Giordano Bruno Overview

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248,249\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano\nBruno (Florence, 1955), is inspired by Marxism; and indirectly inspired by it is\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne V\u00e9drine's book, La Conception de la nature chez Giordano Bruno (Paris,\n1967). Frances A. Yates's book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London\nand Chicago 1964) is still very important, especially as it is supplemented by\nobservations on Bruno contained in The Art of Memory and, more recently, in\nAstraea. Yates's undeniable merit is to have integrated Bruno's oeuvre into its\ncultural context; for the first time in the history of modern philosophy, Bruno\nwas not envisaged as the clumsy, grotesque, and \"bacchanalian\" precursor of\nmodern thinking but as one of the most impressive representatives of Renaissance thought. It is, fundamentally, a question of applying different categories\n236\nNotes to Pages 91-113 236\na n d of measuring h i m by the standards of another era, and historians of ideas]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248\nAntonio Corsano, II pensiero di Giordano Bruno nel suo svolgimento storico (Florence,\n1940), a work which, though very useful, systematically neglects Bruno's magic\nthought and mnemotechnics. This same defect is also evident in earlier studies:\nErminio Troilo, La filosofia Giordano Bruno, 2 vols. (Turin and Rome, 1907-14),\nand Giordano Bruno (Rome, 1918); Giovanni Gentile, Giordano Bruno e il pensiero\ndel Rinascimento (Florence, 1920); Leonardo Olschki, Giordano Bruno (Bari, 1927);\nEdgar Papu, Giordano Bruno: Viata si opera (Bucharest, 1947); Bertrando Spaventa,\nRinascimento, Riforma, Controriforma (Venice, 1928); Augusto Guzzo, I dialoghi di\nGiordano Bruno (Turin, 1932), etc. Very valuable data on Bruno is to be found in\nP. O. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (Stanford, 1964), and in\nE. Garin, La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano (Florence, 1961), and Storia\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\n(iv) The Wiles of Giordano Bruno\nGiordano Bruno was undoubtedly one of the most complex individuals\nof the sixteenth century. I n contrast to Agrippa, he is easy to classify:\nBruno was a representative of the phantasmic era at the time of the Reformation. But the Reformation's influence u p o n h i m is not to be overlooked. A t Nola, i n the Dominican convent, he had bursts of iconoclasm\nw h i c h brought u p o n h i m persecution and rebuffs by the religious authorities. I n England he played the role of defender of the A r t of Memory against Ramism. N o w , i n the Puritan view, the mnemotechnics of the\nRenaissance were out-of-date and diabolical, u n w o r t h y of their general\nmoral reforms, especially as they seemed to be linked i n some way w i t h\nthe activities of the Catholic Church. Bruno, a foreigner i n Italy, was no\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nriots and, recommended b y the k i n g himself, w e n t to England to His Majesty's ambassador called seigneur de M a u vissi&re, Castelnau b y name. 3 2\nBruno's natural m e m o r y being unequal to his artificial m e m o r y , he is\nmistaken about the l e n g t h of his first stay i n Paris, b e g i n n i n g i n 1581 a n d\ne n d i n g i n June 1583, after w h i c h , under the protection of M i c h e l de\nCastelnau, he m o v e d to L o n d o n , w h e r e he remained u n t i l October\n1583. 33\nBy a strange optical illusion, Giordano Bruno has been envisaged as\nthe herald of the future, freemason a n d liberal, whereas this u n f r o c k e d\nNeapolitan m o n k was, wherever he w e n t , merely one of the last impassioned defenders of the culture of the phantasmic era. This explains his\nrebuffs i n Protestant circles, w h e r e he soon f o u n d himself worse off t h a n\ni n the bosom of the C h u r c h he h a d been rash e n o u g h to abandon: 3 4]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=251\nPages: 251\nhis edition of De gl'heroici furori, p. xx, which agrees with Sarno's interpretation.\n64. Candelaio: Comedia del Bruno Nolano, Academico di nulla Academia, detto il\nFastidito. In Parigi, Appresso Guglielmo Giuliano, Al Segno de l'Amicizia, 1582 (Op.\nit., III, 1923). The hero of the comedy, an untutored painter called Gioan Bernardo, was identified by Spampanato (p. xxxii) as being the Neapolitan painter\nGiovan Bernardo, pupil of Andrea Sabatini, who worked until 1600 and was\nfamous in his day. However, we must not overlook the fact that Gioan Bernardo\nis the anagram of Giordano Bruno and that the latter likes to call himself a\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cpainter,\u202b \u05f4\u202ca philosophic painter and poet, whose canvas is the pneuma and\nwhose colors are phantasms. It should also be made explicit that Bruno accepts,\nwithout comment i n his works on magic, that same scholasticism of Ficino's that\nhe mocks in the Candelaio. Suffice it to quote here this definition of spirit (Theses]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\ncommoner, but also against British lack of civility i n general.\nThe scene of the debate is a memorable one: having cleverly replied to\none harmless doctor, \u202b\u05f4\u202ca domestic ass,\" Bruno was taken over by another, \"whose ignorance equaled his presumptuousness.\" The Neapolitan d i d not spare this \" w i l d ass,\" \" a rude pig w i t h o u t manners,\"\nwhose academic chain should have been replaced by a halter.\n\" L o o k , be still, and learn,\" this imposing beast of burden tells him, \" I\nshall teach y o u about Ptolemy and Copernicus.\" Of course Bruno loses\nhis temper, especially as the man seeks to persuade him, while admonishing h i m to be silent, that the earth of Copernicus occupied a place\nwhere i n reality there was nothing but a point of the compass.\nA l l this must seem very strange if we reflect that England was the first\ncountry i n w h i c h heliocentrism had met w i t h success. I n 1576, Thomas\nDigges, a prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of the learned John Dee, published a Perfit Description]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.\nAgrippa and Bruno were both impulsive men w i t h an amazing incapacity to understand the people and situations surrounding them. But,\nwhereas Agrippa seems to renounce (for the sake of form?) his past as\nan occultist and to enter the ranks of the reformers, Bruno aspires to\ndefend his ideas even into martyrdom, convinced that people great i n\nspirit do not flinch from physical pain. Agrippa is too naive to compromise but sufficiently realistic to retract his ideas; on the other hand,\nBruno is too p r o u d to retract, but, having yielded to impulse w h i c h let\nh i m d o w n paths of no return, he still hopes to f i n d a solution through\ncompromise. Here again, he sins not through na\u00efvet\u00e9 but its opposite,\nexcessive guile, which has the same result.\nWe have cited some of Bruno's attempts to convert his followers to the\nuse of the Art of Memory. We recall that his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248\nTocco, Vitelli, Imbriani, and Tallarigo: Jordani Bruni Nolani Opera Latine conscripta:\nFaksimile-Neudruck der Ausgabe, 1879-1891, 3 vols, in 8 parts (Stuttgart and Bad\nCannstatt, 1961-62). For the Italian dialogues, I have also consulted the (incomplete) edition by A. Guzzo (Milan-Naples, 1956). For the dialogue De gl'heroici furori, I have also used F. Flora's edition (Turin, 1928), and one by P.-H.\nMichel with French translation (Paris, 1954). The bibliography on Bruno is enormous. This is evident in the Bibliografia di Giordano Bruno (1582-1950), edited by\nV. Salvestrini (Florence, 1958), (and its supplements). I have consulted many\nworks; on consideration, it seems that the really important works on Bruno are\nnot very numerous. Among them are: Luigi Firpo, II processo di Giordano Bruno\n(Naples, 1949), an excellent\u2014but incomplete\u2014reconstruction of Bruno's trial;\nAntonio Corsano, II pensiero di Giordano Bruno nel suo svolgimento storico (Florence,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=78\nPages: 78,79\nrules, and\nthe purpose of rules is not to seek primarily the t r u t h of\nthings and of speculations but the good effects of its practices\non civilization, understanding between peoples and ease of\n62\nPhantasms at Work\nh u m a n intercourse, the maintenance of peace a n d national\nprogress. O f t e n , a n d i n m a n y respects, it is more stupid and\nignorant to say things according to t r u t h t h a n according to\nthe occasion a n d the o p p o r t u n i t y .\nThe m a n of the f u t u r e was not Giordano Bruno b u t Smitho, the Puritan.\nThe argument about heliocentrism, w h i c h h a d great repercussions,\nhas l o n g eclipsed another controversy Bruno h a d w i t h the Puritans, i n\nm a n y ways a more i m p o r t a n t one: the debate about the A r t of M e m o r y .\nH a r d l y h a d Bruno arrived i n England t h a n he hastened to dedicate to\nM i c h e l de Castelnau a n u m b e r of mnemonic w r i t i n g s p r i n t e d b y John]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=78\nPages: 78\nThe missed meeting w i t h Digges also meant a lost opportunity to k n o w\nDigges's family. He had to be satisfied w i t h the t w o Oxford doctors,\nwhich brought about the troublesome scandal we have mentioned. We\nare told that Bruno acted here as a messenger of scientific truth, but the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202ct r u t h \u202b \u05f4\u202cof Copernicus and of Bruno i n no way corresponds to the picture we have made of it. If Bruno concedes to that \u202b\u05f4\u202cGerman\u202b \u05f4\u202ca certain\nperception and w i s d o m \u2014 n o t forgetting, however, to declare that he\nhimself \u202b\u05f4\u202csaw neither w i t h the eyes of Copernicus nor w i t h the eyes of\nPtolemy, but w i t h his o w n 3 9 \u202b \u2014 \u05f4\u202ci t is for the same Pythagorean reasons\nthat had led Copernicus to replace geocentrism by his heliostatic concept. I n that, Bruno follows i n the steps of the \u202b\u05f4\u202cdivine Cusanus, 4 0 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nwhose arguments he merely repeats, implementing them w i t h his o w n\npolemical passion.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=95\nPages: 95\nreceiving your sentence of death.\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nIf he sought to be the apostle of a new religion, Bruno no doubt accomplished that wish. His name influenced the spirit and the voice of\nmany a freemason, freethinker, revolutionary, materialist, or anarchist\nof the nineteenth century, and the place where Bruno's statue n o w\nstands, i n front of the palace of the Papal chancellery, on the Campo de\u202b\u05f3\u202c\nFiori, the site of his stake, has remained by tradition the rendezvous of\nthe anarchists of Rome. Unfortunately, all those w h o transformed h i m\ninto the champion of their social and political cause misunderstood his\nw o r k and his personality, only recalling his martyrdom i n the struggle\nagainst the Church. Bruno, indeed, has become the prophet of a religion\nof w h i c h he w o u l d never have approved, whose ideals were, on the\ncontrary, diametrically opposed to his own. He, the most antidemocratic\nof thinkers, w i n d s u p as a symbol of democracy!]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=52\nPages: 52\nGiulio Camillo, a modest and unassuming man whose Latin made\nhim the butt of Zuichemus's jokes, left us few writings. He worked on\nrhetoric and translated Le Idee, overo Forme della Oratione, attributed to\nHermogenes of Tarsus, 16 but it seems he had also studied the work of\nPico della Mirandola17 and perhaps also that of the Venetian Brother\nFrancesco Giorgi,18 which is based on Ficino. His main preoccupation\nwas adequately to depict a cosmic model. This cosmic model certainly\nstems from Florentine Platonism.\nCamillo set forth his schema in an obscure little treatise published in\nFlorence in 1550, L'ldea del Teatro. His construction, which had the form\nof an amphitheater of seven sections, aspired to be an imago mundi in\nwhich all ideas and objects might find their appropriate place by virtue\nof their planetary classification. Like any artificial system, this was\ndoomed to be no longer understood as soon as the sets linking terrestrial]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=94\nPages: 94,95\ncan enjoy his companion, the naked goddess.\nWe can already understand Bruno's presumptions (let us confine our-\n78\nPhantasms at Work\nselves to the etymological meaning of this word): he states that he himself is this \u202b\u05f4\u202cdead m a n a l i v e / \u202b \u05f3\u202cthis man liberated f r o m the confines of the\nh u m a n species. He considers himself a religious leader w h o , like St.\nThomas, Zoroaster, St. Paul, etc., has opened the \u202b\u05f4\u202cseal of seals,\u202b \u05f4\u202cw h o\nhas been loved by the virgin goddess, the unattainable Diana. 69\nI n this framework it is easy to understand that the Inquisition sent\nh i m to the stake. Should he not, i n principle, have been capable of a\nsmall miracle to save himself? A n d was not the wise and w i l y Inquisition\nsure that no one had been able to perform such a miracle? I n every\nwitchcraft trial\u2014and I believe Bruno's was one\u2014the passion of Jesus]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76,77\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,\nlike Giulio Camillo's theater. To u n d e r s t a n d something about his w o r k s ,\nposterity, interested i n t h e m because of his m a r t y r d o m , was obliged to\neliminate eight-tenths of them: all the mnemotechnic a n d magical tracts.\nPosterity claimed to be satisfied, for Bruno h a d been a defender of\nCopernicus a n d even the first to connect the idea of the i n f i n i t y of the\nuniverse w i t h heliocentrism. Yet a huge gulf separates this Neoplatonic\npantheist f r o m rationalists like Spinoza. Grasping h o w uninteresting\nBruno's w o r k was to the m o d e r n age, Hegel, w h o f o u n d his doctrine\ni n v o l v e d a n d repulsive, termed his p h i l o s o p h y \u202b\u05f3\u05f3\u202cbacchantic,\" probably\nan excuse for being unable to read h i m . A l l of w h i c h proves that, far\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=75\nPages: 75\nremains i n a state of catalepsy, as Celio Agostino Curione seems to inf o r m us i n the appendix to the Hieroglyphica of Pierio Valeriano. 29 After\nvery few variations, the description of binsica reappears i n Baldesar Castiglione, Egidio da Viterbo, Francesco Giorgio Veneto, Celio Calcagnini,\nLeo the Hebrew (Dialoghi d'amore), and Giordano Bruno (Heroici furori).30\nW i t h Bruno, we enter the unfathomable arcana of Eros i n w h i c h the\npure theory of the Florentine Platonists leads to several quite mysterious\nconclusions. One of these, at least, relates to the dangerous liaisons that\nBruno was inclined to maintain all his life, u n t i l his death at the stake, to\nw h i c h he consented i n order not to contradict his o w n illusions, brought\nh i m ultimate freedom. The smoke had hardly dissipated w h e n Giordano\nBruno was almost unanimously proclaimed a \u202b\u05f4\u202csymbol of democracy.\u202b \u05f4\u202cA\nstrange paradox that crowned the posthumous fate of the man w h o was]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=75\nPages: 75,76\nstrange paradox that crowned the posthumous fate of the man w h o was\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cprobably the most antidemocratic of all philosophers. 3 1 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\n(ii) The Ambiguous Gods of Eros\nG I O R D A N O B R U N O , A M A N OF T H E P H A N T A S M I C PAST\nImprisoned i n Venice before being handed over to the Roman Inquisition, Giordano Bruno i n his interrogation of M a y 30, 1592, relates that,\nafter delivering an extraordinary lecture i n Paris,\nI gained such fame that K i n g Henry III sent for me one day to\nask if m y memory was natural or magical. I satisfied h i m by\nanswering and proving that it was not magical but scientific,\nof w h i c h he himself was convinced. Afterward, I had printed\nDangerous Liaisons\n59\na m e m o i r entitled De umbris idearum that I dedicated to H i s\nMajesty, w h o therefore made me lecturer extraordinary w i t h\na stipend, a n d I c o n t i n u e d to lecture i n that city . . . for perhaps five years, after w h i c h I resigned because of the civil]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=250\nPages: 250,251\ngrace. The hero stands in contrast to the saint, and Bruno finds it preferable to be\na hero rather than a saint. That is w h y the title Heroic Furors has nothing to do\nwith amor hereos.\n57. See my aforementioned article \u202b\u05f4\u202cLe vol magique. . . . \"\n58. R. Mondolfo, Figure e idee della filosofia del Rinascimento, Italian trans. (Florence, 1970), p. 73.\n59. E. Garin, La cultura filosofica, p. 703.\n60. G. Gentile, Giordano Bruno e il pensiero del Rinascimento, p. 91.\n238\nNotes to Pages91-113238\n61. Cf. V. Spampanato, L'antipetrarchismo di Giordano Bruno (Milan, 1900).\n62. Cf. H.-P. Duerr, Traumzeit: Uber die Grenze zwischen Wildnis und Zivilisation\n(Frankfurt, 1978), p. 73.\n63. A. Sarno, \u202b\u05f4\u202cLa genesi degli \u202b\u05f3\u202cEroici furori\u202b \u05f3\u202cdi Giordano Bruno,\u202b \u05f4\u202cGiorhale\ncritico della \u00dflosofia italiana (Rome), 1920, pp. 158-72; see also F. Flora's preface to\nhis edition of De gl'heroici furori, p. xx, which agrees with Sarno's interpretation.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=267\nPages: 267,268\nLetteratura Religiosa (Turin) 17 (1981): 360-408.\n255\n256\nBibliography\n. \u202b\u05f4\u202cGiordano Bruno tra la Montagna d i Circe e il Fiume delle Dame leggiadre.\u202b \u05f4\u202cI n Montagna e Letteratura, edited by A . Audisio and R. Rinaldi, pp.\n71-75. Turin: Museo della Montagna, 1983.\nCrohns, Hjalmar. \u202b \u05f4\u202cZ u r Geschichte der Liebe als \u202b\u05f3\u202cKrankheit.\u202b \u05f4 \u05f3\u202cArchiv f\u00fcr Kultur-\nGeschichte (Berlin) 3 (1905): 66-86. Reprint, Vaduz: Kraus, 1965.\nCulianu, loan P. See Couliano.\nDebus, Allen G. Man and Nature in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.\n, ed. Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance: Essays to Honor Walter\nPagel. 2 vols. London: Heineman, 1972.\nDe Lancre, Pierre. Tableau de l'inconstance des mauvais anges et demons o\u00f9 il est\namplement trait\u00e9 des sorciers et de la sorcellerie. Introduction and notes by Nicole\nJacques-Chaquin. Paris: Aubier, 1982.\nDe Lubac, Henri. Pic de la Mir\u00e1ndole: Etudes et discussions. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1974.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=105\nPages: 105\ncontrol nature and h u m a n society. This undertaking, however, encounters almost insuperable difficulties.\n(ii) Manipulation of Masses and of Individuals\nDe vinculis in genere ( \u202b \u05f4\u202cO f bonds i n general\u202b )\u05f4\u202cby Giordano Bruno is one of\nthose little-known works whose importance i n the history of ideas far\noutstrips that of more famous ones. I n its frankness, indeed the cynicism of the analysis of its contents, it might be compared to Machiavelli's\nThe Prince, especially as the subject matter of the t w o works is connected: Bruno deals w i t h psychological manipulation i n general, Machiavelli w i t h political manipulation. But h o w colorless and ridiculous\nthe Machiavellian prince-adventurer n o w seems, compared to Bruno's\nmagician-psychologist! The popularity of The Prince gained for it the respect of succeeding centuries and has recently even led to the theory of\nthe modern \u202b\u05f4\u202cPrince\"\u2014the Communist party\u2014advanced by A n t o n i o]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76,77\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,\nlike Giulio Camillo's theater. To u n d e r s t a n d something about his w o r k s ,\nposterity, interested i n t h e m because of his m a r t y r d o m , was obliged to\neliminate eight-tenths of them: all the mnemotechnic a n d magical tracts.\nPosterity claimed to be satisfied, for Bruno h a d been a defender of\nCopernicus a n d even the first to connect the idea of the i n f i n i t y of the\nuniverse w i t h heliocentrism. Yet a huge gulf separates this Neoplatonic\npantheist f r o m rationalists like Spinoza. Grasping h o w uninteresting\nBruno's w o r k was to the m o d e r n age, Hegel, w h o f o u n d his doctrine\ni n v o l v e d a n d repulsive, termed his p h i l o s o p h y \u202b\u05f3\u05f3\u202cbacchantic,\" probably\nan excuse for being unable to read h i m . A l l of w h i c h proves that, far\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248,249\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano\nBruno (Florence, 1955), is inspired by Marxism; and indirectly inspired by it is\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne V\u00e9drine's book, La Conception de la nature chez Giordano Bruno (Paris,\n1967). Frances A. Yates's book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London\nand Chicago 1964) is still very important, especially as it is supplemented by\nobservations on Bruno contained in The Art of Memory and, more recently, in\nAstraea. Yates's undeniable merit is to have integrated Bruno's oeuvre into its\ncultural context; for the first time in the history of modern philosophy, Bruno\nwas not envisaged as the clumsy, grotesque, and \"bacchanalian\" precursor of\nmodern thinking but as one of the most impressive representatives of Renaissance thought. It is, fundamentally, a question of applying different categories\n236\nNotes to Pages 91-113 236\na n d of measuring h i m by the standards of another era, and historians of ideas]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\n(iv) The Wiles of Giordano Bruno\nGiordano Bruno was undoubtedly one of the most complex individuals\nof the sixteenth century. I n contrast to Agrippa, he is easy to classify:\nBruno was a representative of the phantasmic era at the time of the Reformation. But the Reformation's influence u p o n h i m is not to be overlooked. A t Nola, i n the Dominican convent, he had bursts of iconoclasm\nw h i c h brought u p o n h i m persecution and rebuffs by the religious authorities. I n England he played the role of defender of the A r t of Memory against Ramism. N o w , i n the Puritan view, the mnemotechnics of the\nRenaissance were out-of-date and diabolical, u n w o r t h y of their general\nmoral reforms, especially as they seemed to be linked i n some way w i t h\nthe activities of the Catholic Church. Bruno, a foreigner i n Italy, was no\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=94\nPages: 94,95\ncan enjoy his companion, the naked goddess.\nWe can already understand Bruno's presumptions (let us confine our-\n78\nPhantasms at Work\nselves to the etymological meaning of this word): he states that he himself is this \u202b\u05f4\u202cdead m a n a l i v e / \u202b \u05f3\u202cthis man liberated f r o m the confines of the\nh u m a n species. He considers himself a religious leader w h o , like St.\nThomas, Zoroaster, St. Paul, etc., has opened the \u202b\u05f4\u202cseal of seals,\u202b \u05f4\u202cw h o\nhas been loved by the virgin goddess, the unattainable Diana. 69\nI n this framework it is easy to understand that the Inquisition sent\nh i m to the stake. Should he not, i n principle, have been capable of a\nsmall miracle to save himself? A n d was not the wise and w i l y Inquisition\nsure that no one had been able to perform such a miracle? I n every\nwitchcraft trial\u2014and I believe Bruno's was one\u2014the passion of Jesus]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=41\nPages: 41,42\nhimself adopted the traditional Ptolemaic cosmology and astrology.\nWith the ideas he endorsed, Nicholas of Cusa 7 6 might easily have\nworked on magic, but that was probably of slight interest for a pure\nmetaphysician of his kind. As to Ficino, except for his Thomism and his\nHistory of Phantasy\n25\nPlatonism w h i c h force the cosmological system u p o n him, he is not so\nfar from Kepler, w h o studies Pythagorean astral music. 7 7 The concepts\nof the world, the inner aspirations and motivations of a Ficino and a\nKepler, do not essentially differ f r o m one another: on that point contemporary historians of science no longer have any doubt. 7 8 We shall attempt, i n the second part of this book, to examine the true ideological\ncauses that produced the change i n h u m a n imagination w i t h o u t w h i c h\nthe transition from qualitative scientific principles to obviously quantitative principles w o u l d not have been possible.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=75\nPages: 75,76\nstrange paradox that crowned the posthumous fate of the man w h o was\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cprobably the most antidemocratic of all philosophers. 3 1 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\n(ii) The Ambiguous Gods of Eros\nG I O R D A N O B R U N O , A M A N OF T H E P H A N T A S M I C PAST\nImprisoned i n Venice before being handed over to the Roman Inquisition, Giordano Bruno i n his interrogation of M a y 30, 1592, relates that,\nafter delivering an extraordinary lecture i n Paris,\nI gained such fame that K i n g Henry III sent for me one day to\nask if m y memory was natural or magical. I satisfied h i m by\nanswering and proving that it was not magical but scientific,\nof w h i c h he himself was convinced. Afterward, I had printed\nDangerous Liaisons\n59\na m e m o i r entitled De umbris idearum that I dedicated to H i s\nMajesty, w h o therefore made me lecturer extraordinary w i t h\na stipend, a n d I c o n t i n u e d to lecture i n that city . . . for perhaps five years, after w h i c h I resigned because of the civil]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=52\nPages: 52\nGiulio Camillo, a modest and unassuming man whose Latin made\nhim the butt of Zuichemus's jokes, left us few writings. He worked on\nrhetoric and translated Le Idee, overo Forme della Oratione, attributed to\nHermogenes of Tarsus, 16 but it seems he had also studied the work of\nPico della Mirandola17 and perhaps also that of the Venetian Brother\nFrancesco Giorgi,18 which is based on Ficino. His main preoccupation\nwas adequately to depict a cosmic model. This cosmic model certainly\nstems from Florentine Platonism.\nCamillo set forth his schema in an obscure little treatise published in\nFlorence in 1550, L'ldea del Teatro. His construction, which had the form\nof an amphitheater of seven sections, aspired to be an imago mundi in\nwhich all ideas and objects might find their appropriate place by virtue\nof their planetary classification. Like any artificial system, this was\ndoomed to be no longer understood as soon as the sets linking terrestrial]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=254\nPages: 254\nmodernen Naturwissenschaften, Studia Leibniziana, no. 7 (Wiesbaden, 1978), p. 63.\n11. Ibid., p. 64.\n12. Ibid., pp. 63 sq.\n13. Ibid., p. 63.\n14. A t one time I thought this an expression of the coincidentia oppositorum (see\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cM o t i v u l \u202b\u05f4\u202ccoincidentia oppositorum\u202b \u05f4\u202cla Giordano Bruno,\u202b \u05f4\u202cunpublished paper\ngiven i n November 1970 at the University of Bucharest), especially as it was\namply documented by Bruno's philosophical works. However, this interpretation was too greatly influenced by reading Mircea Eliade's Patterns in Comparative\nReligion. The oxymoron i n Bruno's poetry can rather be explained as indicative of\na technique and practice of a magical kind. We are dealing not w i t h stylistic f o r m\nbut w i t h concrete descriptions of controlled psychic functions.\nChapter 5\n1. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic, pp. 82-83.\n2. See Lubac, Pic de la Mirandole, pp. 130 sq.\n3. Olerud, L'id\u00e9e de macrocosmos . . . (see chap. 1, n. 9, above).\n4. See my \u202b\u05f4\u202cMagia spirituale,\" n. 85.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88\nlady of a strange country\u2014but the symbol of spiritual adventures as\nwell as metaphysical entities.\nBruno is perfectly familiar w i t h Ficino's theory of love and also w i t h\nPico della Mirandola's Commento. Part of the Heroic Furors (II, p. 3) is\nmade u p of an exchange of questions and answers between heart and\neyes, pneumatic organs w i t h a familiar role i n the psychology of Eros.\nHowever, the new scholasticism of w h i c h Ficino had been the most famous representative is ridiculed by Bruno i n his comedy Candelaio, published i n Paris i n 1582.64 The character Scaramur\u00bf, a charlatan magician\nand astrologer, recites this passage taken almost literally f r o m Ficino's\nworks:\nFascination is produced by virtue of a shiny and rarefied spirit, generated by the heart from the purest blood which, sent\nout i n the f o r m of rays from open eyes . . . , w o u n d s the\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248\nAntonio Corsano, II pensiero di Giordano Bruno nel suo svolgimento storico (Florence,\n1940), a work which, though very useful, systematically neglects Bruno's magic\nthought and mnemotechnics. This same defect is also evident in earlier studies:\nErminio Troilo, La filosofia Giordano Bruno, 2 vols. (Turin and Rome, 1907-14),\nand Giordano Bruno (Rome, 1918); Giovanni Gentile, Giordano Bruno e il pensiero\ndel Rinascimento (Florence, 1920); Leonardo Olschki, Giordano Bruno (Bari, 1927);\nEdgar Papu, Giordano Bruno: Viata si opera (Bucharest, 1947); Bertrando Spaventa,\nRinascimento, Riforma, Controriforma (Venice, 1928); Augusto Guzzo, I dialoghi di\nGiordano Bruno (Turin, 1932), etc. Very valuable data on Bruno is to be found in\nP. O. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (Stanford, 1964), and in\nE. Garin, La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano (Florence, 1961), and Storia\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=144\nPages: 144,145\ncombination of Ficino's magic and Trithemius's demonomagic is to be\nf o u n d i n the three books of Agrippa's not very original but very influential Occult Philosophy. Giordano Bruno's magic is inspired i n the first\nplace by Ficino, utilizing as complementary sources Albert the Great,\nTrithemius and Agrippa. W i t h respect to Tommaso Campanella, a dissident Calabrian m o n k at the beginning of the seventeenth century,\nwhose political utopia seems to have exerted a decisive influence on the\ngroup of German friends w h o produced the \u202b\u05f4\u202cfarce\" (ludibrium) of the\nRosicrucians, 44 he too cultivated a pneumatic magic deriving from\nPneumatic Magic\n129\nFicino, with (inoffensive) rituals that were greatly appreciated by Pope\nUrban.45\nFrom Ficino to Campanella, a number of writers know about Ficino's\ntheory of the pneuma without always making use of its magic side.\nAmong them we mention Pico della Mirandola, Francesco Cattani da]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=266\nPages: 266,267\n37. Glauber, cited in A. G. Debus, Man and Nature, pp. 138-40.\nBibliography\nAgamben, Giorgio. Stanze: La parola e il fantasma nella cultura occidentale. Turin:\nEinaudi, 1977.\nAlbertus Magnus and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays 1980, edited by James\nA. Weisheipl, OP. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1980.\nAnagnine, Eugenio. G. Pico della Mirandola: Sincretismo religioso-filosoficof 14631494. Bari: Laterza, 1937.\nAnglo, Sydney, ed. The Damned Art: Essays in the Literature of Witchcraft. London:\nRoutledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.\nArnold, Klaus. Johannes Trithemius (1642-1516). W\u00fcrzburg: Kommissionsverlag\nF. Sch\u00f6ningh, 1971.\nArnold, Paul. La Rose-Croix et ses rapports avec la Franc-Ma\u00e7onnerie: Essai de synth\u00e8se\nhistorique. Paris: Maisonneuve-Larose, 1970.\nBarasch, Moshe. Light and Color in the Italian Renaissance Theory of Art. New York:\nNew York University Press, 1981.\nBartholomaeus Anglicus. On the Properties of Soul and Body: De proprietatibus rerum]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=75\nPages: 75\nremains i n a state of catalepsy, as Celio Agostino Curione seems to inf o r m us i n the appendix to the Hieroglyphica of Pierio Valeriano. 29 After\nvery few variations, the description of binsica reappears i n Baldesar Castiglione, Egidio da Viterbo, Francesco Giorgio Veneto, Celio Calcagnini,\nLeo the Hebrew (Dialoghi d'amore), and Giordano Bruno (Heroici furori).30\nW i t h Bruno, we enter the unfathomable arcana of Eros i n w h i c h the\npure theory of the Florentine Platonists leads to several quite mysterious\nconclusions. One of these, at least, relates to the dangerous liaisons that\nBruno was inclined to maintain all his life, u n t i l his death at the stake, to\nw h i c h he consented i n order not to contradict his o w n illusions, brought\nh i m ultimate freedom. The smoke had hardly dissipated w h e n Giordano\nBruno was almost unanimously proclaimed a \u202b\u05f4\u202csymbol of democracy.\u202b \u05f4\u202cA\nstrange paradox that crowned the posthumous fate of the man w h o was]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72\nThis system of successive links of being w h i c h goes to descending levels\nis called the \u202b\u05f4\u202cAlexandrine schema\" and is inherited by Plotinus f r o m the\ngnostic systems he attacks. 8 The t h i n k i n g of the first Neoplatonist comprises an apostroph\u00e9 (in Latin, processio), or estrangement from the essence of being, which humans alone can make good by the opposite\nprocess of epistroph\u00ea (conversio) or return to being.\nAs for Ficino, the degrees of progression are as follows: God, the angelic or universal intellect, Reason, Soul, Nature, and Body. 9 Through\nits intermediary position the soul, like two-faced J a n u s , 1 0 has some of\nthe characteristics both of the intelligential world and of the sensory\nworld. That is why it is called copula mundi or nodus mundi,11 whereas\nman-microcosm, parvus mundus, is vicarius Dei in terra, vicar of God on\nearth. 1 2\nPico della Mirandola repeats Ficino's expressions literally and the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=40\nPages: 40,41\ncenter; the cosmos of Aristarchus and the Pythagoreans as exemplified\nby the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheliostatic 6 9 \u202b \u05f4\u202ctheory of Copernicus; 7 0 finally, the infinite universe of Giordano Bruno, w h i c h integrates our heliocentric planetary\nsystem. We might add to the above the ancient geo-heliocentric theory\nof Plato's disciple, Heracleides Ponticus, never w h o l l y discarded i n the\nMiddle Ages and taken u p again by Tycho Brahe. 7 1 None of those cosmological systems excludes the hypothesis of magic since it is based on\nthe idea of continuity between man and the w o r l d w h i c h could not be\nupset simply by changing theories about the structure of the world. Magicians such as Giordano Bruno or Pythagorean astrologers like Kepler\nhave no difficulty i n conforming to the new philosophy. What does\n24\nPhantasms at Work\nchange, from one cosmos to another, is only the idea of the dignity of\nthe earth and of man, and there, too, considerable doctrinal variations]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,87\nthey are at the center of a network of very complicated meanings at the\nvery heart of Bruno's philosophy as w e l l as of the spirit of his era.\nA T T H E H E A R T OF B R U N O ' S D O C T R I N E\nCentral to Bruno's moral doctrine is Ficino's thesis of the dispossessing\nof the subject, of the loss and the transfer of its \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\" into the\nDangerous Liaisons\n71\nobject. To be sure, that applies exclusively, as w i t h Pico della Mirandola,\nto the state of mystic love, whose object is the Deity. Hence the mors\nosculi, as we shall see, as w e l l as the story of the nine b l i n d men, which,\nthough a revival, literal i n places, of the eclogue Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco Antonio Epicuro, takes its inspiration equally f r o m Pico's\ntheory of prophetic blindness as formulated i n his Commento.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=267\nPages: 267,268\nLetteratura Religiosa (Turin) 17 (1981): 360-408.\n255\n256\nBibliography\n. \u202b\u05f4\u202cGiordano Bruno tra la Montagna d i Circe e il Fiume delle Dame leggiadre.\u202b \u05f4\u202cI n Montagna e Letteratura, edited by A . Audisio and R. Rinaldi, pp.\n71-75. Turin: Museo della Montagna, 1983.\nCrohns, Hjalmar. \u202b \u05f4\u202cZ u r Geschichte der Liebe als \u202b\u05f3\u202cKrankheit.\u202b \u05f4 \u05f3\u202cArchiv f\u00fcr Kultur-\nGeschichte (Berlin) 3 (1905): 66-86. Reprint, Vaduz: Kraus, 1965.\nCulianu, loan P. See Couliano.\nDebus, Allen G. Man and Nature in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.\n, ed. Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance: Essays to Honor Walter\nPagel. 2 vols. London: Heineman, 1972.\nDe Lancre, Pierre. Tableau de l'inconstance des mauvais anges et demons o\u00f9 il est\namplement trait\u00e9 des sorciers et de la sorcellerie. Introduction and notes by Nicole\nJacques-Chaquin. Paris: Aubier, 1982.\nDe Lubac, Henri. Pic de la Mir\u00e1ndole: Etudes et discussions. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1974.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=78\nPages: 78,79\nrules, and\nthe purpose of rules is not to seek primarily the t r u t h of\nthings and of speculations but the good effects of its practices\non civilization, understanding between peoples and ease of\n62\nPhantasms at Work\nh u m a n intercourse, the maintenance of peace a n d national\nprogress. O f t e n , a n d i n m a n y respects, it is more stupid and\nignorant to say things according to t r u t h t h a n according to\nthe occasion a n d the o p p o r t u n i t y .\nThe m a n of the f u t u r e was not Giordano Bruno b u t Smitho, the Puritan.\nThe argument about heliocentrism, w h i c h h a d great repercussions,\nhas l o n g eclipsed another controversy Bruno h a d w i t h the Puritans, i n\nm a n y ways a more i m p o r t a n t one: the debate about the A r t of M e m o r y .\nH a r d l y h a d Bruno arrived i n England t h a n he hastened to dedicate to\nM i c h e l de Castelnau a n u m b e r of mnemonic w r i t i n g s p r i n t e d b y John]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=15\nPages: 15\nand mass psychology.\nInsofar as science and the manipulation of phantasms are concerned,\nmagic is primarily directed at the human imagination, in which it attempts to create lasting impressions. The magician of the Renaissance is\nboth psychoanalyst and prophet as well as the precursor of modern professions such as director of public relations, propagandist, spy, politician, censor, director of mass communication media, and publicity\nagent.