ennui is for suckers (t3dy) wrote,
ennui is for suckers
t3dy

Pico links + tweets


Pico texts online http://bit.ly/hYqrRI http://bit.ly/hNp3zW http://bit.ly/hPuqye http://scr.bi/d1k08h http://bit.ly/eSwczZ

Narbonne using Pico + Aquinas as exemplars... http://bit.ly/em6SsP

Pico della Mirandola takes the Aristotelian side, utilizing a number of subtle distinctions from Aquinas http://bit.ly/hBHUi6

Trouillard, Proclus, Pico+Ficino http://bit.ly/hDTa1f

french article on Ficino and interpretation of Parmenides http://bit.ly/ecwGE2 (includes useful footnotes on Pico)

Albert, Aquinas and Dionysius http://bit.ly/flk5r9 in Re-Thinking Dionysius the Areopagite ... Mahoney on Pico+Albert http://bit.ly/cDq7kv

this author speaks of "possibilities of access to divine being" http://bit.ly/dR7LMD ...but I don't see where you find this in Pico's texts!

quote below is a model of the rashness of conjuring interpretation. Pico didn't advocate "spiritual magic" or "direct" angelic contact

"Pico developed what he called a 'spiritual magic'(some called it 'demonic') based on the direct invocation of angels" http://bit.ly/dR7LMD

Craven: Pico can hardly be said to have concentrated on defending KBL+Magic thesis... little more than virtues of #s http://bit.ly/eP3GF0

Craven: The generally accepted interpretation of Pico's anthropology is a misrepresentation of his thought. http://bit.ly/fAc8MN

Craven on Pico's Oration http://bit.ly/fn8daq Condemned Theses http://bit.ly/g9pK2j Kabbalah http://bit.ly/iiNrji Yates http://bit.ly/fMrFqK

Similarly, Pico's espousal of Thomas Aquinas' account of the Aristotelian ontology meant the outright rejection of ...http://bit.ly/f9C7nA

Copenhaver on Pico's debt to Dionysius in explaining Kabbalah http://bit.ly/hbuOpc http://bit.ly/gC1gnW Wirszubski http://bit.ly/fvRiGo

Copenhaver: The place of Kabbalah in the ascent is higher than that of magic http://bit.ly/dLZ9gv

Craven: Pico can hardly be said to have concentrated on defending KBL+Magic thesis... little more than virtues of #s http://bit.ly/eP3GF0

Craven: The generally accepted interpretation of Pico's anthropology is a misrepresentation of his thought. http://bit.ly/fAc8MN

Craven on Pico's Oration http://bit.ly/fn8daq Condemned Theses http://bit.ly/g9pK2j Kabbalah http://bit.ly/iiNrji Yates http://bit.ly/fMrFqK

The best source for current scholarship is Dougherty, Pico della Mirandola New Essays.+ Copenhaver's site http://bit.ly/cXQKR3

Jean-Pierre Brache: Mathematical Esotericism: Some Perspectives on Renaissance Arithmology http://bit.ly/h4VC1T

Amos Edelheit: Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and his Theological Method: Between Fides+Opinio http://bit.ly/fmKETh

Bernard McGinn on Pico's Cabala+"lower theology" http://bit.ly/fvhHnv 9th magical conclusion(M+KBL prove Christ's divinity)only CBL accused.

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.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments