Stuckrad: Alemanno had "intensive intellectual exchange" with Pico. W.Esotericism p 72
Stuckrad: Pico doesn't regard this KBL as Jewish--rather expropriates Jews w/reproach they hadn't understood true meaning of own teachings."
Craven has good rips on Pico misreaders "He is far from giving his own opinion" "no hint of theurgy" ... impatient historiography
Pico's "Dignity" only seems like radical new role for man in hindsight; in context it is clearly a standard medieval role (however enthused)
things to remember - Pico doesn't really need magic+KBL, only brings them up to celebrate philosophy and solve theology problems/not rad-ize
remember - stuff from end of De Ente which gives final summation of Pico's mystical program that shows consistent interest in imitate divine
quotes to remember - Yates on taking magic up to supercelestial, Heptaplus compared to 12th cent cosmotheology, Mebane etc. theurgy schools
theurgy might be better term used for Pico if disentangled from magic, seen in NP/PD terms as mystical theology/ascent practice via liturgy.
Pico's angelology is first+foremost a reaction to angelologies of Aquinas+Dionysius. Rest is just resources+tools Pico deploys to develop em
Allen says Angel has lost central role, philosophical explanatory value in Ficino. Why does it remain central for Pico? Magic isn't the key.
Pico sees philosophizing about angels as a natural part of his Christian project that gives him information about how to become angelic/div.
We see in Pico's Conclusions first experiments in translating Neoplatonic philosophical angelology into Christian terms, later refined in H.
juiciest problems of Pico's theurgy I don't even want to touch. but see Mebane, Stuckrad for interesting takes,Copenhaver for best th.interp
listening to all my old Pico tweets being read by the Kindle's rich robot tenor. hypnotic and galvanizing my muscle memory to write more key
Participation is now seen as a key to Aquinas' metaphysics (Wippel). Pico's grok of participation involved detailed study of NP use of term.
need to remember for first half: Paul, Library, Proclus on theurgy of number, Copenhaver on seriousness of Proclus' magic, Pallas angel knot
Pico's 900 Conclusions cannot be seen as giving us Pico's final systematic opinions, but it can help us understand angel phil. motivations.
It should be obvious from the fact that Pico circumscribes a limited place for magic, yet devotes much text to angelology, which is central.
Whatever Pico means by introducing Kabbalah,he describes it as primarily theology+angel metaphysics/secondarily as ground of magic operation
In suggesting philosophical motivations I don't mean to downplay influence of KBL angel, but Pico sees KBL as "exact metaphysics of angels."
Pico's angelology is Biblical and Christian angel read through Neoplatonism (as it was already in Dionysius/Aquinas)+Kabbalah--seen as NP...
Crofton Black suggests that Pico weaves 49 Gates of Kabbalah into Heptaplus structure -- is there a practice here as well as an hermeneutic?
Some assume Pico was trying to be provocative, I don't think he expected to be accused of heresy but least of all angel magic or bad theurgy
Whether or not Pico's original approaches to Neoplatonism, Dionysius, Plotinus, Thomism work, they're based on serious engagement.
Raymond Waddington's article on "Sun as Center" looks at structure of Heptaplus, which Pico organized by theme, but magically?
Copenhaver has suggested that Pico structures 900 Theses like Talisman, but other modes of signification, subtler magics are possible.
As in Pseudo-Dionysius, who structured his texts to follow celestial hierarchy procession as contemplative model, Pico's texts strux.matter.
In Commento Pico plays Renaissance game of exploring Christian mysteries using Greek mythological symbols -God/Uranus AngelMind/Saturn-Venus
Pico looks at his [serious] man/angel comparison problem from other direction when he considers why angels represented by men in Heptaplus.
Jill Kraye, in Dougherty p.35 Pico draws on the resources of Humanism to extol scholastic philosophy+theology"... "what schol. had to offer"
For Pico it is this angelic mediation that forms an important part of the story of harmonizing Plato with Aristotelian criticism vs. Forms.
Pico discusses Angelic mind as one simple being receiving and translating the forms into the level of being appropriate to human knowlegde.
Pico finds it more practical to talk angelology, levels of being, Angelic Mind in simple Plotinian terms rather than complex Proclan/Pd-ian.
Pico takes a "more philosophical" approach not to criticize or modify philosophical angelology of Dionysius/but to translate into Plat.terms
For our purposes, since we have undertaken to say what we think is the common ground between Plato+Aristotle, we shall ignore first opinion
But Pico is not like Eriugena or Eckhart in following Dionysius/Proclus all the way to "I am God" but follows Aquinas constraint "image of."
Pico seems to be going back past Aquinas into the murky depths of Augustinian+Dionysian theologies--more negative, more numerological/poetic
Interpretation of Pico's De Ente has not emphasized the "Aristotelian" interpretation of Dionysius by Thomas Aquinas. He follows but rePlat?
Thomas Aquinas was well aware that Proclus, Dionysius, and Book of Causes author were dealing w/ different approach to similar phil. themes.
a great Platonist once told me that he was amazed by a passage in which Plotinus says that God understands nothing and knows nothing. -Pico
Crofton Black argues in his conclusion that Pico's theory of scriptural interpretation in Heptaplus is anagogic in sense of Pseudo-Dionysius
Even if Pico follows Iamblichus on theurgy, since for Iamblichus main idea is mystical union, not conjuring spirits,P's theurgy is mysticism
The philosophical contribution to Renaissance angelology represented by the Proclan conclusions alone is impressive. Huge digesting project!
In his Proclan conclusions (100 of 900) Pico lays bare the metaphysics of the celestial hierarchy which can be found in Neoplatonism/amazing
Pico quietly brings a huge amount of Proclan angelology into the 900 Theses that doesn't cause much of a fuss. Important b/c showed PD~=NP
Pico seems to be more public about his admiration of Plotinus, but uses sparingly, finding more angel metaphysics in Proclus+Syrianus,Iambl.
Pico does not exhibit "theurgic skepticism" of Reuchlin+Agrippa, celebrates doesn't deconstruct philosophy
Iamblichus was wary of philosophy in De Mysteriis since it can't wield theurgic knowledge, Pico loves it b/c prepares for holy theology
Iamblichus wrote his defense of theurgy scoffing at Porphyry to think he could get there by mere contemplation. Pico celebrates mere contem.
When Pico exhorts reader to "become angelic" in celebration of philosophy, he means it, but angelizing is contemplation, not theurgy.
If we consider Dionysius' careful efforts to constrain theurgy, show how hierarchy not broken, not magic, works for Pico becoming angelic...
In his 900 Theses Pico has not laid out an "angelic regimen," Copenhaver may be exaggerating to say he does in Oration/it's rhetorical flair
Rather than look for a mystical angelology in 900 Theses we should look for what Pico is suggesting, what study resources he is highlighting
Can we reconcile Pico's angelology of Commento and Heptaplus with that of De Ente? Do we need to? Pico would consider his own work debatable
Pico is admitting that Commento is a philosophical speculation exercise, departing from the mode of Dionysius which will be his tool in Ente
Pico says that the Plotinian style approach to Angelic Mind he's favoring in Commento is "more philosophical" + closer to Plato/Aristotle...
stick to the most beautiful lines, not the nuts and bolts of egghead mysticism
De Ente + Disputations only one quote each on angels would be minimalist, plenty more to say on T's PD worth mentioning briefly, A/C Being.
Heptaplus I could discuss but better overlook many uses of PD, show T reading, focus on AngelicMind+Angel as Number, how "example"perf.works
Pico's work on Proclan mp/ontology that supports PD'ian angelology complicates purely "Plotinian" approach he outlines in Commento+Heptaplus
Pico seems to be following Aquinas who said "Dionysius everwhere follows Aristotle" when he uses PD to back up his Arist.argument in De Ente
Pico makes an Aristotelian argument vs. Iamblichus in De Ente. Sees Dionysius as a better Aristotelian, corrects the Platonism to a degree?
Gonna be cycling thru various stress reduction rituals+exercises tonight. Anyone got a favorite tip for 30 second break+recharge practices?
Commento Bit: Show how Pico sets up problem, quote tasty bits, refer to Michael Allen's masterful study "Bday of Venus," Angel Comp, AngMind
elsewhere D uses same manner of speaking Plotinus uses-God's not intell. or intelligent creature, but is ineffably exalted above all int+cog
Pico is not bold to disagree with Dionysius. He apologizes for taking this "more philosophical" view, but feels it is not contrary to faith.
-second opinion is more philosophical; closer to views of Aristotle+Plato,+is followed by all of the better Aristotelians+better Platonists.
The first opinion's closer to that of Dionysius the Areopagite+Christian theologians who believe in a more or less infinite number of angels
Pico della Mirandola, Commento: "About the second hypostasis, that is, the angelic or intellectual, there is disagreement among Platonists."
During the problem statement I will cite a few secondary sources but I don't want to get too bogged down in the argument, just list FY+EM ex
rather than get bogged down citing too many secondary sources when describing the angel I will cite Pico's texts almost predominantly
In Commento and Heptaplus Pico recalls Oration angel comparison saying _______ In Heptaplus Imitatio Christi ______ In De Ente imitate God _
In Commento Pico explains difficulty interpreting Philosophical Angelology, saying ______ this shows his angel project is part of concordia.
from this moment I'm avoiding old notes until it's time to just plug blanks into templates. need to start writing with blanks... ___________
Whatever we think of his KBL+NP theses,there's no obvious magical implication to be found in his scholastic angel theses.Shows phil.interest
Having done a survey of Pico's wntings on angels, I have discovered much difficult philosophy that needs work, very few magical implications
When I emphasize the philosophical reasons motivating Pico in his writings on Angels, I don't mean to downplay his angelic spirituality any
The term Theurgy helps us understand Pico in positive + negative ways. Shows legit religion he sees in anc.phil. also limits of Pico's magic
Pico's model of "becoming angelic," "rivalling the angels," + going beyond angelic level of being to unify w/divine, needs no "Magus."
Pico doesn't delve into the theurgic liturgical theory of Dionysius' EH. But he does delve into philosophical angelology tied up w/ theurgy.
Pico cites a debt to the Mystical Theology, Divine Names, Celestial Hierarchy of Dionysius but doesn't use[Theurgic]Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
Does Dionysian "becoming theurgic" help explain "becoming angelic" in Pico? Pico cites everything else in Dionysius-heavy on MT+DN,CH not EH
reruns
Pico's most original treatment of angels can be seen in Commento, where he does Plotinian Intelligible World as single, simple Angelic Mind.
Pico sees Proclan/PD angels as existing in a henadic manifold, but within Divine Mind--more "Aristotelian" via Aquinas as well as Plotinus
It is not clear if Pico himself even thought he knew what a licit magical operation would be like. Did he have a mystical"operative spirit"?
Pico's magical semiotics is an interesting subject but unfortunately he didn't write much explaining what he was doing with it.
Scholars have mistakenly assumed that "dignity" of Man in Oration makes him a Magus, but really Pico is doing standard T/Aug "divine image"
Pico knows from Christian revelation that it is possible for man to "become angelic" or become one with God. This is what he celebrates in O
Pico certainly doesn't rule out Dionysian theurgy, and since he approves of Iamblichean piety+metaphysics he's not anti-Iamblichean mystics.
Should we discern a progression here? In Oration Pico exhorts to emulating angels, Heptaplus to imitatio Christi, De Ente to imitate God...
Imitation of the divine is a consistent theme for Pico which he develops using Christian notions of emulating Angels (O), Jesus (H), God (B)
stick to the most beautiful lines, not the nuts and bolts of egghead mysticism
De Ente + Disputations only one quote each on angels would be minimalist, plenty more to say on T's PD worth mentioning briefly, A/C Being.
Heptaplus I could discuss but better overlook many uses of PD, show T reading, focus on AngelicMind+Angel as Number, how "example"perf.works
"all is in all" "god is not intellect" "participation" "angel as number" "stripping away perfections" all are prioritized over magic+Kabbala
...Interpretation, discovering information about the multiple worlds by discovering how they've been encoded into multiple layers of Genesis
In Heptaplus Pico applies the theoretical framework of different levels of being (a synthesis of Aquinas+Dionysius w/conf. from Kabbalah) to
Pico follows Dionysius who follows Proclus on "all is in all" -- for this to work need hierarchy of levels for each level to be expressed at
Pico in a Proclan conclusion emphasizes that though "all is in all each according to its own mode" hierarchy nevertheless preserved.
Pico never says that man jumps the hierarchy in order to infuse himself with the power of angelic being to work magic. He preserves it.
Aquinas in ST makes clear that talk of men being "lifted up into angel orders" (saints) doesn't mean state change, not becoming angel being.
Pico gives Enoch>Metatron as general ex. of human becoming angel. But he follows Aquinas who polices PD dangers/shows man doesn't BECOME ang
Like Dionysian theurgy for Pico magic+Kabbalah are metaphors that illuminate divine power+activity, angelic functionalities of contemplation
Can we learn something about Pico's handling of magic+KBL by looking at Dionysius' handling of Neoplatonic theurgy? Thomas' Dionysius mod?
Pico's Angelology remains unfinished but will be "Completed" only by his Christian Cabalists followers who read him as disobiently as he KBL
Pico's philosophical angelology did not lead him to magic, but it did become part of an angel magic in his Christian Cabalist followers.
Pico's Commento and Heptaplus make important philosophical contributions that must be understood as background to later CBL/Magical Theology
But while Copenhaver the UCLA Philosophy prof. may find Divinization boring+unattractive, Neoplatonists are still trying to understand Pico.
Pico's idea of freedom was the ability to choose what Copenhaver describes as the most unromantic life imaginable: boring old divinization.