\nThe workings of phantasy in the Renaissance are more or less complex: eroticism is the most important, already apparent in the natural\nworld without human intervention. Magic is merely eroticism applied,\ndirected, and aroused by its performer. But there are other aspects of the\nmanipulation of phantasms, one of them being the miraculous Art of\nMemory. The bond between eroticism, mnemonics, and magic is indissoluble to such an extent that it is impossible to understand the third\nwithout first having studied the principles and mechanisms of the first]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=129\nPages: 129\nPneumatic Magic\n113\ni n a material object made for this purpose or i n an animal. W i t h this\nreservoir of spiritual energy w i t h i n his grasp, the magician counts either\non obtaining either knowledge of the future or on achieving some practical purpose. 1 2\nCredit for having synthesized i n an original fashion the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements that make up the theoretical basis for Renaissance magic is due to Synesius of Cyrene, w h o , having been the\ndisciple of the Neoplatonist martyr, Hypatia of Alexandria (d. 415), ended by converting to Christianity and becoming a bishop. 1 3\nFor the Stoics, the functional relationship between the cardiac synthesizer (hegemonikon) and the pneuma was clearly determined: the\nhegemonikon \u202b\u05f4\u202cis like a receiving post to w h i c h all impressions received\nby the senses are communicated. 1 4 \u202b \u05f4\u202cO n the other hand, the Stoic philosophers also develop a theory of phantasms produced by the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=196\nPages: 196\nimportant (magic, medicine, and even alchemy can be regarded, i n a\nway, as astrological disciplines). Another fundamental factor of Renaissance ideology is Christian doctrine and the Church, w h i c h never altogether accepts the message of \u202b\u05f4\u202cscience\u202b\u05f4\u202c: revealed t r u t h has hegemony\nover all temporal truth, w h i c h can only be relative to the former.\nM o d e r n science emerges f r o m an interaction of very complex ideological forces by a process resembling the natural selection of species. N o w\nwe k n o w that this is not determined by a providential law but rather by\nenvironmental accidents, accidents w h i c h Jacques M o n o d has, perhaps\nerroneously, called \u202b\u05f4\u202cchance.\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nWhat chance has a wingless fly to obtain food i n our climate? None,\nbecause, not having means to move quickly and w i t h o u t a reliable shelter like subterranean worms, it w i l l easily fall prey to birds. This genetic\nmutant w i l l be eliminated by natural selection. However, this is the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=197\nPages: 197\nEros or magic or the contiguous \u202b\u05f4\u202csciences\u202b \u05f4\u202cof the Renaissance. A magic\ninvocation or an alchemical experiment could cost a m a n his head. Fear\njustified everything, and that is w h y people gave u p astrology, magic,\nand alchemy or retired into cautious silence, as d i d N e w t o n , o n matters\nof an occult nature. The Catholic Church not only called for a change i n\nmorals but also undertook the zealous defense of w h a t it considered\nmost previous, Thomism. Galileo brushed against the stake not because\nhe was a representative of \u202b \u05f4\u202cm o d e r n science\u202b( \u05f4\u202cwhich he surely was not),\nbut because he dared to oppose Thomism. Bruno was consumed b y\nflames because he was an unrepentant magician, not because he defended the ideas of the cardinal of Cusa. Everywhere people engaged i n\nless offensive occupations, w h i c h could not r u n counter to the image of\nthe w o r l d and of h u m a n society that conformed w i t h one or another of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=270\nPages: 270\nPress, 1972.\nShumaker, Wayne. The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance: A Study in Intellectual\nPatterns. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1972.\nSoleil. Le Soleil \u00e0 la Renaissance: Sciences et mythes. Brussels and Paris: Presses\nUniversitaires, 1965.\nSpence, Jonathan D. The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci. New York: Sifton/Penguin, 1983.\nTedeschi, John. \u202b\u05f4\u202cThe Roman Inquisition and Witchcraft.\u202b \u05f4\u202cRevue de l'Histoire des\nReligions 200 (1983): 163-88.\nTeirlinck, Isidore. Flora Magica: De plant in de Tooverwereld. Anvers: De Sikkel,\n1930.\nLe Temps chr\u00e9tien de la fin de L'Antiquit\u00e9 au Moyen Age, IIIe-XIIIe si\u00e8cles. Paris:\nEditions du CNRS, 1984.\nThorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vols. 3-4, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries; vols. 5-6, The Sixteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934-41.\nToulmin, Stephen. The Return to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=9\nPages: 9\nextensive comparative monograph on myths and techniques relating to\necstasy*\u2014that his most important works begin to appear.\nRemembering that the Italian Renaissance was one of my youthful\npassions and that I had chosen for my thesis the ideas of Marsilio Ficino,\nPico della Mirandola, and Giordano Bruno, the author asked me to write\na short foreword to Eros and Magic. I was tempted to enlarge upon the\nstages and great names of modern historiography concerning the Renaissance, emphasizing, for instance, recent r\u00e9\u00e9valuations of hermetic,\noccult, and alchemical traditions. What a fascinating field of study in the\nhistory of thought is the analysis of interpretations of the Italian Renaissance, from Jacob Burckhardt and Giovanni Gentile to Eugenio Garin, P.\nOskar Kristeller, E. H. Gombrich, F. A. Yates, D. P. Walker, Allen G.\nDebus, and other distinguished scholars of our day.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=194\nPages: 194,195\nthat it is surprising it has been avoided or distorted so systematically.\nNewton lived in an era marked by the victory of Puritanism on the political level. Puritanism despised occult sciences because they did not conform to the spirit of the Bible. Newton did not make his alchemical\n1484\n181\nexperiments public because he had his head on his shoulders and preferred to have it stay there. For the psychological and even physical\nrestraints imposed by the Church's reform\u2014Protestant as w e l l as Catholic\u2014were no less than those imposed by the French Revolution at its\nheight or\u2014mutatis mutandis\u2014by the Soviet revolution.\nW i t h regard to magic, there is no doubt that it was as useful at the\ntime of the Renaissance as was astrology. Let us not forget that, under\nthe rubric of \u202b\u05f4\u202cnatural magic,\" very varied kinds of technical knowledge\nwere in circulation\u2014from the manufacture of animal and vegetable dyes\nto pyrotechnics and optical procedures\u2014as w e l l as theurgic and medical]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=16\nPages: 16,15\nwithout first having studied the principles and mechanisms of the first\ntwo.\nIn studying imagination at the time of the Renaissance and the\nchanges it was to undergo in the Reformation, I am something of a pioneer. Yet would be naive to maintain that my book has no connection\nwith a whole tradition of studies about history and philosophy of science whose optical illusions it sometimes tries to correct.\nIt goes without saying that the subject matter whose historical\nvicissitudes are to be examined in the course of this work is human imagination as revealed in documents relating to eroticism and magic in the\nRenaissance. Sometimes it will be impossible to avoid taking into consideration the magician's pretenses in performing feats which are out of\nthe ordinary. As a result, it will be impossible not to compare such pretense\u2014whose validity is not at issue here\u2014to the accomplishments of\nmodern science and technology. Magic and science, in the last analysis,\nIntroduction\nxix]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=133\nPages: 133,134\nw i t h unitary characteristics. 33 Underground currents beginning i n Late\nAntiquity reach Byzantium at the time of Michael Psellus and, through\nArab channels, go west i n the twelfth century. This indicates an uninterrupted continuity of the methods of practical magic, w h i c h goes on perfecting its principles and its instruments especially i n connection w i t h the\nonly exact \u202b\u05f4\u202cscience\u202b \u05f4\u202cof the time, astrology. Renaissance magic, while\nmore sophisticated because imbued w i t h Neoplatonist theosophy and\nanthroposophy, realizes the debt it owes to its venerable medieval predecessors such as Roger Bacon and Albert the Great. They, i n turn, are\n118\u202b\u05be\u202c\nThe Great Manipulator\nindebted to Arab magic, of w h i c h the t w o fundamental works must be\nmentioned: the Picatrix by Pseudo-Madjriti and the treatise De radiis by alKind!.\nPicatrix is the title of the Latin translation, done i n 1256 at the court of\nAlphonso the Wise, k i n g of Castille, of the pseudo-epigraphic w o r k]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=193\nPages: 193,194\nof ideas deriving from his personal metaphysics. This easily demonstrates that technical advances have played a marginal role i n forming\nthe spirit of modern science.\nAnother hypothesis, just as superficial, states that Renaissance sciences had amply demonstrated that they lacked utility. It was natural\nthat they should have been replaced by sciences whose practical results\u2014modern technology\u2014compelled recognition due to their pragmatic \u202b\u05f4\u202cusefulness.\u202b \u05f4\u202cThe postulate of this thesis is that their very method\nput a check on the Renaissance sciences such as astrology, medicine,\nalchemy, and magic. We cannot deny that i n quite numerous cases these\n\u202b\u05f4\u202csciences\" had failed. There is absolutely no reason, however, to doubt\nthe confidence placed i n them i n their time.\nAstrology was not infallible, but many of its predictions turned out to\nbe more or less accurate or were adjusted i n retrospect so that they\n179\n180\nEnd Game]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=144\nPages: 144,143\nclassified into seven great planetary series, such that all nature, w i t h its\nmineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms\u2014including the h u m a n species\u2014is linked to the seven wandering heavenly bodies and to the other\nstars by invisible bonds. The magician has, i n the first place, expert\nknowledge of these bonds; he is able to classify every object i n the w o r l d\naccording to the appropriate series and, thereby, to attract benefits f r o m\nthe star i n charge of the particular series.\nThe fact that there are many representatives of Renaissance magic\n128\u202b\u05be\u202c\nThe Great Manipulator\nshould not hide f r o m the investigator the main lines of its development,\nw h i c h prove to be relatively simple. Its point of depature is Ficino's treatise De vita coelitus comparanda (1489), w h i c h specifically states the followi n g principles: just as the soul of the w o r l d is concentrated i n the sun,\nwhence it radiates to all parts of the universe through the quinta essentia]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=235\nPages: 235,236\nconceived of the natural and social w o r l d as a spiritual organism i n\nw h i c h perpetual exchanges of phantasmic messages occurred. That was\nthe principle of magic and of Eros, Eros itself being a form of magic.\nThe Reformation destroys this structure of phantasms i n motion; it\nforbids the use of imagination and proclaims the necessity for total suppression of sinful nature. It even attempts artificially to make the sexes\none and the same so that natural temptations might disappear.\nA t the time w h e n the religious values of the Reformation are losing all\n222\nEnd Game\ntheir effectiveness, its theoretical and practical opposition to the spirit of\nthe Renaissance receives an interpretation of a cultural and scientific\nk i n d . But it is a lesson that henceforth m a n k i n d takes for granted: the\nimaginary and the real are t w o separate and distinct realms, magic is a\nf o r m of absorption i n phantasy as an escape f r o m reality, the reality]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=232\nPages: 232,233\ni n particular, he can made the stars come d o w n to earth (lines 1790 sq.)\nand convinces Cipriano of his talents by moving a mountain (lines 2579\nsq.).\nAs to Cipriano himself, he learns necromancy, pyromancy, and palmistry and, i n order to perform magic, he forms graphic symbols, ensuri n g the cooperation of the stars, the winds, and the spirits of the dead\n(lines 2720 sq.), i n the tradition of Marsilio Ficino, Cornelius Agrippa,\nand Giordano Bruno.\nT r u t h to tell, magic rites are described quite superficially i n the Magico\nprodigioso. The important thing was to establish a direct relationship be-\nDoctor Faust, from Antioch to Seville\n219\ntween magic and the devil, between the devil and the Renaissance, enemy number one of the Reformation. Calder\u00f6n accomplishes this without any difficulty. He then concentrates on what we might call the equation Eros = magic, which also stems from the Renaissance. It is at this]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=126\nPages: 126,127\never having met or observed them. Certainly our concept of \" n a t u r e \"\nhas been scrupulously expurgated of those entities. O n the other hand,\n\" n a t u r e \" i n the Renaissance was overpopulated w i t h them, and magic\nprided itself on t u r n i n g their exceptional qualities to account.\nI n the second place, natural determinism, i n Renaissance thought, d i d\nnot concede any margin of chance. Everything bore the rigid and implacable stamp of destiny, free w i l l itself being a mere invention of theologians w h i c h must be blindly endorsed. I n our day we believe our\nPneumatic Magic\n127\nencounters and our feelings are due to chance; o n the other hand, a m a n\nof the Renaissance w o u l d show us, horoscope i n hand, that they were\npredetermined b y the position of the planets i n the zodiac o n the day of\nour b i r t h and the day of our encounter. He m i g h t even do more, h e l p i n g\nour w i l l to realize its secret or public inclinations. W h e n someone finds]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=134\nPages: 134\nAlphonso the Wise, k i n g of Castille, of the pseudo-epigraphic w o r k\nGhayat al-Hakim fi'l-sihr or End of the Sages by means of Magic attributed to\nthe Andalusian mathematician al\u202b\u05be\u202cMadjriti (d. ca. 1004-7). 34 It w o u l d be\nhard fo deny the influence of Picatrix on Renaissance magic. 35 It must\nalso be pointed out, however, that this influence is primarily practical\nand cannot justify the importance given by Ficino or Giordano Bruno to\nthe purely theoretical side of magic.\nThe Picatrix itself, of course, is aware of the distinction between \u202b\u05f4\u202ctheor y \u202b \u2014 \u05f4\u202ca s t r o l o g y \u2014 a n d \u202b\u05f4\u202cpractice\u202b\u2014\u05f4\u202cthe manufacture of talismans (I, 2, p.\n256, Matton). But, the authors of books about magic i n the Renaissance\nare not satisfied w i t h so little: they think astrology has an ontological\nfoundation and justification, whose explanation must be sought i n Neoplatonism on the one hand and, o n the other, i n the much more incisive\nw o r k of al-Kindl.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=134\nPages: 134,135\ncity, preventing construction of a building, releasing a prisoner from his\nprison, evicting a m a n f r o m his home, separating friends, causing someone to incur the king's wrath, assuring fishermen a good catch, putting\nscorpions to flight, healing wounds, ensuring the (financial) success of a\ndoctor, increasing harvests and plants, curing many diseases, etc.\nFicino's astrological magic derives much from the Picatrix, but the influence is primarily quantitative, not qualitative. The imposing structure\nof the spiritual magic of the Renaissance is not comparable to the mediocre pile of empirical procedures that make u p the Picatrix. However,\nsince it befell the philologists to have the easy task of discovering i n\nFicino whole passages borrowed from the Picatrix, they were too easily\nPneumatic Magic\n119\nsatisfied w i t h a genetic explanation of a very general k i n d , according to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=211\nPages: 211\nCensoring Phantasy\n197\nconcealed behind the \u202b\u05f4\u202cfarce\u202b \u05f4\u202cof the Rosicrucians cannot be ignored. The\nsingularity of the great thinkers w h o gravitate around this movement\u2014\na Robert Fludd, a Kepler, a Descartes, or a Bacon\u2014is that they refuse to\nsubject themselves entirely to the reformed religion and continue to seek\ntheir sources of inspiration i n the culture of the Renaissance. We are at\nthe beginnings of modern science, w h i c h represent a continuation of the\nRenaissance insofar as the great discoveries of the seventeenth century\nstill derive from the postulate of analogies between microcosm and macrocosm and from a complex of Pythagorean ideas about the harmony of\nthe world; w e are also at the beginnings of a negation of the Renaissance, insofar as the spirit of the Reformation produces a substantial\nmodification of the h u m a n imagination.\nAs for the liberal and Utopian movements, persecuted by the official\nchurches\u2014in a Europe rigorously moralistic and divided between t w o]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=172\nPages: 172,173\nrecipes\u2014which is not at all \u202b\u05f4\u202cspiritual.\u202b \u05f4\u202cA n d , i n the same way, Trithemius's magic is performed through the intermediary of planetary demons w i t h o u t being spiritual either.\nWe arrive at the conclusion that there are several forms of magic that\ncan be simultaneously spiritual and demoniac, w h i c h makes that dichoto m y irrelevant.\nDemonomagic\n157\nOf the categories of magic i n the Renaissance, the most interesting is\nundoubtedly that of Giordano Bruno. He lists nine categories: sapientia,\nmagia naturalis (medicina, chymia), praestigiatoria, a second f o r m of natural\nmagic, mathematica or occulta philosophia, a magia desperatorum, w h i c h is\ndemonomagic, also called transnaturalis seu metaphysica or theourgia, necromania, maleficium (of w h i c h veneficium is a subcategory) and divinatio or\nphophetia (De Magia, III, pp. 397-400). A l t h o u g h the criteria for this classification are not always clear, it seems that Bruno had i n m i n d primarily]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=157\nPages: 157\nartificial things have occult qualities conferred u p o n them by the stars:\nthrough these things our spirit attracts the influence of the respective\nstars.\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nT H E LURES\nThe purpose of Ficino's pneumatic magic is to improve the spiritual,\nphysical, psychic, and social conditions of the magician himself, or his\nclient. Theurgy and medicine are the magician's principal activities.\nPlants, stones, metals, and the various other substances used according\nto the position of the planets i n the zodiac exert a positive influence\nu p o n the spirit of the theurgist and u p o n an invalid's health. Amulets,\ntalismans and images, depending on the case, can have a prophylactic\nor curative effect. It goes w i t h o u t saying that the same remedies can be\nused to obtain results of a different kind: social success, learning facility,\npracticing a profession, harmony i n intersubjective relations, etc. It is\neasy to imagine that, for every undertaking, there is a lucky position of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160,161\ninstrument, still used by Proclus, one of the last Neoplatonists, was\ncalled \u202b \u05f4\u202cl y n x \" after a sort of fire b i r d w h i c h was supposed to transmit\nmessages between the w o r l d of intellect and the perceptible world. 4\n144\nDemonomagic\n145\nUsing an \u202b \u05f4\u202cl y n x / \u202b \u05f3\u202cProclus was able to produce rain, like Julian the Chaldean, author of the Oracles, w h o boasted of having done this i n the year\n174 w h e n he was a soldier fighting under Marcus Aurelius. (Unfortunately, it is difficult to establish precisely w h o performed this wonder\nbecause the Christian fighters of the Thundering Legion, the pagans,\nand an anonymous Egyptian magician all claimed credit for it. 5\nI n any case, the theurgists\u202b \u05f3\u202cdisk was studded w i t h magic symbols\u2014\nthe same ones reappear on Chaldean talismans\u2014representing, probably i n graphic form, the same symbols which, having been \u202b\u05f4\u202cscattered\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nin the w o r l d by the supreme intellect, could also be expressed i n solemn]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=129\nPages: 129\nPneumatic Magic\n113\ni n a material object made for this purpose or i n an animal. W i t h this\nreservoir of spiritual energy w i t h i n his grasp, the magician counts either\non obtaining either knowledge of the future or on achieving some practical purpose. 1 2\nCredit for having synthesized i n an original fashion the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements that make up the theoretical basis for Renaissance magic is due to Synesius of Cyrene, w h o , having been the\ndisciple of the Neoplatonist martyr, Hypatia of Alexandria (d. 415), ended by converting to Christianity and becoming a bishop. 1 3\nFor the Stoics, the functional relationship between the cardiac synthesizer (hegemonikon) and the pneuma was clearly determined: the\nhegemonikon \u202b\u05f4\u202cis like a receiving post to w h i c h all impressions received\nby the senses are communicated. 1 4 \u202b \u05f4\u202cO n the other hand, the Stoic philosophers also develop a theory of phantasms produced by the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=131\nPages: 131\nmagic. I n order that some result may be obtained, it is essential that the\npneuma be pure, that nothing carnal obscure the clarity of the mirror. 2 5\nSoothsaying through dreams, of w h i c h we have already heard f r o m\nCicero, is justified by virtue of the same principle: the events of the\nnoetic world, w h i c h is stable and eternal, that is, not subject to the dimension of time, are reflected i n the pure pneuma and f o r m veracious\ndream images that one can recall w h e n awake. \u202b \u05f4\u202cA n d I k n o w not\nwhether this sense,\u202b \u05f4\u202csays Synesius i n his praise of the pneumatic\nsynthesizer,\nis not more saintly than others. For it is because of it that we\ncan communicate w i t h the gods, either through sight, through\nconversation, or by other means. It is not to be wondered at if\ndreams are, for some men, their most precious treasure; because, for example, if someone sleeps tranquilly and, d u r i n g\nsleep, speaks to the Muses and listens to what they have to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=23\nPages: 23\nphenomenon itself was not understood, all the erudition i n the w o r l d is\nuseless, for w h a t it can do comes d o w n to very little, specifically to perfecting our knowledge about the existence and manifestations of a phenomenon w i t h o u t , however, broaching the m u c h more important\nproblem of the cultural presuppositions that keep it i n existence at a\ngiven time. The doctrine of the phantasmic pneuma is not an isolated\noddity produced by the gropings of premodern science. O n the contrary, it is the principal theme that w i l l help us to understand the mechanics and goal of that science as well as being the horizon of hope 4\ntoward w h i c h h u m a n existence stretched for a long period i n the past of\nour species.\nAs early as the sixth century the Sicilian physician, Alcemaeon of\nCroton, like the Pythagoreans, speaks of vital pneuma circulating i n the\narteries of the h u m a n being. The relation of blood to pneuma\u2014the latter]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=23\nPages: 23\nTHE PHANTASMIC\nPNEUMA\nThe Aristotelian theory of the phantasmic pneuma d i d not come out of\nthe blue. O n the contrary, it can even be said there is nothing original\nabout it except for the way the pieces composing it are fitted together.\nThe system is that of the philosopher of Stagira, though the elements of\nthe system preexisted. Using A b y Warburg's expression, the \u202b\u05f4\u202cselective\nw i l l \" may be attributed to Aristotle but not the creation of the substance\nof that tenet.\nTo recall the important periods of the history of the phantasmic pneuma as we are doing here is not merely a collector's foible. It is because\nthey were satisfied w i t h Aristotle and had lost sight of that history that\ninterpreters of the Renaissance, even the most astute, never grasped the\nessence of many spiritual processes nor their basic unity. So long as the\nphenomenon itself was not understood, all the erudition i n the w o r l d is]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=128\nPages: 128,129\nthe b o d y , \u202b \u05f4\u202ca contagione corporis, to move about i n time, learning things\npast or to come. To judge f r o m the result, this function performed by\ndreams differs i n no w a y f r o m that performed by prophets i n a state of\nwakefulness: Nam quae vigilantibus accidunt vatibus, eadem nobis dormientibus.9 To deliver oracular responses, the vates make use of external stimuli, especially of certain fumes (anhelitus) f r o m the earth, 1 0 i n w h i c h may\nbe f o u n d the \u202b\u05f4\u202csoothsaying pneuma,\u202b \u05f4\u202cthe spirit of prophecy mentioned\nby Plutarch of Chaeronea. 11\nFrom soothsaying activity to real magic there is only one step. Whereas soothsaying actually represents the ability to make use of the natural\nflights of the pneuma, the magic of the papyri of Late Antiquity is none\nother than a series of practical methods to attract, nourish, and accumulate or store u p the divine spirit. I n most cases, the pneuma is contained\nPneumatic Magic\n113]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=132\nPages: 132,133\n(1617-21), II, a, 1, p. 275.\nhaps magic incantations p r o v i d e such means, for they are not\nl i m i t e d to conveying meaning b u t they also invoke. He w h o\nunderstands the relationship of the parts of the universe is\nt r u l y wise: he can derive p r o f i t f r o m the higher beings b y capt u r i n g , b y means of sounds [phonas], substances [hylas], a n d\nforms [schemata], the presence of those w h o are far away. 2 8\nPneumatic Magic\n117\nBesides this more sophisticated expression of the relation between humans and the w o r l d , Synesius also utilizes traditional Platonic theory\naccording to w h i c h \u202b\u05f4\u202cthe h u m a n intellect contains w i t h i n itself the forms\nof all the things that exist. 2 9 \u202b \u05f4\u202cA thousand years after Synesius, Cardinal\nNicholas of Cusa is still convinced that the intellect of man-microcosm\n(parvus mundus) \u202b\u05f4\u202cis the living description of eternal and infinite wisdom.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=143\nPages: 143\nendowed w i t h a hegemonikon located, generally speaking, i n the heart,\nthe organ corresponding to the sun i n the cosmos, has the capacity to\nimpart voluntary changes to his o w n phantasy. These changes, due to\nthe continuity of the pneuma, are transmitted to the objects aimed at by\nthe manipulator.\nThis phenomenon is natural, produced w i t h o u t conscious manipulation on the part of either the sender and/or the receiver of the pneumatic\ncurrent, and its starting point is self-consciousness, w h i c h is Eros. The\nlatter establishes links between individuals according to the transcendental information that the pneumatic conveyances of their souls have\naccumulated d u r i n g their descent through the planetary heavens.\nAs for magic proper, it represents knowledge permitting the performer to exploit the pneumatic currents w h i c h establish occult relations between the world's parts. N o w these relations are regular and can be]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=238\nPages: 238,239\n6. See m y article \u202b\u05f4\u202cMagia spirituale e magia demonica nel Rinascimento,\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nRivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa (Turin) 17 (1981): 360-408, esp. 373-74.\n7. A n exhaustive exposition of these theories is set forth i n G\u00e9rard Verbeke's\nexcellent work L'\u00c9volution de la doctrine du pneuma du sto\u00efcisme \u00e0 saint Augustin\n225\n226\nNotes to Pages91-113226\n(Paris and Louvain, 1945), pp. 13-215; more recently in M. Putscher, Pneuma\nSpiritus, Geist (Wiesbaden, 1973).\n8. See Verbeke, p. 14; Pollak, p. 140.\n9. On the influence of the Corpus hippocraticum on the theories formulated by\nPlato in his Timaeus see the excellent work of Anders Olerud, L'id\u00e9e de macrocosmos et de microcosmos dans le Tim\u00e9e de Platon (Uppsala, 1951).\n10. Cf. Aetius, Placita, IV, 19, 1.\n11. See note 1 above. The data of the problem are competently discussed in\nKudlien's article (1963).\n12. See Verbeke, p. 76.\n13. The comparison is in Calcidius, Commentary on the Timaeus, chap. 220 (see]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=24\nPages: 24,23\narteries of the h u m a n being. The relation of blood to pneuma\u2014the latter\nbeing the subtler part of the former\u2014becomes common ground for the\nschool of Sicilian medicine whose chief is the famous Empedocles of\nAgrigentum, the fifth-century Greek medicine man. As iatromantis, healer (iatros) and soothsayer (mantis), Empedocles was k n o w n as the great-\nHistory of Phantasy\n7\nest specialist of antiquity i n the treatment of catalepsy (apnous) or\napparent death. 5 We do not k n o w what Empedocles thought of the vital\npneuma, but the members of the school w h o acknowledged h i m as lead\u202b\u05be\u202c\ner believed spirit to be a subtle vapor from the blood m o v i n g about i n the\narteries of the body, whereas the venous circulation was set apart for the\nblood itself. The heart, the central depository of the pneuma, holds first\nrank i n the maintenance of the body's vital functions.\nThough less refined than the theory of the pranas i n the Upanishad,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=157\nPages: 157\nartificial things have occult qualities conferred u p o n them by the stars:\nthrough these things our spirit attracts the influence of the respective\nstars.\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nT H E LURES\nThe purpose of Ficino's pneumatic magic is to improve the spiritual,\nphysical, psychic, and social conditions of the magician himself, or his\nclient. Theurgy and medicine are the magician's principal activities.\nPlants, stones, metals, and the various other substances used according\nto the position of the planets i n the zodiac exert a positive influence\nu p o n the spirit of the theurgist and u p o n an invalid's health. Amulets,\ntalismans and images, depending on the case, can have a prophylactic\nor curative effect. It goes w i t h o u t saying that the same remedies can be\nused to obtain results of a different kind: social success, learning facility,\npracticing a profession, harmony i n intersubjective relations, etc. It is\neasy to imagine that, for every undertaking, there is a lucky position of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=146\nPages: 146,147\nmessages transmitted by the soul to reach the inner sense.\nThe pneuma is a mirror with two faces, one of which reflects perceptions coming from the external senses and the other the phantasmagoria\nof the soul. If the surface turned toward the soul is not sufficiently clean,\nthe individual is reduced to a lower, almost bestial state. What can be\ndone to remedy this situation common to most mortals? Well, nothing\ncould be simpler: it is just a matter of polishing the mirror, removing its\nimpurities\u2014acquired, not congenital\u2014restoring to the clouded spirit its\noriginal transparency as well as its purity, flexibility, and hardness.\n130\nIntersubjective Magic\n131\nFor spirit is the intermediary between the gross body of the\nw o r l d and the soul. I n it and through it there are stars and\ndemons. . . . M a n draws from it through his o w n spirit,\nw h i c h conforms to the other by virtue of its nature. But that\ncan be done mainly if this spirit, thanks to art, is made more]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=130\nPages: 130,131\nthan the heart. 2 3\nWe have already seen that Epictetus compared the pneuma to a basin\nfilled w i t h water, a liquid mirror. Plutarch of Chaeronea is the first to\nspeak of a pure mirror, nothing more. 2 4 For Synesius, this double-faced\nmirror provides the opportunity for t w o parallel surfaces to meet on\nneutral territory. Insofar as it is the intermediary between the intelligential w o r l d and the sensory w o r l d , this mirror, if perfectly clear, w i l l make\nit possible for inner judgment to contemplate the w o r l d above epito-\nPneumatic Magic\n115\nmized by the reasoning part of the soul, and w i l l give the latter the\nopportunity to perceive and to judge the sensory objects whose image is\ntransmitted to common sense through the external senses. The pneumatic\nsynthesizer becomes, for Synesius, the preeminent terrain of soothsaying and\nmagic. I n order that some result may be obtained, it is essential that the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=152\nPages: 152\nthe relations between \u202b \u05f4\u202ch e a d \u202b \u05f4\u202ca n d \u202b \u05f4\u202ch e a r t \u202b \u05f4\u202cposited i n a n e w w a y so that\nvirtues became associated w i t h \u202b \u05f4\u202cp u r i t y of heart.\u202b \u05f4\u202cRenaissance magic derived f r o m this concept, m a k i n g the \u202b\u05f4\u202ccleansing of the heart\u202b \u05f4\u202cone of its\nm a i n pursuits.\nThe w o r d \u202b \u05f4\u202ct h e u r g y \u202b \u05f4\u202csometimes designates purifications whose purpose is to restore to the p n e u m a its original transparency, fineness, a n d\nflexibility.\nFicino's image of the theurgist, the practitioner of intrasubjective magic, d i d not a m o u n t to e n o u g h to r u n counter to the customs of the time.\nFar f r o m e v o k i n g the spirits of the dead like the necromancer described\nb y Benvenuto Cellini, far f r o m f l y i n g u p i n t o the air a n d casting a spell\no n m e n a n d beasts like traditional witches, even far f r o m a p p l y i n g himself to pyrotechnics like Henricus Cornelius A g r i p p a , or to cryptography]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=15\nPages: 15\nand mass psychology.\nInsofar as science and the manipulation of phantasms are concerned,\nmagic is primarily directed at the human imagination, in which it attempts to create lasting impressions. The magician of the Renaissance is\nboth psychoanalyst and prophet as well as the precursor of modern professions such as director of public relations, propagandist, spy, politician, censor, director of mass communication media, and publicity\nagent.\nThe workings of phantasy in the Renaissance are more or less complex: eroticism is the most important, already apparent in the natural\nworld without human intervention. Magic is merely eroticism applied,\ndirected, and aroused by its performer. But there are other aspects of the\nmanipulation of phantasms, one of them being the miraculous Art of\nMemory. The bond between eroticism, mnemonics, and magic is indissoluble to such an extent that it is impossible to understand the third\nwithout first having studied the principles and mechanisms of the first]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=134\nPages: 134,135\ncity, preventing construction of a building, releasing a prisoner from his\nprison, evicting a m a n f r o m his home, separating friends, causing someone to incur the king's wrath, assuring fishermen a good catch, putting\nscorpions to flight, healing wounds, ensuring the (financial) success of a\ndoctor, increasing harvests and plants, curing many diseases, etc.\nFicino's astrological magic derives much from the Picatrix, but the influence is primarily quantitative, not qualitative. The imposing structure\nof the spiritual magic of the Renaissance is not comparable to the mediocre pile of empirical procedures that make u p the Picatrix. However,\nsince it befell the philologists to have the easy task of discovering i n\nFicino whole passages borrowed from the Picatrix, they were too easily\nPneumatic Magic\n119\nsatisfied w i t h a genetic explanation of a very general k i n d , according to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=40\nPages: 40\nThat empirical psychology regarding Eros w h i c h w i l l recur i n Ficino was\ninadequate to satisfy Renaissance demands for depth i n thought. The\ntheory of phantasmic k n o w i n g merely represented the last link i n a huge\nbody of dogma relating to the pneuma and the soul.\nAs we shall see, the connection between Eros and magic is so close\nthat differentiation between them is a matter of degree. A phantasmic\nexperience carried out through the spiritual channels w i t h w h i c h we are\nalready acquainted, magic makes use of the continuity between the individual pneuma and the cosmic one. It is this same universal pneumatic\n\u202b\u05f4\u202ccombination\u202b \u05f4\u202cthat justifies the depth psychology of Eros (see below,\nchap. 4, sec. 2).\nThrough the doctrine of incorporation of the soul, not only is the continuity of the pneuma demonstrated but also the cosmic nature of all\nspiritual activity. It is of course a rather refined f o r m of speculation on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=269\nPages: 269,270\nCesare Vasoli. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1969.\nPorta, Giambattista della. Joh. Baptistae Portae Neapolitani, Magiae Naturalis Libri\nViginti. Amsterdam: Apud Elizeum Weyerstraten, 1664.\nProst, Auguste, Les Sciences et les Arts occultes au XVIe si\u00e8cle: Corneille Agrippa, sa\nvie et ses \u0153uvres. Reprint of the 1881-82 Paris edition. 2 vols. Nieuwkoop: B. De\nGraaf, 1965.\n258\nBibliography\nPutscher, Marielene. Pneuma, Spiritus, Geist: Vorstellungen vom Lebensantrieb in\nihren geschichtlichen Wandlungen. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1973.\nQuispel, Gilles. Gnostic Studies. 2 vols. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1974-1975.\nRossi, Paolo. Clavis universalis. Milan and Naples: R. Ricciardi, 1962.\n. Philosophy, Technology, and the Arts in the Early Modern Era. New York:\nHarper and Row, 1970.\nRussell, Jeffrey Burton. Witchcraft in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University\nPress, 1972.