A Platonic Romance: The Roots of Rosicrucianism and Pansophy PT. II

 [For Part I in this series, please click here]

This is Part II of this series exploring the early roots and influences of Rosicrucianism and Pansophy. Part I uncovered a network of humanist-occultists spanning the late 15^th — to early 16^th—century Europe. This network laid the foundations for later Rosicrucian and Pansophic thought.

Here, in Part II, we turn to some hallmark teachings from Marsilio Ficino’s Florentine Platonic Academy and its progeny, as well as how these tie into the later Rosicrucian and Pansophic ideas. Main ideas here hinge upon notions of sympathy—as well as a union— between the divine and earthly realms; involving the roles of the divine and the natural world that becomes understood through Platonic and Hermetic metaphysics and cosmogonies.

In the Renaissance, a rough narrative of the view maintained was that the so-called  “perennial wisdom” of the ancient world had become introduced to the largely post-Aristotelian, scholastic environment of the Western middle ages through the recently rediscovered works of those such as Plato and Hermes Trismegistus. At this time, many attempted to challenge—and in some cases even attempted to reconcile—the higher-realm cosmogony of Platonism with the more natural, empirically-based philosophy of Aristotelianism. This frame will create the setting for the works of later occultists such as Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, whose Three Book on Occultism, for example, outlines an exploration of the terrestrial, celestial, and supercelestial worlds through divine and natural magic. This view is also a precursor to ideas held by Paracelsus, whose  “Librum Naturae” is heralded in the Fama Fraternitatis for prescribing “a perfect Method of all Arts” covering both the divine and natural worlds.

Here, we’ll look to concepts involving the union of these divine and natural worlds via the Platonic teaching of divine love (Eros)—leading to a discussion of harmony, divine ascent, and a union of opposites that can be seen later in works such as even the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz.

The Torch is Passed from the Florentine Platonic “Academy”

At the end of the 15^th century, Marsilio Ficino’s circle—informally referred to as the “Florentine Platonic Academy”— begins to fall apart.  Ficino’s largest patron, Lorenzo de Medici dies in 1492, followed two of the Academy’s most prominent members; Angelo Poliziano, the poet and philosopher (poisoned in 1494) and the well-known cabalist, philosopher, and mage Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (also suspected of poisoning in 1494). In 1499, at the age of 65, Ficino himself passes away, leaving the question of who will carry the torch of his Academy.

One of Ficino’s close students, Francesco Cattani da Diacceto, was the inheritor of Ficino’s Academy. Himself a lover of Plato, Cattani, the philosopher and teacher born in Florence (1475) was once referred to by Ficino as his “dilectissimus complatonicus” (“dear Platonist”).[1]  After Lorenzo de Medici had died, the group ceased meeting at his Villa Medici and relocated to the gardens of the Orti Oricellari in the villa of Bernardo Rucellai, lead by Cattani. Rucellai, another Florentine noble, was married to Lorenzo de’ Medici’s elder sister (Nannina de’ Medici) while his son (Giovanni di Bernardo Rucellai) was a former student of Ficino’s. When Ficino passed away, Cattani became Giovanni’s teacher. Under Cattani, accounts of the informal Florentine Platonic Academy continue until 1522, which coincides with the year of Cattani’s death. After this date, many historians declare the Academy dead.

In Venice however, there was another group with connections to Ficino’s Academy that was formed. Dubbed the “New Academy”, this group included a circle of scholars surrounding Aldus Manutius’ Aldine Press (aka The Aldine Republic of Letters) who promoted studies in Greek and Hebrew and published rare books.[2]  Among others who worked with Aldine Press was the Spanish Cabalist Matthaeus Adrianus, who translating Hebrew texts. Greek scholars like John Gregoropoulos and Demetrius Ducas also translated for the publishing house. The group had prominent influence in other cities as well, such as Padua. In Padua, the English scholar Thomas Linacre went there to study Greek, with the Germans Conrad Celtis and Willibald Pirckheimer there as well. Linacre brought his Greek knowledge back to England, while Celtis and Pirckheimer, held plans to open their own “Platonic Academy” in Germany.[3]

Manutius’ Venetian New Academy and Ficino’s Florentine Platonic Academy held several connections with each other, the first being through Pico della Mirandola. Pico and Manutius were close friends and fellow students, studying together in Pico’s hometown of Mirandola as early as 1582. Pico’s family was even one of two families who helped finance Manutius’ publishing house in Venice at its inception.[4]  Angelo Poliziano, who was a member of Ficino’s circle too, was also friends with Manutius. During the 1490s, they wrote and paid several visits to each other, leading to Aldine’s publication of  Polizano’s Opera in 1498. Not only that, but Manutius and Ficino also exchanged letters. Aldine published Ficino’s work as well, including some of his tracts on Iamblichus.

