Anna Corrias

The idea that the soul has a guardian daemon was a common topic among Platonists, informed by different readings of Plato, especially Symp. 202e and Resp. 620e. In his philosophically dense interpretation, Plotinus describes the daemon as the ‘pole of attraction’ or the erotic disposition that keeps the core of one’s personality directed towards the Good. In this way, the daemon promotes the soul’s ascent to higher levels of reality through a transition from unconsciousness into consciousness that, across different incarnations, will eventually flow into the disembodied self. In order to unpack this view, this article brings together Enn. III.4 and III.5 with Enn. VI.7, where Plotinus discusses the difference between soul (ψυχή) and the expressed principle (λόγος) belonging to soul. This difference if fundamental to fully understand the role of the guardian daemon in the soul’s πρόοδος and ἐπιστροφή.

Marsilio Ficino (1433–99) was greatly intrigued by the questions on free will raised by the myth of Er in Plato’s Republic. By focusing on his Argumentum in Platonis Respublicam, this article discusses Ficino’s interpretation of the myth in light of his view on the faculties of the soul—intellect, reason, the imagination, and the vegetative power—and of how they become subject to providence or fate. Moreover, it will situate Ficino’s discussion of the myth within his understanding of the universe as an interconnected organism in which different levels of life are perfectly attuned with one another.

Plotinus (204/5-270 C.E.) is a central figure in the history of Western philosophy. However, during the Middle Ages he was almost unknown. None of the treatises constituting his Enneads were translated, and ancient translations were lost. Although scholars had indirect access to his philosophy through the works of Proclus, St. Augustine, and Macrobius, among others, it was not until 1492 with the publication of the first Latin translation of the Enneads by the humanist philosopher Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) that Plotinus was reborn to the Western world. Ficino's translation was accompanied by a long commentary in which he examined the close relationship between metaphysics and anthropology that informed Plotinus's philosophy. Focusing on Ficino's interpretation of Plotinus's view of the soul and of human nature, this book excavates a fundamental chapter in the history of Platonic scholarship, one which was to inform later readings of the Enneads up until the nineteenth century. It will appeal to scholars and students interested in the history of Western philosophy, intellectual history, and book history.

Plato and Aristotle were very much alive between the fifteenth and the seventeenth centuries. The essays in this volume investigate the interaction, both in terms of harmony and contrast, between the two philosophers in early modernity, that is in a time when long-forgotten texts became available and a new philological awareness was on the rise. Dealing with famous and less famous early modern interpreters and philosophers, in a transnational and translinguistic perspective, this volume reveals the agendas behind the discussions on Plato's and Aristotle's philosophies. In studying these texts, it is hard to imagine a more significant collision of big names with big ideas. This project takes us to the centre of the intellectual life of the period and its most exciting debates.

Marsilio Ficino’s view on ensoulment, which can be extrapolated from his critique of natal astrology, relies on the relations of metaphysical proportion between the different levels of life and being which are central to Platonic philosophy. Drawing primarily on Plotinus, Ficino describes the emergence of life in the embryo as a process in which the World Soul is the true agent. For him, the ‘human nature’ that is present in the developing embryo attracts into the mother’s womb the seed of ‘human nature’ which is present in the World Soul’s vegetative power. Once channelled into the womb, the World Soul’s vegetative power animates the embryo’s body. Now endowed with organic life, the embryo becomes irresistibly attractive to the rational soul, which in this way is drawn down to it and becomes embodied. For Ficino, the moment when ‘rational’ ensoulment happens is completely irrelevant to prefiguring one’s life path, contrary to what was claimed by natal astrology. Nevertheless, it leaves an important mark on one’s physio-psychological makeup.

In his treatise on dreams Somniorum Synesiorum Libri IIII, published in 1562, the Italian Renaissance philosopher and physician Girolamo Cardano distinguishes between idola and visiones. Historians have discussed the reasons for such a distinction without taking into account Cardano’s original theory of sense-perception. In this article I shall argue that, in order to interpret the meaning of idola and visiones in Cardano’s theory of dreams, one should bear in mind his view that hearing is superior to sight and that while idola are essentially based on sound, visiones depend on images.

