory. The series also opens new avenues by engaging alternative traditions,
animal rights, Islamic politics, mass movements, sovereignty, and the institutional
problems of power. Critical Political Theory and Radical Practice thus fi lls an
important niche. Innovatively blending tradition and experimentation, this intel-
lectual enterprise with a political intent will, I hope, help reinvigorate what is fast
becoming a petrifi ed fi eld of study and perhaps provide a bit of inspiration for
future scholars and activists.
More information about this series at
http://www.springer.com/series/14938
Sophia Howlett
Marsilio Ficino and
His World
Sophia Howlett
Kean University
Union, New Jersey, USA
Critical Political Theory and Radical Practice
ISBN 978-1-137-53945-8 ISBN 978-1-137-53946-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-53946-5
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016951093
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2 016
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic
adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or here-
after developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Cover illustration © Falkenstein/Bildagentur-online Historical
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Nature America Inc. New York
I
NTRODUCTION
Marsilio Ficino, the Florentine philosopher and priest, consciously crafted
a ‘Platonic revival’ in the fi fteenth century with the mission to bring about
change in the political, religious and intellectual life of his world. More
specifi cally, Ficino aimed to inspire and provide the programme for a new
Golden Age. He believed that his vision of Platonism, in combination
with a revisioning of Christianity, could achieve such an age. He was not
successful in his immediate mission, but in crafting a strong, focused new
voice for Platonism, his Platonic revival reached beyond him across the
centuries and across Europe. There were other Platonists at the time, and
there were other ‘voices’ in the story of Platonism, but it is Ficino’s revival
that dominates, sending his version of Platonism beyond the confi nes of
philosophy into new worlds, whether those of the court, the poet or the
scientist reaching out for the stars.
Yet, Ficino has been largely absent from wider public view, posing
some immediate problems here: many do not know who he was, why he
is important and if so important, why he is not better known. This book
focuses on answering the fi rst two questions by telling the story of the
Platonic revival, its substance and its impact. In Chaps. 1 and 2 , we will
examine Ficino’s crafting of the story of the Platonic revival, the context
within which this crafting took place and his mission for a golden age with
its basis in Platonic thought. In Chaps. 3 and 4 , we will explore Ficino’s
philosophy in more detail, going from the universe or macrocosm (a vision
of the marvellous), to our place within that vision. Chapter 5 will con-
clude the introduction to Ficino’s philosophy, with the mechanics of his
recipe for change: a recipe that instructs us to use the intimate, c ohesive
v
vi INTRODUCTION
relationship between universe and individual to change both. Whilst rec-
ognizing that this recipe was never fully implemented (the Golden Age
was indefi nitely deferred), in Chap. 6 we will review Ficino’s impact, in
particular in the sixteenth century as an immediate indication of the direc-
tions during which his infl uence spread.
This diversity and longevity of impact shows not only the strength
of the Platonic revival but also the strength of Ficino’s sense of mission,
for the revival persisted because the mission was so specifi c and pressing.
Ficino brought together many components, compressed them into the
service of a specifi c idea and sent them out as a ‘fusion philosophy’: a
philosophy that he himself lived. Once in the public arena, what was fused
together disconnected gradually over time, forming new components with
the ‘twist’ of his vision of Platonism now built in.
However, the third question remains: if Ficino is so important, then
why is he not better known? The question of ‘name recognition’ is a sig-
nifi cant barrier to even picking up this work, let alone reading from cover
to cover, so we should dispense with this barrier now. It would be easy
to plead that we are about to discover a new face, but that would not be
accurate: Ficino has for a long time been the target of formidable scholar-
ship. So, is this ‘special pleading’ for some minor fi gure (rebranding the
inconsequential)? Unsurprisingly, the argument here is that Ficino was
never a minor fi gure and should be much better known beyond a specifi c
circle of scholarship. But, indeed, this is a branding problem: there have
always been problems placing him within a familiar, acceptable and easily
understood context for the more general reader. To remove the barrier,
we shall therefore begin by looking at these problems more closely, allow-
ing at the same time an introduction to the debates around his name,
before trying once again to place him as a key thinker.