\nShumaker, Wayne. The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance: A Study in Intellectual]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=144\nPages: 144,145\ncombination of Ficino's magic and Trithemius's demonomagic is to be\nf o u n d i n the three books of Agrippa's not very original but very influential Occult Philosophy. Giordano Bruno's magic is inspired i n the first\nplace by Ficino, utilizing as complementary sources Albert the Great,\nTrithemius and Agrippa. W i t h respect to Tommaso Campanella, a dissident Calabrian m o n k at the beginning of the seventeenth century,\nwhose political utopia seems to have exerted a decisive influence on the\ngroup of German friends w h o produced the \u202b\u05f4\u202cfarce\" (ludibrium) of the\nRosicrucians, 44 he too cultivated a pneumatic magic deriving from\nPneumatic Magic\n129\nFicino, with (inoffensive) rituals that were greatly appreciated by Pope\nUrban.45\nFrom Ficino to Campanella, a number of writers know about Ficino's\ntheory of the pneuma without always making use of its magic side.\nAmong them we mention Pico della Mirandola, Francesco Cattani da]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=232\nPages: 232,233\ni n particular, he can made the stars come d o w n to earth (lines 1790 sq.)\nand convinces Cipriano of his talents by moving a mountain (lines 2579\nsq.).\nAs to Cipriano himself, he learns necromancy, pyromancy, and palmistry and, i n order to perform magic, he forms graphic symbols, ensuri n g the cooperation of the stars, the winds, and the spirits of the dead\n(lines 2720 sq.), i n the tradition of Marsilio Ficino, Cornelius Agrippa,\nand Giordano Bruno.\nT r u t h to tell, magic rites are described quite superficially i n the Magico\nprodigioso. The important thing was to establish a direct relationship be-\nDoctor Faust, from Antioch to Seville\n219\ntween magic and the devil, between the devil and the Renaissance, enemy number one of the Reformation. Calder\u00f6n accomplishes this without any difficulty. He then concentrates on what we might call the equation Eros = magic, which also stems from the Renaissance. It is at this]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=46\nPages: 46\nimages it can appraise the bodies themselves.\nThe metaphor of the mirror applied to the pneuma is to appear at\ngreater length i n the chapter devoted to theurgical purifications (IV, 1\nand 3). I n any case, it is useful to recall that, for a phantasm to f o r m on\nthe polished and reflective surface of spirit, it is first necessary that the\nobject be seen and its image carried to common sense through the pneumatic canals. It goes w i t h o u t saying that the phantasm is not only visual\nor audiovisual; it is, so to say, synesthetic, engendered by the collaboration of several or all senses simultaneously. Nevertheless, sight certainly\nplays the most important part i n forming the phantasm: it is one of the\nreasons w h y it is believed to be, throughout the Platonic tradition, \u202b\u05f4\u202cthe\nnoblest of the senses.\"\nWe recall that, i n Plato's theory of optics, the image was produced by\na circuit bringing the visual ray from the eyes to its place of origin and]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116\nof prolific semen, w h i c h is attracted, strives, and approaches\nits act. That is w h y , if it has been partially emitted, the\nstrength of the b o n d is also partially dissipated.)\nCupidinis vincula, quae ante coitum intensa erant, modico seminis\niactu sunt remissa et ignes temperati, obiecto pulchro nihilominus\neodem permanente. (Ibid.: Cupid's bonds, w h i c h were strong\nbefore the mating, were dissipated after the moderate ejaculation of semen, and the ardor was diminished even though\nthe attractive object d i d not cease to be.)\nLet us agree that Bruno's notes, concise to the point of unintelligibility, can give rise to several interpretations. We have already stated a first\nhypothesis: that he deals w i t h the practice of retention of sperm, of\ncoitus reservatus. We k n o w that by means of such a practice, along w i t h\nexercises of \u202b\u05f4\u202cembryonic breathing,\" the Taoists sought vitality and longevity, whereas the Tantrics, w i t h i n the framework of a subtle and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cenchain\u202b \u05f4\u202ctheir benefactor (ibid., pp. 646, 666).\nFinally, there are psychic pleasures or physical pleasures, or both simultaneously (ibid., p. 645); there is natural love and abstract love practiced by the heremita masturbans (ibid., p. 644). A l o n g w i t h those generalizations, Bruno also states some very cryptic rules for controlling sexuality, rules we shall n o w try to interpret.\n(iv) Ejaculation and Retention of Semen\nSome passages of De vinculis are especially interesting because they\nseem to show that the practice of coitus reservatus was not foreign to\nBruno's magic. We k n o w that this was practiced by Taoists i n China 8\nand the tantric yogis i n India and Tibet. 9\nBruno's remarks are so concise, however, that great care is needed to\ndefine their meaning w i t h o u t misrepresentation. Since only a few sentences are involved, we can make an exception to the general rule observed i n this book so that readers can consult the Latin text as well as\nthe translation:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=117\nPages: 117,118\npneuma, w h i c h is gained, for one thing, through sexual continence.\nA l l those ideas are concentrated i n a treatise that appeared i n 1657,\nAlphabeti vere naturalis Hebraici brevissima Delineatio, by Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont (1614-98), son of the famous Paracelsian iatro-\n102\nThe Great Manipulator\nchemist Ioannes Baptista van Helmont (1577-1644): 12 \" I f semen is not\nemitted, it is changed into a spiritual force that preserves its capacities to\nreproduce sperm and invigorates breath emitted i n speech. 13 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nI n his De vinculis, Giordano Bruno probably refers to a similar tenet\nexalting continence for its ability to create vincula, magic bonds. It is\nremarkable that only physical continence is at issue, since, on the psychic\nlevel, Bruno recommends producing voluptuous phantasms whose purpose is to influence the subject's internal consciousness.\nTo sum up: Bruno's manipulator has to perform t w o contrary actions:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116,117\nm u c h more sophisticated physiology, were supposed, through the maithuna, to reawaken dormant cosmic energies and to channel them to the\n\" L o t u s of a thousand leaves\" at the top of the head, entering a state of\necstasy. I n both cases, coitus reservatus represents one of the indispensable methods to reach the goal.\nSince, i n a treatise on erotic magic, Bruno speaks of the retention of\nsperm, w e may ask whether he does not have i n m i n d a practice of the\nsame kind.\nWe soon discover he is not t h i n k i n g of that. What interests him, as w e\nk n o w , is the w a y w e can seduce, create bonds and attachments. N o w ,\nhe observes that once pleasure has been had, the bonds dissolve. That is\nw h y , to maintain the strength of a bond, it must not be enjoyed.\nBut to w h o m does this refer: to the manipulator or to the subject to be\nbewitched by Eros? If he were speaking of the manipulator, we already\nEros and Magic\n101]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116,117\nbewitched by Eros? If he were speaking of the manipulator, we already\nEros and Magic\n101\nk n o w that he must be free of any attachment, and therefore it w o u l d be\nmore fitting for h i m to emit semen i n order to dissolve the bond. O n the\nother hand, it is to his interest that the subject not assuage his desire, for\nenjoyment leads to the destruction of the \u202b \u05f4\u202cb o n d . \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nSo far we have not got to the heart of Bruno's message. A m o n g the\ncryptic passages we have translated there is one that could lead us i n the\nright direction: \u202b\u05f4\u202cThere is a b o n d by means of prolific semen, w h i c h is\nattracted, strives, and approaches its act.\" That probably means that the\nperson w h o ardently desires has the power to attract into his orbit the\nobject of his desire. O n the other hand, if he emits the semen, the\nstrength of his desire diminishes, and consequently, the strength of the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cb o n d \" is also reduced. That is w h y the manipulator is supposed to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=117\nPages: 117\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cb o n d \" is also reduced. That is w h y the manipulator is supposed to\nstrengthen the bond, retain the sperm, for \u202b\u05f4\u202che w h o wishes to b i n d is\nobliged to develop the same emotions as he w h o must be b o u n d . \" That\nis the transitive result of magic: to arouse an emotion the manipulator\nmust develop it i n himself, whence it w i l l not fail to be transmitted to the\nphantasmic mechanism of his victim.\nWhat Bruno wishes to say has no connection w i t h the practices of\ncoitus reservatus: he simply recommends that the manipulator be continent and, at the same time, ardently desire the subject. Does he not assert,\nmoreover, that the \u202b\u05f4\u202cmore saintly one is, the greater one's ability to b i n d\n[others]\u202b( \u05f4\u202cibid., p. 651)? He must, indeed, cultivate assiduously the\nsame passion he wishes to arouse i n his victim, taking care, however,\nnot to be possessed by his o w n phantasms and never to aspire to the\nassuagement of desire, else the strength of the bonds disappears.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe translation:\nlactu seminis vincula relaxantur, retentione vero intenduntur; taliter debet affectus qui vincire vult, qualiter qui vincire debet. Propterea in conviviis et post convivia inspirare introducitur in ossibus\nignem Cupido. Vide. Continentia est principium vinculi, abstinen-\n100\nThe Great Manipulator\ntia praecurrit famem, haec melius cibum attrahit. (De vine., p. 645:\nEjaculation of semen releases the bonds, whereas its retention strengthens them. He w h o wishes to enchain is obliged\nto develop the same emotions as he w h o must be bound.\nThat is w h y , w h e n we are overheated at banquets or after\nbanquets, C u p i d invades us. Look: continence is the beginning of the bondage, abstinence precedes hunger, and hunger leads to victuals.)\nVinculum fit ex prolifico semine quod ad actum suum rapitur,\nnititur atque rapit; ideo hos emissum secundum partem, perit secundum partem vinculi vis. (Ibid., p. 663: There is a bond by means]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=258\nPages: 258\nwhich remains w h e n they awaken. But they are convinced of having spent the\nnight i n a voluptuous coupling w i t h a man or a woman. It is likely and i n conformity w i t h nature that i n the meantime they have experienced a very powerful\nphantasmic enjoyment. For the seminal emission is not developed d u r i n g the\nwhole of an ordinary sexual act but is produced later and more slowly, the body\nbeing i n repose, solely by the movement of the imagination, transient infatuation and external humors having continuously penetrated through the libidinal\nchannels.\u202b \u05f4\u202cThis passage seems to confirm the idea that many \u202b\u05f4\u202csorcerers,\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nthrough cutaneous absorption of hallucinogens, were only seeking sexual pleasures. Bruno's evidence was hitherto ignored.\n22. Nider, Formicarius, V , 3, cited i n Lea, p. 261.\n23. Lea, p. 244.\n24. Ibid., p. 187. This hypothesis is, however, highly questionable.\n25. Ibid., pp. 179-80.\n26. Ibid., p. 181, citing pseudo-Augustine, Liber de Spiritu et Anima, chap.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=117\nPages: 117\nassuagement of desire, else the strength of the bonds disappears.\nThe tenet of a connection between the continence of the manipulator\nand his magic or visionary abilities is a very old, prestigious one, taking\nmany forms. We have seen that a close connection had been established,\nthrough the medicine of antiquity, between the five senses, the production of the voice, and the secretion of sperm. The last t w o are closely\nallied in Renaissance medicine, since they represent the only t w o\nmodalities through w h i c h the spirit leaves the body in an observable\nway.10 It goes w i t h o u t saying that too abundant a loss of sperm w i l l\naffect not only the voice but also the other spiritual activities of the subject and that, reciprocally, speaking too much w i l l produce the same\nresult. 1 1 The opposite of pneumatorrhea is the accumulation of the\npneuma, w h i c h is gained, for one thing, through sexual continence.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=114\nPages: 114\nreality: \u202b\u05f4\u202cPhantasy is true, it operates i n actuality, it can really influence\nthe object\u202b( \u05f4\u202cibid., p. 683). It also invades the subject through the \u202b\u05f4\u202cdoor\nof the imagination.\u202b \u05f4\u202cIt reaches the cogitative faculty, it determines emotions and incites the subject to pleasure (ibid., p. 641). Sight plays an\nessential role i n this, and often the lover perishes for want of seeing the\nobject of his love (ibid., p. 648).\nThe most interesting part of Bruno's thesis is dedicated to the kinds of\nvincula. They are very numerous for the emotion that each person demonstrates is differentiated according to the recipient: \u202b\u05f4\u202cIt is w i t h a different b o n d that we embrace sons, father, sister, wife, a woman, the\nlibertine, and a f r i e n d \" (ibid., p. 646). \u202b\u05f4\u202cSemen is of many kinds, Venus\nis of many kinds, love is of many kinds, bonds are of many k i n d s \" (Multiplex semen, multiplex Venus, multiplex amor, multiplex vinculum; ibid., p.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=99\nPages: 99\nsymbolism he adopts so p r o m p t l y has a metaphysical value for h i m that\nprobably escaped Raleigh and Chapman, also adherents. W i t h unbelievable audacity, Bruno, w h o always remains a great specialist and professor of the A r t of Memory, addresses his chosen public i n language\nthat was all too familiar to everyone. The \u202b\u05f4\u202cstatue\u202b \u05f4\u202cof artificial memory\nthat dominates the dialogues w r i t t e n i n England is of Diana. Sidney and\nGreville, not to speak of persons i n the k n o w such as Raleigh and Chapman, associate Diana w i t h Queen Elizabeth or, what amounts to the\nsame thing, had the ability to represent Diana without any special effort since,\nin their phantasy, she spontaneously assumed the features of the revered queen.\nBruno's allegory, designed to introduce metaphysical ideas and mnemonical personal techniques, also had the advantage of gaining for its\nauthor a very good reputation i n the eyes of her w h o had been exalted\u2014]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nthe same, his attitude is forgivable if he acknowledges the t r u t h of that\nprinciple sacrosanct to w i t c h h u n t i n g and enunciated by the tragic manifesto of puritanism, the Malleus maleficarum of the inquisitors Institoris\nand Sprenger: \u202b \u05f4\u202cW o m a n is a bane of nature clothed i n bright colors.\" 6 2\nBruno's misogyny is a legacy f r o m his era, combined w i t h the very practical mnemonics of the ex-Dominican w h i c h permitted h i m to exercise\nalmost complete control over the phantasms of the subconscious. In this\nsense, this \"knight of the infinite\" epitomizes the most perfect, hence the least\nhuman, product of the age of phantasms: a person capable of free will untrammeled by the turgid forces of his nature, which he has learned to dominate.\nLike Ibn \u202b\u05f3\u202cArabi's prologue to the Dlwan, Bruno's dedicating his book\nto Sidney is a protestation of innocence, which, i n his case, finally\narouses suspicion. Against what d i d he have to defend himself, since no]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=118\nPages: 118\nTo sum up: Bruno's manipulator has to perform t w o contrary actions:\non the one hand, he must carefully avoid letting himself be seduced and\nso must eradicate i n himself any remnants of love, including self-love;\non the other hand, he is not i m m u n e to passions. O n the contrary, he is\neven supposed to kindle i n his phantasmic mechanism formidable passions, provided they be sterile and that he be detached from them. For\nthere is no w a y to bewitch other than by experimenting in himself w i t h\nw h a t he wishes to produce i n his victim.\nIt is a strange and almost unbelievable method, which, however, well\nexplains the concise passages translated above and is also confirmed by\nthe advice Bruno gives to the artists of memory i n his Sigillus sigillorum:\nHe tells them almost literally: \u202b\u05f4\u202cBe excited; those people w h o are most\ninclined t o w a r d erotic pleasures and hatred are the most active\" (Sig.\nsig.f 22, vol. II, 2, p. 166). There is no artificial memory without very]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nbe separated from the realm of divine contemplation w i t h a clarity that\nPetrarch, the repressed sensualist, lacked.\nThe anti-Petrarchism 61 of Bruno represents, fundamentally, an attempt to relegate to the sphere of pure consciousness the turbid selfsatisfactions of the subconscious, which, i n Petrarch's w o r k , are systematically raised to a level of intellectual dignity that f r o m the point of view\nof the Nolan they do not deserve. I n Bruno's ethics there is no room for\nthe phantasms of a degenerate imagination.\nA n attitude not w i t h o u t ambiguities: first, because he accepts w o m a n\nas an object of utility, provided that her use be not accompanied by\nphantasy; second, because he himself does not hesitate to hypostasize\nw o m a n while taking care to keep his distance f r o m Dante, w h o m he\nenvisages only as a companion of the unfortunate Petrarch.\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=118\nPages: 118\nsig.f 22, vol. II, 2, p. 166). There is no artificial memory without very\nstrong affectivity, emotionally charged images. A n d there can be no superior intelligence and contemplation w i t h o u t passing through the gatew a y of emotional images (ibid., 22-23, pp. 166-67).\nIt is easy to guess h o w much discernment on the part of the manipulator was required by Bruno's method. He was simultaneously required\nto be \u202b \u05f4\u202ch o t \" and \u202b \u05f4\u202cc o l d , \" intoxicated w i t h love and totally indifferent to all\npassion, continent as w e l l as debauche. That explains the abundant oxymoron i n his poetry, the contiguity of contradictory images and symbols.\nMost of the time he describes his state of soul as a mixture of fire and\nice, w h i c h w e can understand all too well, having studied his magic\npractices. 14\n(v) Of Magic as General Psychosociology\nBruno's erotic magic, though unorthodox, has allowed us a close view of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=75\nPages: 75\nremains i n a state of catalepsy, as Celio Agostino Curione seems to inf o r m us i n the appendix to the Hieroglyphica of Pierio Valeriano. 29 After\nvery few variations, the description of binsica reappears i n Baldesar Castiglione, Egidio da Viterbo, Francesco Giorgio Veneto, Celio Calcagnini,\nLeo the Hebrew (Dialoghi d'amore), and Giordano Bruno (Heroici furori).30\nW i t h Bruno, we enter the unfathomable arcana of Eros i n w h i c h the\npure theory of the Florentine Platonists leads to several quite mysterious\nconclusions. One of these, at least, relates to the dangerous liaisons that\nBruno was inclined to maintain all his life, u n t i l his death at the stake, to\nw h i c h he consented i n order not to contradict his o w n illusions, brought\nh i m ultimate freedom. The smoke had hardly dissipated w h e n Giordano\nBruno was almost unanimously proclaimed a \u202b\u05f4\u202csymbol of democracy.\u202b \u05f4\u202cA\nstrange paradox that crowned the posthumous fate of the man w h o was]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=94\nPages: 94,95\ncan enjoy his companion, the naked goddess.\nWe can already understand Bruno's presumptions (let us confine our-\n78\nPhantasms at Work\nselves to the etymological meaning of this word): he states that he himself is this \u202b\u05f4\u202cdead m a n a l i v e / \u202b \u05f3\u202cthis man liberated f r o m the confines of the\nh u m a n species. He considers himself a religious leader w h o , like St.\nThomas, Zoroaster, St. Paul, etc., has opened the \u202b\u05f4\u202cseal of seals,\u202b \u05f4\u202cw h o\nhas been loved by the virgin goddess, the unattainable Diana. 69\nI n this framework it is easy to understand that the Inquisition sent\nh i m to the stake. Should he not, i n principle, have been capable of a\nsmall miracle to save himself? A n d was not the wise and w i l y Inquisition\nsure that no one had been able to perform such a miracle? I n every\nwitchcraft trial\u2014and I believe Bruno's was one\u2014the passion of Jesus]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,79\nout against the A r t of M e m o r y . 4 5\nIf Bruno succeeded nevertheless i n w i n n i n g a disciple and the tacit\napproval of Sir P h i l i p Sidney, he o w e d that i n great measure to the\nm e m o r y of John Dee. 4 6 Dee h a d been professor of p h i l o s o p h y to Sidney,\nGreville, a n d E d w a r d Dyer, w h i c h perhaps explains w h y Greville be-\nDangerous Liaisons\n63\ncame close to Bruno, and w h y the latter unceasingly dedicated writings\ninfested w i t h the A r t of M e m o r y to Sidney i n the hope of converting h i m\nto his opinions.\nConflict broke out i n 1584, but Bruno d i d not take part i n it personally.\nHis disciple, Alexander Dicson, w h o had published a treatise, De umbris\nrationis, inspired by Bruno's mnemonic writings, was repeatedly attacked by the Reverend William Perkins of Cambridge, a supporter of\nRamus. Dicson\u2014under the pseudonym Heius Scepsius, w h i c h comes\nfrom Metrodorus of Scepsis, originator of the mnemonic system based]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nriots and, recommended b y the k i n g himself, w e n t to England to His Majesty's ambassador called seigneur de M a u vissi&re, Castelnau b y name. 3 2\nBruno's natural m e m o r y being unequal to his artificial m e m o r y , he is\nmistaken about the l e n g t h of his first stay i n Paris, b e g i n n i n g i n 1581 a n d\ne n d i n g i n June 1583, after w h i c h , under the protection of M i c h e l de\nCastelnau, he m o v e d to L o n d o n , w h e r e he remained u n t i l October\n1583. 33\nBy a strange optical illusion, Giordano Bruno has been envisaged as\nthe herald of the future, freemason a n d liberal, whereas this u n f r o c k e d\nNeapolitan m o n k was, wherever he w e n t , merely one of the last impassioned defenders of the culture of the phantasmic era. This explains his\nrebuffs i n Protestant circles, w h e r e he soon f o u n d himself worse off t h a n\ni n the bosom of the C h u r c h he h a d been rash e n o u g h to abandon: 3 4]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=165\nPages: 165\nassume any deceptive appearance.\nSpecialists i n witchcraft f r o m the fifteenth u n t i l the end of the seventeenth century are not all convinced that demons can ejaculate semen\nand procreate, though semiofficial treatises such as the Malleus maleficarum of 1486 and the summa of the Jesuit Del Rio at the end of the\nsixteenth century are of that opinion.\nThe most widespread opinion, perhaps, expressed by Jean Vineti, inquisitor at Carcassonne, i n his Treatise Against Those Who Invoke Demons\n(ca. 1450), is that demons are transsexual. Functioning as succuba w i t h a\nman, they gather sperm and later deposit it i n the vagina of a w o m a n\nw i t h w h o m they act as incuba. 1 1 It is a moderate position shared, among\nothers, by Father Alphonso da Spina i n his Fortalitium fidei w r i t t e n\naround 1460. According to Da Spina, nuns w h o have intercourse w i t h\nincuba wake u p \u202b\u05f4\u202cas defiled as if they had made love w i t h a m a n . 1 2 \u202b\u05f4\u202c]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=118\nPages: 118\nsig.f 22, vol. II, 2, p. 166). There is no artificial memory without very\nstrong affectivity, emotionally charged images. A n d there can be no superior intelligence and contemplation w i t h o u t passing through the gatew a y of emotional images (ibid., 22-23, pp. 166-67).\nIt is easy to guess h o w much discernment on the part of the manipulator was required by Bruno's method. He was simultaneously required\nto be \u202b \u05f4\u202ch o t \" and \u202b \u05f4\u202cc o l d , \" intoxicated w i t h love and totally indifferent to all\npassion, continent as w e l l as debauche. That explains the abundant oxymoron i n his poetry, the contiguity of contradictory images and symbols.\nMost of the time he describes his state of soul as a mixture of fire and\nice, w h i c h w e can understand all too well, having studied his magic\npractices. 14\n(v) Of Magic as General Psychosociology\nBruno's erotic magic, though unorthodox, has allowed us a close view of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=118\nPages: 118\nTo sum up: Bruno's manipulator has to perform t w o contrary actions:\non the one hand, he must carefully avoid letting himself be seduced and\nso must eradicate i n himself any remnants of love, including self-love;\non the other hand, he is not i m m u n e to passions. O n the contrary, he is\neven supposed to kindle i n his phantasmic mechanism formidable passions, provided they be sterile and that he be detached from them. For\nthere is no w a y to bewitch other than by experimenting in himself w i t h\nw h a t he wishes to produce i n his victim.\nIt is a strange and almost unbelievable method, which, however, well\nexplains the concise passages translated above and is also confirmed by\nthe advice Bruno gives to the artists of memory i n his Sigillus sigillorum:\nHe tells them almost literally: \u202b\u05f4\u202cBe excited; those people w h o are most\ninclined t o w a r d erotic pleasures and hatred are the most active\" (Sig.\nsig.f 22, vol. II, 2, p. 166). There is no artificial memory without very]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cenchain\u202b \u05f4\u202ctheir benefactor (ibid., pp. 646, 666).\nFinally, there are psychic pleasures or physical pleasures, or both simultaneously (ibid., p. 645); there is natural love and abstract love practiced by the heremita masturbans (ibid., p. 644). A l o n g w i t h those generalizations, Bruno also states some very cryptic rules for controlling sexuality, rules we shall n o w try to interpret.\n(iv) Ejaculation and Retention of Semen\nSome passages of De vinculis are especially interesting because they\nseem to show that the practice of coitus reservatus was not foreign to\nBruno's magic. We k n o w that this was practiced by Taoists i n China 8\nand the tantric yogis i n India and Tibet. 9\nBruno's remarks are so concise, however, that great care is needed to\ndefine their meaning w i t h o u t misrepresentation. Since only a few sentences are involved, we can make an exception to the general rule observed i n this book so that readers can consult the Latin text as well as\nthe translation:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=106\nPages: 106,107\nhimself also asserts that it is an extremely difficult maneuver, only to be\naccomplished by the use of intelligence, perspicacity, and intuition\nequal to the task. The complexity of the task is not diminished, for the\nillusion must be perfect to satisfy the many expectations it proposes to\nEros and Magic\n91\nfulfill. The greater the manipulator's knowledge of those he must \u202b\u05f4\u202cenchain, \u202b \u05f4\u202cthe greater is his chance of success, since he w i l l k n o w h o w to\nchoose the right means of creating the vinculum.\nWe see that the goal of Bruno's erotic magic is to enable a manipulator\nto control both individuals and crowds. Its fundamental presupposition\nis that a big tool for manipulation exists\u2014Eros i n the most general sense\nof the word: that which we love, f r o m physical pleasure to things probably\nunsuspected, i n passing, by wealth, power, etc. Everything is defined i n\nrelation to Eros, since aversion and hatred merely represent the negative\nside of the same universal attraction:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=121\nPages: 121\nEros and Magic\n105\nWhat could be hoped for through knowledge of intersubjective\nrelationships?\nA homogeneous society, ideologically healthy and governable.\nBruno's total manipulator takes u p o n himself the task of dispensing to\nsubjects a suitable education and religion: \u202b\u05f4\u202cAbove all it is necessary to\nexercise extreme care concerning the place and the way i n w h i c h someone is educated, has pursued his studies, under w h i c h pedagogies,\nwhich religion, w h i c h cult, w i t h w h i c h books and writers. For all of that\ngenerates, by itself, and not by accident, all the subject's qualities\" (De\nMagia, LII). Supervision and selection are the pillars of order. It is not\nnecessary to be endowed w i t h imagination to understand that the function of Bruno's manipulator has been taken into account by the State and\nthat this new \u202b\u05f4\u202cintegral magician\" has been instructed to produce the\nnecessary ideological instruments w i t h the view of obtaining a u n i f o r m\nsociety.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=104\nPages: 104,105\nworks has been mentioned i n passing i n the foregoing pages. I n order to\nenhance comprehension that is still peripheral to what w i l l follow, the\nreader is requested always to keep i n m i n d that magic is a phantasmic\nprocess that makes use of the continuity of the individual pneuma and of the\nuniversal pneuma. We shall see i n due course h o w this continuity is ensured and by what means magicians hope to attract the collaboration of\nsupernatural presences. Beyond this presupposition common to all\nmagic, erotic magic reveals other aspects, disconcertingly modern, requiring separate treatment. Bruno is the first to exploit the concept of\nmagic to its ultimate conclusions, envisaging this \u202b\u05f4\u202cscience\u202b \u05f4\u202cas an infalli-\nEros and Magic\n89\nble psychological instrument for manipulating the masses as w e l l as the\nindividual h u m a n being. Awareness of the appropriate \u202b\u05f4\u202cchains\u202b( \u05f4\u202cvinculo) enables the magician to realize his dream of universal Master: to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nbe separated from the realm of divine contemplation w i t h a clarity that\nPetrarch, the repressed sensualist, lacked.\nThe anti-Petrarchism 61 of Bruno represents, fundamentally, an attempt to relegate to the sphere of pure consciousness the turbid selfsatisfactions of the subconscious, which, i n Petrarch's w o r k , are systematically raised to a level of intellectual dignity that f r o m the point of view\nof the Nolan they do not deserve. I n Bruno's ethics there is no room for\nthe phantasms of a degenerate imagination.\nA n attitude not w i t h o u t ambiguities: first, because he accepts w o m a n\nas an object of utility, provided that her use be not accompanied by\nphantasy; second, because he himself does not hesitate to hypostasize\nw o m a n while taking care to keep his distance f r o m Dante, w h o m he\nenvisages only as a companion of the unfortunate Petrarch.\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=93\nPages: 93\nbeen before, he becomes wild as the stag and the desert\ndweller. In this vast forest, he lives in the lairs of the cavernous mountains, lairs which do not belong to the artificial memory\n[stanze non artifiose], in which he admires the sources of great\nrivers, vegetates in purity, far from the contamination of ordinary desires.\nThe two fragments that explain the subject's rites of passage to the\nintellectual state are at pains to state precisely that this passage consists\nin outstripping phantasmic knowledge. In the sensory world, man is condemned to acquire knowledge only through phantasms. On the other\nhand, Bruno's great original approach, which pertained to the intelligible world, gains knowledge without the intermediary of phantasms, facie ad faciem, without requiring spiritual mediation between body and\nsoul, since man only lives in and through the soul. It is, of course, a\nparadoxical state whose strangeness and peculiarity Bruno does not attempt to conceal:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=108\nPages: 108,109\nphantasms\u2014in the event, the artist of m e m o r y \u2014 t o regulate and control\nhis emotions and his phantasies lest, believing himself to be their master, he nevertheless becomes dominated by them. \u202b\u05f4\u202cBe careful not to\nchange yourself f r o m manipulator into the tool of phantasms\u202b\u05f4\u202c: that is\nthe most serious danger confronting the disciple (Sigillus sigillorum, II, 2,\np. 193). The real magic manipulator must be able \u202b\u05f4\u202cto arrange, to correct,\nand to provide phantasy, to create the different kinds at will\" (De Magia,\nXLVIII, vol. I l l , p. 485).\nEros and Magic\n93\nIt seems that man is endowed w i t h a hypercomplex brain that has no\nspecial capacity to analyze stimuli according to their provenance: i n\nshort, he is not capable of differentiating directly between dreamlike\ndata and those transmitted by the senses, between the imaginary and\nthe tangible. 6 Bruno demands of the manipulator a superhuman task:\nfirst he must accurately and immediately classify data according to their]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=125\nPages: 125\nmagic techniques show a marked tendency to be founded on\nsexual drives whose power and special importance were\nprobably recognized and also because they are, indeed, more\nclosely linked to the imagination than any other natural appetite. The treatises on witchcraft became almost pornographic;\nand Bruno (De vinculis in genere) made a remarkable attempt\nto evolve a technique, explicitly based on sexual attraction,\nfor global emotional control. 1\nI n light of the preceding discussion, Walker's schema is revealed to be\nsimplistic. Insofar as it is a f o r m of transitive magic, intersubjective magic differs f r o m other functions by the quality of the object on w h i c h it is\nsupposed to act: indeed, its object is itself a subject whose structure is\nanalogous to that of its performer. This partly applies to animals, they\ntoo being endowed w i t h a pneumatic synthesizer, but does not apply at\nall to plants or to inanimate substances. The principles of subjective and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176,175\nto cultivate is not extraneous to the processes employed through the\nintermediary of demons. A t this point he is obliged to accept Grillandi's\nprecept, w h i c h he had implicitly disputed t w o pages before. He recognizes that mathematical magic can be maleficent, but he hopes, very\nprobably, that if judged according to Grillandi's criteria it w i l l only be\nsacrilegious and not heretical.\nA l l these doctrinal subtleties are peculiar not only to Bruno but to all\nthose writers w h o , while dealing w i t h magic i n the sixteenth century,\nare nevertheless trying to save appearances. A m o n g them Bruno seems\nthe most naive. Though unusually perceptive, Bruno handles his o w n\nimpulsiveness badly\u2014and this character trait is to prove fatal. O n the\nother hand, Father Trithemius, w h o also has friends i n h i g h places, is a\n\u202b\u05be\u202c160\nThe Great Manipulator\nmodel of shrewdness. Where does Bruno err tactically? By never being]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,87\nthey are at the center of a network of very complicated meanings at the\nvery heart of Bruno's philosophy as w e l l as of the spirit of his era.\nA T T H E H E A R T OF B R U N O ' S D O C T R I N E\nCentral to Bruno's moral doctrine is Ficino's thesis of the dispossessing\nof the subject, of the loss and the transfer of its \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\" into the\nDangerous Liaisons\n71\nobject. To be sure, that applies exclusively, as w i t h Pico della Mirandola,\nto the state of mystic love, whose object is the Deity. Hence the mors\nosculi, as we shall see, as w e l l as the story of the nine b l i n d men, which,\nthough a revival, literal i n places, of the eclogue Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco Antonio Epicuro, takes its inspiration equally f r o m Pico's\ntheory of prophetic blindness as formulated i n his Commento.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=174\nPages: 174,175\nBruno seems determined not to include necromancy and maleficent\nmagic i n his boiled-down classification of the varieties of magic, and, on\nthe other hand, that he transfers to the category of mathematical magic a\nconsiderable part of the processes performed through the intermediary\nof demons. Can we understand the motivation for this rather intricate\nstrategy? Yes, if w e refer to a semiofficial document (such as the Malleus), the Treatise on Magic Spells by Paul Grillandi, written about 1525\nDemonomagic\n159\nand published i n L y o n i n 1536 under the title Tractatus de Haereticis et\nSortilegiis. Here Grillandi states that invocations of the demon by modum\nimperii, those that Bruno earmarks for small demons, are not heretical\nbut only sacrilegious. O n the other hand, foretelling the future is always\nheretical.39\nN o w Bruno was a person of dazzling culture for his period, and it is\nunusual for even his most insignificant writings not to contain certain]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=124\nPages: 124\nends. The condition for his success lies i n creating an atmosphere i n\nw h i c h his collective subject becomes manageable, a subject he renders\ncapable of total self-sacrifice. A religion once instituted, can endure only\nby the active control it exercises over the education of individuals, a\ncontrol that must also be repressive i n order to prevent the individual\nf r o m losing his state of depersonalization or becoming capable of being\nreprogrammed. The same criterion, of course, applies to the promotion\nof an individual i n the religious hierarchy.\nFrom Ficino's love involving t w o people, representing the starting\npoint of Eros as w e l l as of magic, w e have n o w come to phenomena of\nunheard-of complexity. The psychosociology of the couple is transformed, i n Bruno's thinking, into general psychosociology: an interdisciplinary science disconcertingly modern, whose far-reaching implications\nneither \u202b\u05f4\u202cclassical\" psychology nor sociology was capable of envisaging]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\n\u202b\u05be\u202c160\nThe Great Manipulator\nmodel of shrewdness. Where does Bruno err tactically? By never being\nable to agree w i t h anybody; he could have stayed out of trouble if he had\nmade it clear at the beginning that he shared the other person's views u p\nto a certain point but differed on the details\u2014which was often the case.