A connection between Ficino’s Academy and Germany exists through the German Cabbalist Johannes Reuchlin. Reuchlin paid several trips to Italy, and on different occasions meeting with Pico in Florence.  Through their meetings, Reuchlin received inspiration and ideas from Pico that would influence his own Cabbalistic work. Yet Reuchlin also continued studying his knowledge of Greek while in Italy, working under Demetrios Chalkondyles during his first visit to the Florentine circle, recommended there by his friend and teacher Hermolaus Barbarus.

Reuchlin was also acquainted with Manutius, and made stops in Venice during his journeys. From Aldine Press, Reuchlin bought several books for his personal library. Returning home,  Reuchlin and Manutius wrote letters discussing plans to have a branch of Aldine Press and its Academy in Germany.  The Academy was to be patronized by Emperor Maximilan I.[5]

Another curious connection to Ficino’s Academy—and one that also connects the Florentine group with the Venitian group—comes in the form of a monastic order, the Camaldolese (Ordo Camaldulensium). The Camaldolse order was established by the Italian St. Romuald in the early 12^th century. The is a pre-Great Schism order (prior to the severing of the Eastern and Western in 1054) known to hold observances and practices tied to the “Egyptian Desert Fathers”. These early traditions are of a Christian-Platonic nature and descend from the teachings of John Cassian, John Climacus, and Psuedo Dionysius the Areopagite. More specifically, the order is said to observe practices connected to spiritual ascent through divine or celestial love.[6] Ficino was closely familiar with members of this order through the Santa Maria degli Angeli monastery in Florence, where he often lectured on his Platonic theories. Cattani continued this relationship established by his mentor, while Manutius’ New Academy in Venice also held ties with the order through the San Michele monastery of Murano.

The Amorous Union of Ficino

Looking at an overview of Ficino and Pico’s personal work, one gets a complete view of occultism and mysticism in the form of Cabala, Hermeticism, Orphism, Platonism, vital physics, and astral magic. One teaching though that ties all the subjects here together, however, involves concepts of divine union between the terrestrial and the supercelestial (divine) worlds through love (Eros). We’ll approach Ficino’s understanding of this, based on Plato, by looking at the work of his student, Cattani. Cattani’s most known works follow Ficino’s commentaries on Plato’s Symposium as well as Ficino’s De Amore. In the earlier part of his career, Cattani wrote the works De pulchro (About the Beautiful) [1496-1499], Panegyricus in amorem (Eulogy to love) [c. 1508] and his own version of De amore (About love) [1508].  Cattani, for reflecting Ficino’s work, is thus a prime source of information on the subject, even though most of his work was published posthumously between 1526 and 1561.

The clear thread in Cattani’s work, following his mentor, was his understanding of amore and Plato’s position about the ascent of the soul to the divine through beauty. In Cattani’s cosmology, like Ficino (with Ficino following Plato), two aspects of the goddess of love are discussed; one that is vulgar (ie common) and one that is divine. Ficino refers to these as the “twin Venuses”: Venus Coelestis and Venus Vulgaris (Naturalis). To Plato, these were Aphrodite Urania (Divine Aphrodite) and Aphrodite Pandemos (common Aphrodite of the people). 

In Cattani’s own words:

Since beauty can be found in the Intelligible World, in Soul and in Body, we will call the beauty which belongs properly to the Intelligible World and to Soul the Divine and Heavenly Venus. It is the only beauty that is perceived by the eye of the mind, which is surely something divine. The beauty that belongs to Body, on the other hand, we will call the Vulgar Venus, since it presents itself to the bodily eye. Thus, if every kind of beauty has a kind of love that corresponds to it, and if we say that love is nothing other than an overpowering desire for beauty, it is clear that the desire for divine beauty corresponds to Divine and Heavenly Love and that the desire for bodily beauty corresponds to Vulgar and Common Love. [7]