When we think of the Renaissance in Florence, we think of Botticelli
or Michelangelo in art, the great poets and humanists like Petrarch, archi-
tects like Brunelleschi or even the prophetic monk, Savonarola, spread-
ing news of an impending apocalypse in a Florence gripped by collective
guilt. Ficino is not such a familiar name: his monument in Florence’s
Cathedral is small and set in a wall; there is no fanfare or line of visitors.
We have devoted scholarly tomes to him, but there is little that attempts
to bring him to a wider reading audience than the specialist in fi fteenth
century thought. In the sea of talent and inventiveness of Renaissance
Florence, the name of Ficino has been almost lost from today’s popular
imagination.
INTRODUCTION vii
For as soon as we start to look more closely, Ficino moves away from
us: he is diffi cult to categorize, his interests marginalize him from the
mainstream of our modern world and his original contribution has been
hard to explain. These complications make telling a simple story very hard
and overly reductive. He refuses to fi t within our history of ideas (the
‘fault’ lies on both sides), and so is often left outside.
First, Ficino has a very specifi c vision of the world: one that he con-
sciously crafted for himself and for others; and one that he also lived. The
self-crafting makes him both part of a tradition yet also uniquely himself,
part and not a part of the categories we may recall from studying the
Renaissance or the history of philosophy. This is awkward because without
being able to defi ne who he was exactly, it is hard to discuss his context, his
importance to his time and his impact. For instance, was Ficino a philoso-
pher, a philosopher–theologian, a humanist, a translator or the leader of
some revival of a semi-mystical Platonic cult? Where does Ficino fi t within
the history of ideas? Even within his ‘period’, does Ficino’s work belong
to a Renaissance of classical texts that looks mainly backward, or does he
represent a Renaissance (a rebirth) that looks forward to the modern?
We can take the example of humanism: if Ficino can be categorized as
a humanist,1 he would belong with Erasmus, or with his colleague and
friend, Angelo Poliziano, a signifi cant fi gure in an obviously signifi cant
movement. Ficino certainly practices the recitation of poetry, medicine,
translation, dialectics, mysticism, magic, geometry and a number of other
pursuits that present him as a far more rounded individual than our normal
impression of a philosopher. His work also carries that sense of cultural cri-
sis inherent to humanism; indeed, this is the driving force of Ficino’s mis-
sion. 2 So, if humanism could be called a movement of multi-d isciplinarians
responding to a period of crisis, then Ficino is obviously a humanist.
However, not all agree that humanism is so multi-disciplinary in its
scope (rather than say being a movement of philologists).3 Furthermore,
as soon as we try to look at Ficino as a humanist, the centrality of his
Platonism disrupts the categorization. If we think of humanism as being
more about philology or the exploration of classical texts as b elles lettres ,
then certainly Ficino was an important translator, but his interest is in the
ideas he is translating rather than the style, for example; and if we review
Ficino’s eclectic interests, there is one thing in common: they are all from
within a conversation about Plato. Beyond his grounding in Christianity,
Plato is Ficino’s one subject of study. But he understood Plato to be
deeply eclectic, and part of a tradition (both before and after Plato’s life
viii INTRODUCTION
and times) that was just as eclectic. So, Ficino is primarily a Platonist. This
means that he is also primarily a philosopher.
Understanding Ficino as a philosopher brings a different set of ben-
efi ts; for instance, we can study him as part of a ‘fl ow’ of texts, rather than
within a specifi cally Renaissance movement, relating him to Neoplatonism,
Medieval philosophy and to those who came after. He would then be
important mainly as part of a sequence of Platonists, reintroducing Plato’s
work to Western Europe. We could compare and contrast with the history
of Aristotelianism, or map him in relation to Descartes or Kant. However,
if we think of Ficino as part of a history of philosophy, then we imme-
diately fi nd that he sits ‘in-between’: his philosophy is both premodern,
and postmedieval. How do we debate, or compare and contrast when he
relates to the medieval world, but is not a medieval philosopher in his
interests (meaning here, as will later be discussed, a scholastic or ‘pure’
Aristotelian); or when he looks forward to Enlightenment themes but is
clearly premodern. Meanwhile, ‘Renaissance philosophy’ as a category is
an obscure and poorly defi ned corner of the discipline caught between the
monoliths of Scholasticism and Enlightenment.