\nBut, Bruno proceeds i n the very opposite way: he begins by attacking\nsomeone only to make it clear later that what is at issue is basically a\nquestion of detail.\nIf we have taken the right view of this\u2014and the classification of De\nMagia is either by Grillandi or another writer of treatises against magic\nand sorcery\u2014then we must agree that Bruno's entire procedure is very\nstrange: what he borrows f r o m implicitly incriminating sources is much\nmore important than what he rejects. A n d he avoids saying so explicitly\nmerely to save appearances.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=114\nPages: 114\nreality: \u202b\u05f4\u202cPhantasy is true, it operates i n actuality, it can really influence\nthe object\u202b( \u05f4\u202cibid., p. 683). It also invades the subject through the \u202b\u05f4\u202cdoor\nof the imagination.\u202b \u05f4\u202cIt reaches the cogitative faculty, it determines emotions and incites the subject to pleasure (ibid., p. 641). Sight plays an\nessential role i n this, and often the lover perishes for want of seeing the\nobject of his love (ibid., p. 648).\nThe most interesting part of Bruno's thesis is dedicated to the kinds of\nvincula. They are very numerous for the emotion that each person demonstrates is differentiated according to the recipient: \u202b\u05f4\u202cIt is w i t h a different b o n d that we embrace sons, father, sister, wife, a woman, the\nlibertine, and a f r i e n d \" (ibid., p. 646). \u202b\u05f4\u202cSemen is of many kinds, Venus\nis of many kinds, love is of many kinds, bonds are of many k i n d s \" (Multiplex semen, multiplex Venus, multiplex amor, multiplex vinculum; ibid., p.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=118\nPages: 118,119\nBruno's erotic magic, though unorthodox, has allowed us a close view of\nthe extreme conclusions to w h i c h identity of substance and manipulation between Eros and magic could lead.\nWe must reverse our tracks and ask ourselves again about the relationship between Eros and magic, namely: Where does Eros end, where\ndoes magic begin? The answer seems very simple: at the very moment\nEros and Magic\n103\nEros is made manifest, so is magic also. That is w h y erotic magic, at\nbottom, represents the starting point of all magic.\nWe still have to go deeper into the definition of magic as a spiritual\nmanipulation. I n any case it is a question of a transitive assumption making it possible to say that every other spiritual manipulation is at the\nsame time a magical one. N o w , the simplest natural pneumatic activity\ninvolved i n any intersubjective process is Eros, w h i c h implies that all\nerotic phenomena are simultaneously magic phenomena i n w h i c h the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=117\nPages: 117\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cb o n d \" is also reduced. That is w h y the manipulator is supposed to\nstrengthen the bond, retain the sperm, for \u202b\u05f4\u202che w h o wishes to b i n d is\nobliged to develop the same emotions as he w h o must be b o u n d . \" That\nis the transitive result of magic: to arouse an emotion the manipulator\nmust develop it i n himself, whence it w i l l not fail to be transmitted to the\nphantasmic mechanism of his victim.\nWhat Bruno wishes to say has no connection w i t h the practices of\ncoitus reservatus: he simply recommends that the manipulator be continent and, at the same time, ardently desire the subject. Does he not assert,\nmoreover, that the \u202b\u05f4\u202cmore saintly one is, the greater one's ability to b i n d\n[others]\u202b( \u05f4\u202cibid., p. 651)? He must, indeed, cultivate assiduously the\nsame passion he wishes to arouse i n his victim, taking care, however,\nnot to be possessed by his o w n phantasms and never to aspire to the\nassuagement of desire, else the strength of the bonds disappears.]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend\nBenivieni. As for the rest of it, there is no great fundamental difference\nbetween Ficino's and Pico's theories, although Pico latter constantly censures Ficino for the vulgarity of his approach to questions of love. 26\nWhether expressed in a polite or positive way, as by Ficino, or in the\ncontemptuous and negative manner of Pico, it is certain that the Florentine Renaissance takes chronological precedence over the rediscovery of\nthe other Renaissance, that of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.\nModern scholars, who sometimes confuse the rediscovery with the\nsummarizing or literal resumption of the same ideas, accord such precedence only to Mario Equicola, interpreter of Proven\u00e7al poetry in his Libro\nde natura de amore, of which the Latin original\u2014on which the Italian\ntranslation of 1509-11 (published in 1525) was based\u2014dates back to the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=71\nPages: 71\nFicino's diplomacy, whose purpose is probably to save appearances,\nperplexes Girolamo Benivieni. The Commento was included i n 1519,\nthrough the good office of Biagio Buonaccorsi, among the works of Benivieni himself, w h o , i n an introduction, blames a t h i r d party for its publication, keeping his distance f r o m it by noting that Pico, as well as\nhimself, had w r i t t e n come Platonico, et non come Christiano.5 The least respectful passages about Ficino were carefully deleted i n the 1519 edition,\nand the Works of Pico della Mirandola published by his nephew Giovan\nFrancesco contain this expurgated version of the Commento. Another letter from Benivieni addressed to Luca della Robbia, w h i c h appears i n an\nappendix to the Works, again deplores the publication of those ineptie\npuerili.6\nPico's embarrassment, Benivieni's perplexity, Ficino's indignation,\nand Buonaccorsi's salutary censorship all make us suspect a serious]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70,71\nhad certainly shown goodwill equaled only by that of the pope.\nIn principle, difference in character does not always make collaboration between equals impossible. The young Pico is, on the one hand,\nsufficiently admiring of the Florentine Platonist that a considerable por53\n54\nPhantasms at Work\ntion of his w o r k is strongly influenced by h i m , i n spirit as well as i n the\nletter; but, o n the other hand, he often allows himself to adopt a polemical tone, admixed w i t h sarcasm to stigmatize Ficino's \u202b\u05f4\u202cvulgarity\u202b \u05f4\u202ci n the\nmost serious philosophical matters. As for the Platonist from Careggi,\nw h o probably saw Pico as merely an exceptionally gifted disciple, a mirandus iuvenis very w o r t h y of his academy, he addresses h i m i n terms\nwhose almost imperceptible irony ends by negating their extreme courtesy. I n the long r u n , Pico must have f o u n d Ficino's paternalism unbearable, and his rebellion regarding the interpretation of love is proof of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72,71\nand Buonaccorsi's salutary censorship all make us suspect a serious\nideological breach, i n 1486, between the impetuous y o u n g count and the\nlevel-headed cathedral canon. What was it about?\nO n reading the unexpurgated version of the document, published i n\n1942 by E. Garin, we are astonished by the violence of Pico's attack on\nFicino: 7 a m i n d u n w o r t h y of his difficult task i n annotating Plato's Sym-\nDangerous Liaisons\n55\nposium, \u202b\u05f4\u202cour Marsilio\u202b \u05f4\u202cis accused of defiling the subject of love on w h i c h\nhe is working. While granting that Ficino's systematic m i n d \u2014 a scholastic heritage that Pico himself shares\u2014can often irritate his reader, his\nyoung rival's aggressiveness can only be explained by personal resentment, since the \u202b\u05f4\u202clesson\" he thinks he is giving Ficino can be summed u p\nas an almost literal repetition of Ficino's ideas and turns of phrase. By]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=71\nPages: 71\nthat state of irritated dependency.\nIt is a matter of discordia concors rather than concordia discors, for, while\nwishing to give Ficino a lesson i n Platonism, Pico, probably unbeknownst to himself, remains nevertheless under his influence. I n his\nexcellent book on Pico della Mirandola, H e n r i de Lubac emphasizes the\ncircumstances of the w r i t i n g of Commento sopra una Canzona de Amore of\nI486, 2 pointing out, among the reasons m o v i n g Pico not to publish it, a\nconcern not to w o u n d Ficino, \u202b\u05f4\u202cwhose interpretations the Commento criticized more than once. 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cFicino, w h o m mutual friends had doubtless\ninformed of the y o u n g man's impertinence regarding h i m , thought it\nwise to write to Germain de Ganay that, w i t h regard to publishing the\nCommento, Pico's last wish\u2014repudiating this writing, w h i c h dated from\nhis adolescence\u2014should be respected. 4\nFicino's diplomacy, whose purpose is probably to save appearances,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73,74\n. . . in order to prepare a remedy for him in gratitude (this is the limit!)\nfor having refused to condemn him for astrology,\" 19 Pico writes, to\nmark the end of the errors of his youth, a huge treatise against astrology,\nDangerous Liaisons\n57\neven though it gains h i m the enmity of Ficino and his adherents.\nStrangely enough, this time Pico spares the old master w h o m he had not\nhesitated to discredit in his Commento: \u202b \u05f4\u202cH e had . . . enough discrimination not to confuse the great apologist, whose apostolic purpose was the\nsame as his o w n , w i t h all the men he believed to be enemies of the\nChristian faith. 2 0 \u202b \u05f4\u202cBut Lubac does not fail to point out the solidarity\nbetween Pico and Ficino that resulted f r o m the condemnation to w h i c h\nthe trilogy De vita had been subjected i n 1489-90, \u202b \u05f4\u202ca n d by those very\npeople w h o had fought Pico t w o years earlier. 2 1 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nAs for the rest of the Commento, we cannot but be surprised anew by]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29,30\nThe case of Pico della Mirandola, w h i c h we shall analyze i n chapter 3,\nis more complicated: it w o u l d be called a striking example of the Oedipus complex if that term had not fallen into disuse through repeated\nabuse. Stimulated, or rather irritated, by Ficino\u202b\u05f3\u202cs little masterpiece on\nlove, Pico abandons all courtesy and tries to refute it i n toto. That is w h y\nhe attacks Guido Cavalcanti for lacking profundity and holds u p as a\nmodel for a love poem a canzona by his o w n friend Girolamo Benivieni\non w h i c h he undertakes a commentary. The example of Pico is highly\nsignificant. The y o u n g man forgets what elsewhere he reveals he knows\nonly too well, i n particular that a cultural era is not defined by the content of the ideas it conveys but by its interpretive filter. It demands of\nGuido Cavalcanti that w h i c h Ficino, more subtle i n this respect, w o u l d\nHistory of Phantasy\n13]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,\ndid not last long. Apart from the fact that both were of the Saturnian\ntype, suited to penetrating contemplation of theological truths, it is difficult to imagine two people more dissimilar.\nThe son of Cosimo de' Medici's physician, Ficino was instructed by\nhis protector to translate Plato's works into Latin. In youth he is attracted to Augustinianism but loses no time in submitting to Scholasticism, of which he is to become undoubtedly the most valuable representative in the Renaissance. Burdened by defects, physical and psychic, he was hunchbacked, had a slight stammer,1 and often fell into fits\nof melancholic despair, so grievous that he once almost died of starvation. Aside from that, he was head of the Academy of Careggi and also a\npriest, which did not permit him to give up the public obligations devolving on him. He resigned himself to leading a healthy and frugal life,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=74\nPages: 74\nAs for the rest of the Commento, we cannot but be surprised anew by\nthe violence of Pico's attacks on Ficino (had he lost his judgment?). D i d\nthey not both agree that the essence of love is spiritual and that its object\npasses through the eyes to the inner sense located i n the heart? 22 H a d\nthey not both been engaged i n describing the deleterious effects of amor\nhereos,23 the phantasmic sickness \u202b\u05f4\u202cso plague-stricken and venomous\nthat it has been able to cause almost incurable weakness i n the most\nperfect and the strongest souls\"?\nIf this discordia concors between Pico and Ficino could not produce, i n\nthe former, any strikingly new interpretation of love, it is nevertheless to\nhis stubborn w i l l to distort that we o w n one of the most interesting and\npersistent themes i n the theory of Eros i n the sixteenth century: the mors\nosculi, or death from love. This theme has a dual origin: its point of\ndeparture is Ficino's phenomenology w i t h the process of alienation of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73\nPlatonists mean that a soul can be more closely related and in conformity\nto the soul of Saturn's sky than to the soul of the sky of Jupiter, or vice\nversa.\" 15 We have the impression that Pico is at pains to avoid the unorthodox consequences of that theory, for he makes clear that the sole\nintrinsic cause of those differences resides in God Himself, the unique\nproducer of souls. But right after speaking of the \"soul's wrappings\" he\nrashly adds that \"the rational soul descends from its star,\" which seems\nto contradict the protestation of faith of the preceding article. Since ecclesiastical censure, which was also to affect Ficino, had already paid too\nmuch attention to his own person, we have the impression that Pico\nhere exerts self-censure. This naive cleverness, which induces him to\npresent only partially a subject that Ficino had expertly presented fully\nand openly regardless of possible reprimands, will not spare Pico the\ntroubles he feared.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nto avoiding melancholy by means of diet, walking, music, some ritual\nmanipulations, and astrological magic.\nThe opposite of Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, a prodigious philologist\nand theologian, had the advantage of youth, noble birth, and wealth.\nMore or less of an extremist, though not lacking in diplomacy, he had\nhis adventures and misadventures. The end of his short life coincided\nwith his conversion to the puritan ideal of Savonarola. After many tribulations that went on until the death of Innocent VIII, he was pardoned\nby Pope Alexander VI, but the services he rendered the Church were\nlimited to a long refutation of astrology. His life ended at the age when\nothers are just beginning their activities. Can one assume that, when the\ntime came, he would have abandoned Savonarola? He lacked the versatility of Ficino, who was capable of all sorts of political turnabouts but\nhad certainly shown goodwill equaled only by that of the pope.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=74\nPages: 74\ndeparture is Ficino's phenomenology w i t h the process of alienation of\nthe subject w h o desperately seeks a place to locate his \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\". It\nwas a syndrome closely resembling amor hereos, w h i c h Francesco Colonna was able to describe w i t h o u t recourse to Ficino's system. As i n most\nof his interpretations, Pico takes exception to Ficino's \u202b \u05f4\u202cv u l g a r \" hermeneutics. Rejecting the inter subjective exegesis, he deals exclusively\nw i t h the death from love as a moment of the dialectic of the mystical\nEros. For that purpose he adopts the symbolism of the caballa w h i c h\nreveals to us the secondary source of the theme.\nThe binsica, mors osculi, or morte di bacio that Pico describes i n four\ncolumns 2 4 is a corporal extinction accompanied by intellectual ecstasy.\nN o one can rise to intelligential life w i t h o u t having first renounced sensory life. But w h e n the soul has left the mortal remains of the body, it]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73\nastrological physiognomy is justified by the fact that the terrestrial body\nis formed by the soul. 18 Now, if Ficino accepts the truth of that doctrine\u2014which he himself, in a phrase worthy of his duplicity, had characterized in his Theologia as a \"Platonist fable\"\u2014it is hard to see how he\ncan refute wholesale all the claims of astrology. To be sure, between\n1486, the date of the Commento, and 1494, the date of his death, which\nleft his Disputations unfinished, Pico had been struck by the thunderbolts of the Curia, subsequently to find peace with the preacher Savonarola. His conversion, however genuine it might be, poses the\nquestion of a split between the writings of his youth and the Disputations\nagainst Astrology. After the death of Innocent VIII, Pico was pardoned by\nthe new pope. Having reached the age of reason, should he not try to\nredeem himself definitively in the eyes of Rome? Lacking the petty mentality of Ficino, who, in 1490, \"found out the birth date of Innocent VIII]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=58\nPages: 58\nof the Wing Foundation, The Newberry Library, Chicago.\nbeginning more or less i n 1463. 41 From our p o i n t of v i e w , the fact that it\nescapes Ficino's influence is invaluable. Even w h e n expressing a personal point of v i e w o n love, w h i c h rarely happens, Pico della Mirandola,\nPietro Bembo, Baldesar Castiglione, Leo the Hebrew, a n d Melanchthon\nbear the indelible mark of Ficino's thought. O n the contrary, Colonna\n(though he, too, treats of the phantasmic Eros) is original and inimitable,\nless i n his ideas\u2014a c o m m o n heritage of the period, of w h i c h Ficino is to\nbecome the systematic organizer\u2014than i n the literary and didactic quality of his w o r k .\n(iv) Phantasms at Work\nLet us make the acquaintance of phantasms.\nTaken literally, the title Hypnerotomachia means a \u202b\u05f4\u202clove fight d u r i n g]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nHistory of Phantasy\n13\nnever have asked: to wit, that he already use the Platonistic interpretation of the fifteenth century! Benivieni's Canzona only differs from a canzona by Cavalcanti in that it furnishes directly to Pico della Mirandola the\ninterpretation he would have made even in the absence of the poem\nbecause it was his own interpretation of Eros in general. The Platonistic\nreading of Cavalcanti signified, to Ficino, a hermeneutic bias which also\nallowed him to pay tribute to a precursor and to the ancestor of someone\nhe liked. Now, in rejecting a real object for interpretation\u2014because the\ndifference between his commentary and the text commentated is only\nprosodie, the former being in prose, the latter in verse\u2014Pico peremptorily rejects all hermeneutics. For Ficino, Cavalcanti exists to the extent\nhe said something interpretable; for Pico, he does not exist since he does\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=242\nPages: 242\nFicino; it was changed in \u202b\u05f4\u202cNicolaus Caisius Cardinal\u202b( \u05f4\u202csee Cassirer, p. 76). It is a\nsign that Ficino had apparently not read him.\n76. See Cassirer, pp. 74-80.\n77. See A. G. Debus, pp. 92-95.\n78. Ibid., p. 133.\n79. See Gundel-Gundel, Astrologumena.\n80. See my Exp\u00e9riences de l'extase (Paris 1984), pp. 119-44.\nChapter 2\n1. For Ficino\u202b \u05f3\u202cs work I have used the following editions: Opera omnia (Basel\nedition, 1576, 2 vols.), in the Monumenta politica et philosophica rariora, series I, 7 8, 2 vols., (Turin, 1962; anastatic reproduction of Marsilii Ficini Florentini . . .\nOpera, et quae hactenus extitere . . . in duos Tomos digesta, Basileae, Ex Officina\nHenricpetrina, s.a.). As for the Theologia platonica, I had a choice between Michele\nSchiavone's edition in two volumes (Bologna, 1965), in which some chapters\nespecially important for our research were omitted, and the still unfinished but]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=247\nPages: 247\nexpurgated. The more or less classic work on Pico is Eugenio Anagnine's G. Pico\ndella Mirandola: Sincretismo religioso-filosofico, 1463-1494 (Bari, 1937). There is a\nbibliography on Pico della Mirandola in the book by Henri de Lubac, Pic de la\nMirandole: Etudes et discussions (Paris, 1974), In particular, there is discussion of\nthe circumstances surrounding the writing of the Commento, pp. 84 sq. (for the\ntext of the Commento, see Opera, I, pp. 898-923). Cf. also the study by Wind,\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cAmor as a God of Death,\u202b \u05f4\u202cin Pagan Mysteries, pp. 152-70, esp. pp. 154-57.\n3. Lubac, p. 85.\n4. Ibid., p. 85, no. 2.\n5. Op., I, p. 897a-b.\n6. Ibid., p. 922a-b.\n7. Garin, ed., pp. 466, 488, 499, 559.\n8. The theme of concordia discors between Plotinus and the Gnostics (whom he\nfights\u2014by proxy, so to speak\u2014in his Enneads, II, 9; see my \u202b\u05f4\u202cVol magique dans\nl'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive,\u202b \u05f4\u202cRevue de l'histoire des religions, 1981, pp. 57-66, where the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=69\nPages: 69,70\ninstinct remaining from the grandeur of their primary nature\nw h i c h makes them aware that happiness resides only i n tranquillity. A n d from those t w o contrary instincts is formed a\nconfused plan hidden from sight at the bottom of their soul\nthat leads them to reach for tranquillity through agitation and\nalways to imagine that the satisfaction they lack w i l l come to\nthem if, by surmounting certain obstacles they face, they can\nthus open the doors to peace and tranquillity. . . . So that in\nconsidering them seriously, man is more to be pitied for\nbeing able to amuse himself w i t h such low and frivolous\nthings than for being afflicted by real misery; and his diversions make much less sense than his boredom. (Pens\u00e9es, 26)\n31 Dangerous Liaisons\n(i) Pico della Mirandola, Continuator of Ficino\nThe perfect understanding between Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, in\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72,73\nearth. 1 2\nPico della Mirandola repeats Ficino's expressions literally and the\nstages of development of the human being: man is vincolo et nodo del\nmondo,13 he is the hyphen between the World of angels and Nature. He\nhas, of course, two bodies: one, called by the Platonists the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheavenly\nvehicle,\" is the imperishable w r a p p i n g around the rational soul; the\nother, composed of the four elements, is subject to the laws of g r o w t h\nand decay. 14 M a n is also equipped w i t h t w o organs of sight: one directed toward the sensory w o r l d and the other toward the intelligential\nworld, the latter corresponding to Ficino's oculus spiritalis. The descent\nof souls into bodies is faithfully summed u p by Pico according to Ficino's\ncommentary on the Symposium: \u202b \u05f4\u202cA m o n g h u m a n souls, some have Sat-\n56\nPhantasms at Work\nurn's nature, others the nature of Jupiter and so on. And by that the\nPlatonists mean that a soul can be more closely related and in conformity]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=129\nPages: 129\nPneumatic Magic\n113\ni n a material object made for this purpose or i n an animal. W i t h this\nreservoir of spiritual energy w i t h i n his grasp, the magician counts either\non obtaining either knowledge of the future or on achieving some practical purpose. 1 2\nCredit for having synthesized i n an original fashion the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements that make up the theoretical basis for Renaissance magic is due to Synesius of Cyrene, w h o , having been the\ndisciple of the Neoplatonist martyr, Hypatia of Alexandria (d. 415), ended by converting to Christianity and becoming a bishop. 1 3\nFor the Stoics, the functional relationship between the cardiac synthesizer (hegemonikon) and the pneuma was clearly determined: the\nhegemonikon \u202b\u05f4\u202cis like a receiving post to w h i c h all impressions received\nby the senses are communicated. 1 4 \u202b \u05f4\u202cO n the other hand, the Stoic philosophers also develop a theory of phantasms produced by the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=131\nPages: 131\nmagic. I n order that some result may be obtained, it is essential that the\npneuma be pure, that nothing carnal obscure the clarity of the mirror. 2 5\nSoothsaying through dreams, of w h i c h we have already heard f r o m\nCicero, is justified by virtue of the same principle: the events of the\nnoetic world, w h i c h is stable and eternal, that is, not subject to the dimension of time, are reflected i n the pure pneuma and f o r m veracious\ndream images that one can recall w h e n awake. \u202b \u05f4\u202cA n d I k n o w not\nwhether this sense,\u202b \u05f4\u202csays Synesius i n his praise of the pneumatic\nsynthesizer,\nis not more saintly than others. For it is because of it that we\ncan communicate w i t h the gods, either through sight, through\nconversation, or by other means. It is not to be wondered at if\ndreams are, for some men, their most precious treasure; because, for example, if someone sleeps tranquilly and, d u r i n g\nsleep, speaks to the Muses and listens to what they have to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=146\nPages: 146,147\nmessages transmitted by the soul to reach the inner sense.\nThe pneuma is a mirror with two faces, one of which reflects perceptions coming from the external senses and the other the phantasmagoria\nof the soul. If the surface turned toward the soul is not sufficiently clean,\nthe individual is reduced to a lower, almost bestial state. What can be\ndone to remedy this situation common to most mortals? Well, nothing\ncould be simpler: it is just a matter of polishing the mirror, removing its\nimpurities\u2014acquired, not congenital\u2014restoring to the clouded spirit its\noriginal transparency as well as its purity, flexibility, and hardness.\n130\nIntersubjective Magic\n131\nFor spirit is the intermediary between the gross body of the\nw o r l d and the soul. I n it and through it there are stars and\ndemons. . . . M a n draws from it through his o w n spirit,\nw h i c h conforms to the other by virtue of its nature. But that\ncan be done mainly if this spirit, thanks to art, is made more]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=143\nPages: 143\nendowed w i t h a hegemonikon located, generally speaking, i n the heart,\nthe organ corresponding to the sun i n the cosmos, has the capacity to\nimpart voluntary changes to his o w n phantasy. These changes, due to\nthe continuity of the pneuma, are transmitted to the objects aimed at by\nthe manipulator.\nThis phenomenon is natural, produced w i t h o u t conscious manipulation on the part of either the sender and/or the receiver of the pneumatic\ncurrent, and its starting point is self-consciousness, w h i c h is Eros. The\nlatter establishes links between individuals according to the transcendental information that the pneumatic conveyances of their souls have\naccumulated d u r i n g their descent through the planetary heavens.\nAs for magic proper, it represents knowledge permitting the performer to exploit the pneumatic currents w h i c h establish occult relations between the world's parts. N o w these relations are regular and can be]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=128\nPages: 128,129\nthe b o d y , \u202b \u05f4\u202ca contagione corporis, to move about i n time, learning things\npast or to come. To judge f r o m the result, this function performed by\ndreams differs i n no w a y f r o m that performed by prophets i n a state of\nwakefulness: Nam quae vigilantibus accidunt vatibus, eadem nobis dormientibus.9 To deliver oracular responses, the vates make use of external stimuli, especially of certain fumes (anhelitus) f r o m the earth, 1 0 i n w h i c h may\nbe f o u n d the \u202b\u05f4\u202csoothsaying pneuma,\u202b \u05f4\u202cthe spirit of prophecy mentioned\nby Plutarch of Chaeronea. 11\nFrom soothsaying activity to real magic there is only one step. Whereas soothsaying actually represents the ability to make use of the natural\nflights of the pneuma, the magic of the papyri of Late Antiquity is none\nother than a series of practical methods to attract, nourish, and accumulate or store u p the divine spirit. I n most cases, the pneuma is contained\nPneumatic Magic\n113]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=23\nPages: 23\nphenomenon itself was not understood, all the erudition i n the w o r l d is\nuseless, for w h a t it can do comes d o w n to very little, specifically to perfecting our knowledge about the existence and manifestations of a phenomenon w i t h o u t , however, broaching the m u c h more important\nproblem of the cultural presuppositions that keep it i n existence at a\ngiven time. The doctrine of the phantasmic pneuma is not an isolated\noddity produced by the gropings of premodern science. O n the contrary, it is the principal theme that w i l l help us to understand the mechanics and goal of that science as well as being the horizon of hope 4\ntoward w h i c h h u m a n existence stretched for a long period i n the past of\nour species.\nAs early as the sixth century the Sicilian physician, Alcemaeon of\nCroton, like the Pythagoreans, speaks of vital pneuma circulating i n the\narteries of the h u m a n being. The relation of blood to pneuma\u2014the latter]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=132\nPages: 132,133\n(1617-21), II, a, 1, p. 275.\nhaps magic incantations p r o v i d e such means, for they are not\nl i m i t e d to conveying meaning b u t they also invoke. He w h o\nunderstands the relationship of the parts of the universe is\nt r u l y wise: he can derive p r o f i t f r o m the higher beings b y capt u r i n g , b y means of sounds [phonas], substances [hylas], a n d\nforms [schemata], the presence of those w h o are far away. 2 8\nPneumatic Magic\n117\nBesides this more sophisticated expression of the relation between humans and the w o r l d , Synesius also utilizes traditional Platonic theory\naccording to w h i c h \u202b\u05f4\u202cthe h u m a n intellect contains w i t h i n itself the forms\nof all the things that exist. 2 9 \u202b \u05f4\u202cA thousand years after Synesius, Cardinal\nNicholas of Cusa is still convinced that the intellect of man-microcosm\n(parvus mundus) \u202b\u05f4\u202cis the living description of eternal and infinite wisdom.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=130\nPages: 130,131\nthan the heart. 2 3\nWe have already seen that Epictetus compared the pneuma to a basin\nfilled w i t h water, a liquid mirror. Plutarch of Chaeronea is the first to\nspeak of a pure mirror, nothing more. 2 4 For Synesius, this double-faced\nmirror provides the opportunity for t w o parallel surfaces to meet on\nneutral territory. Insofar as it is the intermediary between the intelligential w o r l d and the sensory w o r l d , this mirror, if perfectly clear, w i l l make\nit possible for inner judgment to contemplate the w o r l d above epito-\nPneumatic Magic\n115\nmized by the reasoning part of the soul, and w i l l give the latter the\nopportunity to perceive and to judge the sensory objects whose image is\ntransmitted to common sense through the external senses. The pneumatic\nsynthesizer becomes, for Synesius, the preeminent terrain of soothsaying and\nmagic. I n order that some result may be obtained, it is essential that the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=23\nPages: 23\nTHE PHANTASMIC\nPNEUMA\nThe Aristotelian theory of the phantasmic pneuma d i d not come out of\nthe blue. O n the contrary, it can even be said there is nothing original\nabout it except for the way the pieces composing it are fitted together.\nThe system is that of the philosopher of Stagira, though the elements of\nthe system preexisted. Using A b y Warburg's expression, the \u202b\u05f4\u202cselective\nw i l l \" may be attributed to Aristotle but not the creation of the substance\nof that tenet.\nTo recall the important periods of the history of the phantasmic pneuma as we are doing here is not merely a collector's foible. It is because\nthey were satisfied w i t h Aristotle and had lost sight of that history that\ninterpreters of the Renaissance, even the most astute, never grasped the\nessence of many spiritual processes nor their basic unity. So long as the\nphenomenon itself was not understood, all the erudition i n the w o r l d is]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=157\nPages: 157\nartificial things have occult qualities conferred u p o n them by the stars:\nthrough these things our spirit attracts the influence of the respective\nstars.\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nT H E LURES\nThe purpose of Ficino's pneumatic magic is to improve the spiritual,\nphysical, psychic, and social conditions of the magician himself, or his\nclient. Theurgy and medicine are the magician's principal activities.\nPlants, stones, metals, and the various other substances used according\nto the position of the planets i n the zodiac exert a positive influence\nu p o n the spirit of the theurgist and u p o n an invalid's health. Amulets,\ntalismans and images, depending on the case, can have a prophylactic\nor curative effect. It goes w i t h o u t saying that the same remedies can be\nused to obtain results of a different kind: social success, learning facility,\npracticing a profession, harmony i n intersubjective relations, etc. It is\neasy to imagine that, for every undertaking, there is a lucky position of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=46\nPages: 46\nimages it can appraise the bodies themselves.\nThe metaphor of the mirror applied to the pneuma is to appear at\ngreater length i n the chapter devoted to theurgical purifications (IV, 1\nand 3). I n any case, it is useful to recall that, for a phantasm to f o r m on\nthe polished and reflective surface of spirit, it is first necessary that the\nobject be seen and its image carried to common sense through the pneumatic canals. It goes w i t h o u t saying that the phantasm is not only visual\nor audiovisual; it is, so to say, synesthetic, engendered by the collaboration of several or all senses simultaneously. Nevertheless, sight certainly\nplays the most important part i n forming the phantasm: it is one of the\nreasons w h y it is believed to be, throughout the Platonic tradition, \u202b\u05f4\u202cthe\nnoblest of the senses.\"\nWe recall that, i n Plato's theory of optics, the image was produced by\na circuit bringing the visual ray from the eyes to its place of origin and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=24\nPages: 24,23\narteries of the h u m a n being. The relation of blood to pneuma\u2014the latter\nbeing the subtler part of the former\u2014becomes common ground for the\nschool of Sicilian medicine whose chief is the famous Empedocles of\nAgrigentum, the fifth-century Greek medicine man. As iatromantis, healer (iatros) and soothsayer (mantis), Empedocles was k n o w n as the great-\nHistory of Phantasy\n7\nest specialist of antiquity i n the treatment of catalepsy (apnous) or\napparent death. 5 We do not k n o w what Empedocles thought of the vital\npneuma, but the members of the school w h o acknowledged h i m as lead\u202b\u05be\u202c\ner believed spirit to be a subtle vapor from the blood m o v i n g about i n the\narteries of the body, whereas the venous circulation was set apart for the\nblood itself. The heart, the central depository of the pneuma, holds first\nrank i n the maintenance of the body's vital functions.\nThough less refined than the theory of the pranas i n the Upanishad,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=140\nPages: 140,141\ncategories of phantasmic p r o d u c t i o n , rests largely o n analogies between\nthe phantasies of patients a n d the mythico-magic repertory of m a n k i n d .\nH o w are these things looked u p o n f r o m the p o i n t of v i e w of anthropology, w h i c h is not directly called u p o n to give its verdict o n the mental\nhealth of its subjects?\nPneumatic Magic\n125\nEcstatic Religion, a book by the Scottish anthropologist Ian M . Lewis,\nanswers this question. 4 0\nLewis outlines a quite instructive typology of the \u202b\u05f4\u202cmanipulator of\nspirits\u202b( \u05f4\u202csupernatural entities), coming to the conclusion that there are\nthree classes: (a) the participant in ecstatic cults (like the Dionysian i n ancient Greece or the zar i n N o r t h Africa), w h o is involuntarily possessed\nby \u202b\u05f4\u202cspirits\u202b( ;\u05f4\u202cb) the shaman, w h o , after being mastered by spirits, becomes, i n turn, their master (a wounded surgeon, i n T. S. Eliot's phrase);]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=124\nPages: 124,125\nEveryone knows that magic claims to act not only on individuals\nendowed w i t h a pneumatic body but also on the inanimate w o r l d and\non lower forms of life. There is nothing w r o n g w i t h this popular idea,\nbut, to explain the w i d e range of magic outside intersubjective relationships, there must be another principle that supports it.\nThe English scholar D. P. Walker has suggested classifying magic into\n\u202b\u05f4\u202csubjective\" (which works on the subject himself) and \u202b\u05f4\u202ctransitive\"\nPneumatic Magic\n109\n(working on the surroundings). What he means by transitive magic\nshould be called instead, as w e have done, \u202b\u05f4\u202cintersubjective magic\u202b\u05f4\u202c:\nThe use of transitive magic aimed at living beings coincides i n\npart w i t h practical psychology. This f o r m of magic purports\nto monitor and direct the emotions of other people by altering\ntheir imagination i n a specific and permanent way. These\nmagic techniques show a marked tendency to be founded on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=26\nPages: 26\nsoul, for the Stoics, as well as for the doctors, the pneuma is the soul\nitself, w h i c h penetrates the whole h u m a n body, controlling all its activities\u2014movement, the five senses, excretion, and the secretion of\nsperm. The Stoic theory of sensory knowledge is not unrelated to that of\nAristotle: a cardiac synthesizer, the hegemonic Principal (hegemonikon),\nreceives all the pneumatic currents transmitted to it by the sensory\norgans and produced by the \u202b\u05f4\u202ccomprehensible phantasms\u202b( \u05f4\u202cphantasia kataleptike) apprehended by the intellect. 