Cattani’s understanding, based on Ficino’s, originates with Plato’s Symposium where Socrates speaks about the true goal of love being the transfer of oneself from the physical (represented by Aphrodite Pandemos, the common Aphrodite born of Zeus and Dione) to the divine (represented by Aphrodite Urania, the heavenly, immaculately born Aphrodite from the genitals of Uranus thrown into the sea).[8] Following this, Ficino was also familiar with Proclus’ hymns, where Aphrodite Pandemos is treated as a demiurgic force binding all in the cosmos, while Aphrodite Urania  “separates the soul from the world of becoming and leads it up to the noetic beauty”. Pandemos and Urania are thus hypostases of Aphrodite.[9]. Also familiar to Ficino was Psuedo Dionyius the Areopagite’s theocentric, ecstatic portrayal of eros (in Greek traditions Eros holds a particular position as god of love), which he describes as a divine force of God (Ps. Dionysius is a Christian-Platonist) binding all beings and elements in the cosmos through harmony.

Regarding Eros and Aphrodite, according to Jeffrey Kupperman in his Living Theurgy, “The divine Eros is ecstatic in nature, causing the lover to no longer belong to him or herself but to the object of their love. This ecstatic love both ascends and descends and, like Aphrodite, is a harmonizing force in the cosmos”.[10]

This relationship between Aphrodite and Eros becomes more clear in ancient accounts which describe Eros as the son of Aphrodite. Others, like Hesiod, portray Eros as the primordial force of harmony following in the cosmogony after Chaos, Gaia, Nyx, and Tartarus. For Ficino, since the divine and physical worlds both present states of beauty (Venus), and beauty is what elevates the soul to the heavens, it is Eros (love) that is the force through which one moves from the lower realm to the divine. The relationship of love to the object of beauty when properly expressed, according to Ficino, serves an upward or ascending orientation of the soul, ontologically speaking. This is because, as he explains, the goal for all created beings is to (re)unite with their source in the higher and divine.

According to Katherine Crawford in Marsilio Ficino, Neoplatonism, and the Problem of Sex: “Ficino explicates his central notion that love is defined as seeking the divine. Ficino interprets Plato as saying that God, who is unity, extends hierarchically to the multiplicity of physical existence. Within the hierarchy, lesser forms always desire to return to God as the source of existence, and this desire is called love. The mechanism through which souls seek God is beauty….” [11]

It becomes necessary to remember, however, that since the physical form is often held by the “bodily eye” instead of the “eye of the mind”,  it is possible for the soul to love improperly and become fixated on objects which resemble beauty, rather than divine beauty. As Kuppermann states, “While outwardly alluring, the attraction, which begins with our soul’s love for the Form of Beauty, and which it hopes to find in physical appearance, is not anagogic but genagogic.  [12] (Anagogic means ascending, while genagogic means descending.) Because of this, incorporeal beauty—the beauty which is held by the eye of the mind through Eros in the heart—is key. As alluded to, the requisite Eros here is of an “external”, spirited nature—witnessed by the eye of the mind that receives an ecstatic or divine inspiration arriving from elsewhere; not one rooted completely in the physical or carnal.  For this purpose, Ficino expounds upon the union of the lesser with the higher through his discussion of divine inspiration through the Furies.[13]

Plato’s furies (which he calls “manias”) relate not only to a single aspect of beauty but to multiple states of divine inspiration that elevate the soul as though climbing a ladder through several stages. Originating in Plato’s Phadrus dialog, the first of these furies is the Poetic mania—inspired by the Muses—considered as bringing the disordered parts of the soul into harmony. Next, there is the Telestic mania—inspired by Dionysius—which takes this harmonized soul and elevates it to the intellective world. There is then the Mantic (or Prophetic) mania—inspired by Apollo—which concentrates the entire soul into a unity. Finally, there is the Erotic mania—inspired by Eros—which conjoins the singularly-unified soul with the gods and to intelligible beauty and thus effecting divine union.

We note that the god of love, Eros, is at the apex of this ascent. As Wouter J. Hanegraaff points out in his paper The Platonic Frenzies in Ficino, it is eros which presides over the entire process:” …as is evident from Plato’s two dialogues on love, and from Ficino’s De amore, the erotic drive is in fact the fundamental drive of the true philosopher: it is eros, the desire for beauty, that spurs on the soul in all the phases of its quest for the divine.” [14]

From this union of the lesser with the divine—through a divine sense of love—we reach the union of this philosophers’ work, which is the conjoining of the lower, physical world with the higher, divine world; I.e. the union of Venus Coelestis and Venus Vulgaris (or Venus Naturalis). As we conclude with Kupperman: “Here we can see the hand of Proclus, his theology of Aphrodite and her various levels of existence, and the transference of the soul from the lower, daimonic Aphrodite to the fully divine Aphrodite Ourania.” [15]