It's a hilarious irony that Pico, author of "Rules for Spiritual Battle," gets confused with modern antinomian versions of anything goes fdm
interpretations that led to the negative impression of Pico have been debunked, but his angelology still not being studied, the view assumed
Pico uses Plotinus to reread PD+Late NP? Vice Versa? Plotinus post-Aquinas/Albert? Post-Averroes? In an case he's typical NP user+creative.
Pico uses Plotinus on magic and considers him among "better platonists." But Proclus+Syrianus is where we find angel encounter. A problem?
Michael Allen on Pico's Platonic Exegesis deals with his Angelology http://bit.ly/fG9DKF "to proceed Orphically" in P+F
Pico's work on Proclan mp/ontology that supports PD'ian angelology complicates purely "Plotinian" approach he outlines in Commento+Heptaplus
Pico seems to be following Aquinas who said "Dionysius everwhere follows Aristotle" when he uses PD to back up his Arist.argument in De Ente
Pico makes an Aristotelian argument vs. Iamblichus in De Ente. Sees Dionysius as a better Aristotelian, corrects the Platonism to a degree?
Commento Bit: Show how Pico sets up problem, quote tasty bits, refer to Michael Allen's masterful study "Bday of Venus," Angel Comp, AngMind
elsewhere D uses same manner of speaking Plotinus uses-God's not intell. or intelligent creature, but is ineffably exalted above all int+cog
Pico is not bold to disagree with Dionysius. He apologizes for taking this "more philosophical" view, but feels it is not contrary to faith.
-second opinion is more philosophical; closer to views of Aristotle+Plato,+is followed by all of the better Aristotelians+better Platonists.
The first opinion's closer to that of Dionysius the Areopagite+Christian theologians who believe in a more or less infinite number of angels
Pico della Mirandola, Commento: "About the second hypostasis, that is, the angelic or intellectual, there is disagreement among Platonists."
During the problem statement I will cite a few secondary sources but I don't want to get too bogged down in the argument, just list FY+EM ex
rather than get bogged down citing too many secondary sources when describing the angel I will cite Pico's texts almost predominantly
In Commento and Heptaplus Pico recalls Oration angel comparison saying _______ In Heptaplus Imitatio Christi ______ In De Ente imitate God _
In Commento Pico explains difficulty interpreting Philosophical Angelology, saying ______ this shows his angel project is part of concordia.
from this moment I'm avoiding old notes until it's time to just plug blanks into templates. need to start writing with blanks... ___________
Whatever we think of his KBL+NP theses,there's no obvious magical implication to be found in his scholastic angel theses.Shows phil.interest
Having done a survey of Pico's wntings on angels, I have discovered much difficult philosophy that needs work, very few magical implications
When I emphasize the philosophical reasons motivating Pico in his writings on Angels, I don't mean to downplay his angelic spirituality any
The term Theurgy helps us understand Pico in positive + negative ways. Shows legit religion he sees in anc.phil. also limits of Pico's magic
Pico's model of "becoming angelic," "rivalling the angels," + going beyond angelic level of being to unify w/divine, needs no "Magus."
Pico doesn't delve into the theurgic liturgical theory of Dionysius' EH. But he does delve into philosophical angelology tied up w/ theurgy.
Pico cites a debt to the Mystical Theology, Divine Names, Celestial Hierarchy of Dionysius but doesn't use[Theurgic]Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
Does Dionysian "becoming theurgic" help explain "becoming angelic" in Pico? Pico cites everything else in Dionysius-heavy on MT+DN,CH not EH
Pico's most original treatment of angels can be seen in Commento, where he does Plotinian Intelligible World as single, simple Angelic Mind.
Pico sees Proclan/PD angels as existing in a henadic manifold, but within Divine Mind--more "Aristotelian" via Aquinas as well as Plotinus
It is not clear if Pico himself even thought he knew what a licit magical operation would be like. Did he have a mystical"operative spirit"?
Pico's magical semiotics is an interesting subject but unfortunately he didn't write much explaining what he was doing with it.
Scholars have mistakenly assumed that "dignity" of Man in Oration makes him a Magus, but really Pico is doing standard T/Aug "divine image"
Pico knows from Christian revelation that it is possible for man to "become angelic" or become one with God. This is what he celebrates in O
From some accoutns it would seem Pico's angelology is heavily magical, but less than 1% of his writing on angels explicitly connex w/ magic.
Speculation about the theurgic potentials of Kabbalistic lore Pico converted into apologetic tools is interesting but sheds no light on Pico
I think an occultist interpretation of Pico would better serve its agenda by looking at what Pico said primarily, since it inspired so much. about
Craven shows that historians have demonstrated a remarkable tendency to twist Pico to their own ends. I don't mean to accuse of this, but...
Although I am not pursuing the notion very far, I have not exhausted topic, look forward to a Pico theurgic reading informed by recent schol
I think the quest for Pico's theurgy is a fool's errand. Better to just abandon historicity and do like Pico's Christian Cabalist followers!
Pico shouldn't be considered a theorist of theurgy because he never directly discusses it/But some brilliant discovery coded in implication?
It's ironic that Pico was accused of magic/heresy based on his commitments to Pseudo-Dionysius, since PD was anti-magical contact w/angels.
Pico like Dionysius doesn't understand gnosis or salvation as something that the philosopher magically takes into his own hands,but receives
Pico has interesting things to say on "operator" w/in limits of Dionysian (Christian) Mystical Theology, but passively "raised" by MT/angels
Pico doesn't bring in Pseudo-Dionysius' or Proclus+Iamblichus theurgy talk. But he does mystic ascent+poetic theology in unfamiliar style...
Pico never uses the term theurgy. If we are to use theurgy to describe Pico we need a good reason to distrust Pico's own terminology?
Pico wrote 3 small books after Oration+900 that are masterpieces of ontological theology and Dionysian angelology: Heptaplus, Commento, Ente
Pico's artistry is in the condensing and summarizing/synthesizing (though not really syncretizing) work he's doing in Conclusions+treatises.
I don't think Pico's reading of Plotinus should be considered less interesting than Ficino because we don't have enough text. Mystery's nice
Unlike Ficino Pico did not live long enough to fully articulate his reading of Plotinus. Michael Allen has argued he's unfair to Ficino but-
Pico's reading of Plotinus is unfortunately only available in small # of Conclusions, brief magic theory in Oration,Commento,Hep+BU shorts.
When Pico makes a "Plotinian" model of Angelic Mind in Commento he's not only articulating an original approach to angelology: Plotinus read
Pico is interested in the differences between Neoplatonists on matters philosophical, but doesn't seem interested in comparing theurgies.
Now that theurgy in Dionysius is so much better understood, perhaps we can understand presence of Dionysius angels in Pico's mystic ascent.
Application of the term theurgy to Pico has been confused a long time but only recently has the use of the term by Dionysius been understood
Pico consistently speaks of man as a passive recipient of angelic+divine illumination, even in Oratio his supposedly radically active model.
Pico's participation talk inclines me to think he follows Dionysius on theurgy: (if he's doing theurgy) man participates in what angels *do*
Pico picks up on usefulness of Aquinas' concept of participation, which he finds to solve the metaphysical problem disharmonizing Plato+Ar.
Aquinas' concept of participation is explained in his Boethius comm. as "taking part" it's a way of dealing with created space in hierarchy.
Pico sees the names of angels not as practical buttons to ritually push and summon angels, but as theoretical example of divine language/pow
Although his Kabbalah is still somewhat "Wild West" territory, my understanding is that Pico really did find a way to do angel w/o conjure.
I don't know if Pico sees Jewish Kabbalists as angel magicians in the suspect category, but I do believe what he says when he rules out bad.
Pico is interested in whatever magic demonstrates which he sees a possible regimen for study at a certain stage of philosophical preparation
Rather than seeing Pico's interest in mysticism of language as problematic b/c venturing into magical territory, I see Pico mining theology.
Wirszubski warned that mysticisms of prayer+language tend to shade/blur into magic. I'm not confident in critique of so-called magical ideas
Pico's Commento, Heptaplus, + De Ente develop difficult angel+theological metaphysics but don't expand on the obscure semiotic 900 insights.
Stuckrad's book on Knowledge in the Renaissance emphasizes that Pico was doing interesting things with Language. But he abandons this later.
Stuckrad "Pico participated in the ontologization of language in his reception and interpretation of kabbalah" Wirzubski myst.of lang./magic
von Stuckrad: kabbalah provides a means to link rational demonstration with a perfect knowledge of the divine.
Ein-Sof as God's transcendent nature enables Pico to study the revelatory form of the divine without intermingling with the divinity itself.
A reading of Pico's angelology needs to be grounded in the metaphysics of Dionysius+Aquinas which is foundation for Pico's KBL/NP exploring.
But these problems of interpretation need not involve wild speculation about angel magic when there are plenty of things Pico actually said!
Pico's Kabbalah and what he calls Natural Magic does raise useful problems for interpretation of what is original+influential in his writing
Pico's interest in Magic+Kabbalah is not problematic in the sense of infecting his piety or spirituality with unhealthy "magical" elements.
Pico does bring in these Kabbalistic angel danger ideas, but it would be a mistake to think this ruins his whole angelology w/o checking 1st
"Angels in the Early Modern World" author makes mistake of thinking Pico implies angel summoning -- Enoch/Metatron more an ex. of myst.union
aureliomadrid @t3dy ..head spinning from the heptaplus 'in the beginning', circleswithincircles, plato, moses' tabernacle, the perfection of jesus,
angels 3 minutes ago via web in reply to t3dy Retweeted by you
@aureliomadrid my head has been spinning for years as I try to boil the angel part down to 80 pages
Divine Attributes of Jesus http://gospelhall.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1743
Outline survey of Angel in Pico's major texts: http://angelologyofmirandoola.blogspot.com/2011/01/survey-of-angels-in-picos-main-texts.html
the life of the angels is not perfect. Unless vivifying ray of divine light constantly warmed it,it would all fall into nothingness -De Ente
Statements such as these can give a modern Platonist a good deal of trouble if he does not understand the principle behind them. -Pico,Comm.
updated tonight with excerpts from Pico's Angelology, Pico on Enoch/Metatron http://angelologyofmirandola.blogspot.com/
Oration of Pico della Mirandola in facing page Latin/English http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/pico/text/riva/eframe.html
This intricate constellation of possible references...hints at the complexity of Pico’s angelology http://bit.ly/ijH2On
[KBL] at one time transforms holy Enoch into an angel of divinity, whom they call Metatron...
reshapes other human beings into other spirits.
Farmer describes Pico's Enoch/Metatron as "syncretic fusion"
On the subject of identification of Enoch and Metatron, see M. Idel, "Enoch is Metatron."
"Pico interprets this process from a distinctly philosophical point of view" -snippet
"that Enoch was transformed into an angel was brought as an example of the possibility of unio mystica in Pico" -a google books snippet
The role of Cabbala and magic in Pico's thought was deeply problematic. http://bit.ly/h9X0rU Angels in the Early Modern World
Copenhaver on Pico's Metatron http://bit.ly/dT0dmL
Pico's esotericism does not conflict with his Christianity; theurgic interpretations have been mistaken when they seek a problematic magic.
Pico takes bulk of his understanding of angels from Dionysius+Aquinas, sometimes refers to NP+KBL for confirmation but did no bad angelizing
Pico has been criticized as "Angelizing" philosopher/cosmos ironically b/c his deep Dionysian commitments lead him to do this--he's not rad.
Dionysius raided Neoplatonic theurgy terminology in order to advance an angelized Christology...cosmic system of divine work saving mankind.
Pico's main point about magic is that it demonstrates truly miraculous power of Christ: it's theory for theology, not practical application.
Since Pico's magic is better understood as theoretical than practical, he's closer to Dionysius who used theurgy as metaphor for divine work
Many theurgic interpretations of Pico have been advanced that don't work b/c fail to take into account what Pico was doing w/ these threads.
Why is theurgy a problem for understanding Pico's angelology? Term theurgy applies differently to his influences Dionysius,Neoplatonists,KBL
Like Thomas Aquinas, Pico always has the words of Dionysius on his lips. The influence cannot be overstated, but it's been little studied.
Pico seems to have been influenced by Abulafia's version of Maimonides the Kabbalist (see Wirszubski) but his Moses is from Pseudo-Dionysius
When Pico applies esoteric hermeneutics to Genesis he finds angel metaphysics of Dionysius, as told by Aquinas. Encodes this kind of mystery
Pico invented ways of applying KBL techniques to the project of confirming Christian metaphysics/wasn't interested in what KBL means to Jews
Copenhaver has suggested a non-conjuring interpretation of Pico doing angel magic but yet not being guilty of theurgy (in Aug not PD sense)
Since Pico makes a strong statement that he is against conjuring of any kind, speculation on any "angel magic" should look elsewhere than c.
Speculation on Pico's angel magic is based on a small set of obscure texts in which Pico makes no clear statement recommending it. no hint?
Pico is doing the same sort of Christian esotericism as Pseudo-Dionysius. He explains his mysteries using the language of Thomistic ontology
Pico's strong identification w/ Christian orthodoxy makes him a problematic candidate for exemplar of magical/occultist Western Esotericism.
Rather than approach Pico's angelology based on assumptions about a "magical worldview" I want to look at how he deals with angels in texts
Vision of Pico as magus is based on inflated readings of limited selection of his texts/Seen in larger context his angel work much different
Pico doesn't present himself as an expert on magic, and while he hoped his theses would be debated he doesn't encode magical mysteries into.
Pico seems like a syncretist b/c he takes KBL+NP seriously but only does it to confirm metaphysics he feels supports Christian spirituality.