1 2 This has only the means to recognize \u202b\u05f4\u202cprints made u p o n the soul\u202b( \u05f4\u202ctyposis en psyche) produced by the\nPrincipal, which, like a spider i n its web, f r o m its seat i n the heart\u2014the\nbody's center\u2014is on the lookout for all information transmitted to it by\nthe peripheral senses. 13 For Chrysippus, \u202b\u05f4\u202cthe perception of an object\nw o u l d occur by means of a pneumatic current which, taking off f r o m the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=139\nPages: 139\nevent, even the most insignificant, has a universal influence (especially\nintense i n the case of violent death). Magic draws f r o m this very principle its possibility for existence, w h i c h consists i n e m i t t i n g radiations the\nlength of whose wave can reach the receiving posts sighted by the performer. The addressees of the message w i l l be forced to react to it according to the i n t e n t i o n impressed i n t o the radiation. W e must not lose\nsight of the fact that al\u202b\u05be\u202cKindi\u202b\u05f3\u202cs rays are pneumatic i n nature, that his magic is a spiritual magic w h i c h is s i m p l y a continuation of the magic of\nSynesius of Cyrene. This means that a h u m a n , e n d o w e d w i t h a phantasmic synthesizer, can produce mental states a n d send t h e m out i n\npneumatic space to the receiving spirit of another i n d i v i d u a l of the same\nspecies. The effectiveness of this intersubjective magic is ensured b y the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=122\nPages: 122,123\nand of the future.\n5 Pneumatic Magic\n(i) The Starting Point of Magic\nThe inception of magic is represented by Eros: this gives rise to the construction of an erotic magic\u2014a f o r m of intersubjective magic\u2014functioning by virtue of the law of pneumatic interaction between individuals. It\ngoes w i t h o u t saying that this interaction, i n Ficino's theory, is predetermined by prenatal circumstances of an astrological kind. They play a less\nimportant role in the theories of Giordano Bruno.\nFrom Ficino to Bruno, the doctrine of erotic magic undergoes transformations analogous to those of the concept of \u202b\u05f4\u202ctransference\u202b \u05f4\u202cf r o m Freud\nto Lacan. For Freud, transference is a complex phenomenon limited to\nthe relations between analyst and patient; to Lacan, the entire w o r l d of\nmankind is merely a transference function of gigantic proportions i n\nwhich everyone, i n turn, plays the parts of analyst and of patient. I n the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=142\nPages: 142\nby the voluntary use of chemical substances w i t h psychedelic effects.\nThe magician is an analyst w h o can only practice his profession after\nbeing analyzed himself. But access to the unconscious can be left open to\nh i m i n t w o different ways: by \u202b\u05f4\u202cinvasion,\u202b \u05f4\u202ceither pathological or brought\nabout by external means, or by assimilation of the tradition. I n the seco n d instance, no analogy w i t h schizophrenia is admissible\u2014any more\nthan it w o u l d be i n the case of anyone w h o learns anything, including\nthe scientist.\nThese thoughts, w h i c h w e shall develop later (see below, chap. 7), are\na preamble to the account of inter subjective magic f r o m al-Kindl to Giordano Bruno. The concept of \u202b\u05f4\u202cradiation,\u202b \u05f4\u202cfundamental to al-Kindl, is\ngradually replaced by the concept of Eros. Pneumatic harmony of the\nuniverse is the general assumption f r o m Ficino to Bruno and its instrument is Eros. T h r o u g h Eros the universe knows a certain concentus,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=129\nPages: 129\ni n its l i m p i d surface, so also are external objects reflected i n our psychic\npneuma, w i t h the obvious result that they are influenced by the present\nstate of the pneuma. 1 6 \u202b \u05f4\u202cI n order that the images reflected i n the mirror\nof the pneuma may be precise and faithful to their subject, the pneuma\nitself must be tranquil and pure. 1 7 So it is that Epictetus, continuing and\ndeveloping the moral preoccupations of the Stoics, combines them w i t h\nthe doctrine of spirit: to have a clean pneuma, a well-polished cardiac\nmirror, becomes the equivalent of being virtuous. Here Stoicism finds\nitself i n the company of the whole Platonic tradition, whose most important practical outcome is to obtain, by a suitable technique, the separation of the soul from the body so that the former may not be sullied by\nthe latter. Beginning i n the second century A.D., a technique of this k i n d\nis k n o w n as theurgy, w h i c h primarily designates a purification of the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=103\nPages: 103\nheart, liver, and other organs interact, favor each other, intercommunicate and feel reciprocal pain. From this relationship\nis born Eros, which is common to them all; from this Eros is\nborn their mutual rapprochement, wherein resides true Magic. (Ibid.)\nThis is tantamount to saying that, since the substance in which the\nprocesses of Eros and of magic occur is unique\u2014the universal pneuma\n(see chap. 5 below)\u2014those two techniques are closely related, indeed\nidentical. Moreover, Eros, presiding over all spiritual activities, is what\nensures the collaboration of the sectors of the universe, from the stars to\nthe humblest blade of grass. Love is the name given to the power that\nensures the continuity of the uninterrupted chain of beings; pneuma is\nthe name given to the common and unique substance that places these\nbeings in mutual relationship. Because of Eros, and through it, all of\nnature is turned into a great sorceress (ibid., p. 107).]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=71\nPages: 71\nFicino's diplomacy, whose purpose is probably to save appearances,\nperplexes Girolamo Benivieni. The Commento was included i n 1519,\nthrough the good office of Biagio Buonaccorsi, among the works of Benivieni himself, w h o , i n an introduction, blames a t h i r d party for its publication, keeping his distance f r o m it by noting that Pico, as well as\nhimself, had w r i t t e n come Platonico, et non come Christiano.5 The least respectful passages about Ficino were carefully deleted i n the 1519 edition,\nand the Works of Pico della Mirandola published by his nephew Giovan\nFrancesco contain this expurgated version of the Commento. Another letter from Benivieni addressed to Luca della Robbia, w h i c h appears i n an\nappendix to the Works, again deplores the publication of those ineptie\npuerili.6\nPico's embarrassment, Benivieni's perplexity, Ficino's indignation,\nand Buonaccorsi's salutary censorship all make us suspect a serious]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend\nBenivieni. As for the rest of it, there is no great fundamental difference\nbetween Ficino's and Pico's theories, although Pico latter constantly censures Ficino for the vulgarity of his approach to questions of love. 26\nWhether expressed in a polite or positive way, as by Ficino, or in the\ncontemptuous and negative manner of Pico, it is certain that the Florentine Renaissance takes chronological precedence over the rediscovery of\nthe other Renaissance, that of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.\nModern scholars, who sometimes confuse the rediscovery with the\nsummarizing or literal resumption of the same ideas, accord such precedence only to Mario Equicola, interpreter of Proven\u00e7al poetry in his Libro\nde natura de amore, of which the Latin original\u2014on which the Italian\ntranslation of 1509-11 (published in 1525) was based\u2014dates back to the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72,71\nand Buonaccorsi's salutary censorship all make us suspect a serious\nideological breach, i n 1486, between the impetuous y o u n g count and the\nlevel-headed cathedral canon. What was it about?\nO n reading the unexpurgated version of the document, published i n\n1942 by E. Garin, we are astonished by the violence of Pico's attack on\nFicino: 7 a m i n d u n w o r t h y of his difficult task i n annotating Plato's Sym-\nDangerous Liaisons\n55\nposium, \u202b\u05f4\u202cour Marsilio\u202b \u05f4\u202cis accused of defiling the subject of love on w h i c h\nhe is working. While granting that Ficino's systematic m i n d \u2014 a scholastic heritage that Pico himself shares\u2014can often irritate his reader, his\nyoung rival's aggressiveness can only be explained by personal resentment, since the \u202b\u05f4\u202clesson\" he thinks he is giving Ficino can be summed u p\nas an almost literal repetition of Ficino's ideas and turns of phrase. By]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=71\nPages: 71\nthat state of irritated dependency.\nIt is a matter of discordia concors rather than concordia discors, for, while\nwishing to give Ficino a lesson i n Platonism, Pico, probably unbeknownst to himself, remains nevertheless under his influence. I n his\nexcellent book on Pico della Mirandola, H e n r i de Lubac emphasizes the\ncircumstances of the w r i t i n g of Commento sopra una Canzona de Amore of\nI486, 2 pointing out, among the reasons m o v i n g Pico not to publish it, a\nconcern not to w o u n d Ficino, \u202b\u05f4\u202cwhose interpretations the Commento criticized more than once. 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cFicino, w h o m mutual friends had doubtless\ninformed of the y o u n g man's impertinence regarding h i m , thought it\nwise to write to Germain de Ganay that, w i t h regard to publishing the\nCommento, Pico's last wish\u2014repudiating this writing, w h i c h dated from\nhis adolescence\u2014should be respected. 4\nFicino's diplomacy, whose purpose is probably to save appearances,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70,71\nhad certainly shown goodwill equaled only by that of the pope.\nIn principle, difference in character does not always make collaboration between equals impossible. The young Pico is, on the one hand,\nsufficiently admiring of the Florentine Platonist that a considerable por53\n54\nPhantasms at Work\ntion of his w o r k is strongly influenced by h i m , i n spirit as well as i n the\nletter; but, o n the other hand, he often allows himself to adopt a polemical tone, admixed w i t h sarcasm to stigmatize Ficino's \u202b\u05f4\u202cvulgarity\u202b \u05f4\u202ci n the\nmost serious philosophical matters. As for the Platonist from Careggi,\nw h o probably saw Pico as merely an exceptionally gifted disciple, a mirandus iuvenis very w o r t h y of his academy, he addresses h i m i n terms\nwhose almost imperceptible irony ends by negating their extreme courtesy. I n the long r u n , Pico must have f o u n d Ficino's paternalism unbearable, and his rebellion regarding the interpretation of love is proof of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73,74\n. . . in order to prepare a remedy for him in gratitude (this is the limit!)\nfor having refused to condemn him for astrology,\" 19 Pico writes, to\nmark the end of the errors of his youth, a huge treatise against astrology,\nDangerous Liaisons\n57\neven though it gains h i m the enmity of Ficino and his adherents.\nStrangely enough, this time Pico spares the old master w h o m he had not\nhesitated to discredit in his Commento: \u202b \u05f4\u202cH e had . . . enough discrimination not to confuse the great apologist, whose apostolic purpose was the\nsame as his o w n , w i t h all the men he believed to be enemies of the\nChristian faith. 2 0 \u202b \u05f4\u202cBut Lubac does not fail to point out the solidarity\nbetween Pico and Ficino that resulted f r o m the condemnation to w h i c h\nthe trilogy De vita had been subjected i n 1489-90, \u202b \u05f4\u202ca n d by those very\npeople w h o had fought Pico t w o years earlier. 2 1 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nAs for the rest of the Commento, we cannot but be surprised anew by]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73\nastrological physiognomy is justified by the fact that the terrestrial body\nis formed by the soul. 18 Now, if Ficino accepts the truth of that doctrine\u2014which he himself, in a phrase worthy of his duplicity, had characterized in his Theologia as a \"Platonist fable\"\u2014it is hard to see how he\ncan refute wholesale all the claims of astrology. To be sure, between\n1486, the date of the Commento, and 1494, the date of his death, which\nleft his Disputations unfinished, Pico had been struck by the thunderbolts of the Curia, subsequently to find peace with the preacher Savonarola. His conversion, however genuine it might be, poses the\nquestion of a split between the writings of his youth and the Disputations\nagainst Astrology. After the death of Innocent VIII, Pico was pardoned by\nthe new pope. Having reached the age of reason, should he not try to\nredeem himself definitively in the eyes of Rome? Lacking the petty mentality of Ficino, who, in 1490, \"found out the birth date of Innocent VIII]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29,30\nThe case of Pico della Mirandola, w h i c h we shall analyze i n chapter 3,\nis more complicated: it w o u l d be called a striking example of the Oedipus complex if that term had not fallen into disuse through repeated\nabuse. Stimulated, or rather irritated, by Ficino\u202b\u05f3\u202cs little masterpiece on\nlove, Pico abandons all courtesy and tries to refute it i n toto. That is w h y\nhe attacks Guido Cavalcanti for lacking profundity and holds u p as a\nmodel for a love poem a canzona by his o w n friend Girolamo Benivieni\non w h i c h he undertakes a commentary. The example of Pico is highly\nsignificant. The y o u n g man forgets what elsewhere he reveals he knows\nonly too well, i n particular that a cultural era is not defined by the content of the ideas it conveys but by its interpretive filter. It demands of\nGuido Cavalcanti that w h i c h Ficino, more subtle i n this respect, w o u l d\nHistory of Phantasy\n13]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,\ndid not last long. Apart from the fact that both were of the Saturnian\ntype, suited to penetrating contemplation of theological truths, it is difficult to imagine two people more dissimilar.\nThe son of Cosimo de' Medici's physician, Ficino was instructed by\nhis protector to translate Plato's works into Latin. In youth he is attracted to Augustinianism but loses no time in submitting to Scholasticism, of which he is to become undoubtedly the most valuable representative in the Renaissance. Burdened by defects, physical and psychic, he was hunchbacked, had a slight stammer,1 and often fell into fits\nof melancholic despair, so grievous that he once almost died of starvation. Aside from that, he was head of the Academy of Careggi and also a\npriest, which did not permit him to give up the public obligations devolving on him. He resigned himself to leading a healthy and frugal life,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nto avoiding melancholy by means of diet, walking, music, some ritual\nmanipulations, and astrological magic.\nThe opposite of Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, a prodigious philologist\nand theologian, had the advantage of youth, noble birth, and wealth.\nMore or less of an extremist, though not lacking in diplomacy, he had\nhis adventures and misadventures. The end of his short life coincided\nwith his conversion to the puritan ideal of Savonarola. After many tribulations that went on until the death of Innocent VIII, he was pardoned\nby Pope Alexander VI, but the services he rendered the Church were\nlimited to a long refutation of astrology. His life ended at the age when\nothers are just beginning their activities. Can one assume that, when the\ntime came, he would have abandoned Savonarola? He lacked the versatility of Ficino, who was capable of all sorts of political turnabouts but\nhad certainly shown goodwill equaled only by that of the pope.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=74\nPages: 74\ndeparture is Ficino's phenomenology w i t h the process of alienation of\nthe subject w h o desperately seeks a place to locate his \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\". It\nwas a syndrome closely resembling amor hereos, w h i c h Francesco Colonna was able to describe w i t h o u t recourse to Ficino's system. As i n most\nof his interpretations, Pico takes exception to Ficino's \u202b \u05f4\u202cv u l g a r \" hermeneutics. Rejecting the inter subjective exegesis, he deals exclusively\nw i t h the death from love as a moment of the dialectic of the mystical\nEros. For that purpose he adopts the symbolism of the caballa w h i c h\nreveals to us the secondary source of the theme.\nThe binsica, mors osculi, or morte di bacio that Pico describes i n four\ncolumns 2 4 is a corporal extinction accompanied by intellectual ecstasy.\nN o one can rise to intelligential life w i t h o u t having first renounced sensory life. But w h e n the soul has left the mortal remains of the body, it]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73\nand openly regardless of possible reprimands, will not spare Pico the\ntroubles he feared.\nWe might well see here a prelude to the antiastrological polemic contained in the Disputationes adversus Astrologiam divinatricem. But, in this\ncase, the hypothesis that this document was conceived with the purpose\nof obtaining from the Curia the pardon necessary to enter the Dominican order and to put on the cardinalate purple seems not without foundation. 16 All the more so since the Commento repeats the whole story of\nincorporation that Ficino got from Macrobius, with the descent of the\nsoul through the door of Cancer, the acquisition of the astral wrappings,\nand the soul's reascent through the door of Capricorn,17 adding that its\nastrological physiognomy is justified by the fact that the terrestrial body]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=247\nPages: 247\nexpurgated. The more or less classic work on Pico is Eugenio Anagnine's G. Pico\ndella Mirandola: Sincretismo religioso-filosofico, 1463-1494 (Bari, 1937). There is a\nbibliography on Pico della Mirandola in the book by Henri de Lubac, Pic de la\nMirandole: Etudes et discussions (Paris, 1974), In particular, there is discussion of\nthe circumstances surrounding the writing of the Commento, pp. 84 sq. (for the\ntext of the Commento, see Opera, I, pp. 898-923). Cf. also the study by Wind,\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cAmor as a God of Death,\u202b \u05f4\u202cin Pagan Mysteries, pp. 152-70, esp. pp. 154-57.\n3. Lubac, p. 85.\n4. Ibid., p. 85, no. 2.\n5. Op., I, p. 897a-b.\n6. Ibid., p. 922a-b.\n7. Garin, ed., pp. 466, 488, 499, 559.\n8. The theme of concordia discors between Plotinus and the Gnostics (whom he\nfights\u2014by proxy, so to speak\u2014in his Enneads, II, 9; see my \u202b\u05f4\u202cVol magique dans\nl'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive,\u202b \u05f4\u202cRevue de l'histoire des religions, 1981, pp. 57-66, where the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=74\nPages: 74\nAs for the rest of the Commento, we cannot but be surprised anew by\nthe violence of Pico's attacks on Ficino (had he lost his judgment?). D i d\nthey not both agree that the essence of love is spiritual and that its object\npasses through the eyes to the inner sense located i n the heart? 22 H a d\nthey not both been engaged i n describing the deleterious effects of amor\nhereos,23 the phantasmic sickness \u202b\u05f4\u202cso plague-stricken and venomous\nthat it has been able to cause almost incurable weakness i n the most\nperfect and the strongest souls\"?\nIf this discordia concors between Pico and Ficino could not produce, i n\nthe former, any strikingly new interpretation of love, it is nevertheless to\nhis stubborn w i l l to distort that we o w n one of the most interesting and\npersistent themes i n the theory of Eros i n the sixteenth century: the mors\nosculi, or death from love. This theme has a dual origin: its point of\ndeparture is Ficino's phenomenology w i t h the process of alienation of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nHistory of Phantasy\n13\nnever have asked: to wit, that he already use the Platonistic interpretation of the fifteenth century! Benivieni's Canzona only differs from a canzona by Cavalcanti in that it furnishes directly to Pico della Mirandola the\ninterpretation he would have made even in the absence of the poem\nbecause it was his own interpretation of Eros in general. The Platonistic\nreading of Cavalcanti signified, to Ficino, a hermeneutic bias which also\nallowed him to pay tribute to a precursor and to the ancestor of someone\nhe liked. Now, in rejecting a real object for interpretation\u2014because the\ndifference between his commentary and the text commentated is only\nprosodie, the former being in prose, the latter in verse\u2014Pico peremptorily rejects all hermeneutics. For Ficino, Cavalcanti exists to the extent\nhe said something interpretable; for Pico, he does not exist since he does\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=242\nPages: 242\nFicino; it was changed in \u202b\u05f4\u202cNicolaus Caisius Cardinal\u202b( \u05f4\u202csee Cassirer, p. 76). It is a\nsign that Ficino had apparently not read him.\n76. See Cassirer, pp. 74-80.\n77. See A. G. Debus, pp. 92-95.\n78. Ibid., p. 133.\n79. See Gundel-Gundel, Astrologumena.\n80. See my Exp\u00e9riences de l'extase (Paris 1984), pp. 119-44.\nChapter 2\n1. For Ficino\u202b \u05f3\u202cs work I have used the following editions: Opera omnia (Basel\nedition, 1576, 2 vols.), in the Monumenta politica et philosophica rariora, series I, 7 8, 2 vols., (Turin, 1962; anastatic reproduction of Marsilii Ficini Florentini . . .\nOpera, et quae hactenus extitere . . . in duos Tomos digesta, Basileae, Ex Officina\nHenricpetrina, s.a.). As for the Theologia platonica, I had a choice between Michele\nSchiavone's edition in two volumes (Bologna, 1965), in which some chapters\nespecially important for our research were omitted, and the still unfinished but]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73\nPlatonists mean that a soul can be more closely related and in conformity\nto the soul of Saturn's sky than to the soul of the sky of Jupiter, or vice\nversa.\" 15 We have the impression that Pico is at pains to avoid the unorthodox consequences of that theory, for he makes clear that the sole\nintrinsic cause of those differences resides in God Himself, the unique\nproducer of souls. But right after speaking of the \"soul's wrappings\" he\nrashly adds that \"the rational soul descends from its star,\" which seems\nto contradict the protestation of faith of the preceding article. Since ecclesiastical censure, which was also to affect Ficino, had already paid too\nmuch attention to his own person, we have the impression that Pico\nhere exerts self-censure. This naive cleverness, which induces him to\npresent only partially a subject that Ficino had expertly presented fully\nand openly regardless of possible reprimands, will not spare Pico the\ntroubles he feared.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=69\nPages: 69,70\ninstinct remaining from the grandeur of their primary nature\nw h i c h makes them aware that happiness resides only i n tranquillity. A n d from those t w o contrary instincts is formed a\nconfused plan hidden from sight at the bottom of their soul\nthat leads them to reach for tranquillity through agitation and\nalways to imagine that the satisfaction they lack w i l l come to\nthem if, by surmounting certain obstacles they face, they can\nthus open the doors to peace and tranquillity. . . . So that in\nconsidering them seriously, man is more to be pitied for\nbeing able to amuse himself w i t h such low and frivolous\nthings than for being afflicted by real misery; and his diversions make much less sense than his boredom. (Pens\u00e9es, 26)\n31 Dangerous Liaisons\n(i) Pico della Mirandola, Continuator of Ficino\nThe perfect understanding between Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, in\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\ntranslation of 1509-11 (published in 1525) was based\u2014dates back to the\nyears 1494-96, 27 right after the death of Pico. Now, it is true that Mario\nEquicola refers directly to the lyric style of the troubadours, whereas\nCavalcanti, in whom Ficino discovers a precursor, is only the later representative of an Italian school, which, also profiting from the lessons of\nthe Sicilian school28 and in competition with the school of Bologna, replaces the code of the troubadours with one that is more rigid and \u202b\u05f4\u202cscientific.\" Of course, the t w o examples are not superimposable, but\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cstilnovism\" and Proven\u00e7al poetry both stem from the same existential\nroot of courtly love.\nACCULTURATION OF THE WEST\nThe observer of ideas and currents taking place on the twelfth-century\nstage is frustrated by their variety. A quick foray into the wings, which\nfew have yet dared to attempt, shows us that many strings are held in\nthe same hand, the same \u202b\u05f4\u202cselective w i l l , \" perhaps. 2 9]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=58\nPages: 58\nof the Wing Foundation, The Newberry Library, Chicago.\nbeginning more or less i n 1463. 41 From our p o i n t of v i e w , the fact that it\nescapes Ficino's influence is invaluable. Even w h e n expressing a personal point of v i e w o n love, w h i c h rarely happens, Pico della Mirandola,\nPietro Bembo, Baldesar Castiglione, Leo the Hebrew, a n d Melanchthon\nbear the indelible mark of Ficino's thought. O n the contrary, Colonna\n(though he, too, treats of the phantasmic Eros) is original and inimitable,\nless i n his ideas\u2014a c o m m o n heritage of the period, of w h i c h Ficino is to\nbecome the systematic organizer\u2014than i n the literary and didactic quality of his w o r k .\n(iv) Phantasms at Work\nLet us make the acquaintance of phantasms.\nTaken literally, the title Hypnerotomachia means a \u202b\u05f4\u202clove fight d u r i n g]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend\nBenivieni. As for the rest of it, there is no great fundamental difference\nbetween Ficino's and Pico's theories, although Pico latter constantly censures Ficino for the vulgarity of his approach to questions of love. 26\nWhether expressed in a polite or positive way, as by Ficino, or in the\ncontemptuous and negative manner of Pico, it is certain that the Florentine Renaissance takes chronological precedence over the rediscovery of\nthe other Renaissance, that of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.\nModern scholars, who sometimes confuse the rediscovery with the\nsummarizing or literal resumption of the same ideas, accord such precedence only to Mario Equicola, interpreter of Proven\u00e7al poetry in his Libro\nde natura de amore, of which the Latin original\u2014on which the Italian\ntranslation of 1509-11 (published in 1525) was based\u2014dates back to the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70,71\nhad certainly shown goodwill equaled only by that of the pope.\nIn principle, difference in character does not always make collaboration between equals impossible. The young Pico is, on the one hand,\nsufficiently admiring of the Florentine Platonist that a considerable por53\n54\nPhantasms at Work\ntion of his w o r k is strongly influenced by h i m , i n spirit as well as i n the\nletter; but, o n the other hand, he often allows himself to adopt a polemical tone, admixed w i t h sarcasm to stigmatize Ficino's \u202b\u05f4\u202cvulgarity\u202b \u05f4\u202ci n the\nmost serious philosophical matters. As for the Platonist from Careggi,\nw h o probably saw Pico as merely an exceptionally gifted disciple, a mirandus iuvenis very w o r t h y of his academy, he addresses h i m i n terms\nwhose almost imperceptible irony ends by negating their extreme courtesy. I n the long r u n , Pico must have f o u n d Ficino's paternalism unbearable, and his rebellion regarding the interpretation of love is proof of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=71\nPages: 71\nFicino's diplomacy, whose purpose is probably to save appearances,\nperplexes Girolamo Benivieni. The Commento was included i n 1519,\nthrough the good office of Biagio Buonaccorsi, among the works of Benivieni himself, w h o , i n an introduction, blames a t h i r d party for its publication, keeping his distance f r o m it by noting that Pico, as well as\nhimself, had w r i t t e n come Platonico, et non come Christiano.5 The least respectful passages about Ficino were carefully deleted i n the 1519 edition,\nand the Works of Pico della Mirandola published by his nephew Giovan\nFrancesco contain this expurgated version of the Commento. Another letter from Benivieni addressed to Luca della Robbia, w h i c h appears i n an\nappendix to the Works, again deplores the publication of those ineptie\npuerili.6\nPico's embarrassment, Benivieni's perplexity, Ficino's indignation,\nand Buonaccorsi's salutary censorship all make us suspect a serious]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72,71\nand Buonaccorsi's salutary censorship all make us suspect a serious\nideological breach, i n 1486, between the impetuous y o u n g count and the\nlevel-headed cathedral canon. What was it about?\nO n reading the unexpurgated version of the document, published i n\n1942 by E. Garin, we are astonished by the violence of Pico's attack on\nFicino: 7 a m i n d u n w o r t h y of his difficult task i n annotating Plato's Sym-\nDangerous Liaisons\n55\nposium, \u202b\u05f4\u202cour Marsilio\u202b \u05f4\u202cis accused of defiling the subject of love on w h i c h\nhe is working. While granting that Ficino's systematic m i n d \u2014 a scholastic heritage that Pico himself shares\u2014can often irritate his reader, his\nyoung rival's aggressiveness can only be explained by personal resentment, since the \u202b\u05f4\u202clesson\" he thinks he is giving Ficino can be summed u p\nas an almost literal repetition of Ficino's ideas and turns of phrase. By]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nto avoiding melancholy by means of diet, walking, music, some ritual\nmanipulations, and astrological magic.\nThe opposite of Ficino, Pico della Mirandola, a prodigious philologist\nand theologian, had the advantage of youth, noble birth, and wealth.\nMore or less of an extremist, though not lacking in diplomacy, he had\nhis adventures and misadventures. The end of his short life coincided\nwith his conversion to the puritan ideal of Savonarola. After many tribulations that went on until the death of Innocent VIII, he was pardoned\nby Pope Alexander VI, but the services he rendered the Church were\nlimited to a long refutation of astrology. His life ended at the age when\nothers are just beginning their activities. Can one assume that, when the\ntime came, he would have abandoned Savonarola? He lacked the versatility of Ficino, who was capable of all sorts of political turnabouts but\nhad certainly shown goodwill equaled only by that of the pope.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29,30\nThe case of Pico della Mirandola, w h i c h we shall analyze i n chapter 3,\nis more complicated: it w o u l d be called a striking example of the Oedipus complex if that term had not fallen into disuse through repeated\nabuse. Stimulated, or rather irritated, by Ficino\u202b\u05f3\u202cs little masterpiece on\nlove, Pico abandons all courtesy and tries to refute it i n toto. That is w h y\nhe attacks Guido Cavalcanti for lacking profundity and holds u p as a\nmodel for a love poem a canzona by his o w n friend Girolamo Benivieni\non w h i c h he undertakes a commentary. The example of Pico is highly\nsignificant. The y o u n g man forgets what elsewhere he reveals he knows\nonly too well, i n particular that a cultural era is not defined by the content of the ideas it conveys but by its interpretive filter. It demands of\nGuido Cavalcanti that w h i c h Ficino, more subtle i n this respect, w o u l d\nHistory of Phantasy\n13]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=71\nPages: 71\nthat state of irritated dependency.\nIt is a matter of discordia concors rather than concordia discors, for, while\nwishing to give Ficino a lesson i n Platonism, Pico, probably unbeknownst to himself, remains nevertheless under his influence. I n his\nexcellent book on Pico della Mirandola, H e n r i de Lubac emphasizes the\ncircumstances of the w r i t i n g of Commento sopra una Canzona de Amore of\nI486, 2 pointing out, among the reasons m o v i n g Pico not to publish it, a\nconcern not to w o u n d Ficino, \u202b\u05f4\u202cwhose interpretations the Commento criticized more than once. 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cFicino, w h o m mutual friends had doubtless\ninformed of the y o u n g man's impertinence regarding h i m , thought it\nwise to write to Germain de Ganay that, w i t h regard to publishing the\nCommento, Pico's last wish\u2014repudiating this writing, w h i c h dated from\nhis adolescence\u2014should be respected. 4\nFicino's diplomacy, whose purpose is probably to save appearances,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73\nastrological physiognomy is justified by the fact that the terrestrial body\nis formed by the soul. 18 Now, if Ficino accepts the truth of that doctrine\u2014which he himself, in a phrase worthy of his duplicity, had characterized in his Theologia as a \"Platonist fable\"\u2014it is hard to see how he\ncan refute wholesale all the claims of astrology. To be sure, between\n1486, the date of the Commento, and 1494, the date of his death, which\nleft his Disputations unfinished, Pico had been struck by the thunderbolts of the Curia, subsequently to find peace with the preacher Savonarola. His conversion, however genuine it might be, poses the\nquestion of a split between the writings of his youth and the Disputations\nagainst Astrology. After the death of Innocent VIII, Pico was pardoned by\nthe new pope. Having reached the age of reason, should he not try to\nredeem himself definitively in the eyes of Rome? Lacking the petty mentality of Ficino, who, in 1490, \"found out the birth date of Innocent VIII]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73\nPlatonists mean that a soul can be more closely related and in conformity\nto the soul of Saturn's sky than to the soul of the sky of Jupiter, or vice\nversa.\" 15 We have the impression that Pico is at pains to avoid the unorthodox consequences of that theory, for he makes clear that the sole\nintrinsic cause of those differences resides in God Himself, the unique\nproducer of souls. But right after speaking of the \"soul's wrappings\" he\nrashly adds that \"the rational soul descends from its star,\" which seems\nto contradict the protestation of faith of the preceding article. Since ecclesiastical censure, which was also to affect Ficino, had already paid too\nmuch attention to his own person, we have the impression that Pico\nhere exerts self-censure. This naive cleverness, which induces him to\npresent only partially a subject that Ficino had expertly presented fully\nand openly regardless of possible reprimands, will not spare Pico the\ntroubles he feared.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nHistory of Phantasy\n13\nnever have asked: to wit, that he already use the Platonistic interpretation of the fifteenth century! Benivieni's Canzona only differs from a canzona by Cavalcanti in that it furnishes directly to Pico della Mirandola the\ninterpretation he would have made even in the absence of the poem\nbecause it was his own interpretation of Eros in general. The Platonistic\nreading of Cavalcanti signified, to Ficino, a hermeneutic bias which also\nallowed him to pay tribute to a precursor and to the ancestor of someone\nhe liked. Now, in rejecting a real object for interpretation\u2014because the\ndifference between his commentary and the text commentated is only\nprosodie, the former being in prose, the latter in verse\u2014Pico peremptorily rejects all hermeneutics. For Ficino, Cavalcanti exists to the extent\nhe said something interpretable; for Pico, he does not exist since he does\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=74\nPages: 74\ndeparture is Ficino's phenomenology w i t h the process of alienation of\nthe subject w h o desperately seeks a place to locate his \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\". It\nwas a syndrome closely resembling amor hereos, w h i c h Francesco Colonna was able to describe w i t h o u t recourse to Ficino's system. As i n most\nof his interpretations, Pico takes exception to Ficino's \u202b \u05f4\u202cv u l g a r \" hermeneutics. Rejecting the inter subjective exegesis, he deals exclusively\nw i t h the death from love as a moment of the dialectic of the mystical\nEros. For that purpose he adopts the symbolism of the caballa w h i c h\nreveals to us the secondary source of the theme.\nThe binsica, mors osculi, or morte di bacio that Pico describes i n four\ncolumns 2 4 is a corporal extinction accompanied by intellectual ecstasy.\nN o one can rise to intelligential life w i t h o u t having first renounced sensory life. But w h e n the soul has left the mortal remains of the body, it]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73,74\n. . . in order to prepare a remedy for him in gratitude (this is the limit!)\nfor having refused to condemn him for astrology,\" 19 Pico writes, to\nmark the end of the errors of his youth, a huge treatise against astrology,\nDangerous Liaisons\n57\neven though it gains h i m the enmity of Ficino and his adherents.\nStrangely enough, this time Pico spares the old master w h o m he had not\nhesitated to discredit in his Commento: \u202b \u05f4\u202cH e had . . . enough discrimination not to confuse the great apologist, whose apostolic purpose was the\nsame as his o w n , w i t h all the men he believed to be enemies of the\nChristian faith. 2 0 \u202b \u05f4\u202cBut Lubac does not fail to point out the solidarity\nbetween Pico and Ficino that resulted f r o m the condemnation to w h i c h\nthe trilogy De vita had been subjected i n 1489-90, \u202b \u05f4\u202ca n d by those very\npeople w h o had fought Pico t w o years earlier. 2 1 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nAs for the rest of the Commento, we cannot but be surprised anew by]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,\ndid not last long. Apart from the fact that both were of the Saturnian\ntype, suited to penetrating contemplation of theological truths, it is difficult to imagine two people more dissimilar.