Another important idea to point out is Ficino’s concept of spiritus, a pseudo-physical substance thought to mediate between the cosmic and physical worlds. Whereby appearing to take the Stoic’s concept of pneuma and combining with Plato’s World Soul, along with the pre-Socratic Anaxagoras’ role of cosmic nous, Ficino’s spiritus is within his Anima Mundi, permeating all nature and substances. Also, spiritus not only connects individual spirit or the aetheric spirit of substances to cosmic spirit but works through the soul, mediating between the higher and lower worlds. Ficino’s spiritus appears inspired by the “fifth” element of aether described in Plato’s Timaeus made compatible with the vitalism of Aristotle, where fluids (like the Stoic’s pneuma) are substances providing spirits to living entities. This reflects also Aristotle’s innate pneuma in connection with aether, where the substance of vital heat within bodies is connected to the “element of the stars”, or aether. [16]

The Corpus Hermeticum, first translated by Ficino into Latin in 1463, also identifies concepts of sympathy which unite the higher and lower realms. In the Poimandres book, for example, the divine Mind reveals everything through ‘the Light-giving Word’ which pervades the natural world; and it is through the natural cosmos itself that humankind ascends to reverse its fall. Ficino’s translations of these works, as well as other ideas found in his De vita libri tres (which was influenced by them), seemed to have opened up many doors for the eventual proliferation of literature covering natural, celestial, and mystical magic; including the work of Paracelsus and Agrippa.

Here, an impression forms whereby the natural, the celestial, and the divine worlds can be thought of as extensions of Aristotelian and Platonic universes. We this in mind, we might, for example, look to the possibility of alchemy, natural magic, and vitalism presiding under the jurisdiction and influence of terrestrial Venus, while the realm of divine mysticism would fall under the auspices of celestial Venus.

The Scala of The Camaldolese Order & Dante’s Paradiso

St. Romuald, the founder of the Camaldoles order, brought a tradition of monastic teachings known as the scala perfetis to the 11th-century Italian landscape. The order’s traditions are said to have descended from the Egyptian Desert Fathers; an eremitic tradition predating the East-West schism of 1054. In the early 15th-century, the general of the order, Ambrose of Camaldoli, began studying Greek with Emmanuel Chrysolor, a Greek from Constantinople who first translated the works of Homer and Plato’s Republic into Latin. Ambrose was involved in the Conciliar effort to reconcile the East and West churches in the Councils of Ferrara and Florence in 1431. In his lifetime, he translated many works into Latin, including Psuedo Dionysius’ Opera (a work important to Christian-Platonists Ficino and Pico) as well as The Ladder of Divine Ascent by Saint John Climacus.[17] Climacus’ Scala Paradisi is essential to the discussion of cosmic harmony illumined by heavenly love with an ascent through hierarchies of being.

In Climacus’ words:

“Physical love can be a paradigm for the longing for God…
Happy the man who loves and longs for God as a smitten lover does for his beloved…Someone truly in love keeps before his mind’s eye the face of the beloved and embraces it there tenderly.” [18]

“Longing for God” as one “does for their beloved”—a divine form of love—finds kinship with Ficino’s understanding of Amore. Both approach the nature of love not only as joining the physical with the heavenly but also as a medium instrumental in the celestial ascent of the soul. Both also prescribe various stages through states of being to reach divine union. Ficino’s “ladder” arrives through the four frenzies, ultimately unifying the soul with the divine through Eros and Venus Coelestis. With the Camaldolese, the scala enables the individual soul to reach divine union through various spiritual states of being.[18]

Since Romuald’s system comes out of a tradition known as the scala perfetis, and Climacus’ own was called the Scala Paradisi, we might immediately be reminded of another ladder known as the scala amoris —the ladder of love— from which one can reach the highest form of Beauty through love. This is described by Diotima in Plato’s Symposium dialog.  In the Symposium, the rungs of the ladder are described, from lowest to highest:

Love for a particular body– the love of physical features one longs for as missing in their own

Love for all bodies– the love and recognition of the physical which belongs to all

Love for souls– the physical is put aside for the love of the beauty of mind, spirit, or soul

Love for laws and institutions– love for the practice and customs of those with beautiful souls

Love for knowledge– love turned towards knowledge and wisdom found everywhere (philosophy)

Love for love itself– seeing beauty in its pure form and loving the beauty of love as it is.[19]

The similarities between the Camaldolese order’s scala perfetis (via Climacus), Ficino’s frenzies (after Plato), and Plato’s ladder of love are easy to recognize. But the similarities don’t stop here, as these “ladders” of spiritual and celestial ascent leads us to Dante Alighieri’s Paradiso, a mystical narrative of his scaling the concentric spheres of Heaven guided by his beloved, Beatrice. It is through Dante’s love of Beatrice that his ascent is made complete, while the name Beatrice itself alludes to the source leading him to the beatific vision, ie the divine union. The union, for Dante, takes place beyond the planetary spheres, beyond even the fixed stars and the Primum Mobile. It is in the tenth realm, the abode of God, where Dante encounters the Celestial Rose, a symbol of divine beauty. [20]

In Dante’s cosmos, like in Ficino’s and the Camaldolese’s, the Platonic representations of two forms of beauty exist. Beatrice, as an incarnate being, represents beauty in the physical form, while in her purity becomes transcendent and upwardly aspiring. The celestial Rose, on the other hand, represents the highest form of beauty in the divine realm; as Dante refers to it in relation to the Queen of Heaven and the Virgin Mary. Beatrice and the Rose in Dante’s world are therefore analogous to Aphrodite Pandemos (common, or terrestrial Aphrodite) and Aphrodite Urania (heavenly Aphrodite). We are then reminded that the rose is the flower of Aphrodite/Venus. Placing the Rose in the highest heaven seems, therefore, the same as Dante saying the divine realm is a representation of Aphrodite/Venus Coelestis. We at least have two immaculate “Queens of Heaven” in these examples. There is the Virgin Mary who is immaculately conceived with Christ, and there is the immaculate conception of Aphrodite Urania who is born from the genitals of Uranus and the celestial ocean. Dante’s treatment of Mary and the Rose remains quite comparable:

And like to babe, that stretches forth its arms,
For very eagerness towards the breast,
After the milk is taken; so outstretch’d,
Their wavy summits all the fervent band,
Through zealous love to Mary: then in view,
There halted, and “Regina Coeli” [Queen of Heaven] sang,
So sweetly, the delight hath left me never.[20]

“…Here is the rose,
Wherein the divine word was made flesh;
And here the lilies, by whose odour known,
The way of life was follow’d.”  Prompt I heard,
Her bidding, and encounter once again
The strife of aching vision. [21]

There is another group worth mentioning here, the mysterious medieval group known as the Fedelli d’Amore (The Faithful of Love). Dante was allegedly a member of this group, which is to have been led by his close friend Guido Cavalcanti (1250-1300). Both were Florentine poets. Guido was a troubadour in the tradition of the fin’amor— a medieval tradition faithful to the expression of courtly love through written verse or song. A descendant of Guido’s, Giovanni Cavalcanti, two centuries later was a close friend of Ficino’s and a member of his Platonic Academy circle.[22]  Ficino dedicated his work De Amore to Giovanni in 1484.

Another interesting connection in Dante’s Paradiso is that in the seventh heaven (Saturn), Dante visits Fonte Avellana, a monastery in central Italy connected to the Camaldolese order. In Dante’s poem, St. Romuald himself appears, along with St. Macarius, one of the early Egyptian Desert Fathers.   

The spirits of men contemplative, were all
Enliven’d by that warmth, whose kindly force
Gives birth to flowers and fruits of holiness.
Here is Macarius; Romuald here:
And here my brethren, who their steps refrain’d
Within the cloisters, and held firm their heart.[22]

The Hypnerotomachia Poliphili and Aldine Press

In 1499, Manutius’ Aldine Press in Venice published the work Hypnerotomachia Poliphili by Francesco Colonna. This work, often referred to as Poliphilo’s Strife of Love in a Dream was written as early as 1467 and involves the story of a young man named Poliphilo (meaning “a lover of many things”) who wanders through a bucolic dreamland of architectural ruins and monuments searching for his love, Polia (meaning “many things”). Over numerous scenes, Poliphilio is led by nymphs towards a meeting point to confess his love for Polia. In the narrative, Poliphilio’s love for Polio is paralleled with the Greek myth  Adonis and Aphrodite. They meet and take off together to solidify their union.