Pico is not a syncretist b/c doesn't want to incorporate anything that doesn't confirm what he already believes. Syncretism is open to Other
Pico didn't see himself as Magus but philosopher w/expertise in newly discovered ancient knowledge. His spirituality is deep philosophizing.
reading some theurgic interpretations one gets impression that only reason Pico delved into high Neoplatonic ontology was excuse for magic!
Pico makes connection between language, creation and magic, theorizes divine sound of magical voice, but doesn't suggest usurping divine pow
Because Ficino wrote finished "Platonic Theology" he receives more attention as a Renaissance interpreter of Proclus, but Pico knew him well
In order to understand Pico's influence on later Christian Cabala, need to grok philosophical angelology as well as the magical implications
Pico imitates the life of the angels because it is the ideal contemplative life. Angels are the highest ideal of philosophy, not magical icons
In Oration Pico uses notions of imitating, rivaling+surpassing angels not to infuse philosopher w/angelic being, but to celebrate philosophy
In one of his Proclus conclusions Pico mentions "all is in all" as a qualifier on the notion of the hierarchy holding.He doesn't jump levels
In Being and Unity Pico refers to angels again to contrast perfection of God, in explaining negative theology method of "stripping away"
In Heptaplus Pico goes into detail on angel metaphysics to make clear comparison between angels+God is to disadvantage of angelic perfection
In Commento Pico turns to what he sees as Plotinian mode for explaining Angelic Mind seen as single creature: first perfect+simple creation.
Angel plays an important role in Pico's Commento. Pico makes the Angelic a distinct level of Being, rather than calling it "intelligible" B.
For Pico Kabbalah is "metaphysics of angels" not angel magic. He rules out conjuring, but finds a high place for Kabbalah as PDian theology.
Pico's account of the functions of the angels is taken from Dionysius, his metaphysics from Thomas,but he is original in emphasis on imitate
Pseudo-Dionysius opened the door for Pico's "angelization" of the philosopher by discussing how Hierarch "becomes theurgic" and like angel.
Pico's Oration invents a new metaphor for the old Dionysian mystical model. Breaking through scholasticism he suggests spiritual angelology.
Pseudo-Dionysius didn't only use ontology of Proclus, but took language of theurgy + prayer from Proclus (and Iamblichus?)
Pico gives a huge amount of information about his angel regimen that has surprisingly not received much study by "angel magic" interpreters.
Copenhaver's essays on Pico correctly emphasize the natural philosophical, "scientific" nature of Pico's magic, but brings in term theurgy.
Pico rules out angel conjuring but it still seems like "angel magic" ideas of some kind may be relevant - power of divine speech/angel names
Seeing magic as natural philosophy or science, Pico resembles Albertus Magnus+Roger Bacon, he's original in how he applies magic to theology
"Western Esotericism" readings of Pico tend to overemphasize theurgic aspects that Pico did not intend to bequeath to later Christian Cabala
Iamblichus thesis 23.4 "two celestial modes... binah" Pico connects Neoplatonic modes and levels of being with Kabbalistic Sefirot? what for
Pico corrects Iamblichus and Proclus in the light of Dionysius, Aquinas, and other metaphysical developments of medieval philosophy
Pico's discussion of Iamblichus on Prime Matter is worth mentioning--demonstrates once again his metaphysical dialogue with Neoplatonism
Proclus thesis 24.21 - sympathy+reciprocal communion of supermundane gods -- likeness. Pico discovers in Neoplatonism what fits his Thomism.
Pico's Proclan Thesis 24.3 Application of Name of God at various levels--this is a metaphysical insight not some magical use of Divine Names
None of Pico's Proclus or Iamblichus material was considered suspect. If there is dangerous magic there, it must be well hidden. I see MP/NP
Pico's Proclus Thesis 24.55 discusses seeking knowledge+uplifting power from the intelligibles+intellectuals. Is this angel magic or prayer?
24.55 Just as a perfect understanding should be sought from intelligibles, so the power that leads upwards should be sought from intellectuals
In 24.55 Pico suggests seeking "the true expression of the divine from the angelic choirs" imitating angels means being expression of divine
When Pico talks divinization, imitating angels, becoming angelic/expression of divine, he doesn't mean in any way ruled out by Christianity.
In Oration Pico might be seen as implying some "angel magic" with notion of cultivating seed of angelic being, but this isn't highest option
3>63 "in the soul there exists in act an intellectual nature, through which it convenes with the angel" but Pico qualifies, emphasizes limit
..."there is nothing intrinsic in it through which it is able, without the appropriate image, to understand something distinct from itself."
Pico really thought that he had discovered a place for magic in theological discourse that was free from dangers of bad conjuring/theurgy.
Later Christian Cabalists seem to push Pico's magic into supernatural, way Yates mistakenly thought Pico did, but for Pico nature is nature.
Reuchlin and Agrippa are Christian Cabalists with more interest in practical use of Kabbalistic names, but they are inspired by Pico's model
Trithemius' "Magical Theology" seems much more a conjuring type, but also relies on advances Pico made establishing Theo-relevance of magic.
I started this project wanting to defend Pico's "magical theology." I still want to rehabilitate his concept of magic but don't see it as MT
Copenhaver argued Renaissance Magic scholarship should shift from hermetic to Neoplatonic. I say Pico NP study must shift to angel metaphysics
Pico's engagement with Neoplatonism on the magic question is well understood, hints of theurgy ruled out, his metaphysics less well known
I'm not exploring practical magical implications, or Neoplatonic metaphysical ramifications, of Pico's contribution, but hope my work helps-
Pico is not trying to radically remake Christian philosophy in the image of magic or Kabbalah. He erred only in taking KBL seriously as theo
Pico is only trying to provoke his reader to do Christian Philosophy. He only attacks targets that he thinks should be seen as fair game.
I don't think Pico meant to provoke in the way that is often understood--he wasn't trying to re-make theology or find some higher discipline
The only accused Cabalist conclusion of Pico's had to do w/a threat to boundary between magic+theology (Blum) I don't see Pico as defending.
in the state of current Pico interpretation we need to examine the case for Pico's theurgy, show why it doesn't work as basis for re-reading
I'm not attempting to rule out theurgic interpretations as possibilities I'm assuming we should instead approach Pico's angel as philosophy.
I'm especially interested to hear from those who lean toward a more occultist, magical or theurgic interpretation of Pico than I'm allowing.
My Pico thesis concludes further study of his encounter w/ Neoplatonism is needed.
Pico attempted to close doors to theurgy and angel conjuring but later Magical Theologians post-Trithemius, certainly Dee, re-opened them.
A "strong theurgy" approach to Pico's "magic+kabbalah" must deal w/problem of little to go on, but might work if Dionysian theurgy is model.
Pico's contribution to later Christian Cabalist angelology is not a complete system, maybe groundwork+suggestions how to build a future one
Pico claimed to be able to reconcile intra-scholastic differences in angelology with method of numbers. debate never happened, we don't know
Pico's use of angels in 900 Conclusions only sounds like heresy to censors when he attempts Dionysian comparison between man+angels,God+Int.
Since Pico does not say much about the "exact metaphysics of angelic forms" in Kabbalah we must look to the Dionysian angel of Pico's texts.
Pico's Christian Cabala should be interpreted as a genre of Dionysian Mystical Theology rather than a separate category of magic
Pico+Kabbalah in my thesis: Kabbalistic angel small part of angelology in 900, almost none in rest of Pico's texts, needs study as Dionysian
Kabbalah remains a problem for understanding Pico's angelology even if theurgy ruled out since defined "exact metaphysics of angelic forms."
I'm peculiarly troubled by notion that Renaissance Magic represents some knee-jerk idealist or anti-realist position. It's Aristotle-haunted
I don't think Frances Yates was correct in emphasis on "angelic magic" as a key to Pico, but she's right to see magic+mysticism as a problem
Frances Yates described Pico as "invoking angels" with Cabala, but he didn't see CBL as anything non-Christian.Was angel magic already here?
Pico's "Magic + Kabbalah" didn't provide a particular set of techniques or explanation of how to do any angel conjuring, but theorized magic
Pico's Angeology understood as a philosophical-theological project helps place it as influence on later Christian Cabalist Angel Magic
Pico recognized that Plotinus, Proclus+Iamblichus used angelology+participation metaphysics compatible with+useful for explaining Dionysius.
Pico's Neoplatonism is the Christian Platonism of Aquinas+Dionysius. They're source of his philosophical-theological committments, not PlJPr
In the Heptaplus + De Ente Pico is no longer using Thomas as an example, but follows his developments in explaining Dionysian metaphysics
Edelheit 309 Pico is using Thomas only as an example for determining the nature of theological opinion in itself,+ its relation to the faith
Edelheit 307 the Theses are just like musical notes without any performance instructions; the Apology contains the instructions
Edelheit 302[thruout Apology]Pico emphasizes that he merely wants to show that his opinion is not heretical but rather probable and possible
Edelheit 295 Pico certainly doesn't neglect all scholastic theological traditions, but he is also not just another scholastic theologian
Edelheit 295 Di Napoli is interested only in proving Pico’s good faith+doctrine, orthodoxy...not a heretic...neglects Pico’s inventiveness
Craven72 It should be noted that [Pico's]Apologia is an appeal to higher authority against the judgement of an ignorant and prejudiced court
Giovanni Pico against Popular Platonism http://bit.ly/hrqlv0 in Paul Richard Blum, Philosophy of Religion in the Renaissance
Pico's angelology is a philosophical-theological discipline, not a magical project or theurgical experience. He's doing Dionysian mysticism.
While I think Pico's Magic+Kabbalah are interesting problems that need further study, I'm arguing that Neoplatonism is his main focus+method
Pico called the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus "occult philosophy" not in order to introduce some occultism, but to compare it to Ps.-Dionysius.
Pico didn't "dabble" in theurgy, his worldview was already theurgic from Dionysius:his mystical ascent is standard Christian occult theology
Pico did make interesting--challenging!--rhetorical+philosophical contributions, perhaps even advances, but he doesn't leave Christian Truth
Pico's treatment of Kabbalah is a violent twisting of the texts+lore to make it fit his Christian philosophical scheme+religious program.
Craven and Moshe Idel have made powerful arguments that "Pico's Encounter With Kabbalah" does not import theurgy/magic, rather subsumes them
Brian Copenhaver's historiographical studies have exposed how Pico is fundamentally medieval yet anachronistically mistaken for proto-modern
Craven's historiographical study of Pico traces [problem] attempts by Renaissance historians to define Pico as either "unique" or "typical."
# baezfer @t3dy If there is such a thing as a "manifesto" of the Italian #Renaissance, Pico della #Mirandola's "Oration on the Dignity of Man" is it
@baezfer Pico's Oration was certainly not intended as a manifesto of the Renaissance,and gives a very medieval view celebrating Christianity
@baezfer Both of these approaches to Pico cause more problems than they solve. Better to look at what he actually said, which isn't radical.
@baezfer I'm doing my MA on Pico. The notion that he's a typical Renaissance Man is matched only by the notion that he's so strange+atypical
baezfer Giovanni Pico della #Mirandola was one of the strangest men of the #Renaissance–of any era in fact. 11:24 AM Dec 3rd via web Retweeted by you
Pico's Dignity of Man isn't as radical as advertised. explores biblical problem of angels compared to man, Christian Philosophy + Freedom.
@baezfer I don't think Pico della Mirandola is as strange as advertised. Strikes me as hardworking, pious Christian Neoplatonist philosopher
Pico similarly selected from a large amount of Proclus only the metaphysical, never the magical or polytheist material--55 conclusions plus
Pico knew a great deal of Iamblichus' material, but selected only a small number of metaphysical points, nothing on theurgy ritual defense.
occultist interpretations of Pico's magic have been too speculative, not grounded in understanding of influence of Albert+Bacon on concept.
future study of Pico's magic needs to better understand exactly what he is doing with Neoplatonic models, within his Christian constraints.
future study of Pico's angelology should be better informed by recent scholarship on Aquinas+Platonism-specifically Metaphysics of Dionysius
Pico understood that ontology decisions Aquinas made (which he follows)depend on understanding of differences Proclan vs.Dionysian Platonism
Pico was a subtle student of the differences between Platonisms,cleverly reading them against each other to produce Christian interpretation
Was there a "theological turn" in late Platonism? Pico's original approach in Commento is apply what he sees as Plotinian approach to angels
Pico saw Iamblichus, Proclus, Syrianus, as well as Kabbalah + other ancient eastern "theologies", as readable Dionysian mystical theology.
Pico looked to Iamblichus for metaphysics not magic practices, recognizing a Neoplatonic "divine" philosopher analogous to "angelic" Aquinas
Pico's Christian Cabala is a genre of Dionysian Mystical Theology but within the specific class of Aquinas-influenced Christian Platonism+MP
@tevet I asked about "Thomist Kabbalah" because Pico della Mirandola demonstrates acceptance of Aquinas' angelology-a constraint on his KBL?
Kabbalistic implications seem more mysterious with wider possibilities until we look at Pico's Kabbalistic studies,how he read+used Kabbalah
If Pico had intended to suggest or imply angel magic in his (non-condemned) kabbalist conclusions, shouldn't we expect more interest in it?
Pico didn't bother to defend himself in detail on magic because he didn't think he'd raised anything provocative but had been misunderstood.
Once we understand how Pico's angelology works, what he's doing encountering Neoplatonic+Kabbalist angel, we can investigate his angel magic
Occultist interpretation of Pico is still an interesting subject, and I don't mean to suggest that I've ruled out all hints or implications.
Study of Pico+Kabbalah is dark+difficult but much progress has been made+texts now available in English, mystery no longer "is it magical?"