Unfortunately, if we did fi nd a suitable historical categorization to
allow Ficino’s work to shine fully, he is not part of our imaginary of phi-
losophy or even of Renaissance Florence, for he also belongs to a world
that uses magical ceremonies and arcane potions to lure down the infl u-
ence of the stars into our lives. This world is not so familiar to those who
read Machiavelli or study Brunelleschi. Indeed, it is very easy to forget that
fi fteenth-century Florence was a time and place when astrology, magical
ceremonies and daemons could be seriously studied (even though poten-
tially heretical) alongside the nature of being or of reason. If we think of
theologians debating the nature of angels, for example, it seems so very
theoretical today, an obscure conversation from people who spent too
much time in a library. We forget that such a conversation was a genuine
attempt to understand the world in which those theologians lived, a world
where angels really exist. Ficino reminds us, somewhat uncomfortably, that
philosophy, theology, ‘occultism’ and astrology could all exist together at
the same time and could be studied by serious thinkers who one might in
other respects think of as philosophers, just like Kant or Hegel.
Some scholars have embraced these tensions in Ficino’s work, partic-
ularly the marriage of mysticism, symbolic knowledge and philosophy,4
but inevitably this interest in the ‘esoteric’ makes Ficino very easy to
marginalize. Since the Enlightenment, we have tended to reject e soterica
INTRODUCTION ix
as irrational, and therefore not a part of philosophy.5 So Ficino is some-
times more likely to appear in ‘left fi eld’ publications and the shelves of
New Age stores, than a mainstream university bookstore.
Ficino is further marginalized for very practical reasons. Serious study
of his work requires skills and knowledge beyond many students or casual
readers. So we fi nd that he is too diffi cult to approach on the one hand,
or insuffi ciently ‘academic’ on the other, leaving him again in the border-
lands: marginalized from the undergraduate curriculum and the literary
review for his diffi culty; and marginalized from the mainstream of philoso-
phy by his use of e soterica . It is unsurprising that he is not a familiar part
of our mental landscape in philosophy or culture.
Our last problem is the question of Ficino’s original contribution. It is
hard to articulate this contribution clearly and simply. Instead, it has been
tempting to provide a series of apologias for him. I have already argued
that Ficino’s distinguishing mark is the cohesive vision of his Platonic
revival, combined with a particular sense of mission. But this cohesive
vision is the result of a fusion of components, which, when placed under
the microscope, might suggest that Ficino is not original, basing much of
his work on a number of different Neoplatonists, for example. The a po-
logia for this potential criticism would be to spend our time here picking
out the fragments of ideas that belong to others, in the hope that a kernel
will remain that is purely Ficino. Such an approach is inevitable to a certain
extent, especially if we want to show context, but if we are not careful, and
if we lose sight of the overall vision, Ficino’s work can end up looking like
a patchwork of borrowings.
The second a pologia would be to argue that his translation work, in
and of itself, makes Ficino a key fi gure in the history of ideas. After all,
he brought Plato’s complete works back to the West. This approach side-
lines his commentaries and his major works in favour of his translations.
Instead, we fi nd ourselves needing to defend the importance of the trans-
lator’s work in increasingly complex theories of how every act of transla-
tion is an act of interpretation.
Recognizing that Ficino is hard to place, marginalized and diffi cult to
write about in terms of specifi c original contribution, we can see why he
may have evaded our notice. Let us look again, whilst recognizing that
this work does not seek to replace any of those who have created the
body of scholarship upon which this book relies, but to present, as clearly
as possible, Ficino’s vision and its signifi cance to as wide an audience as
possible.