Towards their destination, the two are carried in a boat by Cupid (Eros) to the island of Cythera. This is an island known in the ancient world as being sacred to Aphrodite Urania. At Cythera, Polia tells how hopelessly Poliphilo fell for her, refused his advances, and swears to a life of chastity. In agony, Poliphilo collapses in a temple dedicated to the goddess Diana (the Roman version of Artemis, the chaste hunter Goddess of the moon). Polia finds him there and drags him to a corner of the temple and through Cupid’s persuasion, she kisses him and he is revived. In the end, a triumphal procession takes place to celebrate their union. A total of five processions take place in all, while the goddess Aphrodite presides over a ceremony for the two lovers, blessing their union.

Colonna’s work is remarkable for several reasons, with several forms of symbolism being immediately recognizable. There is the same relationship to common and heavenly beauty through Polia, Eros (Cupid), and heavenly Venus (Aphrodite). There is the same journey (ie ladder) to reach divine union. One of the main points of interest from a Rosicrucian point of view is its similarity with the Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz (1616). A more thorough analysis of the Chymical Wedding will appear in a later chapter, however, a brief look shows several of the same themes appearing there.

In the Chemical Wedding, for example, CRC is also led through several processions within settings of architecture and fountains to learn lessons on the mysteries of love. There are also two different figures representing beauty. In the Wedding, there are the virgins (with lower case “v”), who represent mundane or common beauty (and love) expressed in the wedding chambers with the attendant guests.  Then, there is the celestial Virgin (with upper case “V”)—named as Virgo Coelestis—who represents the heavenly form of beauty. Later, through the influence of Venus and the help of Cupid (Eros), CRC makes his way by boat to reach an island with an Olympic Tower—similar to the island reached by Poliphilo in the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili—which CRC ascends to reach the highest level of his alchemical union. With the completion of his work, he receives a medal from the celestial Virgin that reads:

AR. NAT. MI. (Art is the Priestess of Nature)

TEM. NA. F. (Nature is the Daughter of Time.) [23]

Using our previous model of two Venuses, we might here connect terrestrial Venus (Venus Vulgaris, or Naturalis) to the role of the Priestess and nature—to the human arts and the physical work of alchemy. Celestial Venus (Venus Coelestis) then might relate to the “daughter of time”. In Roman mythology, the name Coelestis comes from Caelus, the first god of the heavens. As the first god and mover of the heavens, the realm of time was thus thought to be directed by Caelus’ revolutions. What seems most revealing about equating Virgo Coelestis with Aphrodite Urania is that the Roman form of Caelus is equivalent to the Greek Uranus. Thus, the daughter of Caelus, Coelestis, fills a role such as Aphrodite Urania, whom, as we consider, was born from the genitals of Uranus which were thrown into the cosmic sea. As the ‘virgin of heaven’, Virgo Coelestis is thus assigned a Queen of Heaven-type role analogous to Venus Coelestis; appears somewhat even Sophianic in nature. More specifically, Virgo Coelestis is also equated with Urania of Carthage—often seen as a muse of heaven and later identified by some with the Holy Spirit. There is no doubt that Virgo Coelestis, the Heavenly Virgin, is similar to Aphrodite Urania. Thus in the Chemical Wedding, a similar narrative as the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili and Plato’s two forms of Aphrodite is being told.

Conrad Celtis’ Four Books on Love and his Academia Platonica

Conrad Celtus, another associate and correspondent of Aldinus Manutius, wrote his Quatuor libri amorum in 1502. This work was another erotic, poetic work covering the subject of divine love.  Similar to the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, the story in the Quatuor libri amorum involves a lovesick young man seeking out his love through an idyllic landscape. Instead of the Adonis and Aphrodite myth as presented in Poliphilo’s story, however, Celtus relies on the myth of Daphnis and Chloe, originally written by the poet Longus. In the Daphnis and Chloe myth, the two children are discovered together as babies, yet sent off to be raised in separate families of goat herders and shepherds. When the two reach adolescence, they meet each other again and fall in love, however, they’re not sure how to respond to their passions. In order to know how to love “properly” (like with the virgins in the Chemical Wedding), they must be taught. They have to understand both the relationship and difference between love and the physical act. They are taught to kiss, yet the pain endured by Daphnis by it (he is over-stricken by love) is too much to bear. In the story, Daphnis then becomes trapped by marauders and Chloe becomes kidnapped. It’s through the guidance and influence of nymphs and the god Pan that they escape and become reunited. Pan also teaches Daphnis how to play the pipes. [24]

In Celtis’ narrative, instead of the ruins of antiquity, the main character traverses the pastoral landscape of Germany, using cartographic detail in lieu of architectural details such as in the Hypnerotomachia book. The books’ woodcuts were produced by a young Albrecht Durer. Among the illustrations is a depiction of Sophia surrounded by Nature and the four winds. Elsewhere in the work, there is a dedication to the god Apollo.