Occultist interpretations of Pico have not taken into account the body of his writings on angelology which are nonmagical, heavy philosophy.
Pico's angelology is philosophically important, should be regarded as contribution to Christian Neoplatonic tradition, but neglected as if M
McGinn: Pico not only had more complex sense of Cabala, but was more ambitious in uses he put it to
I'm trying to figure out ways to talk about Pico's angelology that don't require taking one side or other of controversy
I'm not exploring practical magical implications, or Neoplatonic metaphysical ramifications, of Pico's contribution, but hope my work helps-
Pico is not trying to radically remake Christian philosophy in the image of magic or Kabbalah. He erred only in taking KBL seriously as theo
Pico is only trying to provoke his reader to do Christian Philosophy. He only attacks targets that he thinks should be seen as fair game.
I don't think Pico meant to provoke in the way that is often understood--he wasn't trying to re-make theology or find some higher discipline
The only accused Cabalist conclusion of Pico's had to do w/a threat to boundary between magic+theology (Blum) I don't see Pico as defending.
in the state of current Pico interpretation we need to examine the case for Pico's theurgy, show why it doesn't work as basis for re-reading
I'm not attempting to rule out theurgic interpretations as possibilities I'm assuming we should instead approach Pico's angel as philosophy.
I'm especially interested to hear from those who lean toward a more occultist, magical or theurgic interpretation of Pico than I'm allowing.
Even if we go with"Strong Theurgy"model,Pico doesn't think man is able to do theurgy without participating in works of Jesus+angels[per PD].
Pico is interested in magic for what it tells him, as a theoretical example, about the superior miracles of Christ, the true theurgist.
Pico is not interested in using "Magic+KBL" to have mystical experiences or "access divine being" but rather to solve theoretical problems.
Since Pico does not say much about the "exact metaphysics of angelic forms" in Kabbalah we must look to the Dionysian angel of Pico's texts.
Pico's Christian Cabala should be interpreted as a genre of Dionysian Mystical Theology rather than a separate category of magic
Pico+Kabbalah in my thesis: Kabbalistic angel small part of angelology in 900, almost none in rest of Pico's texts, needs study as Dionysian
Kabbalah remains a problem for understanding Pico's angelology even if theurgy ruled out since defined "exact metaphysics of angelic forms."
The influence of Dionysius on Pico's explanation of Kabbalah as "ineffable/angelic theology" has been emphasized by Wirszubski + Copenhaver.
Pico's Dionysian+Thomistic commitments have been overlooked as a problem for theurgic+occultist interpretations. What is Thomist Kabbalah?
I want to emphasize Pico's heavily Thomistic+Dionysian approach to angels, even in digging up NP metaphysics+ontology of celestial hierarchy
Did Pico leave the door open for Christian Cabalist arithmology, magical theology+conjuring? Maybe, but would he have approved? Probably not
Pico seems to have had in mind some correlation of the Kabbalistic Sefirot w/ Neoplatonic henadology, but never pursued. He does hermeneutic
Pico's expertise in translating Kabbalah into Christian terms is an important component of his originality that I don't mean to overlook.
When I speak of scholarly emphasis on Pico's violent subsumption of KBL into his xtian project, I don't mean to say he didn't know it well!
Some scholar spoke of Pico twisting ontology to ethical purposes, I say better to speak of metaphysics for religious inspiration+instruction
Pico applies his talents to an original solution to the problem of deification, not for magical purposes but provide theological inspiration
Pico's gnosticism is the gnosticism of Dionysius and Origen, filtered through the mitigation of Aquinas' further Aristotle-bent metaphysics.
The question of whether or not Pico is gnostic is not a new question based on some hermetic-kabbalist synthesis,but same as any Neoplatonism
metaphysics+ontology are important topics for Pico not because they support some magical angelization of man but to understand mystic union.
Pico like PD+Aquinas see man as only participating in the divine works of theurgy that are in the hands of Jesus via the Celestial Hierarchy
Perhaps Pseudo-Dionysian theurgy can help us understand Pico's Magic+Kabbalah in this way-like PD Pico sees magic/theurgy as divine activity
Whether or not there is a magical approach to angelic names in Kabbalah, Pico doesn't seem to import it. he theorizes magic of divine speech
Everywhere that Pico must twist Kabbalah to fit his Pseudo-Dionysian angelology he has no problem finding a clever way to do so.
Pico's angelology was influenced by Kabbalah, he includes lore on the Angel Metatron for example, but elsewhere alters # of angels to fit PD
Pico della Mirandola made some interesting discoveries comparing Kabbalah+Christian Theology but he did not import Kabbalist angel magic.
Reuchlin's anti-Aristotle position vs. logic-chopping in theology is grounded on pioneering radical mastery of humanist philology.
Giordano Bruno was a fierce critic of Aristotle, Aquinas+Geometry only because of his disobediently masterful expertise with these sciences.
With the help of the distinction made by Thomas Aquinas between being itself and participated being, Pico maintains ...
The problem of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: the early writings Stephen Alan Farmer - 1978 - 762 pages
Dougherty p.136 Having contended that human beings have no intrinsic determining principle, Pico declares that human beings are free...
Dulles: Pico affirms in the Heptaplus that man, as microcosm, contains the natures of all things really in himself.
Pico prese spunto proprio dagli Elementi di teologia per stendere ben 55 delle 900 tesi che avrebbe dovuto pubblicamente dibattere a Roma
...una generazione prima della disputa fra Pico e Ficino, non solo era penetrato nella dialettica platonica-Proclo negli ultimi quarant'anni
Pico applique une formule semblable aux rapports entre Platon et Aristote:ita ut si verba spectes,...Cf. J. Trouillard, L'Un et l'âme selon
Pico's engagement with Neoplatonism on the magic question is well understood, hints of theurgy ruled out, his metaphysics less well known
Copenhaver said Renaissance Magic scholarship should shift from hermetic to Neoplatonic. I say Pico NP study must shift to angel metaphysics
Pico similarly selected from a large amount of Proclus only the metaphysical, never the magical or polytheist material--55 conclusions plus
Pico knew a great deal of Iamblichus' material, but selected only a small number of metaphysical points, nothing on theurgy ritual defense.
occultist interpretations of Pico's magic have been too speculative, not grounded in understanding of influence of Albert+Bacon on concept.
future study of Pico's magic needs to better understand exactly what he is doing with Neoplatonic models, within his Christian constraints.
future study of Pico's angelology should be better informed by recent scholarship on Aquinas+Platonism-specifically Metaphysics of Dionysius
Pico understood that ontology decisions Aquinas made (which he follows)depend on understanding of differences Proclan vs.Dionysian Platonism
Pico was a subtle student of the differences between Platonisms,cleverly reading them against each other to produce Christian interpretation
Pico dismissed Parmenides, on which the Neoplatonic interpretation is mainly based,as an eristic exercise(rather than ontological exegesis)
Was there a "theological turn" in late Platonism? Pico's original approach in Commento is apply what he sees as Plotinian approach to angels
Pico saw Iamblichus, Proclus, Syrianus, as well as Kabbalah + other ancient eastern "theologies", as readable Dionysian mystical theology.
Pico looked to Iamblichus for metaphysics not magic practices, recognizing a Neoplatonic "divine" philosopher analogous to "angelic" Aquinas
Pico's Christian Cabala is a genre of Dionysian Mystical Theology but within the specific class of Aquinas-influenced Christian Platonism+MP
@tevet I asked about "Thomist Kabbalah" because Pico della Mirandola demonstrates acceptance of Aquinas' angelology-a constraint on his KBL?
Kabbalistic implications seem more mysterious with wider possibilities until we look at Pico's Kabbalistic studies,how he read+used Kabbalah
If Pico had intended to suggest or imply angel magic in his (non-condemned) kabbalist conclusions, shouldn't we expect more interest in it?
Pico didn't bother to defend himself in detail on magic because he didn't think he'd raised anything provocative but had been misunderstood.
Once we understand how Pico's angelology works, what he's doing encountering Neoplatonic+Kabbalist angel, we can investigate his angel magic
I hope that my thesis will still be useful to Pico readers who favor Occultist interpretation. Need is to get his angelology straight first.
Occultist interpretation of Pico is still an interesting subject, and I don't mean to suggest that I've ruled out all hints or implications.
Study of Pico+Kabbalah is dark+difficult but much progress has been made+texts now available in English, mystery no longer "is it magical?"
Occultist interpretations of Pico have not taken into account the body of his writings on angelology which are nonmagical, heavy philosophy.
Pico's angelology is philosophically important, should be regarded as contribution to Christian Neoplatonic tradition, but neglected as if
Pico attempted to bring this ProclanDionysian style back into theology but it seems from what I've observed that he keeps NP magic out of it
What is most interesting about Pico's angelology is not the possible implications or angel magic or hints of theurgy, but contribution to NP
When Pico read Proclus' Platonic Theology he was reading the Neoplatonic version of the Summa Theologiae, but in a style closer to Dionysius
Pico's angelology has more than a hint of the polemical. Pico exploits Neoplatonist Aristotelianism mapped by Aquinas to attack Ficino.
The differences between the angelologies of Ficino and Pico are important and illuminating for the study of Renaissance Magic. A rivalry...
Michael Allen argued that Pico was going to far to criticize Ficino as not understanding Plotinian "God is not Intellect" but he had a point
Unlike Ficino Pico is a harsh critic of magic, + emphasizes distance of man from angels, anagogy as work of Jesus rather than astral harvest
Michael Allen argued for Ficino's lack of interest in angel. Unlike Pico Ficino really is doing man-centered Renaissance Platonic Theology.
Proclus' magic is very important to study of Ficino's magic, but less important to study of Pico's magic. He went Proclus for Theology+angel
Perhaps Pico's magic goes beyond the theories of Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, + Thomas Aquinas, but his turn begins from those constraints.
Rather than a proto-modern radical human-centered angelizing heretic, I see Pico among last hardcore onto-theologists working on angelology.
Pico discovers so much of interest in Neoplatonic discussion of angelic orders(Proclus,Syrianus+Iamblichus)because it was foundation for PD.
Copenhaver emphasizes the mystical danger of Pico's encounter with the Kabbalistic angel, but it does not have impact of Neoplatonist.
Pico misses many opportunities to cite Proclus+Iamblichus on magic from texts he knew well. He was trying to develop a different concept. about
Pico didn't bring magic+kabbalah theses in order to establish himself as an expert in those disciplines, but as theology topics to dispute.
If Pico was really trying to imply theurgic/kabbalistic angel magical uses of the ideas he imported into 900, why not talk about them later?
Pico follows Iamblichus on the limits of philosophy, but doesn't defend the idea that we need theurgy, values Christian theology not theurgy
Pico doesn't think Philosophy can take you all the way, but relies on Dionysius' mystic solution+isn't trying to pioneer any radical magic. about
Iamblichus' distinction between theology+theurgy might be applied to looking at Pico's angelology. Pico's not doing theurgy but limits phil.
Is Pico's angelology theurgic and/or Kabbalistic? I don't think theurgy makes much of an impact on it. His angel problems are theological.
What I find most interesting about Pico's Encounter with Neoplatonic+Kabbalist Angelology is resonance with Dionysius+Aquinas Pico exploits.
Pico's Kabbalah has an element of danger that Yatesian conjuring interpretation doesn't take into account: bad mystical death in jaws of Az.
Copenhaver's articles have dealt with a number of problems understanding Pico's use of Angel myths/lore from Kabbalah--Enoch/Metatron+Azazel
Pico isn't alone among Renaissance magi in emphasizing danger of Kabbalistic angel (contra Yates' safety) or theurgic communication w/angels
When I say Pico didn't do angel magic+his contribution to angelology was philosophical, I'm not saying he didn't inspire later magicians...
In the "Prooemium" to book III Pico stresses that in matters of angelology he is closely following Dionysius. ... http://bit.ly/eN5dtS
Edgar Wind: The more fantastic parts of Origen's angelology Pico was prepared not to defend, but to excuse. http://bit.ly/hiCzVF
According to Pico, Dionysius+Aquinas both argue intelligence of angels is superior to that of humans because it comprehends with fewer forms
Then, let us return from them, as from images, by retracing, to the simplicity of heavenly minds. PD CH 328A -Pico means this descent+return
Does Pico's "becoming angelic" suggest a radical angelizing of the philosopher, or is it simply Dionysian mysticism, not taken literally...
Pico's metaphor of becoming angelic was not condemned. It's not a magical threat.
occultist interpretation inflates importance of problem of Pico's magic. Pico scholarship has moved on to consider his theology/cog.ascent
Pico della Mirandola's Encounter with Kabbalah is an exemplar case of misreading problems in esoteric transmission.
There is no magic to be found in Pico's Commento, Heptaplus, or De Ente, but we do find important further explanations of his angelology
Pico's planned Poetic Theology would have developed his Christianized theory of allegorical reading inspired by reading method of Proclus+PD
Pico wasn't only Renaissance philosopher to develop resonance of Proclus + Dionysius. Cusa's "On God as not-Other" has Pr+PD students dialog
Are theurgic readers of Pico's texts (Renaissance or contemporary) applying just as violent an hermeneutic as Pico applied to Kabbalah?
Pico was one of the most influential thinkers who wrote on "Magic+Kabbalah" but didn't practice magic himself-though he inspired in readers?
Pico's contributions to philosophy included discovery of Kabbalah, application of magic to theological problems, but there's much more to it
Pico della Mirandola made many interesting contributions to Renaissance philosophy, but his angelology was unique+never replicated same way.