\nThe son of Cosimo de' Medici's physician, Ficino was instructed by\nhis protector to translate Plato's works into Latin. In youth he is attracted to Augustinianism but loses no time in submitting to Scholasticism, of which he is to become undoubtedly the most valuable representative in the Renaissance. Burdened by defects, physical and psychic, he was hunchbacked, had a slight stammer,1 and often fell into fits\nof melancholic despair, so grievous that he once almost died of starvation. Aside from that, he was head of the Academy of Careggi and also a\npriest, which did not permit him to give up the public obligations devolving on him. He resigned himself to leading a healthy and frugal life,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=69\nPages: 69,70\ninstinct remaining from the grandeur of their primary nature\nw h i c h makes them aware that happiness resides only i n tranquillity. A n d from those t w o contrary instincts is formed a\nconfused plan hidden from sight at the bottom of their soul\nthat leads them to reach for tranquillity through agitation and\nalways to imagine that the satisfaction they lack w i l l come to\nthem if, by surmounting certain obstacles they face, they can\nthus open the doors to peace and tranquillity. . . . So that in\nconsidering them seriously, man is more to be pitied for\nbeing able to amuse himself w i t h such low and frivolous\nthings than for being afflicted by real misery; and his diversions make much less sense than his boredom. (Pens\u00e9es, 26)\n31 Dangerous Liaisons\n(i) Pico della Mirandola, Continuator of Ficino\nThe perfect understanding between Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, in\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72,73\nearth. 1 2\nPico della Mirandola repeats Ficino's expressions literally and the\nstages of development of the human being: man is vincolo et nodo del\nmondo,13 he is the hyphen between the World of angels and Nature. He\nhas, of course, two bodies: one, called by the Platonists the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheavenly\nvehicle,\" is the imperishable w r a p p i n g around the rational soul; the\nother, composed of the four elements, is subject to the laws of g r o w t h\nand decay. 14 M a n is also equipped w i t h t w o organs of sight: one directed toward the sensory w o r l d and the other toward the intelligential\nworld, the latter corresponding to Ficino's oculus spiritalis. The descent\nof souls into bodies is faithfully summed u p by Pico according to Ficino's\ncommentary on the Symposium: \u202b \u05f4\u202cA m o n g h u m a n souls, some have Sat-\n56\nPhantasms at Work\nurn's nature, others the nature of Jupiter and so on. And by that the\nPlatonists mean that a soul can be more closely related and in conformity]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=74\nPages: 74\nAs for the rest of the Commento, we cannot but be surprised anew by\nthe violence of Pico's attacks on Ficino (had he lost his judgment?). D i d\nthey not both agree that the essence of love is spiritual and that its object\npasses through the eyes to the inner sense located i n the heart? 22 H a d\nthey not both been engaged i n describing the deleterious effects of amor\nhereos,23 the phantasmic sickness \u202b\u05f4\u202cso plague-stricken and venomous\nthat it has been able to cause almost incurable weakness i n the most\nperfect and the strongest souls\"?\nIf this discordia concors between Pico and Ficino could not produce, i n\nthe former, any strikingly new interpretation of love, it is nevertheless to\nhis stubborn w i l l to distort that we o w n one of the most interesting and\npersistent themes i n the theory of Eros i n the sixteenth century: the mors\nosculi, or death from love. This theme has a dual origin: its point of\ndeparture is Ficino's phenomenology w i t h the process of alienation of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=247\nPages: 247\nexpurgated. The more or less classic work on Pico is Eugenio Anagnine's G. Pico\ndella Mirandola: Sincretismo religioso-filosofico, 1463-1494 (Bari, 1937). There is a\nbibliography on Pico della Mirandola in the book by Henri de Lubac, Pic de la\nMirandole: Etudes et discussions (Paris, 1974), In particular, there is discussion of\nthe circumstances surrounding the writing of the Commento, pp. 84 sq. (for the\ntext of the Commento, see Opera, I, pp. 898-923). Cf. also the study by Wind,\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cAmor as a God of Death,\u202b \u05f4\u202cin Pagan Mysteries, pp. 152-70, esp. pp. 154-57.\n3. Lubac, p. 85.\n4. Ibid., p. 85, no. 2.\n5. Op., I, p. 897a-b.\n6. Ibid., p. 922a-b.\n7. Garin, ed., pp. 466, 488, 499, 559.\n8. The theme of concordia discors between Plotinus and the Gnostics (whom he\nfights\u2014by proxy, so to speak\u2014in his Enneads, II, 9; see my \u202b\u05f4\u202cVol magique dans\nl'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive,\u202b \u05f4\u202cRevue de l'histoire des religions, 1981, pp. 57-66, where the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=58\nPages: 58\nof the Wing Foundation, The Newberry Library, Chicago.\nbeginning more or less i n 1463. 41 From our p o i n t of v i e w , the fact that it\nescapes Ficino's influence is invaluable. Even w h e n expressing a personal point of v i e w o n love, w h i c h rarely happens, Pico della Mirandola,\nPietro Bembo, Baldesar Castiglione, Leo the Hebrew, a n d Melanchthon\nbear the indelible mark of Ficino's thought. O n the contrary, Colonna\n(though he, too, treats of the phantasmic Eros) is original and inimitable,\nless i n his ideas\u2014a c o m m o n heritage of the period, of w h i c h Ficino is to\nbecome the systematic organizer\u2014than i n the literary and didactic quality of his w o r k .\n(iv) Phantasms at Work\nLet us make the acquaintance of phantasms.\nTaken literally, the title Hypnerotomachia means a \u202b\u05f4\u202clove fight d u r i n g]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=41\nPages: 41,42\nhimself adopted the traditional Ptolemaic cosmology and astrology.\nWith the ideas he endorsed, Nicholas of Cusa 7 6 might easily have\nworked on magic, but that was probably of slight interest for a pure\nmetaphysician of his kind. As to Ficino, except for his Thomism and his\nHistory of Phantasy\n25\nPlatonism w h i c h force the cosmological system u p o n him, he is not so\nfar from Kepler, w h o studies Pythagorean astral music. 7 7 The concepts\nof the world, the inner aspirations and motivations of a Ficino and a\nKepler, do not essentially differ f r o m one another: on that point contemporary historians of science no longer have any doubt. 7 8 We shall attempt, i n the second part of this book, to examine the true ideological\ncauses that produced the change i n h u m a n imagination w i t h o u t w h i c h\nthe transition from qualitative scientific principles to obviously quantitative principles w o u l d not have been possible.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=74\nPages: 74\nAs for the rest of the Commento, we cannot but be surprised anew by\nthe violence of Pico's attacks on Ficino (had he lost his judgment?). D i d\nthey not both agree that the essence of love is spiritual and that its object\npasses through the eyes to the inner sense located i n the heart? 22 H a d\nthey not both been engaged i n describing the deleterious effects of amor\nhereos,23 the phantasmic sickness \u202b\u05f4\u202cso plague-stricken and venomous\nthat it has been able to cause almost incurable weakness i n the most\nperfect and the strongest souls\"?\nIf this discordia concors between Pico and Ficino could not produce, i n\nthe former, any strikingly new interpretation of love, it is nevertheless to\nhis stubborn w i l l to distort that we o w n one of the most interesting and\npersistent themes i n the theory of Eros i n the sixteenth century: the mors\nosculi, or death from love. This theme has a dual origin: its point of\ndeparture is Ficino's phenomenology w i t h the process of alienation of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend\nBenivieni. As for the rest of it, there is no great fundamental difference\nbetween Ficino's and Pico's theories, although Pico latter constantly censures Ficino for the vulgarity of his approach to questions of love. 26\nWhether expressed in a polite or positive way, as by Ficino, or in the\ncontemptuous and negative manner of Pico, it is certain that the Florentine Renaissance takes chronological precedence over the rediscovery of\nthe other Renaissance, that of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.\nModern scholars, who sometimes confuse the rediscovery with the\nsummarizing or literal resumption of the same ideas, accord such precedence only to Mario Equicola, interpreter of Proven\u00e7al poetry in his Libro\nde natura de amore, of which the Latin original\u2014on which the Italian\ntranslation of 1509-11 (published in 1525) was based\u2014dates back to the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nHistory of Phantasy\n13\nnever have asked: to wit, that he already use the Platonistic interpretation of the fifteenth century! Benivieni's Canzona only differs from a canzona by Cavalcanti in that it furnishes directly to Pico della Mirandola the\ninterpretation he would have made even in the absence of the poem\nbecause it was his own interpretation of Eros in general. The Platonistic\nreading of Cavalcanti signified, to Ficino, a hermeneutic bias which also\nallowed him to pay tribute to a precursor and to the ancestor of someone\nhe liked. Now, in rejecting a real object for interpretation\u2014because the\ndifference between his commentary and the text commentated is only\nprosodie, the former being in prose, the latter in verse\u2014Pico peremptorily rejects all hermeneutics. For Ficino, Cavalcanti exists to the extent\nhe said something interpretable; for Pico, he does not exist since he does\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=58\nPages: 58\nof the Wing Foundation, The Newberry Library, Chicago.\nbeginning more or less i n 1463. 41 From our p o i n t of v i e w , the fact that it\nescapes Ficino's influence is invaluable. Even w h e n expressing a personal point of v i e w o n love, w h i c h rarely happens, Pico della Mirandola,\nPietro Bembo, Baldesar Castiglione, Leo the Hebrew, a n d Melanchthon\nbear the indelible mark of Ficino's thought. O n the contrary, Colonna\n(though he, too, treats of the phantasmic Eros) is original and inimitable,\nless i n his ideas\u2014a c o m m o n heritage of the period, of w h i c h Ficino is to\nbecome the systematic organizer\u2014than i n the literary and didactic quality of his w o r k .\n(iv) Phantasms at Work\nLet us make the acquaintance of phantasms.\nTaken literally, the title Hypnerotomachia means a \u202b\u05f4\u202clove fight d u r i n g]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29,30\nThe case of Pico della Mirandola, w h i c h we shall analyze i n chapter 3,\nis more complicated: it w o u l d be called a striking example of the Oedipus complex if that term had not fallen into disuse through repeated\nabuse. Stimulated, or rather irritated, by Ficino\u202b\u05f3\u202cs little masterpiece on\nlove, Pico abandons all courtesy and tries to refute it i n toto. That is w h y\nhe attacks Guido Cavalcanti for lacking profundity and holds u p as a\nmodel for a love poem a canzona by his o w n friend Girolamo Benivieni\non w h i c h he undertakes a commentary. The example of Pico is highly\nsignificant. The y o u n g man forgets what elsewhere he reveals he knows\nonly too well, i n particular that a cultural era is not defined by the content of the ideas it conveys but by its interpretive filter. It demands of\nGuido Cavalcanti that w h i c h Ficino, more subtle i n this respect, w o u l d\nHistory of Phantasy\n13]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72,71\nand Buonaccorsi's salutary censorship all make us suspect a serious\nideological breach, i n 1486, between the impetuous y o u n g count and the\nlevel-headed cathedral canon. What was it about?\nO n reading the unexpurgated version of the document, published i n\n1942 by E. Garin, we are astonished by the violence of Pico's attack on\nFicino: 7 a m i n d u n w o r t h y of his difficult task i n annotating Plato's Sym-\nDangerous Liaisons\n55\nposium, \u202b\u05f4\u202cour Marsilio\u202b \u05f4\u202cis accused of defiling the subject of love on w h i c h\nhe is working. While granting that Ficino's systematic m i n d \u2014 a scholastic heritage that Pico himself shares\u2014can often irritate his reader, his\nyoung rival's aggressiveness can only be explained by personal resentment, since the \u202b\u05f4\u202clesson\" he thinks he is giving Ficino can be summed u p\nas an almost literal repetition of Ficino's ideas and turns of phrase. By]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70,71\nhad certainly shown goodwill equaled only by that of the pope.\nIn principle, difference in character does not always make collaboration between equals impossible. The young Pico is, on the one hand,\nsufficiently admiring of the Florentine Platonist that a considerable por53\n54\nPhantasms at Work\ntion of his w o r k is strongly influenced by h i m , i n spirit as well as i n the\nletter; but, o n the other hand, he often allows himself to adopt a polemical tone, admixed w i t h sarcasm to stigmatize Ficino's \u202b\u05f4\u202cvulgarity\u202b \u05f4\u202ci n the\nmost serious philosophical matters. As for the Platonist from Careggi,\nw h o probably saw Pico as merely an exceptionally gifted disciple, a mirandus iuvenis very w o r t h y of his academy, he addresses h i m i n terms\nwhose almost imperceptible irony ends by negating their extreme courtesy. I n the long r u n , Pico must have f o u n d Ficino's paternalism unbearable, and his rebellion regarding the interpretation of love is proof of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=74\nPages: 74\ndeparture is Ficino's phenomenology w i t h the process of alienation of\nthe subject w h o desperately seeks a place to locate his \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\". It\nwas a syndrome closely resembling amor hereos, w h i c h Francesco Colonna was able to describe w i t h o u t recourse to Ficino's system. As i n most\nof his interpretations, Pico takes exception to Ficino's \u202b \u05f4\u202cv u l g a r \" hermeneutics. Rejecting the inter subjective exegesis, he deals exclusively\nw i t h the death from love as a moment of the dialectic of the mystical\nEros. For that purpose he adopts the symbolism of the caballa w h i c h\nreveals to us the secondary source of the theme.\nThe binsica, mors osculi, or morte di bacio that Pico describes i n four\ncolumns 2 4 is a corporal extinction accompanied by intellectual ecstasy.\nN o one can rise to intelligential life w i t h o u t having first renounced sensory life. But w h e n the soul has left the mortal remains of the body, it]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73\nPlatonists mean that a soul can be more closely related and in conformity\nto the soul of Saturn's sky than to the soul of the sky of Jupiter, or vice\nversa.\" 15 We have the impression that Pico is at pains to avoid the unorthodox consequences of that theory, for he makes clear that the sole\nintrinsic cause of those differences resides in God Himself, the unique\nproducer of souls. But right after speaking of the \"soul's wrappings\" he\nrashly adds that \"the rational soul descends from its star,\" which seems\nto contradict the protestation of faith of the preceding article. Since ecclesiastical censure, which was also to affect Ficino, had already paid too\nmuch attention to his own person, we have the impression that Pico\nhere exerts self-censure. This naive cleverness, which induces him to\npresent only partially a subject that Ficino had expertly presented fully\nand openly regardless of possible reprimands, will not spare Pico the\ntroubles he feared.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=71\nPages: 71\nthat state of irritated dependency.\nIt is a matter of discordia concors rather than concordia discors, for, while\nwishing to give Ficino a lesson i n Platonism, Pico, probably unbeknownst to himself, remains nevertheless under his influence. I n his\nexcellent book on Pico della Mirandola, H e n r i de Lubac emphasizes the\ncircumstances of the w r i t i n g of Commento sopra una Canzona de Amore of\nI486, 2 pointing out, among the reasons m o v i n g Pico not to publish it, a\nconcern not to w o u n d Ficino, \u202b\u05f4\u202cwhose interpretations the Commento criticized more than once. 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cFicino, w h o m mutual friends had doubtless\ninformed of the y o u n g man's impertinence regarding h i m , thought it\nwise to write to Germain de Ganay that, w i t h regard to publishing the\nCommento, Pico's last wish\u2014repudiating this writing, w h i c h dated from\nhis adolescence\u2014should be respected. 4\nFicino's diplomacy, whose purpose is probably to save appearances,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72\nas an almost literal repetition of Ficino's ideas and turns of phrase. By\nremoving from it the \u202b\u05f4\u202cpurpose to distort,\" w h i c h mostly affects marginal questions w i t h o u t bearing on Ficino's total vision, we arrive at a general account that w o u l d have elicited the enthusiastic approval of the\nFlorentine Plato had it not contained the foregoing invective.\nSince Eros is the tool that helps to traverse the intelligential stages\nseparating God from his creatures, it w o u l d be unthinkable to treat the\nsubject of love w i t h o u t first dealing w i t h ontology. Moreover, because\nhumans occupy the most privileged position of all creatures, they are\nthe only ones to contain w i t h i n themselves all levels of the cosmos, f r o m\nGod to matter. That is w h y they are also the only beings capable of\nclimbing to the top of the ladder of creaturehood into invisible worlds.\nThis system of successive links of being w h i c h goes to descending levels]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,87\nthey are at the center of a network of very complicated meanings at the\nvery heart of Bruno's philosophy as w e l l as of the spirit of his era.\nA T T H E H E A R T OF B R U N O ' S D O C T R I N E\nCentral to Bruno's moral doctrine is Ficino's thesis of the dispossessing\nof the subject, of the loss and the transfer of its \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\" into the\nDangerous Liaisons\n71\nobject. To be sure, that applies exclusively, as w i t h Pico della Mirandola,\nto the state of mystic love, whose object is the Deity. Hence the mors\nosculi, as we shall see, as w e l l as the story of the nine b l i n d men, which,\nthough a revival, literal i n places, of the eclogue Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco Antonio Epicuro, takes its inspiration equally f r o m Pico's\ntheory of prophetic blindness as formulated i n his Commento.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=62\nPages: 62,63\nidea of an eternal impression stamped o n the soul:\nD u r i n g the nuptial mating o n earth, the Saint, etc., sends a\nh u m a n form w h i c h bears the i m p r i n t of the divine seal. This\nf o r m is present at the mating, and, if w e were allowed to see\nit, w e w o u l d observe above our heads an image that resembles a h u m a n face. It is i n this image that w e are formed,\ntZohar, III, 104a-b)\nThrough Neoplatonist doctrine, Ficino means to provide a transcendental basis for the empirical psychology of Eros. This field is bounded\nby the completely unconscious choice made by the soul f r o m among the\nphantasms capable of becoming the object of love.\n46\nMELANCHOLY AND\nPhantasms at Work\nSATURN\nOf all the planetary types, the Saturnian has special importance i n\nFicino\u202b \u05f3\u202cs thought. This is probably a plea pro domo sua, for Ficino called\nhimself a Saturnian because, on the day of his birth (October. 19, 1433),]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=247\nPages: 247\nexpurgated. The more or less classic work on Pico is Eugenio Anagnine's G. Pico\ndella Mirandola: Sincretismo religioso-filosofico, 1463-1494 (Bari, 1937). There is a\nbibliography on Pico della Mirandola in the book by Henri de Lubac, Pic de la\nMirandole: Etudes et discussions (Paris, 1974), In particular, there is discussion of\nthe circumstances surrounding the writing of the Commento, pp. 84 sq. (for the\ntext of the Commento, see Opera, I, pp. 898-923). Cf. also the study by Wind,\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cAmor as a God of Death,\u202b \u05f4\u202cin Pagan Mysteries, pp. 152-70, esp. pp. 154-57.\n3. Lubac, p. 85.\n4. Ibid., p. 85, no. 2.\n5. Op., I, p. 897a-b.\n6. Ibid., p. 922a-b.\n7. Garin, ed., pp. 466, 488, 499, 559.\n8. The theme of concordia discors between Plotinus and the Gnostics (whom he\nfights\u2014by proxy, so to speak\u2014in his Enneads, II, 9; see my \u202b\u05f4\u202cVol magique dans\nl'Antiquit\u00e9 tardive,\u202b \u05f4\u202cRevue de l'histoire des religions, 1981, pp. 57-66, where the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=73\nPages: 73,74\n. . . in order to prepare a remedy for him in gratitude (this is the limit!)\nfor having refused to condemn him for astrology,\" 19 Pico writes, to\nmark the end of the errors of his youth, a huge treatise against astrology,\nDangerous Liaisons\n57\neven though it gains h i m the enmity of Ficino and his adherents.\nStrangely enough, this time Pico spares the old master w h o m he had not\nhesitated to discredit in his Commento: \u202b \u05f4\u202cH e had . . . enough discrimination not to confuse the great apologist, whose apostolic purpose was the\nsame as his o w n , w i t h all the men he believed to be enemies of the\nChristian faith. 2 0 \u202b \u05f4\u202cBut Lubac does not fail to point out the solidarity\nbetween Pico and Ficino that resulted f r o m the condemnation to w h i c h\nthe trilogy De vita had been subjected i n 1489-90, \u202b \u05f4\u202ca n d by those very\npeople w h o had fought Pico t w o years earlier. 2 1 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nAs for the rest of the Commento, we cannot but be surprised anew by]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=71\nPages: 71\nFicino's diplomacy, whose purpose is probably to save appearances,\nperplexes Girolamo Benivieni. The Commento was included i n 1519,\nthrough the good office of Biagio Buonaccorsi, among the works of Benivieni himself, w h o , i n an introduction, blames a t h i r d party for its publication, keeping his distance f r o m it by noting that Pico, as well as\nhimself, had w r i t t e n come Platonico, et non come Christiano.5 The least respectful passages about Ficino were carefully deleted i n the 1519 edition,\nand the Works of Pico della Mirandola published by his nephew Giovan\nFrancesco contain this expurgated version of the Commento. Another letter from Benivieni addressed to Luca della Robbia, w h i c h appears i n an\nappendix to the Works, again deplores the publication of those ineptie\npuerili.6\nPico's embarrassment, Benivieni's perplexity, Ficino's indignation,\nand Buonaccorsi's salutary censorship all make us suspect a serious]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=44\nPages: 44,45\nestablish not only the how of the phenomenon of love but also its why. It\nsupplies the profound, transcendental reasons for our choice.\n21 Empirical Psychology and\nthe Deep Psychology of Eros\n(i) The Empirical Psychology of Ficino and Its Sources\nThe focal concept in Ficino\u202b\u05f3\u202cs astrology and psychology is spirit. It might\neven be said that Ficino redefines spirit i n every treatise, avoiding exact\nrepetition through the use of new, concise, and careful turns of phrase.\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cThe soul,\u202b \u05f4\u202che says i n his Theologia platonica (VII,6),\nbeing completely pure, conjoins w i t h the solid and terrestrial\nbody so removed from it [by dint of its nature] through the\nintermediary of a very airy and luminous corpuscle called\nspirit, generated by heat of that part where the blood is thinnest, whence it penetrates the whole body. The soul, easily\nsliding into this kindred spirit, at first propagates everywhere\nw i t h i n it and then, through its intermediary, throughout the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=21\nPages: 21\nendowing Eros with the status\u2014very important though indefinite in the\nideal order of things\u2014of link between existence and the essence of\nbeings, ta onta ontos. The supreme lover is the philosophos, he who loves\nwisdom, that is to say, the art of elevating himself toward the Truth,\nwhich is also Goodness and Beauty, by detaching himself from the\nworld.\nBoth as conscious attraction and as unconscious yearning, even profane love for Plato is imponderable. In any case, physical desire, aroused\nby the irrational soul and appeased by means of the body, only represents, in the phenomenology of love, an obscure and secondary aspect\nof love. The body is just an instrument, whereas love, even the kind\nwith a sexual goal, stems from the powers of the soul. In sum, the maieutic endeavor of Socrates puts the emphasis on the convertibility of all\nlove, even physical (that is, psycho-physical) into intellectual contemplation.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=41\nPages: 41,42\nhimself adopted the traditional Ptolemaic cosmology and astrology.\nWith the ideas he endorsed, Nicholas of Cusa 7 6 might easily have\nworked on magic, but that was probably of slight interest for a pure\nmetaphysician of his kind. As to Ficino, except for his Thomism and his\nHistory of Phantasy\n25\nPlatonism w h i c h force the cosmological system u p o n him, he is not so\nfar from Kepler, w h o studies Pythagorean astral music. 7 7 The concepts\nof the world, the inner aspirations and motivations of a Ficino and a\nKepler, do not essentially differ f r o m one another: on that point contemporary historians of science no longer have any doubt. 7 8 We shall attempt, i n the second part of this book, to examine the true ideological\ncauses that produced the change i n h u m a n imagination w i t h o u t w h i c h\nthe transition from qualitative scientific principles to obviously quantitative principles w o u l d not have been possible.]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=22\nPages: 22,23\nbody. It follows that the phantasm has absolute primacy over the word, that it\nprecedes both utterance and understanding of every linguistic message.\nWhence two separate and distinct grammars, the first no less important\nthan the second: a grammar of the spoken language and a grammar of\nphantasmic language. Stemming f r o m the soul, itself phantasmic i n es-\nPhantasms at Work\n6\nsence, intellect alone enjoys the privilege of understanding the phantasmic grammar. It can make manuals and even organise very seriousm i n d e d games of phantasms. But all that w i l l be useful to h i m principally for understanding the soul and investigating its hidden potentialities. Such understanding, less a science than an art because of the\nskill w h i c h must be deployed to catch the secrets of the little-known\ncountry where the intellect travels, involves the assumption of all the\nphantasmic processes of the Renaissance: Eros, the A r t of Memory, theoretical magic, alchemy, and practical magic.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=92\nPages: 92\nphantasmic recipient compels the intelligential w o r l d to reveal itself i n\nthe form of phantasms. It is not a k i n d of knowledge facie adfaciem of the\nsoul but, on the contrary, an indirect, pneumatic knowledge.\nIt is here that the matter of ecstatic u n i o n arises: as he advances on the\nchessboard of knowledge, the helpless p a w n suddenly finds himself\nchanged into a queen, Diana, the object of his quest. The intellect is\nannihilated, thunderstruck: the h u n t continues only \u202b \u05f4\u202ct h r o u g h w i l l\npower w h i c h transforms the subject into the object . . . , for love transforms and changes into the thing that is loved/' It is a matter of a hidden\nritual of transition from one existential state to another, symbolized by\nthe image of devouring, of dismemberment: \u202b\u05f4\u202cThus it is that large and\nnumerous dogs put him to death: thus it is that his life i n the mad, sensual,\nblind, and phantasmic w o r l d ends, and he begins to live intellectually,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=83\nPages: 83\nand painters are philosophers and poets. 5 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cIndeed, since intellect is\nphantasmic by nature, the philosopher must be able to manage phantasms, to be a great painter of the spirit. D i d not Aristotle say that \u202b\u05f4\u202cto\ncomprehend means to observe phantasms? 5 4 \u202b \u05f4\u202cThe place where phantasms are reflected, as we already k n o w , is the mirror of the pneuma.\nPhilosophy, poetry, painting: these are the contents of De gl'heroici\nfurori. These three stages of phantasmic speculation are so inextricably\nintertwined that it is impossible to separate them w i t h o u t destroying the\nunity of the subject. Unfortunately, being incapable, since the t r i u m p h\nof rationalism, of understanding the phantasmagoric of the great artists\nof Memory, w e shall have to make a sharp dichotomy between what is\npossible to grasp w i t h our mere logical, historical, and comparative]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=22\nPages: 22\nproof that i n intellectual circles it was not forgotten at all. W i t h o u t k n o w ing that, for Aristotle, intellect itself has the nature of phantasm, that it\nis phantasma tis, it w o u l d be impossible to grasp the meaning of Kierkegaard's jest: \u202b\u05f4\u202cPure thought is a phantasm.\"\nFundamentally, all is reduced to a question of communication: body\nand soul speak t w o languages, w h i c h are not only different, even inconsistent, but also inaudible to each other. The inner sense alone is able to\nhear and comprehend them both, also having the role of translating one\ninto the other. But considering the words of the soul's language are\nphantasms, everything that reaches it from the b o d y \u2014 i n c l u d i n g distinct\nutterances\u2014will have to be transposed into a phantasmic sequence. Besides\u2014must it be emphasized?\u2014the soul has absolute primacy over the\nbody. It follows that the phantasm has absolute primacy over the word, that it]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=208\nPages: 208,207\nphantasms. It had created a whole dialectic of Eros in which phantasms,\nwhich at first foisted themselves upon inner sense, ended by being manipulated at will. It had a firm belief in the power of phantasms, which\nwere transmitted by the phantasmic apparatus of the transmitter to that\n194\nEnd Game\nof the receiver. It also believed that inner sense was preeminently the\nlocale for manifestations of transnatural forces\u2014demons and the gods.\nBy asserting the idolatrous and impious nature of phantasms, the Reformation abolished at one stroke the culture of the Renaissance. A n d ,\nsince all the Renaissance \u202b\u05f4\u202csciences\u202b \u05f4\u202cwere structures built on phantasms,\nthey too had to be overpowered by the weight of the Reformation.\nBut, we ask, what was the reaction of the Catholic Church? A t bottom,\noutside the obvious drawbacks of an internal division, the spirit of the\nReformation could only suit it very well. I n response to Luther and to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=108\nPages: 108,109\nphantasms\u2014in the event, the artist of m e m o r y \u2014 t o regulate and control\nhis emotions and his phantasies lest, believing himself to be their master, he nevertheless becomes dominated by them. \u202b\u05f4\u202cBe careful not to\nchange yourself f r o m manipulator into the tool of phantasms\u202b\u05f4\u202c: that is\nthe most serious danger confronting the disciple (Sigillus sigillorum, II, 2,\np. 193). The real magic manipulator must be able \u202b\u05f4\u202cto arrange, to correct,\nand to provide phantasy, to create the different kinds at will\" (De Magia,\nXLVIII, vol. I l l , p. 485).\nEros and Magic\n93\nIt seems that man is endowed w i t h a hypercomplex brain that has no\nspecial capacity to analyze stimuli according to their provenance: i n\nshort, he is not capable of differentiating directly between dreamlike\ndata and those transmitted by the senses, between the imaginary and\nthe tangible. 6 Bruno demands of the manipulator a superhuman task:\nfirst he must accurately and immediately classify data according to their]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=208\nPages: 208,209\nthe incarnation of Christ, the b i r t h and childhood of the Lord, his\npreaching at Jerusalem\u2014while Satan, from his dwelling place in Babylon, launches attacks by his demons throughout the w o r l d \u2014 a n d , finally, Calvary, the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. It is a question not\nof pure meditation but of an internal phantasmic theater i n w h i c h the\npractitioner must imagine himself i n a role of spectator. He is not only to\nrecord what happens but to observe the actors through the senses of\nsight, hearing, and touch (Secunda Hebdomada, dies I - V I I ) . Introjected i n\nhis o w n phantasmic apparatus, the phantasm of the practitioner is to\nparticipate\u2014in a more or less active w a y \u2014 i n the development of the\nscenario.\nCensoring Phantasy\n195\nLoyola's exercises obviously derive from the great achievements of the\nRenaissance in the manipulation of phantasms. But here these phantasms are placed at the service of faith, to accomplish the reform of the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=18\nPages: 18,20\nChicago\nMay 1986\ni Phantasms at Work\nSupprime gl'eminenti, e inalza i bassi\nChi l'infinit\u00e9 machini sustenta,\nEt con veloce, mediocre, et lenta\nVertigine, dispensa\nIn questa mole immensa\nQuant'occolto si rende e aperto stassi.\nGiordano Bruno.\n1| History of Phantasy\n(i) On the Inner Sense\nSOME P R E L I M I N A R Y\nCONSIDERATIONS\nOur civilization is born of the conjunction of many cultures whose interpretations of h u m a n existence were so at variance that a huge historic\nupheaval along w i t h a fanatic faith were necessary to achieve a lasting\nsynthesis. I n that synthesis, matters of diverse origin underwent a reconversion and a reinterpretation marked by traces of the predominant\nculture of the period: the culture of a conquered people, the Greeks,\nenhanced by a conquering people, the Romans.\nI n Greek thought, sexuality was usually a secondary component of\nlove. While granting the link between sexuality and reproduction, no]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=217\nPages: 217,218\nthe culture of the phantasmic era and the imaginary i n general. Catholics and Lutherans, to be sure, are slightly more tolerant than Calvinists;\nbut they believe just as firmly that the practice of any k i n d of divination\nis inspired by demons. N o w the site of communication between demon\nand man is the mechanism of phantasy. That is w h y the number one\nenemy w h i c h all of Christianity must combat is h u m a n phantasy.\n204\nEnd Game\n(vi) The Change in Ways of Envisaging the World\nThe censure of the imaginary and the wholesale rejection by strict Christian circles of the culture of the phantasmic age result i n a radical change\ni n the human imagination.\nHere again, the works of some historians of ideas betray an ineradicable prejudice: the belief that this change was caused by the advent of\nheliocentrism and the concept that the universe is infinite. There are\nwriters to this day w h o assert seriously that Copernicus (or Bruno, which]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=93\nPages: 93\nbeen before, he becomes wild as the stag and the desert\ndweller. In this vast forest, he lives in the lairs of the cavernous mountains, lairs which do not belong to the artificial memory\n[stanze non artifiose], in which he admires the sources of great\nrivers, vegetates in purity, far from the contamination of ordinary desires.\nThe two fragments that explain the subject's rites of passage to the\nintellectual state are at pains to state precisely that this passage consists\nin outstripping phantasmic knowledge. In the sensory world, man is condemned to acquire knowledge only through phantasms. On the other\nhand, Bruno's great original approach, which pertained to the intelligible world, gains knowledge without the intermediary of phantasms, facie ad faciem, without requiring spiritual mediation between body and\nsoul, since man only lives in and through the soul. It is, of course, a\nparadoxical state whose strangeness and peculiarity Bruno does not attempt to conceal:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=56\nPages: 56,57\npersistent, almost passed unobserved or was close to being assimilated\nby the t w o others. Indeed, there can exist phantasms unrelated to a real\nobject, but, thanks to the quality of their images, there can be no phan-\n40\nPhantasms at Work\nFIGURE 2. Bacchanalian revels. From Francesco Colonna, Discours du Songe de\nPoliphile [Hypnerotomachia] (Paris, 1554). Courtesy of the Wing Foundation, The\nNewberry Library, Chicago.\ntasms without physical support of one kind or another. That is why a\nstory about phantasms is always interpretable: we can see it either as the\nsymbol of adventures in the intelligential cosmos or as the allegory of\nactual events.\nUnfortunately, although there are many theoreticians of phantasmic\nEros, the number of writers who have tried to describe phantasms at\nwork is very limited. One of them surely is the respectable monk from]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=56\nPages: 56\nthis phantasm w i l l have the capacity to a w a k e n their allayed desire, to\npropel a n d accompany t h e m o n their t r i p t h r o u g h the intelligential cosmos. This w i l l become a heroic passion e n d i n g i n an ecstatic fusion of\nthe hunter a n d the object of his h u n t \u2014 a c c o r d i n g to an image e m p l o y e d\nby Ficino a n d later revived by Giordano Bruno. For others, the phantasm w i l l o n l y p o i n t to a p a i n f u l a n d urgent need for a physical release\nw h i c h increases i n p r o p o r t i o n as its f u l f i l l m e n t is postponed.\nI n this case there w i l l be a f u n d a m e n t a l contradiction between the\nmedical concept of a phantasmic Eros that disturbs the e q u i l i b r i u m of\nthe organism a n d demands p r o m p t assuagement to restore this equilibrium, a n d the concept of the \u202b \u05f4\u202cf a i t h f u l , \u202b \u05f4\u202ca complete denial of the former, f i n d i n g expression t h r o u g h a semantic inversion valorizing the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=51\nPages: 51,52\nk n o w i n g . This is the translation of the surrounding w o r l d into makebelieve language so that the soul may learn about it. O n the contrary,\nclear knowledge represents the translation into phantasmic language of\nEmpirical Psychology and the Deep Psychology of Eros\n35\nreal truths, which are engraved in the soul in order that discursive reasoning\u2014an objective though impotent process\u2014may have the means to\ngrasp and monopolize them.