Part of Celtus’ purpose is to glorify the culture and lands of Germany with his book, presenting it as equal to the great civilizations of Rome, Egypt, and Greece. Another image in the book shows Celtis presenting his work to the emperor Maximilian I, to whom the book is also dedicated. It is known that part of Maximilian I’s agenda as Holy Roman Emperor was to boost the European German image.[25]

In the Sophia illustration, there are other telling clues about the book’s subject. In front of her, an obelisk appears, with a Scala Artium (a Ladder of Art) written with 7 Greek characters representing the liberal arts and sciences: grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. This may seem trivial at first, but then if we think of Ficino’s furies, the first “rung” to consider are the Muses. The Muses relate with the 7 arts and sciences, as in fact there are 9 Muses representing forms of poetry (comedy, lyric, erotic, tragedy, history, sacred and epic) as well as those who represent music, drama, dance, and astronomy. There is thus overlap with the trivium, the quadrivium, and the Platonic furies.

Furthermore, where Ficino places the Erotic mania at the top of his “ladder”—conjoining the soul with divine beauty through love—at the very top of Celtis’ image, we see the words “Philo” and “Sophia” left and right of her. Literally, these stand for Love & Wisdom. Celtis, in other words, appears to be complimenting Ficino’s model using different correspondences.

Where Ficino looks to two furies—the telestic mania for harmonizing the soul and elevating it to Intellect— and the mantic mania—concentrates the soul into a unity— Celtis instead has the four Greek Anemoi (winds), the four elements, and the four humors. This, again, might seem to bear no relation at all, until we realize Celtis might be taking a more Aristotelian, rather than Platonic, approach. In the classic medicine of Hippocrates, for example—which Aristotle had adopted concepts from— the balance of the four humors reveals a relationship to a balanced soul. A harmonious soul was considered as one prone to clearer representations and expressions of greater intelligence. Similarly, one’s health is considered as a harmony of their humors, or how they are affected by the elements. [26]  Overall, it seems that Celtis with his trivium and quadrivium and his more Aristotelian approach was keeping to a somewhat more scholastic view.

And yet, in his dedication to the book, Celtis recognizes love in a manner akin to the force of primordial Eros as a cosmic principle, and as the love of the creator:

We, however name Him the highest God who made man from a lump of earth and slime and implanted in him as in all living beings, plants and seeds, yes in inanimate things as stones and colors, the power and characteristics of Love, so that they as a result of a natural relationship and a silent inner agreement seek and desire to join each other.  [27]

A Platonic Academy in the North

There’s no doubt that Celtis’ book belongs to the same genre of work as the classic Platonic treatises, the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, Ficino’s De Amore, and the later Chemical Wedding. Further investigation, though, reveals an even more direct connection between Celtis and the Aldine and Florentine groups in Italy. In 1501, correspondence between Celtis and Manutius carried by their mutual associate John Cuspinianus reveals plans to bring a branch of the Aldine Press North to Germany:

You will hear all you want about me from our friend Cuspinianus [Spiesshammer], to whom I wrote about the matter in great detail. I only pray that my hopes are fulfilled: the plan will greatly benefit scholars of our own and later ages, and will make Germany another Athens to the men of our time. [28]

This plan didn’t involve just opening a publishing house in Germany, but to install an Academy in Vienna as well. Johannes Reuchlin was involved too, penning letters and trying to gain Maximillian I’s support for the endeavor. While the project itself didn’t come to bear fruit, it appears that Celtis went and took the mission upon himself. One of the Academies he ended up founding —the Rhenish Literary Sodality— was even informally referred to as his “Academia Platonica”. His other Academies, the Hungarian Literary Sodality, the Vistulanian Literary Sodality, the Baltic Literary Sodality, and the Danubian Literary Sodality all found support through Maxillian I. [29]  Whereas evidence shows that Manutius did send a German pupil of his, Johann Kuhn, to negotiate the terms for this new “Imperial Academy” in Vienna, [30] Celtis, it seems, managed to follow through with his own resources and help from the Holy Roman Emperor.