@Prenna23 I'm touching on question only slightly. Mainstream interpretation of Pico is he was not a gnostic, but doing Dionysian mysticism
I'm with Craven vs. many Renaissance historians who misamplified Pico in that era, but Edgar Wind's comments on Pico's angel worth reading
In my chapter on Commento I won't do much more than refer to arguments of Wind + Michael Allen and quote best Pico Angelic Mind passages.
Angelology plays a role in each of Pico's major texts, so I will attempt to summarize these roles. In Commento+Heptaplus--reading angelology
In later texts Pico is no longer collecting sentences from ancient theologies but working on contemporary problems of ontological theology.
Pico came ready to debate all sorts of esoteric philosophers in order to rethink scholastic ideas that he thought could be improved,later...
If Pico is doing theurgy, given that he follows Aquinas' angelology+participation scheme we would expect man to be passive theurgy receiver.
Pico knows where man is located, although he rhetorically describes him as not fixed in Oration. Doesn't presume higher powers. But ascends.
Pico's "practical" is an experiential-contemplative approach to science not irrational "magical thinking" but also not some "active" theurgy
Pico gives us no more than a hint of practical angel magic to come. practical metaphysics is mystic contemplation for experience+inspiration
Copenhaver suggests (in "#/Shape") Pico meant 900 theses to be read as a structured talisman (72 KBL theses!)but new theory avoiding theurgy
If Pico has any theurgy it is only a hint. Perhaps some subtle magic of angels is part of his mysticism+magic of div.language. not Conjuring
Pico does not mine Iamblichus+Proclus for theurgy terminology as Pseudo-Dionysius did, although he's looking for metaphysics of PD in I+Pr.
Pico dug up enough material to present an original theory of Agent Intellect--which he never explained. But Metatron is AgInt, means someth.
Pico is looking for Christian theology. If he doesn't take xtian theurgy from Dionysius, why should we be looking for non-Christian theurgy?
If Pico is only looking for as much theurgy in KBL as he's looking to find, how much is he looking for? I think not much theurgy, lots theol
Pico's Commento doesn't deal with problems of magic, but is an essential source for information about his angelology. Is it thus a nonmagic?
Pico's Commento hasn't been considered much for angel magic question, but contains much unique material on Angelic Mind-of magical interest?
In his texts on angels, Pico demonstrates things he thinks he has discovered about the agreement of Kabbalah+Neoplatonism with Dionysius.
Whether or not Pico's theurgic, we need to understand his philosophical contribution to angelology before we speculate about magical angels.
Pico's Kabbalah isn't syncretism b/c he only finds what he was looking for. Although he recognizes interesting Neoplatonic resonances there.
Pico sees in Kabbalistic hermeneutics a set of tools for doing kind of poetic theology he's already doing, pythagorean number theory ready
For Pico any participation w/angels happens in context of Church, per Aquinas+PD. Kabbalah+Neoplatonism not sources of non-xtian ideas/tools
Observing what Pico does with angels in his texts, we can see that theorizing about them is all that is needed. Doesn't plan to encounter.
Pico's magical turn is to a slightly more theologically relevant natural philosophy, not a radical theurgic/conjuring magical practice.
Pico read a prodigious amount of non-Christian philosophy but always coming back to his Thomistic-Dionysian understanding, if with new tools
Pico was aware of Abulafia+may be dropping hints about Kabbalistic ecstatic practices, but seems to have dramatically missed the KBL point.
Pico was kept busy with the Christianized interpolations, number mysticism, hermeneutics+sefirotic theosophy fed him by his KBL translators.
In some sense Pico is a theurgist b/c Dionysian, but he doesn't touch theurgy theory, except to talk orders of angels+need for higher power.
Pico doesn't seem to think theurgy or sacramental theology of Dionysius is worth discussion. Not a problem to be debated, just accepted.
Theurgy gives a misleading impression of what Pico was looking for in Magic+Kabbalah. Theurgy doesn't have same religious meaning for him...
Copenhaver says Pico bases his angelic regimen on PD. But we must be careful thinking about what angel practice means here. PD-based so...
Pico takes his methods of imitating angels in Oration from Dionysius. Doesn't change much, Yates may be correct on Aquinas filling in roles
Pico doesn't discuss angel knowledge in order to interview them for it, but as an example+philosophical-theological inspiration to action...
Pico's angel spirituality involves knowing the lore+metaphysics of angels. He's less interested in technical knowledge, esp. not communicate
More interest in Kabbalah+magic correlations, theories of divine language, than angel magic--
Pico is not doing angel magic so he's not interested in Kabbalist angel magic.
He does twist Kabbalist angelology in one important thesis to fit Dionysian/Proclan order structure.
his use of Kabbalah is more opaque. ..
We don't have much correlation of Kabbalist angel with Christian angelology because he deals w/ angels in few of the Kabbalist conclusions.
Pico wouldn't be so interested in Neoplatonism if he wasn't explaining metaphysics of angel orders
Pico doesn't seem to have anticipated so much suspicion that he was dabbling in angel magic. Rules out possibility briefly, w/ distinctions.
Each of Pico's later texts refer back in some way to his project of angel comparison-he stops writing about magic but not this-its nonmagic?
Angelology in Commento is xtian Neoplatonic but in some ways departs from Dionysius w/ "Plotinian" Angelic Mind,refers back to Oratio become
Since there is so little magic to Pico's angel even in the 900 Theses, we must move past these problems of theurgy,KBL+magic to angelology
Pico's 900 Theses are full of interesting enigmas concerning Pico's angelology. A small handful of these concern Kabbalah+angels, few magic.
Rather than coming to 900 with assumption of theurgy + trying to prove, if we look in 900 trying to find theurgy from scratch not much there
In the Oration Pico says very little about what he's doing with Proclus+Iamblichus. We need to look at the texts to find better questions...
Pico calling Kabbalah a "theology" already distorts its, linking it to the "ineffable" and "angelic metaphysics" spins it further Dionysian.
Judaism does not have the same relationship to theology as Christianity does. Pico misinterprets Kabbalah as if it were Christian style theo
Although medieval Jewish philosophy and religious thought was influenced by same philosophers, calling it "theology" reveals Christian bias
I think Copenhaver exaggerates newness of Pico's allegory+anagogy. He's doing Dionysius+Thomas with a twist, original style, but nothing new
Pico didn't change his angelology based on what he found in Kabbalah, but he did change Kabbalah to fit his angelology.
For Pico philosophy, magic, angelology, and heady metaphysics/ontology is all at service of religious inspiration, but not some radical way
Pico isn't blind to the controversial possibilities of his bolder-sounding ideas. Indeed he attempts to explain why not problematic that way
Pico seems genuinely surprised some of his Conclusions misread as wrong/heretical, innocently and naively defends them in his Apology.
Pico gets himself in all kinds of trouble in 900 conclusions, but not because he imported magical practices. Rather contradicts, blurs lines
Pico was clearly not afraid to step on philosophical-theological toes, so no reason to assume he left out magical practices he liked.
Pico probably did not mean to imply most or all of the magical practices his interpreters have read into the 900 Conclusions. wasn't afraid?
Pico's Conclusions do demonstrate Pico's exploration of various issues, especially NP angel metaphysics, however he doesn't mix angels+magic
Theurgy misleads if it emphasizes aspects of angels that involve summoning or communicating with them. Pico is clear why he doesn't want to.
theurgy as ritual power doesn't work for Pico because he's not charging it up, mystic ascent is standard xtian via PD, no communication w/an
theurgy is great term for armchair theorizing on kabbalistic angel magic implications Pico might have left open,bad for explaining his ideas
Theurgy might help to explain Pico's interest in Neoplatonic ontology, but he has better philosophical-theological reasons for this interest
Theurgy might help to explain Pico's ritual ascent, but he's a Dionysian and Thomist not interested in alternative magical worldview
Theurgy as a term might offer to help explain the "practical" Pico but by practical he doesn't mean taking on theurgic ritual power
Theurgy might have a great deal to offer in cases of ritual power to do ascent,but I don't see this as Pico's main problem.He was scholastic
# theurgy as a special category between magic and religion is not what Iamblichus meant, not needed for PD+Pico
Pico has not received the attention he deserves as a philosopher of Angelic Being because of the mistaken reputation for magic+,yes, theurgy
magic is not a big interest from the point of view of Neoplatonic angel metaphysics Pico dabbled in. this is a problem for magic biased view
Craven says Heptaplus is not kabbalistic just allegorical, but Black argues Pico takes more jewish hermeneutic stance, shows influences
Craven vs. Frances Yates in Pico-Symbol of His Age: "No hint of theurgy" should be read into Pico, who's not gnostic pantheist or emanatist
Pico an interesting case study in occult psychology of motivation: exhortation to philosophy aims to inspire mystic/theurgic contemplations
Did Pico see theurgic/ecstatic uses of the sefirot in Abulafian or Zoharic mode? Did he see magical uses of Proclan hierarchy? Or just relig
Coughlin explains Dionysius on "becoming theurgic" which may be a good way to understand Pico's operative contemplation and transformation
Angel mention in Being -- gets more attention in Heptaplus. we have seen PD's theurgic angel, Pico not talking as much about illum. but MP
Idel argues that Christian users of the Kabbalah applied it toward speculation not theurgy or ecstasy
Dionysius uses the term "theurgy" 48 times.
PD+theurgy may help explain Pico's interest in magic+KBL but it also explains why Pico doesn't need magic+KBL for theology of Heptaplu+BU
Recent scholarship on theurgy has gone very far in explaining philosophical and religious content, debunking pejorative magical readings
theurgy of Kabbalists was once seen as a problematic magical/heretical/anti-philosophical and thus irrational/superstitious side of Judaism
Theurgy has been misread chiefly because metaphysics behind it have been disregarded. Pico should be rehabilitated like NP+KBList theurgists
I don't think we should apply theurgy to Pico without cautionary tour thru scholarly differences on NP+KBL-ist theurgy. so many options, mis
Theurgy is an important topic in the study of neoplatonism as well as kabbalah.Interest has increased recently,critical steps have been made
I worry that soon we'll need a theoretical movement against labeling things theurgy, just as the term gnosticism has be reconsidered
Pseudo-Dionysian as well as Iamblichean theology has contempt for the sort of magic scholars like Dodds+Dillon associate w/ "theurgy"
Idel seems to speak of "magic" as a distinguishable + acceptable religious modality present in KBL, rather than opposed to religion per se
If Pico understood the "theurgy" of PD, perhaps this led to him really recognizing something theologically essential in KBL+NP,etc. religion
Copenhaver underscores philosophical seriousness of Proclan magic theory to explain Pico's serious theological interest in magic+theurgy
Dodds thought Proclan hierarchical developments "unfortunate" + theurgy irrational magic, but since then "systematic considerations" emerged
Theurgy may help us understand the "operative" religious dynamics behind Pico's dry metaphysical texts as poetic theologizing
Apparently none of exciting discoveries made in spooky magic+theurgy are essential for Pico's high metaphysical theologizing. KBLreduced 2PD
Pico's reception of KBL deserves philosophical attention--encounter with strange theurgy +correlation with metaphysical science of theology.
study of PD advances our understanding of Pico's neoplatonism, which could use study sep. from magic, +probly deserves more phil. attention
Theurgy provides an excellent opportunity for discussing the themes of Dionysius that are relevant to Pico, particularly as KBL interpreter.
Angels are theurgic because they are the highest and most prolific players in CH, hierarchy does divine works of Christ, makes man theurgic.
Theurgy probably best term for finding solution to problem of Pico's magic but ironically understood as nonmagical Iamblichus to Dionysius
some scholars trace theurgy to sources of Plotinus' inner ritual important to understand antignostic context of his theoria mystery metaphor
Iamblichus according to Jan Assman really does report same Egyptian theological-theurgical wisdom that's also key to Christian mysteries.
Pico Reuchlin and Dee aren't interesting to me as bending philosophy to corrupt magical purposes but deep insightful readers of neoplatonism
P, R+D: theology/theurgy of # to new heights in renaissance+kblist modes innovating on xtianNPtradition, applied to religious needs/problems
important to emphasize that Pico applied myth+magic to renaissance religious practical devotional needs, to his mind sanitized as phil.theol
Any theurgy discovered by Pico should not be confused with something he doesn't base primarily on his own Dionysian pre-understanding.
Pico brings Thomas Aquinas' good attitude on philosophy, Aristotle to platonic theology of angel mind. this is more important than theurgy
Naomi Janowitz paper on Dionysius and Icons of Power on theurgy might be helpful place to look for theoretical models for Pico's magic if th
Copenhaver:Pico doesn't cite Iamblichus but his theurgy is like later NP. I think if this is true it is b/c Dionysius' theurgy's lateNPstyle
Iamblichus explicitly defined theurgy as a third religious modality alongside philosophy and theology, deserving its own kind of explanation
Dionysius' post-Proclan Neoplatonic Metaphysics have long been understood as an influence+terminological presence, but theurgy long misread.
does Pico's interest in alternative modes of signification from Kabbalah have some basis in semiotics of Dionysius? compatible?