\nFicino's hieroglyphics, which we shall take up later, are symbols of intelligential awareness. But Ficino's successors go much farther: they\neven assert that the rules of the phantasmic language that translates\nintelligential relationships can be represented in the form of theater, to be\nmeditated upon and learned by anyone who so wishes. The idea of theater came from the Friulan Giulio Camillo Delminio, born around 1480,\nwho spared no pains to see it realized. A professor at Bologna, Giulio]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=140\nPages: 140\nmagic a n d psychoanalysis itself, whose m e t h o d permits, w i t h i n limits, a\ncomparison w i t h the m e t h o d of Giordano Bruno's \u202b\u05f4\u202chealers.\"\nW h e n the dream is envisaged as a phantasmic p r o d u c t i o n stemming\nf r o m the unconscious, a n d schizophrenia as a state of confusion bet w e e n oneiric context a n d sensory content, w e no longer need marvel at\nthe correspondence between the phantasms of schizophrenics a n d the\nphantasms b r o u g h t i n t o play b y magicians. A f t e r all, they have the same\nprovenance, except that i n the case of the magician the phantasms are\np r o d u c e d v o l u n t a r i l y a n d directed b y the performance, whereas i n the\ncase of the sick person they appear to h i m as strange realities, they \u202b\u05f4\u202cpossess\" h i m . Jung's hypothesis of \u202b\u05f4\u202carchetypes,\" w h i c h are performative\ncategories of phantasmic p r o d u c t i o n , rests largely o n analogies between]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=140\nPages: 140,141\ncategories of phantasmic p r o d u c t i o n , rests largely o n analogies between\nthe phantasies of patients a n d the mythico-magic repertory of m a n k i n d .\nH o w are these things looked u p o n f r o m the p o i n t of v i e w of anthropology, w h i c h is not directly called u p o n to give its verdict o n the mental\nhealth of its subjects?\nPneumatic Magic\n125\nEcstatic Religion, a book by the Scottish anthropologist Ian M . Lewis,\nanswers this question. 4 0\nLewis outlines a quite instructive typology of the \u202b\u05f4\u202cmanipulator of\nspirits\u202b( \u05f4\u202csupernatural entities), coming to the conclusion that there are\nthree classes: (a) the participant in ecstatic cults (like the Dionysian i n ancient Greece or the zar i n N o r t h Africa), w h o is involuntarily possessed\nby \u202b\u05f4\u202cspirits\u202b( ;\u05f4\u202cb) the shaman, w h o , after being mastered by spirits, becomes, i n turn, their master (a wounded surgeon, i n T. S. Eliot's phrase);]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=39\nPages: 39\nimaginative faculty, u n t i l the moment the feminine phantasm has infested the whole pneuma and spreads f r o m n o w on through the spiritual canals of the febrile organism. N o one w i l l be astonished that the\npoet Giacomo da Lentino should ask this seemingly childish question:\nH o w can it be that so large a w o m a n has been able to penetrate my eyes,\nw h i c h are so small, and then enter m y heart and m y brain? 64 The physicians of antiquity, like Galen, were also fascinated by the same phenomenon: Si ergo ad visum ex re videnda aliquid dirigitur . . . quomodo ilium\nangustum foramen intrare poterit?65 Averroes answers the astonishment\n(feigned) of both parties: it is not a corporeal impression but a phan\u202b\u05be\u202c\ntasmic one. C o m m o n sense receives the phantasms on this side of the\nretina and transmits them to the imaginative faculty. 6 6\nDante goes farther i n his erotic pneumophantasmology. I n sonnet 21]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=4\nPages: 4,5\nI. Title.\nCB367.C6813\n1987\n1 3 3 . 4 8 7 - 1 0 8 8 2 094\u202b\u05f3\u202c\nISBN 0-226-12316-2 (pbk.)\n\u00a9 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum\nrequirements of the American National Standard for\nInformation Sciences\u2014Permanence of Paper for Printed\nLibrary Materials, A N S I Z39.48-1992.\nContents\nTranslator's Note ix\nForeword, by Mircea Eliade xi\nAcknowledgments xv\nIntroduction xvii\nPHANTASMS AT W O R K\n1.\nHistory of Phantasy\n2.\nEmpirical Psychology and the Deep Psychology of\nEros 28\n(i)\n3\nOn the Inner Sense 3\nSome Preliminary Considerations 3\nThe Phantasmic Pneuma 6\n(ii) Flux and Reflux of Values in the Twelfth Century 11\nAcculturation of the West 13\nHow a Woman . . . 21\n(iii) The Vehicle of the Soul and Prenatal Experience 23\n(i) The Empirical Psychology of Ficino and Its Sources\n(ii) The Art of Memory 32\n(iii) The Phantasmic Eros and the Appeasement of\nDesire 38\n(iv) Phantasms at Work 41\n(v) The Depth Psychology of Ficino 42\nDescent of the Soul 42\nMelancholy and Saturn 46\n3.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=129\nPages: 129\nhegemonikon. For Chrysippus, the clear representation of the sensory\nobject formed i n the cardiac synthesizer is called phantasia kataleptik\u00ea or\n\u202b\u05f4\u202ccomprehensive representation\u202b \u05f4\u202cand leads naturally to rational adhesion (synkatasthesis).15 The main difference between Aristotle and the\nStoics consists i n the fact that the latter t h i n k the pneuma is the soul itself,\nwhereas the former believe it to be only a k i n d of ethereal intermediary\nbetween the soul and the physical body. That is w h y the Stoics conceive\nof fantasy, according to Zeno and Cleanthes, as a \u202b\u05f4\u202cstamp u p o n the\nsoul,\u202b \u05f4\u202ca typosis en psych\u00e9.\nLater, Epictetus is to state that phantasms are influenced by the state\nof the pneuma that receives or conceives them. He resorts to a com-\nparison: \u202b\u05f4\u202cJust as houses at the edge of a body of clear water are reflected\ni n its l i m p i d surface, so also are external objects reflected i n our psychic]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=21\nPages: 21,22\nontological aperture through which it can look down, while the body is\nHistory of Phantasy\n5\nonly a form of organization of natural elements, a form w h i c h w o u l d\ndisintegrate immediately w i t h o u t the vitality ensured it by the soul. Finally, the soul can only transmit all vital activities, including movement,\nto the body by means of the proton organon, the spiritual apparatus located i n the heart. O n the other hand, the body opens u p to the soul a\nw i n d o w to the w o r l d through the five sensory organs whose messages\ngo to the same cardiac apparatus w h i c h n o w is engaged i n codifying\nthem so that they may become comprehensible. Called phantasia or inner\nsense, the sidereal spirit transforms messages f r o m the five senses i n\nphantasms perceptible to the soul. For the soul cannot grasp anything\nthat is not converted into a sequence of phantasms; i n short, it can understand nothing w i t h o u t phantasms (aneu phantasmatos).2 This passage]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=43\nPages: 43,44\n259.\nHistory of Phantasy\n27\nadequate data concerning this process of corruption of the soul. The\nCorpus hermeticum, a collection of pseudo-epigraphic writings composed\nA.D. 100-300, also relates the descent of primordial man into the cosmos\nand the passage of the soul through the planets in its reentry to the\nheavenly homeland. Reverberations of this purely negative version of\nincorporation or ensomatosis are still preserved in some passages of the\ncommentary on the Aeneid by the grammarian Servius, who wrote toward the end of the fourth century.\nOn the contrary, the Neoplatonists, from Porphyry to Proclus, do not\nattribute to the planets any demonic influence but only certain qualities,\nsuch as the contemplative faculty, practical intelligence, etc., extending\nto the begetting of children and growth of the body; qualities the soul\nreappropriates in the course of its descent and discards in the course of\nits reentry into heaven.]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248,249\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano\nBruno (Florence, 1955), is inspired by Marxism; and indirectly inspired by it is\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne V\u00e9drine's book, La Conception de la nature chez Giordano Bruno (Paris,\n1967). Frances A. Yates's book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London\nand Chicago 1964) is still very important, especially as it is supplemented by\nobservations on Bruno contained in The Art of Memory and, more recently, in\nAstraea. Yates's undeniable merit is to have integrated Bruno's oeuvre into its\ncultural context; for the first time in the history of modern philosophy, Bruno\nwas not envisaged as the clumsy, grotesque, and \"bacchanalian\" precursor of\nmodern thinking but as one of the most impressive representatives of Renaissance thought. It is, fundamentally, a question of applying different categories\n236\nNotes to Pages 91-113 236\na n d of measuring h i m by the standards of another era, and historians of ideas]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\n\u202b\u05be\u202c160\nThe Great Manipulator\nmodel of shrewdness. Where does Bruno err tactically? By never being\nable to agree w i t h anybody; he could have stayed out of trouble if he had\nmade it clear at the beginning that he shared the other person's views u p\nto a certain point but differed on the details\u2014which was often the case.\nBut, Bruno proceeds i n the very opposite way: he begins by attacking\nsomeone only to make it clear later that what is at issue is basically a\nquestion of detail.\nIf we have taken the right view of this\u2014and the classification of De\nMagia is either by Grillandi or another writer of treatises against magic\nand sorcery\u2014then we must agree that Bruno's entire procedure is very\nstrange: what he borrows f r o m implicitly incriminating sources is much\nmore important than what he rejects. A n d he avoids saying so explicitly\nmerely to save appearances.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=99\nPages: 99\nsymbolism he adopts so p r o m p t l y has a metaphysical value for h i m that\nprobably escaped Raleigh and Chapman, also adherents. W i t h unbelievable audacity, Bruno, w h o always remains a great specialist and professor of the A r t of Memory, addresses his chosen public i n language\nthat was all too familiar to everyone. The \u202b\u05f4\u202cstatue\u202b \u05f4\u202cof artificial memory\nthat dominates the dialogues w r i t t e n i n England is of Diana. Sidney and\nGreville, not to speak of persons i n the k n o w such as Raleigh and Chapman, associate Diana w i t h Queen Elizabeth or, what amounts to the\nsame thing, had the ability to represent Diana without any special effort since,\nin their phantasy, she spontaneously assumed the features of the revered queen.\nBruno's allegory, designed to introduce metaphysical ideas and mnemonical personal techniques, also had the advantage of gaining for its\nauthor a very good reputation i n the eyes of her w h o had been exalted\u2014]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82,83\nw h o m he borrowed many of the themes of the Commento, Bruno does\nnot hesitate to copy certain poems which, according to F. Fiorentino,\nbelong to Tansillo of Venosa, the main character and Bruno's spokesman i n the dialogue. But most of the sonnets are the creation of the\nauthor himself, whether they be commentaries i n verse on the representations of Eros or poetic expressions of the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheroic furors.\"\nI n the Sigillus sigillorum, Bruno had already explained the deep reason\nfor ut pictura poesis, the equivalence between painting and poetry. Zeuxis\nis the painter of internal images i n the memory, w h o excels i n phantastica\n66\nPhantasms at Work\nvirtus, imaginative power. I n turn, the poet possesses powers of thought\nout of the ordinary whose source is also spiritual. \u202b \u05f4\u202cI t follows that philosophers are also painters and poets, poets are painters and philosophers,\nand painters are philosophers and poets. 5 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cIndeed, since intellect is]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248\nAntonio Corsano, II pensiero di Giordano Bruno nel suo svolgimento storico (Florence,\n1940), a work which, though very useful, systematically neglects Bruno's magic\nthought and mnemotechnics. This same defect is also evident in earlier studies:\nErminio Troilo, La filosofia Giordano Bruno, 2 vols. (Turin and Rome, 1907-14),\nand Giordano Bruno (Rome, 1918); Giovanni Gentile, Giordano Bruno e il pensiero\ndel Rinascimento (Florence, 1920); Leonardo Olschki, Giordano Bruno (Bari, 1927);\nEdgar Papu, Giordano Bruno: Viata si opera (Bucharest, 1947); Bertrando Spaventa,\nRinascimento, Riforma, Controriforma (Venice, 1928); Augusto Guzzo, I dialoghi di\nGiordano Bruno (Turin, 1932), etc. Very valuable data on Bruno is to be found in\nP. O. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (Stanford, 1964), and in\nE. Garin, La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano (Florence, 1961), and Storia\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=93\nPages: 93\nbeen before, he becomes wild as the stag and the desert\ndweller. In this vast forest, he lives in the lairs of the cavernous mountains, lairs which do not belong to the artificial memory\n[stanze non artifiose], in which he admires the sources of great\nrivers, vegetates in purity, far from the contamination of ordinary desires.\nThe two fragments that explain the subject's rites of passage to the\nintellectual state are at pains to state precisely that this passage consists\nin outstripping phantasmic knowledge. In the sensory world, man is condemned to acquire knowledge only through phantasms. On the other\nhand, Bruno's great original approach, which pertained to the intelligible world, gains knowledge without the intermediary of phantasms, facie ad faciem, without requiring spiritual mediation between body and\nsoul, since man only lives in and through the soul. It is, of course, a\nparadoxical state whose strangeness and peculiarity Bruno does not attempt to conceal:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76,77\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,\nlike Giulio Camillo's theater. To u n d e r s t a n d something about his w o r k s ,\nposterity, interested i n t h e m because of his m a r t y r d o m , was obliged to\neliminate eight-tenths of them: all the mnemotechnic a n d magical tracts.\nPosterity claimed to be satisfied, for Bruno h a d been a defender of\nCopernicus a n d even the first to connect the idea of the i n f i n i t y of the\nuniverse w i t h heliocentrism. Yet a huge gulf separates this Neoplatonic\npantheist f r o m rationalists like Spinoza. Grasping h o w uninteresting\nBruno's w o r k was to the m o d e r n age, Hegel, w h o f o u n d his doctrine\ni n v o l v e d a n d repulsive, termed his p h i l o s o p h y \u202b\u05f3\u05f3\u202cbacchantic,\" probably\nan excuse for being unable to read h i m . A l l of w h i c h proves that, far\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=52\nPages: 52\nGiulio Camillo, a modest and unassuming man whose Latin made\nhim the butt of Zuichemus's jokes, left us few writings. He worked on\nrhetoric and translated Le Idee, overo Forme della Oratione, attributed to\nHermogenes of Tarsus, 16 but it seems he had also studied the work of\nPico della Mirandola17 and perhaps also that of the Venetian Brother\nFrancesco Giorgi,18 which is based on Ficino. His main preoccupation\nwas adequately to depict a cosmic model. This cosmic model certainly\nstems from Florentine Platonism.\nCamillo set forth his schema in an obscure little treatise published in\nFlorence in 1550, L'ldea del Teatro. His construction, which had the form\nof an amphitheater of seven sections, aspired to be an imago mundi in\nwhich all ideas and objects might find their appropriate place by virtue\nof their planetary classification. Like any artificial system, this was\ndoomed to be no longer understood as soon as the sets linking terrestrial]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,87\nthey are at the center of a network of very complicated meanings at the\nvery heart of Bruno's philosophy as w e l l as of the spirit of his era.\nA T T H E H E A R T OF B R U N O ' S D O C T R I N E\nCentral to Bruno's moral doctrine is Ficino's thesis of the dispossessing\nof the subject, of the loss and the transfer of its \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\" into the\nDangerous Liaisons\n71\nobject. To be sure, that applies exclusively, as w i t h Pico della Mirandola,\nto the state of mystic love, whose object is the Deity. Hence the mors\nosculi, as we shall see, as w e l l as the story of the nine b l i n d men, which,\nthough a revival, literal i n places, of the eclogue Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco Antonio Epicuro, takes its inspiration equally f r o m Pico's\ntheory of prophetic blindness as formulated i n his Commento.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88\nlady of a strange country\u2014but the symbol of spiritual adventures as\nwell as metaphysical entities.\nBruno is perfectly familiar w i t h Ficino's theory of love and also w i t h\nPico della Mirandola's Commento. Part of the Heroic Furors (II, p. 3) is\nmade u p of an exchange of questions and answers between heart and\neyes, pneumatic organs w i t h a familiar role i n the psychology of Eros.\nHowever, the new scholasticism of w h i c h Ficino had been the most famous representative is ridiculed by Bruno i n his comedy Candelaio, published i n Paris i n 1582.64 The character Scaramur\u00bf, a charlatan magician\nand astrologer, recites this passage taken almost literally f r o m Ficino's\nworks:\nFascination is produced by virtue of a shiny and rarefied spirit, generated by the heart from the purest blood which, sent\nout i n the f o r m of rays from open eyes . . . , w o u n d s the\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=121\nPages: 121\nEros and Magic\n105\nWhat could be hoped for through knowledge of intersubjective\nrelationships?\nA homogeneous society, ideologically healthy and governable.\nBruno's total manipulator takes u p o n himself the task of dispensing to\nsubjects a suitable education and religion: \u202b\u05f4\u202cAbove all it is necessary to\nexercise extreme care concerning the place and the way i n w h i c h someone is educated, has pursued his studies, under w h i c h pedagogies,\nwhich religion, w h i c h cult, w i t h w h i c h books and writers. For all of that\ngenerates, by itself, and not by accident, all the subject's qualities\" (De\nMagia, LII). Supervision and selection are the pillars of order. It is not\nnecessary to be endowed w i t h imagination to understand that the function of Bruno's manipulator has been taken into account by the State and\nthat this new \u202b\u05f4\u202cintegral magician\" has been instructed to produce the\nnecessary ideological instruments w i t h the view of obtaining a u n i f o r m\nsociety.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,81\nfactions must have tried to w i n h i m over; time was short because the\nknight died i n 1586, perhaps not before discreetly revealing his preference for the Bruno and Dicson faction.\nThe humiliating setback described i n Cena was useful to Bruno. Quickly he grasped the situation and submitted to a dialogue w i t h the Puritans. The t w o works he dedicated to Sidney bear the stamp of that wise\ndecision.\n64\nPhantasms at Work\nThe second of these, De gl'heroici furori, the one that interests us here,\ncannot be understood w i t h o u t a foray into Bruno's mnemonical kitchen.\nW i t h o u t having any immediate connection w i t h the system employed i n\nthe Heroic Furors the Spaccio w i l l be of considerable help to us i n grasping\nBruno's technique and his attempt to adjust to English usage.\nThe Spaccio propounds an artificial memory i n w h i c h the place and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.\nAgrippa and Bruno were both impulsive men w i t h an amazing incapacity to understand the people and situations surrounding them. But,\nwhereas Agrippa seems to renounce (for the sake of form?) his past as\nan occultist and to enter the ranks of the reformers, Bruno aspires to\ndefend his ideas even into martyrdom, convinced that people great i n\nspirit do not flinch from physical pain. Agrippa is too naive to compromise but sufficiently realistic to retract his ideas; on the other hand,\nBruno is too p r o u d to retract, but, having yielded to impulse w h i c h let\nh i m d o w n paths of no return, he still hopes to f i n d a solution through\ncompromise. Here again, he sins not through na\u00efvet\u00e9 but its opposite,\nexcessive guile, which has the same result.\nWe have cited some of Bruno's attempts to convert his followers to the\nuse of the Art of Memory. We recall that his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nriots and, recommended b y the k i n g himself, w e n t to England to His Majesty's ambassador called seigneur de M a u vissi&re, Castelnau b y name. 3 2\nBruno's natural m e m o r y being unequal to his artificial m e m o r y , he is\nmistaken about the l e n g t h of his first stay i n Paris, b e g i n n i n g i n 1581 a n d\ne n d i n g i n June 1583, after w h i c h , under the protection of M i c h e l de\nCastelnau, he m o v e d to L o n d o n , w h e r e he remained u n t i l October\n1583. 33\nBy a strange optical illusion, Giordano Bruno has been envisaged as\nthe herald of the future, freemason a n d liberal, whereas this u n f r o c k e d\nNeapolitan m o n k was, wherever he w e n t , merely one of the last impassioned defenders of the culture of the phantasmic era. This explains his\nrebuffs i n Protestant circles, w h e r e he soon f o u n d himself worse off t h a n\ni n the bosom of the C h u r c h he h a d been rash e n o u g h to abandon: 3 4]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not\nable to separate the sphere of the profane f r o m that of the divine.\nBruno's u n k n o w n precursor seems, i n this sense, to be a misogynous\nmystic on the order of Sana\u202b!\u05f3\u202c, for w h o m the feminine hypostasis of the\nIntelligence has no actual reference.\nThis comparison, though somewhat pertinent, tells us nothing about\nthe historical context influencing Bruno. We must remember that we are\nin the middle of the Reformation and that p u r i t a n i s m \u2014 i n the timeless\nmeaning of the w o r d \u2014 i s growing harsher on the Protestant as w e l l as\nthe Catholic side. To be sure, that a former monk should make no effort\nto hide his carnal relations is a very serious matter for all concerned. A l l\nthe same, his attitude is forgivable if he acknowledges the t r u t h of that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=96\nPages: 96,95\nof thinkers, w i n d s u p as a symbol of democracy!\nIt is n o w possible to reconstruct and to understand what Bruno wanted. Far f r o m being a champion of progress, democracy, technology, or\necology, Bruno was merely a thinker w h o tried to reinfuse vitality into\nthe most sophisticated values, the most amazing i n the Western Middle\nAges. A n attempt which, ending i n bloody defeat, w o u l d \u2014 h a d it not\nbeen for the atrocious end of its protagonist\u2014have remained buried for-\nDangerous Liaisons\n79\never amongst the oddities of history, along w i t h the productions of a\nGiulio Camillo, a Peter of Ravenna, or a Fabio Paolini.\nDIANA\nWhile the statue of Actaeon was simple and univocal, the statue of Diana presents multiple aspects which, t h o u g h forming an indissoluble\nunity, are nevertheless capable of being analyzed one by one. Thus Diana is simultaneously nature, the moon, and also the queen, Elizabeth of\nEngland.\na. Nature]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=100\nPages: 100\nSidney's, gave an \u202b\u05f4\u202centertainment\" featuring the story of the hermit\nHemetes, w h o , having lost his sight, regained it as soon as he arrived i n\nthe best and most wisely governed country i n the w o r l d . 8 9\nThis transparent allegory, w h i c h he had probably read and partly\nmemorized, awakened i n Bruno an adolescent memory: the pastoral\neclogue Dialogo di tre ciechi or Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco A n t o n i o\nEpicuro. I n the last dialogues of the second part of the Heroic Furors, he\nfreely imitates Epicuro's eclogue, also having i n m i n d Pico's interpretation of the prophet's blindness.\nThe actors i n Bruno's parable are nine b l i n d men, mnemonic \u202b\u05f4\u202cstatues\" representing the nine species of love, which, through internal or\nexternal failure, predispose to sensuality, including the classic syndrome of amor hereos according to Pico della Mirandola's description.\nThe first is born blind; the second has been \u202b\u05f4\u202cbitten by the serpent of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nbe separated from the realm of divine contemplation w i t h a clarity that\nPetrarch, the repressed sensualist, lacked.\nThe anti-Petrarchism 61 of Bruno represents, fundamentally, an attempt to relegate to the sphere of pure consciousness the turbid selfsatisfactions of the subconscious, which, i n Petrarch's w o r k , are systematically raised to a level of intellectual dignity that f r o m the point of view\nof the Nolan they do not deserve. I n Bruno's ethics there is no room for\nthe phantasms of a degenerate imagination.\nA n attitude not w i t h o u t ambiguities: first, because he accepts w o m a n\nas an object of utility, provided that her use be not accompanied by\nphantasy; second, because he himself does not hesitate to hypostasize\nw o m a n while taking care to keep his distance f r o m Dante, w h o m he\nenvisages only as a companion of the unfortunate Petrarch.\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=58\nPages: 58\nof the Wing Foundation, The Newberry Library, Chicago.\nbeginning more or less i n 1463. 41 From our p o i n t of v i e w , the fact that it\nescapes Ficino's influence is invaluable. Even w h e n expressing a personal point of v i e w o n love, w h i c h rarely happens, Pico della Mirandola,\nPietro Bembo, Baldesar Castiglione, Leo the Hebrew, a n d Melanchthon\nbear the indelible mark of Ficino's thought. O n the contrary, Colonna\n(though he, too, treats of the phantasmic Eros) is original and inimitable,\nless i n his ideas\u2014a c o m m o n heritage of the period, of w h i c h Ficino is to\nbecome the systematic organizer\u2014than i n the literary and didactic quality of his w o r k .\n(iv) Phantasms at Work\nLet us make the acquaintance of phantasms.\nTaken literally, the title Hypnerotomachia means a \u202b\u05f4\u202clove fight d u r i n g]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=54\nPages: 54\nhis concepts, as pointed out by Andr\u00e9 Chastel in his fine book Marsile\nFicin et l'Art.\nFicino, as Eugenio Garin tells us, conceived of philosophy as an initiation into mysteries, 2 7 consisting of a gradual rise in intellectual loftiness\nreceiving in response from the intelligential world a phantasmic revelation in the form of figurae.28 These figurae, characters of an inner phantasmagoria staged by the soul itself, represent the modality by means of\nwhich the vision of the soul opens before the oculus spiritalis, the organ\nthat has taught the inner consciousness about existence, through diligent meditation. 2 9 This experience, so well described by P. O. Kristel1er, 30 has to do with the formation of an \u202b\u05f4\u202cinner awareness,\u202b\u05f4\u202c\ninterpretable as a phantasmic process, a visio spiritalis i n the Augustinian\nsense. 31 It is, in fact, a need to discover a means of communication between reason and intellect (the soul), and this means is provided by the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76,77\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,\nlike Giulio Camillo's theater. To u n d e r s t a n d something about his w o r k s ,\nposterity, interested i n t h e m because of his m a r t y r d o m , was obliged to\neliminate eight-tenths of them: all the mnemotechnic a n d magical tracts.\nPosterity claimed to be satisfied, for Bruno h a d been a defender of\nCopernicus a n d even the first to connect the idea of the i n f i n i t y of the\nuniverse w i t h heliocentrism. Yet a huge gulf separates this Neoplatonic\npantheist f r o m rationalists like Spinoza. Grasping h o w uninteresting\nBruno's w o r k was to the m o d e r n age, Hegel, w h o f o u n d his doctrine\ni n v o l v e d a n d repulsive, termed his p h i l o s o p h y \u202b\u05f3\u05f3\u202cbacchantic,\" probably\nan excuse for being unable to read h i m . A l l of w h i c h proves that, far\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=93\nPages: 93\nbeen before, he becomes wild as the stag and the desert\ndweller. In this vast forest, he lives in the lairs of the cavernous mountains, lairs which do not belong to the artificial memory\n[stanze non artifiose], in which he admires the sources of great\nrivers, vegetates in purity, far from the contamination of ordinary desires.\nThe two fragments that explain the subject's rites of passage to the\nintellectual state are at pains to state precisely that this passage consists\nin outstripping phantasmic knowledge. In the sensory world, man is condemned to acquire knowledge only through phantasms. On the other\nhand, Bruno's great original approach, which pertained to the intelligible world, gains knowledge without the intermediary of phantasms, facie ad faciem, without requiring spiritual mediation between body and\nsoul, since man only lives in and through the soul. It is, of course, a\nparadoxical state whose strangeness and peculiarity Bruno does not attempt to conceal:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=5\nPages: 5,6\n(v) The Depth Psychology of Ficino 42\nDescent of the Soul 42\nMelancholy and Saturn 46\n3.\nDangerous Liaisons\n28\n53\n(i) Pico della Mirandola, Continuator of Ficino 53\n(ii) The Ambiguous Gods of Eros 58\nGiordano Bruno, a Man of the Phantasmic Past 58\nScandal in London 60\nv\nContents\nvi\nMnemonic Phantasms 65\nA m b i g u i t y of Eros 67\nA t the Heart of Bruno's Doctrine 70\nActaeon 77\nDiana 79\nThe Parable of the Nine Blind M e n 83\nCirce 84\nII\nT H E GREAT MANIPULATOR\n4.\nEros and Magic\n(i)\n(ii)\n(iii)\n(iv)\n(v)\n5.\nPneumatic Magic\n(i)\n(ii)\n(iii)\n(iv)\n(v)\n6.\n107\nThe Starting Point of Magic 107\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cSubjective\u202b \u05f4\u202cMagic and \u202b\u05f4\u202cTransitive\u202b \u05f4\u202cMagic\nThe Conspiracy of Things 111\nThe Theory of Radiations 117\nPneumatic Magic 127\nIn ter subjective Magic\n(i)\n(ii)\n7.\n87\nIdentity of Substance, Identity of Process 87\nManipulation of Masses and of Individuals 89\nVinculum Vinculorum\n95\nEjaculation and Retention of Semen 99\nOf Magic as General Psychosociology 102\n130\nIntrasubjective Magic 130]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend\nBenivieni. As for the rest of it, there is no great fundamental difference\nbetween Ficino's and Pico's theories, although Pico latter constantly censures Ficino for the vulgarity of his approach to questions of love. 26\nWhether expressed in a polite or positive way, as by Ficino, or in the\ncontemptuous and negative manner of Pico, it is certain that the Florentine Renaissance takes chronological precedence over the rediscovery of\nthe other Renaissance, that of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.\nModern scholars, who sometimes confuse the rediscovery with the\nsummarizing or literal resumption of the same ideas, accord such precedence only to Mario Equicola, interpreter of Proven\u00e7al poetry in his Libro\nde natura de amore, of which the Latin original\u2014on which the Italian\ntranslation of 1509-11 (published in 1525) was based\u2014dates back to the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,87\nthey are at the center of a network of very complicated meanings at the\nvery heart of Bruno's philosophy as w e l l as of the spirit of his era.\nA T T H E H E A R T OF B R U N O ' S D O C T R I N E\nCentral to Bruno's moral doctrine is Ficino's thesis of the dispossessing\nof the subject, of the loss and the transfer of its \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\" into the\nDangerous Liaisons\n71\nobject. To be sure, that applies exclusively, as w i t h Pico della Mirandola,\nto the state of mystic love, whose object is the Deity. Hence the mors\nosculi, as we shall see, as w e l l as the story of the nine b l i n d men, which,\nthough a revival, literal i n places, of the eclogue Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco Antonio Epicuro, takes its inspiration equally f r o m Pico's\ntheory of prophetic blindness as formulated i n his Commento.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29,30\nThe case of Pico della Mirandola, w h i c h we shall analyze i n chapter 3,\nis more complicated: it w o u l d be called a striking example of the Oedipus complex if that term had not fallen into disuse through repeated\nabuse. Stimulated, or rather irritated, by Ficino\u202b\u05f3\u202cs little masterpiece on\nlove, Pico abandons all courtesy and tries to refute it i n toto. That is w h y\nhe attacks Guido Cavalcanti for lacking profundity and holds u p as a\nmodel for a love poem a canzona by his o w n friend Girolamo Benivieni\non w h i c h he undertakes a commentary. The example of Pico is highly\nsignificant. The y o u n g man forgets what elsewhere he reveals he knows\nonly too well, i n particular that a cultural era is not defined by the content of the ideas it conveys but by its interpretive filter. It demands of\nGuido Cavalcanti that w h i c h Ficino, more subtle i n this respect, w o u l d\nHistory of Phantasy\n13]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=18\nPages: 18,20\nChicago\nMay 1986\ni Phantasms at Work\nSupprime gl'eminenti, e inalza i bassi\nChi l'infinit\u00e9 machini sustenta,\nEt con veloce, mediocre, et lenta\nVertigine, dispensa\nIn questa mole immensa\nQuant'occolto si rende e aperto stassi.\nGiordano Bruno.\n1| History of Phantasy\n(i) On the Inner Sense\nSOME P R E L I M I N A R Y\nCONSIDERATIONS\nOur civilization is born of the conjunction of many cultures whose interpretations of h u m a n existence were so at variance that a huge historic\nupheaval along w i t h a fanatic faith were necessary to achieve a lasting\nsynthesis. I n that synthesis, matters of diverse origin underwent a reconversion and a reinterpretation marked by traces of the predominant\nculture of the period: the culture of a conquered people, the Greeks,\nenhanced by a conquering people, the Romans.\nI n Greek thought, sexuality was usually a secondary component of\nlove. While granting the link between sexuality and reproduction, no]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=51\nPages: 51,52\nk n o w i n g . This is the translation of the surrounding w o r l d into makebelieve language so that the soul may learn about it. O n the contrary,\nclear knowledge represents the translation into phantasmic language of\nEmpirical Psychology and the Deep Psychology of Eros\n35\nreal truths, which are engraved in the soul in order that discursive reasoning\u2014an objective though impotent process\u2014may have the means to\ngrasp and monopolize them.\nFicino's hieroglyphics, which we shall take up later, are symbols of intelligential awareness. But Ficino's successors go much farther: they\neven assert that the rules of the phantasmic language that translates\nintelligential relationships can be represented in the form of theater, to be\nmeditated upon and learned by anyone who so wishes. The idea of theater came from the Friulan Giulio Camillo Delminio, born around 1480,\nwho spared no pains to see it realized. A professor at Bologna, Giulio]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,\ndid not last long. Apart from the fact that both were of the Saturnian\ntype, suited to penetrating contemplation of theological truths, it is difficult to imagine two people more dissimilar.\nThe son of Cosimo de' Medici's physician, Ficino was instructed by\nhis protector to translate Plato's works into Latin. In youth he is attracted to Augustinianism but loses no time in submitting to Scholasticism, of which he is to become undoubtedly the most valuable representative in the Renaissance. Burdened by defects, physical and psychic, he was hunchbacked, had a slight stammer,1 and often fell into fits\nof melancholic despair, so grievous that he once almost died of starvation. Aside from that, he was head of the Academy of Careggi and also a\npriest, which did not permit him to give up the public obligations devolving on him. He resigned himself to leading a healthy and frugal life,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70,71\nhad certainly shown goodwill equaled only by that of the pope.\nIn principle, difference in character does not always make collaboration between equals impossible. The young Pico is, on the one hand,\nsufficiently admiring of the Florentine Platonist that a considerable por53\n54\nPhantasms at Work\ntion of his w o r k is strongly influenced by h i m , i n spirit as well as i n the\nletter; but, o n the other hand, he often allows himself to adopt a polemical tone, admixed w i t h sarcasm to stigmatize Ficino's \u202b\u05f4\u202cvulgarity\u202b \u05f4\u202ci n the\nmost serious philosophical matters. As for the Platonist from Careggi,\nw h o probably saw Pico as merely an exceptionally gifted disciple, a mirandus iuvenis very w o r t h y of his academy, he addresses h i m i n terms\nwhose almost imperceptible irony ends by negating their extreme courtesy. I n the long r u n , Pico must have f o u n d Ficino's paternalism unbearable, and his rebellion regarding the interpretation of love is proof of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nbe separated from the realm of divine contemplation w i t h a clarity that\nPetrarch, the repressed sensualist, lacked.\nThe anti-Petrarchism 61 of Bruno represents, fundamentally, an attempt to relegate to the sphere of pure consciousness the turbid selfsatisfactions of the subconscious, which, i n Petrarch's w o r k , are systematically raised to a level of intellectual dignity that f r o m the point of view\nof the Nolan they do not deserve. I n Bruno's ethics there is no room for\nthe phantasms of a degenerate imagination.\nA n attitude not w i t h o u t ambiguities: first, because he accepts w o m a n\nas an object of utility, provided that her use be not accompanied by\nphantasy; second, because he himself does not hesitate to hypostasize\nw o m a n while taking care to keep his distance f r o m Dante, w h o m he\nenvisages only as a companion of the unfortunate Petrarch.