Based on the relations between all of those involved with this “Northern Academia Platonica”, it’s quite possible that its basis was more organized than might appear at the surface. After all, the associates involved with the German project, one supported by the Holy Roman Emperor, included some of Germany’s most celebrated humanist-occultists, including Reuchlin and Trithemius. Trithemius and Celtis were themselves acquainted, as Celtis (like many) paid visits to Trithemius’ famed library. Not only this, but many scholars place Trithemius as one of the founders of Celtis’ Rhenish Sodality directly. Like Ficino’s “Platonic Academy” and Manutius’ “New Academy”, we can see that these groups revolved around the same European network. Ultimately, what’s found in these groups are humanist-occultist interests focused on expanding and sharing their knowledge.

In Part III of this series, we’ll look at how the humanist-occultist network was further advanced by Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa. We’ll also look to Paracelsus and see how his holistic view of creation lent to a theosophic cosmogony which was later embraced by the Rosicrucians of the Manifesto period.

[1]Del Soldato, Eva. “The Elitist Vernacular of Francesco Cattani Da Diacceto and Its Afterlife.” I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 16, no. 1/2 (2013): 343-62.

[2]“The Aldine Republic of Letters.” Aldine. Accessed November 27, 2019. https://aldine.edwardworthlibrary.ie/apud-aldum/the-aldine-republic-of-letters/.

[3]Lowry, M. J. C, (1976), ‘The “New Academy” of Aldus Manutius: A Renaissance Dream’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 58(2): 378-420.

[4]Symonds, John Addington (1911). “Manutius”. In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. 17 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 624–626

[5]Price David. (2010) Johannes Reuchlin and the Campaign to Destroy Jewish Books, p.34

[6]Howard, P. (2007), Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy ‐ Edited by Michael J. B. Allen and Valery Rees, with Martin Davies. Renaissance Studies, p 17-19

[7]Kraye, J. (Ed.). (1997). “Francesco Cattani da Diacetto: Panegryic on Love”, trans. by Luc Diez. Cambridge Translations of Renaissance Philosophical Texts: Moral and Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 156-165

[8]Plato’s Symposium. 180a

[9]Berg, Rudolphus, Maria. (2001) Proclus’ Hymns: Essays, Translations, Commentary. Boston, Brill.  p 246

[10]Kupperman, Jeffrey. (2014) Living Theurgy: A Course in Iamblichus’ Philosophy, Theology and Theurgy. London, Avalonia publishers. Chapter 8.

[11]Crawford K. (2004). Marsilio Ficino, Neoplatonism, and the Problem of Sex. Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance Et Réforme, 28(2), new series / nouvelle série, 3-35. Retrieved from jstor.org/stable/43445751p. 6

[12]Kupperman, chapter 7

[13]Hanegraaff, W. J. (2007). The Platonic Frenzies in Ficino (2010). Paper Delivered to the Renaissance Society of America.

[14]Hanegraaf. p. 564

[15]Kupperman, chapter 8

[16]Solmsen, Friedrich (1957). The Vital Heat, the Inborn Pneuma and the Aether. Journal of Hellenic Studies 77 (1):119-123.

[17]Herbermann, Charles. (1912). The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic Church, Volume 16 New York : Robert Appleton Co. p 388

[18]Camaldolese.org. (2019). Camaldolese Spirituality – Camaldolese. [online] Available at: https://www.camaldolese.org/camaldolese-spirituality/ [Accessed 28 Nov. 2019].

[19]Hooper, Anthony (2015). Scaling the Ladder. Why the Final Step of the Lover’s Ascent is a Generalizing Step. _Plato: The Internet Journal of the International Plato Society_ 15:95-106.

[20]Paradiso. Canto XXIII

[21]Paradiso. Canto XXIII

[22]Paradiso. Canto XXII

[23]The Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkruetz, (1616), Seventh Day

[24]Prescott, H. (1899). A Study of the Daphnis-Myth. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 10, 121-140.

[25]Piechocki, Katharina, N. Cartographic Humanism: The Making of Early Modern Europe (University of Chicago Press, 2019)

[26]Gladwin, Ian H. “Patterns of Initiation – Purification of the Soul.” Rosicrucian Tradition Website, 1 Nov. 2019, https://pansophers.com/patterns-of-initiation

[27]Spitz, L. (1954). The Philosophy of Conrad Celtis, German Arch-Humanist. Studies in the Renaissance, 1, 22-37.

[28]Lowry. P 404

[29]Kiss, Farkas Gabor. “Konrad Celtis, King Matthias, and the Academic Movement in Hungary, Hungarian Studies, 32, 2018, 37-50.” Academia.edu

[30]Spitz, Lewis W. (1957). Conrad Celtis, the German Arch-Humanist. Lewis W. Spitz. Mass., Harvard University Press. Chapter 5