Hard to tell if Pico leaves out parts of PD connection or just assuming they're understood already. not full CH as passing down illumination
To understand Dionysius' metaphor of becoming like angel we need to see what he thinks angels are. For Pico, Thomas on angel being/knowlegde
CH3 Pico uses metaphor of becoming like angels: we must understand what he thinks they are like. O+H do MP assuming kn. of Dionysius+Aquinas
I will focus on theurgy because it is the Dionysian theme that most impacts understanding of the function of angels who illuminate+theurgize
Dionysian themes in Pico I won't treat in detail: initiatory secrecy, hermeneutics, liturgical and symbol theory (may be influence on magic)
Iamblichean and Proclan "angels" do not play the same role in hierarchy of Dionysius--his henad-angels do theurgy for Christ--monotheistgods
Dionysian theurgy as "third option" for Pico theurgy if we can't decide between Iamblichean and Kabbalistic theurgy: his angel does, they no
Janowitz useful for semiotics of theurgic symbol as "icon of power," logic of "nonreferential" in PD, KBL+NP have mystic semiotics in common
PD+Theurgy: Wear Struck Burns Coughlin NP Theurgy: Dillon Shaw Majercik Sheppard Athanassiadi Janowitz van den Berg KBL: Idel Wolfson Brody
Pico's magic was victim to anti-naturaltheology stance of Church not anti-Dionysian theurgy views. He's not read correctly as shocking magus
Pico only needs magic as adjunct to natural philosophy and natural theology. Angelizing belongs to mysticism, based on MP/higher theology.
Yates thought Pico magic was "tapping" supercelestial powers, conjuring angels, but he builds off ways for T+PD already Tap/Conj no need4mag
Michael Allen has studied the Platonic Theology of Ficino, tracing Neoplatonic sources in many books, F's PD,reads Pico as still neoplatonic
In his many articles Copenhaver has made a case for philosophical seriousness of Renaissance magic by showing neoplatonic + scholastic roots
theurgy will be discussed as useful theme for approaching Pico in comparison to Neoplatonic, but I don't think it's an alt.religious mode 4P
Reading of Pico's magic and kabbalah as (NP or KBList) theurgy have been attempted, but none that approach from context of Dionysian theurgy
Pico emphasizes man's intellectual imperfection in BU carrying thread thru texts, for ex.uses Iamblichus in Heptaplus on need for divine aid
Pico argues based on relative simplicity and unity of angel: cognitions, firstness, hierarchy position, power, substance, vs. man's lim-imp.
Pico on Iamblichus in Being/One: duality of prime matter only due to imperfection of multiples solves Plotinian horror at matter's weirdness
Dionysius is seen by Pico as "glory of theology" so since Proclus close to PD, NP theology has serious philosophical appeal as well as force
If man is to become angel need to find out what it is about angels that we take on or emulate. CH2 will discuss Pico's MP angelology CH3 God
Pico doesn't use Iamblichus as a magical but rather as a theological authority citing him on difficult metaphysical points not theurgic ones
Pico not using Dionysius to respond to objections as in Thomas, but to show how Genesis, KBL or his own MP conforms to Christian truth
model of Thomas's angel treatises for Heptaplus should not be overlooked, as well as importation of content.
Heptaplus not just laying out cosmicMP but try at how to use allegory for living faith purposes. remaining exuberantly pious despite density
important to emphasize that Pico applied myth+magic to renaissance religious practical devotional needs, to his mind sanitized as phil.theol
P, R+D: theology/theurgy of # to new heights in renaissance+kblist modes innovating on xtianNPtradition, applied to religious needs/problems
Recent scholarship on Dionysius and Neoplatonic tradition/theurgy can illuminate philosophical reasons behind Pico's delving/dabbling in NP.
Rather than detail on late neoplatonic theurgy (Shaw, Sheppard) I will discuss recent studies on Dionysian theurgy (Burns, Coughlin, Struck)
Since Pico does not find any sorcery in Dionysian theurgy, if it is decided that Pico picks up magic, he doesn't get it from Dionysius
I'm looking at theurgy b/c Copenhaver and others recently used it to describe Pico, but also because activity of Dionysian angel is theurgic
If theurgy for Dionysius is imitating the angels and Pico wants to imitate the angels, seems like Pico is doing theurgy. (I was resisting)
Pico’s texts might be read as Dionysian style theurgic hymn/prayers rather than magical talismans
Pico shares with Aquinas Aristotelian reading of neoplatonic concepts like participation, angelic substance, emanation, diffusion of Good
Pico's grounding in Aquinas can help us understand how he does Aristotelian-Dionysian mysticism. Aquinas admits some theurgic PD elements?
Pico's understanding of theurgy is not as some magical modality different from theology. Cosmic sympathy, henosis, ascent, perfection, toGod
Pico recognizes what we'd call the "theurgic" aspect of kabbalah, something like what Idel and Wolfson characterize as theurgy, without term
Copenhaver emphasizes theurgy as explanatory term for Pico but does not go into theurgy of Dionysius. Pico may have known the greek term.
Pico is key to Christian Theurgy and Renaissance reading of greek+hebrew myths as theological-metaphysical allegory--last great Summa of it.
contemporary theurgy can appreciate Pico as theory of operative theurgic philosophizing, theologizing with numbers, weird cabalistangelmagic
Pico for contemporary theurgists: whatever Pico felt was safe magic, or scholars interpret as his correct mystic, we are free to use his CBL
I will not add to Pico’s magic or theurgy as rel.modes, but step back and examine Pico’s use of Dionysian metaphysics and theological style.
four stages of spiritual ascent correspond to four levels or functions of the soul
Pico was not satisfied with his own poetry, but wrote brilliant and beautiful poetic theology, managing to weave and synthesize MP+practical
I refer my readers needing further explanation to Copenhaver on Kabbalah, Allen on Platonism, Idel on Jewish sources, Black on hermeneutics.
Dionysian theurgy may help understand how Pico was neither disengenuous nor sorcerous: he saw in magic and kabbalah Dionysian mystical arts.
Dionysian sympathy builds on the Proclan henadic bridge between unity and multiplicity. This seems to be foundation of Pico's Number/Cabala.
Pico may or may not be doing theurgy but his angels do the same things that Pseudo-Dionysian angels do, and those activities are theurgic.
We might view the things that PD found "satisfying" about NP theurgy (per Dylan Burns) as keys to Pico's own Dionysian mysticism+angelology.
Craven: Pico was not pelagian, syncretist, universalist, pantheist, emanatist, kabbalist
see Craven's historiography of misreadings of Pico by influential historians such as Garin, Kristeller, Yates, Thorndike,
see Napoli for metaphysical theme of unity, Karine Safa for theme of trasnformation, Henri de Lubac for relevance to contemporary theology
Thanks to the researches of Idel, Wirszubski+Copenhaver, Busi+____ editions, Kabbalah of Pico much more accessible, J src's traced in detail
Craven says Heptaplus is not kabbalistic just allegorical, but Black argues Pico takes more jewish hermeneutic stance, shows influences
Craven vs. Frances Yates in Pico-Symbol of His Age: "No hint of theurgy" should be read into Pico, who's not gnostic pantheist or emanatist
Pico an interesting case study in occult psychology of motivation: exhortation to philosophy aims to inspire mystic/theurgic contemplations
Thomas Aquinas' handling of Pseudo-Dionysius is vital to understanding why Pico goes with "Aristotelian" side of Christian Platonism
Pico in making 2nd hypostasis Angelic Mind keeps angel central, tries to solve issue of angel being One (first being) yet have individuals
Allen emphasizes that angel is still important to Ficino as religious element but it has lost its systematic role
Ficino makes similar angel comparison to Pico but according to Allen angel loses philosophical explanatory value: soul+God take functions
I want to stress that Pico follows Aquinas who considered Dionysian theology a philosophical advance over Proclus
Pico seems to see Dionysian insight into theology as going beyond Anselm's description of God via the Ontological Argument
Dulles: Pico comes to agree with medieval scholastics on philosophical theology issues, either Thomas or Scotus or others
Kabbalistic Enoch becomes Metatron story -- does this change PD story or is Pico just interpreting it as PDian angelization?
Did Pico see theurgic/ecstatic uses of the sefirot in Abulafian or Zoharic mode? Did he see magical uses of Proclan hierarchy? Or just relig
On Being and the One 47-48 "But the life of the angels is not perfect." This is part of explanation of Dionysian mode of speaking in Ch.5
Coughlin explains Dionysius on "becoming theurgic" which may be a good way to understand Pico's operative contemplation and transformation
Angel mention in Being -- gets more attention in Heptaplus. we have seen PD's theurgic angel, Pico not talking as much about illum. but MP
Kibre, Pico's Library shows Pico's collection of scholastic metaphysics especially Aquinas, whom he checked out of Vatican library as well
Aquinas section - refer to explanations of Fran O'R, Hankey, Caputo, Boland, etc. on PD+T, ST, De Ver., Sp.Cr., Esse all mentioned.
NP theurgy subsection quote Copenhaver on Pico + Iamblichean theurgy, stuff on Proclus' theurgy+metaphysics. preview of 900 Proclus part.
Idel argues that Christian users of the Kabbalah applied it toward speculation not theurgy or ecstasy
Dionysius uses the term "theurgy" 48 times.
PD MT 1.1 "superessential light of the divine darkness"
Ch5 In thus purifying the Divine names of all the stains that come from the imperfection
...of the things signified by them, we have already moved two steps in the ascent to the cloud which God inhabits
These terms: being (ens), true, one, good, signify something concrete and as it were participated
...wherefore we say again of God that He is being (esse) itself, truth itself, goodness itself, unity itself
Ch5 PD: 'He is neither truth nor kingdom, nor unity, nor divinity,47 nor goodness, nor spirit, as we know it...
Ch5PDalso, though he talks like Plato, is nevertheless obliged to affirm with Ar that God is ignorant neither of Himself nor of other beings
Ch10 Pico applies this view of metaphysically-assured Goodness of God to practical ethical considerations: how to get mystically happy
In Ch9 of Being Pico follows Aquinas in explaining why unity is "first" in priority but nevertheless still convertible with being. (Fran:PD)
First He will be one, because He is conceived in Himself before He is conceived as cause.Then He will be good, true, and finally being (ens
ch9 God as cause will have first of all the attribute of good, then of true, and finally of being
Ch9 We conceive God, then, first of all as the perfect totality of act, the plenitude of being itself.
Before,when these parts were in the whole,they had no realunityinactuality;this they1stacquirewhentheysubsistbythemselves,apartfromthewhole
a whole is not its parts, but that unity which springs out of the sum of its parts, as Aristotle demonstrates in the 8th bk of Metaphysics.
There is first of all the natural being of things...To this natural being corresponds, for each individual thing, a natural goodness.
this being is good. For whatever is, insofar as it is, is good(this is an important principle of Thomas Aquinas, rooted in MP of Proclus+PD)
Give me any being; it is certain that it will be one.For to say 'not one' is to say 'nothing' according to Plato's expression in the Sophist
For Pico as in Aquinas beings after God only have being by participation (Ch8 of Being, Heptaplus...)
Chapter 8 of On Being and Unity is about modes of being, all below God: being unity, truth, goodness four highest attributes of but not=God
In chapter 7 of On Being + Unity Pico points to places in Aristotles (Metaphysics X) and Plato (Sophist) where unity can't transcend being
On Being and Unity Chapter 6 turns to Iamblichus to deal with a Platonist argument concerning Prime Matter: argument on duality works vs. NP
In the Apology Pico explained that one of the 13 accused theses was "in the mode of speaking of Dionysius" it's negative theology not heresy
On Being and Unity Chapter 5 dedicated to explaining Dionysius, how we can say God is and is not being/intellect etc. See defense in Apology
Pico's writings are incomplete: cut short by a heresy charge and then his early death. Already in his late writings much less magic.Still PD
Pico seems to have sided with Augustinian scholastics vs. Aquinas on certain issues involving angels from medieval philsophy
Augustine is the other important Christian Platonist influencing Pico (like PD one of 3 most cited in Aquinas) Pico sides with aug.scholasts
Dionysius' influence on Pico is well known, but while studies are done on scholastic, magical, +Kabbalist influences none exists on just PD
Pico's Heptaplus was considered suspicious by the Pope but not condemned as heretical (Kristeller review of 40s Being translation
for the Neoplatonic theory of forms see Syrianus' commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics 103-120 + Proclus' commentary on Parmenides ch.3-4
Pico talks about angel metaphysics and illuminationism, not angel magic, in the 900 Conclusions. Need to read magic into supercelestial talk
PD+theurgy may help explain Pico's interest in magic+KBL but it also explains why Pico doesn't need magic+KBL for theology of Heptaplu+BU
Pico was perhaps just as strongly influenced by Ficino's Plotinus as he was by Aquinas' Dionysius. But the Christian Aristotelianism won.
Ficino's PD has been explored by Michael Allen in several books + studies: "Absent Angel" on F's handling of PD, 5x Being, centrality of Man
Pico's version of NP hypostasis Mind breaks with Ficino following Thomas Aquinas' logic of perfection/act, but also betrays T on emanation?
Heptaplus should be seen as Pico's contribution to philosophical-theology of angels continuing project of O/Commento/Being illustrating Mind
Pico claims he wrote Heptaplus on PD angel, does little KBL, but NP allegory, reading Genesis like Proclus read Homer. But does original MP
Recent scholarship on theurgy has gone very far in explaining philosophical and religious content, debunking pejorative magical readings
theurgy of Neoplatonists was wrongly seen as superstitious rationalization of rituals/myths+desperate attempt to philosophize vs. Christians
theurgy of Kabbalists was once seen as a problematic magical/heretical/anti-philosophical and thus irrational/superstitious side of Judaism
Theurgy has been misread chiefly because metaphysics behind it have been disregarded. Pico should be rehabilitated like NP+KBList theurgists
Theurgy has been misread chiefly because metaphysics behind it have been disregarded. Pico should be rehabilited like NP+KBList theurgists.