ABSTRACTHardly a few people manage to escape big fears without dying [of them]; not so with pains. This statement captures Cardano's understanding of the difference between mental and physical pain. As a physician with a lifelong history of anxiety and alienation, Cardano inquired ceaselessly into the nature of the delicate interaction between the two kinds of pain. It was his belief that the subtle nature of mental suffering makes it difficult, if not impossible, to identify, name, and give a meaning to those powerful emotions which cause our inner turmoil. Unable to be ‘named’ and ‘signified’, mental pain eludes understanding and thereby deprives the mind of its identity as a locus of sense. In the experience of physical pain, conversely, the mind can easily decode the signs in the body, keeping its mastery over sense-perception, the imagination, and desire. For this reason, Cardano believed, many people afflicted by sorrow and grief find solace in physical pain, which in its purest form is even able to enhance our cognitive potential.

This article explores Marsilio Ficino's interpretation of Plotinus's notion of tutelary daemon, as found in Enneads III.4. While Plotinus considered external daemons as philosophically insignificant and described one's personal daemon as the highest part of one's soul, Ficino placed great emphasis on the existence of outer daemonic entities which continuously interact with human beings. As a consequence, for Plotinus the soul's tutelary daemon corresponded to man's capability for intellectual knowledge, that is, to his ability to become emancipated from the material world, which, from a Platonic point of view, was made of appearances. Ficino, by contrast, tends to identify the soul's daemonic power with the faculty which he saw as the gateway for the action of external entities: the imagination. The imagination – like a mirror – reflects and retains images of other levels of life and acts as the surface on which external daemons project the forms of their own imagining. Ficino provides a complex account of the relationships between the soul and various layers of daemonic interventions, in which he combines Plotinus's view on personal daemons with elements coming from later forms of daemonology, such as that of Porphyry, Iamblichus, Synesius and Proclus.

The ancient Neoplatonic doctrine that the rational soul has one or more vehicles—bodies of a semi-material nature which it acquires during its descent through the spheres—plays a crucial part in Marsilio Ficino’s philosophical system, especially in his theory of sense-perception and in his account of the afterlife. Of the soul’s three vehicles, the one made of more or less rarefied air is particularly important, according to Ficino, during the soul’s embodied existence, for he identifies it with thespiritus, the pneumatic substance based in the brain which was believed to serve as an instrument for perception and imagination. He refers to the vehicles in his arguments against the theory of the transmigration of souls into the bodies of animals, claiming that the imaginative suffering experienced after death by souls in their aerial bodies are much more acute than the physical pain they might feel in bodies made of flesh and blood. Since the power of the imagination, for Ficino, is stronger than that of the four senses, the soul’s perceptive activity is more intense after death, when it has lost its earthly body and lives instead in a body made of air. The vehicles, moreover, provided Ficino with evidence for the individual immortality of souls, a doctrine that he was attempting to demonstrate philosophically against the position of Averroes and his followers. In his view, the vehicles ensured the survival after death of two faculties which were intimately connected to personal identity: the imagination and memory. By pointing out the role of the vehicles in transporting the soul’s innermost representations and memories through the universe, Ficino was able to show that the distinguishing traits of our personality are not lost with bodily death, but survive along with the vehicle that carries them.

The philosophy of Henry More was deeply indebted to the philosophical tradition of late antiquity. His metaphysics, clearly inspired by the magnificent synthesis of Plato, Plotinus and the later Platonists operated in the fifteenth century by Marsilio Ficino, relied on the continuity of being between Spirit and Matter, which also justified the presence of daemons and disembodied souls within the natural world. However, More fiercely criticised all forms of religious worship in which dii medioxumi were regarded as a mean to rejoin with God, including theurgy, or philosophical magic. Theurgy, which was aimed at purifying the soul and reuniting it with the divine, had a central place in the works of the Platonists who followed Plotinus. Intriguingly, More accepted the theoretical premises of theurgy, i.e., the ontological continuity between the natural and the divine worlds, but condemned its practice, which involved the deification of daemons and minor gods. This criticism can be fully understood only if looked at within the context of More’s iconoclastic polemic against the Roman Catholics.