I don't think we should apply theurgy to Pico without cautionary tour thru scholarly differences on NP+KBL-ist theurgy. so many options, mis
Theurgy is an important topic in the study of neoplatonism as well as kabbalah.Interest has increased recently,critical steps have been made
I worry that soon we'll need a theoretical movement against labeling things theurgy, just as the term gnosticism has be reconsidered
Pseudo-Dionysian as well as Iamblichean theology has contempt for the sort of magic scholars like Dodds+Dillon associate w/ "theurgy"
Idel seems to speak of "magic" as a distinguishable + acceptable religious modality present in KBL, rather than opposed to religion per se
If Pico understood the "theurgy" of PD, perhaps this led to him really recognizing something theologically essential in KBL+NP,etc. religion
"Syncretism" maybe not right way to describe Pico b/c he might not be encountering much in KBL+NP he was not already looking for after T+PD
Farmer's study of Pico (w/900) as a post-Proclan metaphysician+writer of sentences is a valuable start but problematic b/c "syncretism" trip
Pico emphasizes Neoplatonic principle of all in all as reason for allegory--rather than discussing hermeneutics I'll do MP of this principle
Copenhaver underscores philosophical seriousness of Proclan magic theory to explain Pico's serious theological interest in magic+theurgy
We now know the seriousness and importance of Proclus' philosophical contributions, which had profound influence on all three monotheisms
Dodds thought Proclan hierarchical developments "unfortunate" + theurgy irrational magic, but since then "systematic considerations" emerged
Contemporary scholarship has detailed how difficult aspects of Proclan metaphysics remain beyond formal system of ET. Need to read PT for it
Pico does not cite propositions of Proclus' Elements of Theology but instead writes his own propositions (like Rosan!) based on Platonic Th.
Pico's Proclan conclusions demonstrate an amazing ability to summarize and condense, specific purposes of theses to flesh out PD CH/angel MP
Aquinas' handling/correction of Dionysius must be understood as context for Pico's own interpretation of PD. Pico's Proclus may be the place
Since Kabbalah is defined by Pico as "supercelestial+ineffable" theology, we need to look into Pico's version of these Dionysian themes
Pico's "Dignity" of man develops in relation to angel and God as theorized by Dionysian neoplatonism--ineffable, supercelestial (alsoKBLdef)
Theurgy may help us understand the "operative" religious dynamics behind Pico's dry metaphysical texts as poetic theologizing
I don't think Pico is as violent or as abstract as Farmer claims--Christian religiosity is key to human dimension of his theology
Farmer: Rosan laboriously turns gods of Proclus' PT into philosophical abstractions ... Pico strips metaphorical meaning of myths-into same
I am just as reluctant to follow Farmer into certain territory on syncretism and neuroscience/phil.mind as some are to follow Proclus+Pico
Farmer gives strong view of Pico's philological violence, combined w/Sudduth on Christian committments not syncretism: pretty intense dude
might distinguish 3 PD's as influences on Pico--the Dionysian corpus direct, PD as explained by Aquinas' actpot, Ficino's PD--back to UoverB
Noncoercive magic more important to Pico as something to think about than do, opens doors to postrational philmystic behaviors + NP energies
Heptaplus+On Being/One examples kind of philosophizing that audience of Oration supposed to be doing--magic was metaphor for result,not todo
If Oration seen as most spun text toward practical devotional needs, magic best eye-catcher leading to philosophical contemplations.H+BU hvy
Apparently none of exciting discoveries made in spooky magic+theurgy are essential for Pico's high metaphysical theologizing. KBLreduced 2PD
Pico's reception of KBL deserves philosophical attention--encounter with strange theurgy +correlation with metaphysical science of theology.
study of PD advances our understanding of Pico's neoplatonism, which could use study sep. from magic, +probly deserves more phil. attention
Farmer says Pico uses "alien scholastic terminology" to render Proclus. Like T+PD "correction
Pico is at the same time remarkable for his "syncretism" in reading so many sources (if mostly Proclus,KBL,scholastics)+his Christian commit
Important first steps have been made in interpretation of Pico's KBList theses but no overview yet exists, theory not yet worked out for him
T+MP of PD in Heptaplus and On Being+the One easier to trace as influences of Pico than occultisms; should get a grip 1st b4 follow delving
Wolfson problematizes distinctions between Abulafia's ecstatic and zoharic KBL showing A's use of sefirot. Pico's dist. of 2 kinds of KBL...
Pico's Dionysian metaphysical solution comes from Aquinas' Summas and Being treatise, especially the ST bits on Naming God and Angelology.
Aquinas according to O'Rourke draws on Dionysius for most important metaphysics of hierarchy of being, perfection emanation of goodness.
Pico's use of Dionysius has been mentioned as support on angelology but not studied exhaustively as metaphysical influence, or style guide.
Pico's literary methods have not been extensively studied. Use of magic analyzed as religion/philosophy. Rhetoric as argumentation. not art?
Pico and originality -- need to take into account greek myths and renaissance mood, but specifically the proclan account of each in plat th.
Pico's On Being should not be mistaken for a metaphysical treatise as it moves beyond the Parmenidean squabble to angelic and mystic topics.
Pico's angelology does not depart far from Aquinas' treatises and Dionysius' texts but he does weird post-Ghent stuff and his own hypostasis
Pico's angelology might have developed into another great scholastic system like that of Aquinas, instead we have radical moves to ponder.
Pico's Heptaplus is explicitly about Dionysian angelology, thus it is no surprise to find so much neoplatonic metaphysics as Genesis decode
Pico applies Dionysian developments on the NP logic of affirmation/negation and [im]perfection, aided by a Thomistic substance/form framewrk
Theurgy provides an excellent opportunity for discussing the themes of Dionysius that are relevant to Pico, particularly as KBL interpreter.
insomniac one-liners on Pico
Pico's substance+knowledge of angel's story depends on Aquinas' correction of Dionysian angel MP. Nature of God radiating good beyond being.
Dionysian-Thomistic nature of angels deduced from nature of God's output
Aquinas as influence on Pico's Being/One well known but Dionysius' role in Aquinas' discovery to solution less studied. why Pico vs. Ficino.
Pico has the authority of Aquinas behind his reading of Dionysius, whose NP MP is behind the view of God supporting convertibility of BU
Angels are theurgic because they are the highest and most prolific players in CH, hierarchy does divine works of Christ, makes man theurgic.
Theurgy probably best term for finding solution to problem of Pico's magic but ironically understood as nonmagical Iamblichus to Dionysius
some scholars trace theurgy to sources of Plotinus' inner ritual important to understand antignostic context of his theoria mystery metaphor
Iamblichus according to Jan Assman really does report same Egyptian theological-theurgical wisdom that's also key to Christian mysteries.
Pico Reuchlin and Dee aren't interesting to me as bending philosophy to corrupt magical purposes but deep insightful readers of neoplatonism
P, R+D: theology/theurgy of # to new heights in renaissance+kblist modes innovating on xtianNPtradition, applied to religious needs/problems
important to emphasize that Pico applied myth+magic to renaissance religious practical devotional needs, to his mind sanitized as phil.theol
Heptaplus not just laying out cosmicMP but try at how to use allegory for living faith purposes. remaining exuberantly pious despite density
model of Thomas's angel treatises for Heptaplus should not be overlooked, as well as importation of content.
Pico not using Dionysius to respond to objections as in Thomas, but to show how Genesis, KBL or his own MP conforms to Christian truth
more one-liner notes
Any theurgy discovered by Pico should not be confused with something he doesn't base primarily on his own Dionysian pre-understanding.
Pico brings Thomas Aquinas' good attitude on philosophy, Aristotle to platonic theology of angel mind. this is more important than theurgy
Pico follows Dionysian and Iamblichean worries about philosophy+rational part so seeks higher cog.ascent, nevertheless philosophy ranks high
Plotinus on Intellect, intelligible world references, on Magic; Pico does not differentiate NP's so not really in late np theurgic camp
w/PD henadics Neoplatonic insights on Number still matter to Pico-see Plotinus on Number, Theology of Iamblichus, Proclus' comment on Euclid
Pico pays attention to nonstandard signification in barbarous names of Iamblichus, Dionysian divine name theory, and Kabbalist number+others
Naomi Janowitz paper on Dionysius and Icons of Power on theurgy might be helpful place to look for theoretical models for Pico's magic if th
Saffrey: Dionysius uses statue/word from Proclus, Plotinus also does statue metaphor, Pico and neoplatonic semiotics big topic for magic.
Plotinian contemplation(theoria) is understood by some scholars as internalized ritual based on hieratic practice as metaphor plus
Copenhaver:Pico doesn't cite Iamblichus but his theurgy is like later NP. I think if this is true it is b/c Dionysius' theurgy's lateNPstyle
Iamblichus explicitly defined theurgy as a third religious modality alongside philosophy and theology, deserving its own kind of explanation
Dionysius' post-Proclan Neoplatonic Metaphysics have long been understood as an influence+terminological presence, but theurgy long misread.
does Pico's interest in alternative modes of signification from Kabbalah have some basis in semiotics of Dionysius? compatible?
Hard to tell if Pico leaves out parts of PD connection or just assuming they're understood already. not full CH as passing down illumination
To understand Dionysius' metaphor of becoming like angel we need to see what he thinks angels are. For Pico, Thomas on angel being/knowlegde
CH3 Pico uses metaphor of becoming like angels: we must understand what he thinks they are like. O+H do MP assuming kn. of Dionysius+Aquinas
I will focus on theurgy because it is the Dionysian theme that most impacts understanding of the function of angels who illuminate+theurgize
Dionysian themes in Pico I won't treat in detail: initiatory secrecy, hermeneutics, liturgical and symbol theory (may be influence on magic)
Iamblichean and Proclan "angels" do not play the same role in hierarchy of Dionysius--his henad-angels do theurgy for Christ--monotheistgods
Dionysian theurgy as "third option" for Pico theurgy if we can't decide between Iamblichean and Kabbalistic theurgy: his angel does, they no
more Pico one-liners
If man is to become angel need to find out what it is about angels that we take on or emulate. CH2 will discuss Pico's MP angelology CH3 God
Dionysius is seen by Pico as "glory of theology" so since Proclus close to PD, NP theology has serious philosophical appeal as well as force
Pico on Iamblichus in Being/One: duality of prime matter only due to imperfection of multiples solves Plotinian horror at matter's weirdness
Pico argues based on relative simplicity and unity of angel: cognitions, firstness, hierarchy position, power, substance, vs. man's lim-imp.
Pico emphasizes man's intellectual imperfection in BU carrying thread thru texts, for ex.uses Iamblichus in Heptaplus on need for divine aid less than
a minute ago from web
Pico notes from this week
62 we who strive for the exemplar will finally be joined to it through goodness... when we are not these three, we absolutely are not
Being in Dignity61if we wish to be blessed,we must imitate the most blessed of all things, God, possessing in ourselves unity,truth+goodness
61 Mind...approaches happiness insofar as it raises itself more and burns for divine things, having put aside concern with earthly things.
57any being is good b/c whatever is,insofar as it is,is good 60God is the fullest being,individual unity,most solid truth,most blessed good
52 PD does not deny w/ Aristotle 53 window on PD be careful not to underestimate 54 Jamblichus on prime matter 55 one not more universal
47imperfection 48 God as free from imperfections not enough 49Augustine... advanced two steps 50 we place God most eminently above PDsawthis
Being 38 Aristotle says 41 being 2 modes 42 PD "I am Being" 45 PD "The One is called God bc he is all things in one." Ar per se/accidental T
13 mysteries "a vision of divine things by the light of theology 14 placed outside of ourselves like burning Seraphim 23 Platonists 31cabala
Dignity 10 if we want to be the companions of the angels moving up and down Jacob's ladder 11 theology peace not philosophy 12 nectardrunken
8 bond of first minds ruler over contemplative philosophy... we may not attain this ourselves PD/Paul: cherubim purged illuminated perfected
Dignity 3 a little lower than the angels 4 no form of thy very own5 seeds... he will be an angel 7 holy ambition 3angelkinds 8 rival bond of
Lehrich's book on Agrippa interesting study of magical signification in a christian cabalist follower of Pico, DOP same NP but more magic
Janowitz useful for semiotics of theurgic symbol as "icon of power," logic of "nonreferential" in PD, KBL+NP have mystic semiotics in common
PD+Theurgy: Wear Struck Burns Coughlin NP Theurgy: Dillon Shaw Majercik Sheppard Athanassiadi Janowitz van den Berg KBL: Idel Wolfson Brody
intro: MVD traces scholastic forms used by Pico:disputation style. we'll see Pico's scholasticism in CH3 on Aquinas' influence
Pico: New Essays doesn't deal much w/PD or KBL as philosophical source. Blau: "KBL most important" exaggerates but PD+KBL needs phil. study
MVD New essays demonstrates contemporary acceptance of Pico's philosophical seriousness, Christian commitments, rhetorical+hermeneutic skill
Pico's magic was victim to anti-naturaltheology stance of Church not anti-Dionysian theurgy views. He's not read correctly as shocking magus
Pico only needs magic as adjunct to natural philosophy and natural theology. Angelizing belongs to mysticism, based on MP/higher theology.
Yates thought Pico magic was "tapping" supercelestial powers, conjuring angels, but he builds off ways for T+PD already Tap/Conj no need4mag
Michael Allen has studied the Platonic Theology of Ficino, tracing Neoplatonic sources in many books, F's PD,reads Pico as still neoplatonic
In his many articles Copenhaver has made a case for philosophical seriousness of Renaissance magic by showing neoplatonic + scholastic roots
theurgy will be discussed as useful theme for approaching Pico in comparison to Neoplatonic, but I don't think it's an alt.religious mode 4P
Reading of Pico's magic and kabbalah as (NP or KBList) theurgy have been attempted, but none that approach from context of Dionysian theurgy
Pico emphasizes man's intellectual imperfection in BU carrying thread thru texts, for ex.uses Iamblichus in Heptaplus on need for divine aid
Pico argues based on relative simplicity and unity of angel: cognitions, firstness, hierarchy position, power, substance, vs. man's lim-imp.
Pico on Iamblichus in Being/One: duality of prime matter only due to imperfection of multiples solves Plotinian horror at matter's weirdness
Dionysius is seen by Pico as "glory of theology" so since Proclus close to PD, NP theology has serious philosophical appeal as well as force
If man is to become angel need to find out what it is about angels that we take on or emulate. CH2 will discuss Pico's MP angelology CH3 God
Pico doesn't use Iamblichus as a magical but rather as a theological authority citing him on difficult metaphysical points not theurgic ones
Pico not using Dionysius to respond to objections as in Thomas, but to show how Genesis, KBL or his own MP conforms to Christian truth
model of Thomas's angel treatises for Heptaplus should not be overlooked, as well as importation of content.
Heptaplus not just laying out cosmicMP but try at how to use allegory for living faith purposes. remaining exuberantly pious despite density
important to emphasize that Pico applied myth+magic to renaissance religious practical devotional needs, to his mind sanitized as phil.theol
P, R+D: theology/theurgy of # to new heights in renaissance+kblist modes innovating on xtianNPtradition, applied to religious needs/problems
Pico Reuchlin and Dee aren't interesting to me as bending philosophy to corrupt magical purposes but deep insightful readers of neoplatonism
Iamblichus according to Jan Assman really does report same Egyptian theological-theurgical wisdom that's also key to Christian mysteries.
some scholars trace theurgy to sources of Plotinus' inner ritual important to understand antignostic context of his theoria mystery metaphor
Theurgy probably best term for finding solution to problem of Pico's magic but ironically understood as nonmagical Iamblichus to Dionysius
Angels are theurgic because they are the highest and most prolific players in CH, hierarchy does divine works of Christ, makes man theurgic.
Pico has the authority of Aquinas behind his reading of Dionysius, whose NP MP is behind the view of God supporting convertibility of BU
Aquinas as influence on Pico's Being/One well known but Dionysius' role in Aquinas' discovery to solution less studied. why Pico vs. Ficino.
Dionysian-Thomistic nature of angels deduced from nature of God's output
Pico's substance+knowledge of angel's story depends on Aquinas' correction of Dionysian angel MP. Nature of God radiating good beyond being.
Any theurgy discovered by Pico should not be confused with something he doesn't base primarily on his own Dionysian pre-understanding.
Pico brings Thomas Aquinas' good attitude on philosophy, Aristotle to platonic theology of angel mind. this is more important than theurgy
Pico follows Dionysian and Iamblichean worries about philosophy+rational part so seeks higher cog.ascent, nevertheless philosophy ranks high
Plotinus on Intellect, intelligible world references, on Magic; Pico does not differentiate NP's so not really in late np theurgic camp
w/PD henadics Neoplatonic insights on Number still matter to Pico-see Plotinus on Number, Theology of Iamblichus, Proclus' comment on Euclid
Pico pays attention to nonstandard signification in barbarous names of Iamblichus, Dionysian divine name theory, and Kabbalist number+others
Naomi Janowitz paper on Dionysius and Icons of Power on theurgy might be helpful place to look for theoretical models for Pico's magic if th
Saffrey: Dionysius uses statue/word from Proclus, Plotinus also does statue metaphor, Pico and neoplatonic semiotics big topic for magic.
When Pico talks about forming an image in the soul he may be referencing Plotinus and Proclus on soul images, or Dionysius' symbolictheology
Plotinian contemplation(theoria) is understood by some scholars as internalized ritual based on hieratic practice as metaphor plus
Copenhaver:Pico doesn't cite Iamblichus but his theurgy is like later NP. I think if this is true it is b/c Dionysius' theurgy's lateNPstyle
Iamblichus explicitly defined theurgy as a third religious modality alongside philosophy and theology, deserving its own kind of explanation
Dionysius' post-Proclan Neoplatonic Metaphysics have long been understood as an influence+terminological presence, but theurgy long misread.
does Pico's interest in alternative modes of signification from Kabbalah have some basis in semiotics of Dionysius? compatible?
Hard to tell if Pico leaves out parts of PD connection or just assuming they're understood already. not full CH as passing down illumination
To understand Dionysius' metaphor of becoming like angel we need to see what he thinks angels are. For Pico, Thomas on angel being/knowlegde
CH3 Pico uses metaphor of becoming like angels: we must understand what he thinks they are like. O+H do MP assuming kn. of Dionysius+Aquinas
I will focus on theurgy because it is the Dionysian theme that most impacts understanding of the function of angels who illuminate+theurgize
Dionysian themes in Pico I won't treat in detail: initiatory secrecy, hermeneutics, liturgical and symbol theory (may be influence on magic)
Iamblichean and Proclan "angels" do not play the same role in hierarchy of Dionysius--his henad-angels do theurgy for Christ--monotheistgods
Dionysian theurgy as "third option" for Pico theurgy if we can't decide between Iamblichean and Kabbalistic theurgy: his angel does, they no
CH1 will explain angelification in Pico and Dionysius, using the Oration. Segue to Heptaplus still doing angelification but more angel MP
If in Dionysius there is no need, the problem for interpreting Pico as Dionysian is why did he feel the need to turn to magic and Kabbalah.
In Dionysius there is no need for angel magic as the theurgic activity of the angels works on all those who participate in Christian rites
Doing Chapter 3 on Aquinas and Pico's view of God should help to explain how theurgic angels work both in PD theurgy and Pico's.noneed?
Do we read Pico's angelizing as basically theurgic? If so do we find this theurgy to be "worse" than Dionysian angelizing? Is PicovsAquinas?
Pseudo Dionysius, Theurgy, and the Angelology of Pico della Mirandola: Dionysian theurgy+metaphysic as seen in Pico's angelizing philosophy.
Dionysian themes are present in many of the difficult areas in the interpretation of Pico's Cabala
I will investigate the application of the term theurgy to Pico by studying his angel in comparison with the theurgic angel of Dionysius.
Intro Theurgy SubChapter first do Copenhaver on Pico's theurgy then Idel on kabbalist theurgy, foundation for my own PD+theurgy researches
http://www.jesus-passion.com/angels.htm for summary of Summa Theologia stuff on angels. Totally far out man.
ST50. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ANGELS Creatures exist in a series of grades. They participate and represent the goodness of God in various ways.
Intro: Pico's career briefly: study places, contacts, texts, controversies. focus on three texts, lit. review on PD influence magic+theurgy.
ST58 mode of angelic knowing lays out human limitations of discursive reasoning vs. angelic knowing all at once--vs. Pico boundaries, hi-int
ST111 ACTION OF ANGELS ON MEN b/c sup. they can enlighten man. They can strengthen the understanding of human beings and make men aware...
In ST 108 Aquinas explains and defends logic of breaking angels into higher middle and lower ranks of hierarchy, but warns our knowledge imp
In ST 61 on "creation of the angels" Aquinas does not see angels as created first and separately, but with world. Existence by Participation
In ST108 Aquinas accepts Dionysian 3-level hierarchy, rules out becoming angels but discusses how by grace humans merit glory of angels
Pico is doing post-Thomistic Neoplatonism; example of Aquinas for philosophical seriousness of participation, angelic substance+divine ideas
Pico is the first major Aristotelian theurgist following Aquinas, his "Summa Angelogia" should be understood as doing radical Platonism w/in
It's long been known Pico follows "Aristotelian" Aquinas, recent scholarship emphasizes Dionysian contribution to Thomas' solution on Being.
Recent scholarship on Dionysius and Neoplatonic tradition/theurgy can illuminate philosophical reasons behind Pico's delving/dabbling in NP.
Rather than detail on late neoplatonic theurgy (Shaw, Sheppard) I will discuss recent studies on Dionysian theurgy (Burns, Coughlin, Struck)
Since Pico does not find any sorcery in Dionysian theurgy, if it is decided that Pico picks up magic, he doesn't get it from Dionysius
I'm looking at theurgy b/c Copenhaver and others recently used it to describe Pico, but also because activity of Dionysian angel is theurgic
If theurgy for Dionysius is imitating the angels and Pico wants to imitate the angels, seems like Pico is doing theurgy. (I was resisting)
Pico’s texts might be read as Dionysian style theurgic hymn/prayers rather than magical talismans
Pico shares with Aquinas Aristotelian reading of neoplatonic concepts like participation, angelic substance, emanation, diffusion of Good
Pico's grounding in Aquinas can help us understand how he does Aristotelian-Dionysian mysticism. Aquinas admits some theurgic PD elements?
Pico's understanding of theurgy is not as some magical modality different from theology. Cosmic sympathy, henosis, ascent, perfection, toGod
Pico recognizes what we'd call the "theurgic" aspect of kabbalah, something like what Idel and Wolfson characterize as theurgy, without term
Copenhaver emphasizes theurgy as explanatory term for Pico but does not go into theurgy of Dionysius. Pico may have known the greek term.
Pico is key to Christian Theurgy and Renaissance reading of greek+hebrew myths as theological-metaphysical allegory--last great Summa of it.
contemporary theurgy can appreciate Pico as theory of operative theurgic philosophizing, theologizing with numbers, weird cabalistangelmagic
Pico for contemporary theurgists: whatever Pico felt was safe magic, or scholars interpret as his correct mystic, we are free to use his CBL
I will not add to Pico’s magic or theurgy as rel.modes, but step back and examine Pico’s use of Dionysian metaphysics and theological style.
four stages of spiritual ascent correspond to four levels or functions of the soul
Pico was not satisfied with his own poetry, but wrote brilliant and beautiful poetic theology, managing to weave and synthesize MP+practical
I refer my readers needing further explanation to Copenhaver on Kabbalah, Allen on Platonism, Idel on Jewish sources, Black on hermeneutics.
Dionysian theurgy may help understand how Pico was neither disengenuous nor sorcerous: he saw in magic and kabbalah Dionysian mystical arts.
Dionysian sympathy builds on the Proclan henadic bridge between unity and multiplicity. This seems to be foundation of Pico's Number/Cabala.
Pico may or may not be doing theurgy but his angels do the same things that Pseudo-Dionysian angels do, and those activities are theurgic.
We might view the things that PD found "satisfying" about NP theurgy (per Dylan Burns) as keys to Pico's own Dionysian mysticism+angelology.
I'll still likely miss a great deal of the important stuff on Pico, but at least I can lay the groundwork for influence of Pseudo-Dionysius.
I can't cover all Pico influences but I can do a good job of contextualizing Pseudo-Dionysius who is demonstrably the most important one.but
At my age and level of understanding, given the limitations of an MA thesis, I can come nowhere close to covering all influences on Pico.but
Bradshaw traces prehistory of Aquinas' esse as the act of being in neoplatonists Porphyry+Iamblichus, via Christians like Boethius+PD
Bradshaw studies the "theology of Aristotle" from Plotinus and Iamblichus through PD to Aquinas from p.o.v. of Energeia vs Ousia(Being)
Heptaplus must be compared against the more rhetorically-polished Oration, but might be considered Pico's greatest most original TheologyTXT
Heptaplus is one of the heaviest, headiest Genesis commentaries with metaphysical allegory ever written by a serious Christian speculative P
Pico is doing neoplatonic themes by arguing for higher mind part to deal with Dionysian style simpler cognitions beyond images.
Theurgy provides an excellent opportunity for discussing the themes of Dionysius that are relevant to Pico, particularly as KBL interpreter.
Dionysius studies have seen great advances in understanding NP MP influence, and theurgy is best example of a topic radically changed.
Aquinas according to O'Rourke draws on Dionysius for most important metaphysics of hierarchy of being, perfection emanation of goodness
notes - Aquinas ST stuff on angels, Pico and Aquinas's Dionysius, which theurgy is Pico's?
Intro: Pico's career briefly: study places, contacts, texts, controversies. focus on three texts, lit. review on PD influence magic+theurgy.
ST50. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ANGELS Creatures exist in a series of grades. They participate and represent the goodness of God in various ways.
ST58 mode of angelic knowing lays out human limitations of discursive reasoning vs. angelic knowing all at once--vs. Pico boundaries, hi-int
ST111 ACTION OF ANGELS ON MEN b/c sup. they can enlighten man. They can strengthen the understanding of human beings and make men aware...
In ST 108 Aquinas explains and defends logic of breaking angels into higher middle and lower ranks of hierarchy, but warns our knowledge imp
In ST 61 on "creation of the angels" Aquinas does not see angels as created first and separately, but with world. Existence by Participation
In ST108 Aquinas accepts Dionysian 3-level hierarchy, rules out becoming angels but discusses how by grace humans merit glory of angels
Pico is doing post-Thomistic Neoplatonism; example of Aquinas for philosophical seriousness of participation, angelic substance+divine ideas
Pico is the first major Aristotelian theurgist following Aquinas, his "Summa Angelogia" should be understood as doing radical Platonism w/in
It's long been known Pico follows "Aristotelian" Aquinas, recent scholarship emphasizes Dionysian contribution to Thomas' solution on Being.
Recent scholarship on Dionysius and Neoplatonic tradition/theurgy can illuminate philosophical reasons behind Pico's delving/dabbling in NP.
Rather than detail on late neoplatonic theurgy (Shaw, Sheppard) I will discuss recent studies on Dionysian theurgy (Burns, Coughlin, Struck)
Since Pico does not find any sorcery in Dionysian theurgy, if it is decided that Pico picks up magic, he doesn't get it from Dionysius
I'm looking at theurgy b/c Copenhaver and others recently used it to describe Pico, but also because activity of Dionysian angel is theurgic
No comments:
Post a Comment