\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=30\nPages: 30\nHistory of Phantasy\n13\nnever have asked: to wit, that he already use the Platonistic interpretation of the fifteenth century! Benivieni's Canzona only differs from a canzona by Cavalcanti in that it furnishes directly to Pico della Mirandola the\ninterpretation he would have made even in the absence of the poem\nbecause it was his own interpretation of Eros in general. The Platonistic\nreading of Cavalcanti signified, to Ficino, a hermeneutic bias which also\nallowed him to pay tribute to a precursor and to the ancestor of someone\nhe liked. Now, in rejecting a real object for interpretation\u2014because the\ndifference between his commentary and the text commentated is only\nprosodie, the former being in prose, the latter in verse\u2014Pico peremptorily rejects all hermeneutics. For Ficino, Cavalcanti exists to the extent\nhe said something interpretable; for Pico, he does not exist since he does\nnot provide something already interpreted as was the case with his friend]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72\nThis system of successive links of being w h i c h goes to descending levels\nis called the \u202b\u05f4\u202cAlexandrine schema\" and is inherited by Plotinus f r o m the\ngnostic systems he attacks. 8 The t h i n k i n g of the first Neoplatonist comprises an apostroph\u00e9 (in Latin, processio), or estrangement from the essence of being, which humans alone can make good by the opposite\nprocess of epistroph\u00ea (conversio) or return to being.\nAs for Ficino, the degrees of progression are as follows: God, the angelic or universal intellect, Reason, Soul, Nature, and Body. 9 Through\nits intermediary position the soul, like two-faced J a n u s , 1 0 has some of\nthe characteristics both of the intelligential world and of the sensory\nworld. That is why it is called copula mundi or nodus mundi,11 whereas\nman-microcosm, parvus mundus, is vicarius Dei in terra, vicar of God on\nearth. 1 2\nPico della Mirandola repeats Ficino's expressions literally and the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=72\nPages: 72,73\nearth. 1 2\nPico della Mirandola repeats Ficino's expressions literally and the\nstages of development of the human being: man is vincolo et nodo del\nmondo,13 he is the hyphen between the World of angels and Nature. He\nhas, of course, two bodies: one, called by the Platonists the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheavenly\nvehicle,\" is the imperishable w r a p p i n g around the rational soul; the\nother, composed of the four elements, is subject to the laws of g r o w t h\nand decay. 14 M a n is also equipped w i t h t w o organs of sight: one directed toward the sensory w o r l d and the other toward the intelligential\nworld, the latter corresponding to Ficino's oculus spiritalis. The descent\nof souls into bodies is faithfully summed u p by Pico according to Ficino's\ncommentary on the Symposium: \u202b \u05f4\u202cA m o n g h u m a n souls, some have Sat-\n56\nPhantasms at Work\nurn's nature, others the nature of Jupiter and so on. And by that the\nPlatonists mean that a soul can be more closely related and in conformity]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not\nable to separate the sphere of the profane f r o m that of the divine.\nBruno's u n k n o w n precursor seems, i n this sense, to be a misogynous\nmystic on the order of Sana\u202b!\u05f3\u202c, for w h o m the feminine hypostasis of the\nIntelligence has no actual reference.\nThis comparison, though somewhat pertinent, tells us nothing about\nthe historical context influencing Bruno. We must remember that we are\nin the middle of the Reformation and that p u r i t a n i s m \u2014 i n the timeless\nmeaning of the w o r d \u2014 i s growing harsher on the Protestant as w e l l as\nthe Catholic side. To be sure, that a former monk should make no effort\nto hide his carnal relations is a very serious matter for all concerned. A l l\nthe same, his attitude is forgivable if he acknowledges the t r u t h of that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=144\nPages: 144,145\ncombination of Ficino's magic and Trithemius's demonomagic is to be\nf o u n d i n the three books of Agrippa's not very original but very influential Occult Philosophy. Giordano Bruno's magic is inspired i n the first\nplace by Ficino, utilizing as complementary sources Albert the Great,\nTrithemius and Agrippa. W i t h respect to Tommaso Campanella, a dissident Calabrian m o n k at the beginning of the seventeenth century,\nwhose political utopia seems to have exerted a decisive influence on the\ngroup of German friends w h o produced the \u202b\u05f4\u202cfarce\" (ludibrium) of the\nRosicrucians, 44 he too cultivated a pneumatic magic deriving from\nPneumatic Magic\n129\nFicino, with (inoffensive) rituals that were greatly appreciated by Pope\nUrban.45\nFrom Ficino to Campanella, a number of writers know about Ficino's\ntheory of the pneuma without always making use of its magic side.\nAmong them we mention Pico della Mirandola, Francesco Cattani da]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=69\nPages: 69,70\ninstinct remaining from the grandeur of their primary nature\nw h i c h makes them aware that happiness resides only i n tranquillity. A n d from those t w o contrary instincts is formed a\nconfused plan hidden from sight at the bottom of their soul\nthat leads them to reach for tranquillity through agitation and\nalways to imagine that the satisfaction they lack w i l l come to\nthem if, by surmounting certain obstacles they face, they can\nthus open the doors to peace and tranquillity. . . . So that in\nconsidering them seriously, man is more to be pitied for\nbeing able to amuse himself w i t h such low and frivolous\nthings than for being afflicted by real misery; and his diversions make much less sense than his boredom. (Pens\u00e9es, 26)\n31 Dangerous Liaisons\n(i) Pico della Mirandola, Continuator of Ficino\nThe perfect understanding between Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, in\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=108\nPages: 108,109\nphantasms\u2014in the event, the artist of m e m o r y \u2014 t o regulate and control\nhis emotions and his phantasies lest, believing himself to be their master, he nevertheless becomes dominated by them. \u202b\u05f4\u202cBe careful not to\nchange yourself f r o m manipulator into the tool of phantasms\u202b\u05f4\u202c: that is\nthe most serious danger confronting the disciple (Sigillus sigillorum, II, 2,\np. 193). The real magic manipulator must be able \u202b\u05f4\u202cto arrange, to correct,\nand to provide phantasy, to create the different kinds at will\" (De Magia,\nXLVIII, vol. I l l , p. 485).\nEros and Magic\n93\nIt seems that man is endowed w i t h a hypercomplex brain that has no\nspecial capacity to analyze stimuli according to their provenance: i n\nshort, he is not capable of differentiating directly between dreamlike\ndata and those transmitted by the senses, between the imaginary and\nthe tangible. 6 Bruno demands of the manipulator a superhuman task:\nfirst he must accurately and immediately classify data according to their]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76,77\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,\nlike Giulio Camillo's theater. To u n d e r s t a n d something about his w o r k s ,\nposterity, interested i n t h e m because of his m a r t y r d o m , was obliged to\neliminate eight-tenths of them: all the mnemotechnic a n d magical tracts.\nPosterity claimed to be satisfied, for Bruno h a d been a defender of\nCopernicus a n d even the first to connect the idea of the i n f i n i t y of the\nuniverse w i t h heliocentrism. Yet a huge gulf separates this Neoplatonic\npantheist f r o m rationalists like Spinoza. Grasping h o w uninteresting\nBruno's w o r k was to the m o d e r n age, Hegel, w h o f o u n d his doctrine\ni n v o l v e d a n d repulsive, termed his p h i l o s o p h y \u202b\u05f3\u05f3\u202cbacchantic,\" probably\nan excuse for being unable to read h i m . A l l of w h i c h proves that, far\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=104\nPages: 104,105\nworks has been mentioned i n passing i n the foregoing pages. I n order to\nenhance comprehension that is still peripheral to what w i l l follow, the\nreader is requested always to keep i n m i n d that magic is a phantasmic\nprocess that makes use of the continuity of the individual pneuma and of the\nuniversal pneuma. We shall see i n due course h o w this continuity is ensured and by what means magicians hope to attract the collaboration of\nsupernatural presences. Beyond this presupposition common to all\nmagic, erotic magic reveals other aspects, disconcertingly modern, requiring separate treatment. Bruno is the first to exploit the concept of\nmagic to its ultimate conclusions, envisaging this \u202b\u05f4\u202cscience\u202b \u05f4\u202cas an infalli-\nEros and Magic\n89\nble psychological instrument for manipulating the masses as w e l l as the\nindividual h u m a n being. Awareness of the appropriate \u202b\u05f4\u202cchains\u202b( \u05f4\u202cvinculo) enables the magician to realize his dream of universal Master: to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82\nSpaccio, where Bruno gives a literal translation of the famous passage i n\nthe hermetic Asclepius concerning Egyptian statues, \u202b \u05f4\u202cf u l l of life, f u l l of\nintelligence and spirit, capable of many important functions. Those statues foresee the future, cause infirmities, and produce the remedies, joy\nand sorrow, according to the merits [of each], i n h u m a n affectivity or\nbody. 5 2 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nThis time, the material used by Bruno is made u p of phantasmic emblems whose prestige also derives f r o m the hermetic statues. Are not\nthose spiritual constructions, i n the final analysis, forms used by magic\nitself? It is true that their use here comes d o w n to memorizing the stages\nof Eros, but is not Eros itself an anagogic force w h i c h produces the ecstatic union of the soul w i t h God?\nA t first glance, De gl'heroici furori is a series of sonnets w i t h commentary, of the type of Dante's Vita nova. Like Pico della Mirandola, f r o m]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=140\nPages: 140\nmagic a n d psychoanalysis itself, whose m e t h o d permits, w i t h i n limits, a\ncomparison w i t h the m e t h o d of Giordano Bruno's \u202b\u05f4\u202chealers.\"\nW h e n the dream is envisaged as a phantasmic p r o d u c t i o n stemming\nf r o m the unconscious, a n d schizophrenia as a state of confusion bet w e e n oneiric context a n d sensory content, w e no longer need marvel at\nthe correspondence between the phantasms of schizophrenics a n d the\nphantasms b r o u g h t i n t o play b y magicians. A f t e r all, they have the same\nprovenance, except that i n the case of the magician the phantasms are\np r o d u c e d v o l u n t a r i l y a n d directed b y the performance, whereas i n the\ncase of the sick person they appear to h i m as strange realities, they \u202b\u05f4\u202cpossess\" h i m . Jung's hypothesis of \u202b\u05f4\u202carchetypes,\" w h i c h are performative\ncategories of phantasmic p r o d u c t i o n , rests largely o n analogies between]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=118\nPages: 118\nTo sum up: Bruno's manipulator has to perform t w o contrary actions:\non the one hand, he must carefully avoid letting himself be seduced and\nso must eradicate i n himself any remnants of love, including self-love;\non the other hand, he is not i m m u n e to passions. O n the contrary, he is\neven supposed to kindle i n his phantasmic mechanism formidable passions, provided they be sterile and that he be detached from them. For\nthere is no w a y to bewitch other than by experimenting in himself w i t h\nw h a t he wishes to produce i n his victim.\nIt is a strange and almost unbelievable method, which, however, well\nexplains the concise passages translated above and is also confirmed by\nthe advice Bruno gives to the artists of memory i n his Sigillus sigillorum:\nHe tells them almost literally: \u202b\u05f4\u202cBe excited; those people w h o are most\ninclined t o w a r d erotic pleasures and hatred are the most active\" (Sig.\nsig.f 22, vol. II, 2, p. 166). There is no artificial memory without very]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=89\nPages: 89\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on\nw h i c h Bruno and Ficino meet is the style, very precious i n both, Bruno\nhaving a marked predilection for oxymoron, quite common i n the sixteenth century. Like St. John of the Cross, Bruno uses terms of mystical\nlove, for example: In viva morte morta vita vivo (II, p. 327).\nThe explanation for this t u r n of phrase brings us back to Ficino's theory of transforming subjectivity: \u202b\u05f4\u202cone [the subject] is not dead, because\none lives i n the object; one is not alive, because one is dead w i t h i n\noneself\" (ibid.). Another expression applying to this wasting away from\nlove is, of course, the death kiss, the binsica of Pico della Mirandola, \" i n\nw h i c h the soul languishes by being dead i n itself and living i n the object\" (II, p. 351).\nBruno w o u l d not be a true artist of memory if he d i d not use \"statues\"]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\nBut let us return to Bruno's magic. We shall see later that his magia\nmathematica is nothing but a demonomagic compilation whose principal\nsources are Trithemius and Agrippa. As to his natural magic, that simply amounts to Ficino's spiritual magic, whose ultimate consequences\nregarding Eros are set f o r t h i n the t w o editions of the treatise De vinculis\nin genere. Proof that he meant to profit f r o m Grillandi\u202b \u05f3\u202cs leniency in distinguishing between merely sacrilegious magic and heretical magic is\nthe fact that, i n his De Magia, he presents a doctrine of demons which,\nthough inspired by Psellus's w o r k translated into Latin by Ficino, is not\ncompletely lacking i n originality.\nDemons are invisible spirits w h o have the ability to act u p o n the intelligence and judgment. They produce visual and auditory hallucinations,\nsometimes simultaneously. Bruno differentiates five categories of demons. The first, w h o correspond to Psellus's subterranean and aquatic]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=140\nPages: 140\nbelonging to phantasms, namely the h u m a n imagination. This seems to\nbe all the more true since there are cases, very rare, i n w h i c h the performer suffers obvious s y m p t o m s of schizophrenia, w h i c h differentiates\nh i m at once f r o m the mass of other magicians, w h o are completely sane.\nI n a schizophrenic performer of magic, the inner phantasmagoria finally\ngain the u p p e r h a n d , like a foreign presence (see later the example of M .\nBerbiguier a n d his goblins). N o w , let us remember that Giordano Bruno\nnever ceased to alert the manipulator of phantasms to the dangers inv o l v e d i n his activity, w h i c h , collectively, a m o u n t e d to the loss of mental health. Thus it seems that the magician m u s t not be regarded as\nschizophrenic in principle, nor magic as \u202b\u05f4\u202cinstitutionalized schizop h r e n i a . \u202b \u05f4\u202cO n the contrary, there are analogies between certain types of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=106\nPages: 106,107\nhimself also asserts that it is an extremely difficult maneuver, only to be\naccomplished by the use of intelligence, perspicacity, and intuition\nequal to the task. The complexity of the task is not diminished, for the\nillusion must be perfect to satisfy the many expectations it proposes to\nEros and Magic\n91\nfulfill. The greater the manipulator's knowledge of those he must \u202b\u05f4\u202cenchain, \u202b \u05f4\u202cthe greater is his chance of success, since he w i l l k n o w h o w to\nchoose the right means of creating the vinculum.\nWe see that the goal of Bruno's erotic magic is to enable a manipulator\nto control both individuals and crowds. Its fundamental presupposition\nis that a big tool for manipulation exists\u2014Eros i n the most general sense\nof the word: that which we love, f r o m physical pleasure to things probably\nunsuspected, i n passing, by wealth, power, etc. Everything is defined i n\nrelation to Eros, since aversion and hatred merely represent the negative\nside of the same universal attraction:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=18\nPages: 18,20\nChicago\nMay 1986\ni Phantasms at Work\nSupprime gl'eminenti, e inalza i bassi\nChi l'infinit\u00e9 machini sustenta,\nEt con veloce, mediocre, et lenta\nVertigine, dispensa\nIn questa mole immensa\nQuant'occolto si rende e aperto stassi.\nGiordano Bruno.\n1| History of Phantasy\n(i) On the Inner Sense\nSOME P R E L I M I N A R Y\nCONSIDERATIONS\nOur civilization is born of the conjunction of many cultures whose interpretations of h u m a n existence were so at variance that a huge historic\nupheaval along w i t h a fanatic faith were necessary to achieve a lasting\nsynthesis. I n that synthesis, matters of diverse origin underwent a reconversion and a reinterpretation marked by traces of the predominant\nculture of the period: the culture of a conquered people, the Greeks,\nenhanced by a conquering people, the Romans.\nI n Greek thought, sexuality was usually a secondary component of\nlove. While granting the link between sexuality and reproduction, no]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\n\u202b\u05be\u202c160\nThe Great Manipulator\nmodel of shrewdness. Where does Bruno err tactically? By never being\nable to agree w i t h anybody; he could have stayed out of trouble if he had\nmade it clear at the beginning that he shared the other person's views u p\nto a certain point but differed on the details\u2014which was often the case.\nBut, Bruno proceeds i n the very opposite way: he begins by attacking\nsomeone only to make it clear later that what is at issue is basically a\nquestion of detail.\nIf we have taken the right view of this\u2014and the classification of De\nMagia is either by Grillandi or another writer of treatises against magic\nand sorcery\u2014then we must agree that Bruno's entire procedure is very\nstrange: what he borrows f r o m implicitly incriminating sources is much\nmore important than what he rejects. A n d he avoids saying so explicitly\nmerely to save appearances.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=91\nPages: 91\nbut they t u r n against me, killing me w i t h their cruel and\ngreedy bites.\nI n Bruno's poem it is not the narrative that matters but the characters.\nN o w , these characters are statues of the artificial memory. We must envisage the scene as being a little like a Flemish engraving i n the A n t w e r p\nedition of the Metamorphoses (1591, pp. 84-85): a goddess emerging half\nnaked f r o m the water and a hunter changed into a stag and devoured by\nhis o w n dogs. Goddess, hunter, and dogs are the phantasmic supports\nof the mnemonic contents described by Bruno i n his commentary. Diana\nis seen as having a complexion of alabaster, lips (or breasts) of purple,\nand hair of fine gold. O n l y her bust emerges f r o m the water, w h i c h\nmeans that she is endowed w i t h one part that is visible and another that\nis hidden. The water symbolizes the sensory w o r l d created i n the image]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=56\nPages: 56,57\npersistent, almost passed unobserved or was close to being assimilated\nby the t w o others. Indeed, there can exist phantasms unrelated to a real\nobject, but, thanks to the quality of their images, there can be no phan-\n40\nPhantasms at Work\nFIGURE 2. Bacchanalian revels. From Francesco Colonna, Discours du Songe de\nPoliphile [Hypnerotomachia] (Paris, 1554). Courtesy of the Wing Foundation, The\nNewberry Library, Chicago.\ntasms without physical support of one kind or another. That is why a\nstory about phantasms is always interpretable: we can see it either as the\nsymbol of adventures in the intelligential cosmos or as the allegory of\nactual events.\nUnfortunately, although there are many theoreticians of phantasmic\nEros, the number of writers who have tried to describe phantasms at\nwork is very limited. One of them surely is the respectable monk from]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=121\nPages: 121\nEros and Magic\n105\nWhat could be hoped for through knowledge of intersubjective\nrelationships?\nA homogeneous society, ideologically healthy and governable.\nBruno's total manipulator takes u p o n himself the task of dispensing to\nsubjects a suitable education and religion: \u202b\u05f4\u202cAbove all it is necessary to\nexercise extreme care concerning the place and the way i n w h i c h someone is educated, has pursued his studies, under w h i c h pedagogies,\nwhich religion, w h i c h cult, w i t h w h i c h books and writers. For all of that\ngenerates, by itself, and not by accident, all the subject's qualities\" (De\nMagia, LII). Supervision and selection are the pillars of order. It is not\nnecessary to be endowed w i t h imagination to understand that the function of Bruno's manipulator has been taken into account by the State and\nthat this new \u202b\u05f4\u202cintegral magician\" has been instructed to produce the\nnecessary ideological instruments w i t h the view of obtaining a u n i f o r m\nsociety.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,81\nfactions must have tried to w i n h i m over; time was short because the\nknight died i n 1586, perhaps not before discreetly revealing his preference for the Bruno and Dicson faction.\nThe humiliating setback described i n Cena was useful to Bruno. Quickly he grasped the situation and submitted to a dialogue w i t h the Puritans. The t w o works he dedicated to Sidney bear the stamp of that wise\ndecision.\n64\nPhantasms at Work\nThe second of these, De gl'heroici furori, the one that interests us here,\ncannot be understood w i t h o u t a foray into Bruno's mnemonical kitchen.\nW i t h o u t having any immediate connection w i t h the system employed i n\nthe Heroic Furors the Spaccio w i l l be of considerable help to us i n grasping\nBruno's technique and his attempt to adjust to English usage.\nThe Spaccio propounds an artificial memory i n w h i c h the place and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=174\nPages: 174,175\nBruno seems determined not to include necromancy and maleficent\nmagic i n his boiled-down classification of the varieties of magic, and, on\nthe other hand, that he transfers to the category of mathematical magic a\nconsiderable part of the processes performed through the intermediary\nof demons. Can we understand the motivation for this rather intricate\nstrategy? Yes, if w e refer to a semiofficial document (such as the Malleus), the Treatise on Magic Spells by Paul Grillandi, written about 1525\nDemonomagic\n159\nand published i n L y o n i n 1536 under the title Tractatus de Haereticis et\nSortilegiis. Here Grillandi states that invocations of the demon by modum\nimperii, those that Bruno earmarks for small demons, are not heretical\nbut only sacrilegious. O n the other hand, foretelling the future is always\nheretical.39\nN o w Bruno was a person of dazzling culture for his period, and it is\nunusual for even his most insignificant writings not to contain certain]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=104\nPages: 104\nhopes to profit. I n order to do so he must gather knowledge of the nets\nand bait that he must p u t out i n order to gain the desired result. This\nprocedure is called by Bruno to \u202b \u05f4\u202cb i n d \u202b( \u05f4\u202cvincire) and its processes bear\nthe generic name of - \u202b \u05f3\u202cc h a i n s \u202b( \u05f4\u202cvincula). The doctrine of the identity of\nlove and magic, already outlined by Ficino, is only carried to its logical\nconclusions by Giordano Bruno.\nSince the first part of this w o r k has been devoted to the phantasms of\nEros and, to a certain extent, to artificial memory, the subject of erotic\nmagic seems to me the most appropriate to ensure the continuity of m y\naccount. I take it u p here w i t h the reservation that it can only be explored i n more depth after the mechanism and origins of pneumatic\nmagic have been explored (chap. 5). The principle underlying the way it\nworks has been mentioned i n passing i n the foregoing pages. I n order to]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=99\nPages: 99\nsymbolism he adopts so p r o m p t l y has a metaphysical value for h i m that\nprobably escaped Raleigh and Chapman, also adherents. W i t h unbelievable audacity, Bruno, w h o always remains a great specialist and professor of the A r t of Memory, addresses his chosen public i n language\nthat was all too familiar to everyone. The \u202b\u05f4\u202cstatue\u202b \u05f4\u202cof artificial memory\nthat dominates the dialogues w r i t t e n i n England is of Diana. Sidney and\nGreville, not to speak of persons i n the k n o w such as Raleigh and Chapman, associate Diana w i t h Queen Elizabeth or, what amounts to the\nsame thing, had the ability to represent Diana without any special effort since,\nin their phantasy, she spontaneously assumed the features of the revered queen.\nBruno's allegory, designed to introduce metaphysical ideas and mnemonical personal techniques, also had the advantage of gaining for its\nauthor a very good reputation i n the eyes of her w h o had been exalted\u2014]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82\nSpaccio, where Bruno gives a literal translation of the famous passage i n\nthe hermetic Asclepius concerning Egyptian statues, \u202b \u05f4\u202cf u l l of life, f u l l of\nintelligence and spirit, capable of many important functions. Those statues foresee the future, cause infirmities, and produce the remedies, joy\nand sorrow, according to the merits [of each], i n h u m a n affectivity or\nbody. 5 2 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nThis time, the material used by Bruno is made u p of phantasmic emblems whose prestige also derives f r o m the hermetic statues. Are not\nthose spiritual constructions, i n the final analysis, forms used by magic\nitself? It is true that their use here comes d o w n to memorizing the stages\nof Eros, but is not Eros itself an anagogic force w h i c h produces the ecstatic union of the soul w i t h God?\nA t first glance, De gl'heroici furori is a series of sonnets w i t h commentary, of the type of Dante's Vita nova. Like Pico della Mirandola, f r o m]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=50\nPages: 50,51\nmemorized or in the choice of phantasms to be put to use. Finally\u2014and\n34\nPhantasms at Work\nhere is the origin of the emblems, impresae and emblematic legends of\nthe Renaissance\u2014phantasms can, as we have already said, stem directly\nf r o m the imaginative faculty w i t h o u t an objective support. I n this case\nthey w i l l be constructed i n such a w a y as to cover, through their parts,\nthe segments of the message to be memorized.\nThe principle of the priority of phantasm to speech has, i n some cases,\nled to results of doubtful usefulness and applicability, such as the alphabets propounded i n 1520 by Johan Romberch i n his Congestorium artificiose memorie;12 i n one of these each letter of the alphabet is replaced\nby a b i r d whose name starts w i t h the appropriate letter: \u202b \u05f4\u202cA = anser, B =\nbubo,\" etc. 13 The Florentine Dominican Cosimo Rosselli replaces birds\nw i t h animals; i n that w a y the w o r d AER, air, is memorized by means of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=83\nPages: 83,84\nthere is an inscription: Mutuo fulcimur.\nOr the seventh of the escutcheons, \u202b\u05f4\u202ca sun w i t h a circle inside and another outside it, w i t h the motto: Circuit,\u202b \u05f4\u202cetc.\nOther impresae, twelve i n number, are commented on i n the first dialogue of part 2. One of them opens a dialogue containing the most\nimportant substance of Bruno's treatise.\nIt was to images of this k i n d that the abbot Pluche referred w h e n he\nwrote i n 1748:\nSince a picture is only intended to show me what I am not\ntold, it is absurd that efforts should be required i n order to\nunderstand it. . . . A n d as a rule w h e n I have succeeded i n\nguessing the intent of those mysterious figures, I have f o u n d\nDangerous Liaisons\n67\nthat what I have been taught was not w o r t h the price of the\nwrapping. 5 5\nLet us admit that our mentality w o u l d incline us to agree that the\nabbot Pluche was i n the right rather than the Renaissance philosophers]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nriots and, recommended b y the k i n g himself, w e n t to England to His Majesty's ambassador called seigneur de M a u vissi&re, Castelnau b y name. 3 2\nBruno's natural m e m o r y being unequal to his artificial m e m o r y , he is\nmistaken about the l e n g t h of his first stay i n Paris, b e g i n n i n g i n 1581 a n d\ne n d i n g i n June 1583, after w h i c h , under the protection of M i c h e l de\nCastelnau, he m o v e d to L o n d o n , w h e r e he remained u n t i l October\n1583. 33\nBy a strange optical illusion, Giordano Bruno has been envisaged as\nthe herald of the future, freemason a n d liberal, whereas this u n f r o c k e d\nNeapolitan m o n k was, wherever he w e n t , merely one of the last impassioned defenders of the culture of the phantasmic era. This explains his\nrebuffs i n Protestant circles, w h e r e he soon f o u n d himself worse off t h a n\ni n the bosom of the C h u r c h he h a d been rash e n o u g h to abandon: 3 4]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88\nlady of a strange country\u2014but the symbol of spiritual adventures as\nwell as metaphysical entities.\nBruno is perfectly familiar w i t h Ficino's theory of love and also w i t h\nPico della Mirandola's Commento. Part of the Heroic Furors (II, p. 3) is\nmade u p of an exchange of questions and answers between heart and\neyes, pneumatic organs w i t h a familiar role i n the psychology of Eros.\nHowever, the new scholasticism of w h i c h Ficino had been the most famous representative is ridiculed by Bruno i n his comedy Candelaio, published i n Paris i n 1582.64 The character Scaramur\u00bf, a charlatan magician\nand astrologer, recites this passage taken almost literally f r o m Ficino's\nworks:\nFascination is produced by virtue of a shiny and rarefied spirit, generated by the heart from the purest blood which, sent\nout i n the f o r m of rays from open eyes . . . , w o u n d s the\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\n\u202b\u05be\u202c160\nThe Great Manipulator\nmodel of shrewdness. Where does Bruno err tactically? By never being\nable to agree w i t h anybody; he could have stayed out of trouble if he had\nmade it clear at the beginning that he shared the other person's views u p\nto a certain point but differed on the details\u2014which was often the case.\nBut, Bruno proceeds i n the very opposite way: he begins by attacking\nsomeone only to make it clear later that what is at issue is basically a\nquestion of detail.\nIf we have taken the right view of this\u2014and the classification of De\nMagia is either by Grillandi or another writer of treatises against magic\nand sorcery\u2014then we must agree that Bruno's entire procedure is very\nstrange: what he borrows f r o m implicitly incriminating sources is much\nmore important than what he rejects. A n d he avoids saying so explicitly\nmerely to save appearances.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=250\nPages: 250\nper artem non solum rerum memoriam, sed et veritatem atque sapientiam per universum\nhumanam possis assequi (23). Bruno does not deny that emotions open the way\ntoward the noblest as well as the most perverse customs; nevertheless, he is of\nthe opinion that all emotions\u2014including those which might be considered negative or immoral\u2014are favorable to mnemotechnics.\n50. P.-H. Michel, quoting Sellers, is certain that John Charlewood was the\nprinter. See the foreword to Giordano Bruno, Des fureurs h\u00e9ro\u00efques (Paris, 1954),\np. 8.\n51. Yates, The Art of Memory, p. 284.\n52. Ascl., IX; cf. Ficino, Op., II, p. 1865; Bruno, Op. it., II, p. 180.\n53. Op. lat., II, 2, p. 133; in its entirety, the passage reads: Primus praecipuusque\npictor est phantasica virtus, praecipuus primusque po\u00ebta est in cognitativae virtutis adpulsu, vel conatus vel inditus noviter quidam enthusiasmus, quo vel divino vel huic simili\nquodam afflatu ad convenienter aliquid praesentandum excogitatum concitantur. Idem ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,81\nfactions must have tried to w i n h i m over; time was short because the\nknight died i n 1586, perhaps not before discreetly revealing his preference for the Bruno and Dicson faction.\nThe humiliating setback described i n Cena was useful to Bruno. Quickly he grasped the situation and submitted to a dialogue w i t h the Puritans. The t w o works he dedicated to Sidney bear the stamp of that wise\ndecision.\n64\nPhantasms at Work\nThe second of these, De gl'heroici furori, the one that interests us here,\ncannot be understood w i t h o u t a foray into Bruno's mnemonical kitchen.\nW i t h o u t having any immediate connection w i t h the system employed i n\nthe Heroic Furors the Spaccio w i l l be of considerable help to us i n grasping\nBruno's technique and his attempt to adjust to English usage.\nThe Spaccio propounds an artificial memory i n w h i c h the place and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82\ninfringe that rule. I n concealing his o w n name, the printer avoided the\nresponsibility of having published the w o r k of a foreigner w h o had scandalized London, and Sidney's silence on the subject of Bruno (less surprising than that of Michel de Castelnau), o n the same grounds of\nexpediency, does not mean that the knight had contempt for the Spaccio.\nO n the contrary, some discreet sign of appreciation must have shown\nBruno that he was o n the right track. History is silent on the subject, but\nwithout Sidney's encouragement and generosity it is inconceivable that\nthe impulsive Neapolitan w o u l d not have kept his promise to leave the\ncountry and w o u l d have dedicated his next book to h i m also, De gl'heroici furori.\nI n the Heroic Furors, mnemonics are at the disposal of Eros. The method is already outlined i n the second part of the t h i r d dialogue of the\nSpaccio, where Bruno gives a literal translation of the famous passage i n]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=91\nPages: 91\nbut they t u r n against me, killing me w i t h their cruel and\ngreedy bites.\nI n Bruno's poem it is not the narrative that matters but the characters.\nN o w , these characters are statues of the artificial memory. We must envisage the scene as being a little like a Flemish engraving i n the A n t w e r p\nedition of the Metamorphoses (1591, pp. 84-85): a goddess emerging half\nnaked f r o m the water and a hunter changed into a stag and devoured by\nhis o w n dogs. Goddess, hunter, and dogs are the phantasmic supports\nof the mnemonic contents described by Bruno i n his commentary. Diana\nis seen as having a complexion of alabaster, lips (or breasts) of purple,\nand hair of fine gold. O n l y her bust emerges f r o m the water, w h i c h\nmeans that she is endowed w i t h one part that is visible and another that\nis hidden. The water symbolizes the sensory w o r l d created i n the image]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214,215\nuse of the Art of Memory. We recall that his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante\nwas a rejection of the signs of the zodiac, replacing them with a veritable\nCensoring Phantasy\n201\ncohort of virtues and vices. By such means Bruno meant to give to the\nsystem of astrological memory a more abstract and Christian character.\nBruno was not the first to have the concept of a \u202b\u05f4\u202cChristian sky.\u202b\u05f4 \u05f4\u202cThe\nMiddle Ages wished to replace all the signs of the zodiac by others,\nborrowed f r o m the Bible\u2014which Hippolytus rejected, w a r n i n g against\nastro-theosophists. A Carolingian poet (the priest Opicinus de Canistris,\nof Santa Maria Capella) proposed replacing the Ram by the Lamb\n(Christ), and, i n 1627, Julius Schiller suggested, i n his Coelum stellatum\nchristianum, substituting the apostles for the signs of the zodiac. L'Astroscopium by Wilhelm Schickhardt, i n 1665, sees the Ram as the animal of\nIsaac's sacrifice, the Twins as Jacob and Esau, and connects the Fishes]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82,83\nw h o m he borrowed many of the themes of the Commento, Bruno does\nnot hesitate to copy certain poems which, according to F. Fiorentino,\nbelong to Tansillo of Venosa, the main character and Bruno's spokesman i n the dialogue. But most of the sonnets are the creation of the\nauthor himself, whether they be commentaries i n verse on the representations of Eros or poetic expressions of the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheroic furors.\"\nI n the Sigillus sigillorum, Bruno had already explained the deep reason\nfor ut pictura poesis, the equivalence between painting and poetry. Zeuxis\nis the painter of internal images i n the memory, w h o excels i n phantastica\n66\nPhantasms at Work\nvirtus, imaginative power. I n turn, the poet possesses powers of thought\nout of the ordinary whose source is also spiritual. \u202b \u05f4\u202cI t follows that philosophers are also painters and poets, poets are painters and philosophers,\nand painters are philosophers and poets. 5 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cIndeed, since intellect is]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\nBut let us return to Bruno's magic. We shall see later that his magia\nmathematica is nothing but a demonomagic compilation whose principal\nsources are Trithemius and Agrippa. As to his natural magic, that simply amounts to Ficino's spiritual magic, whose ultimate consequences\nregarding Eros are set f o r t h i n the t w o editions of the treatise De vinculis\nin genere. Proof that he meant to profit f r o m Grillandi\u202b \u05f3\u202cs leniency in distinguishing between merely sacrilegious magic and heretical magic is\nthe fact that, i n his De Magia, he presents a doctrine of demons which,\nthough inspired by Psellus's w o r k translated into Latin by Ficino, is not\ncompletely lacking i n originality.\nDemons are invisible spirits w h o have the ability to act u p o n the intelligence and judgment. They produce visual and auditory hallucinations,\nsometimes simultaneously. Bruno differentiates five categories of demons. The first, w h o correspond to Psellus's subterranean and aquatic]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=96\nPages: 96,95\nof thinkers, w i n d s u p as a symbol of democracy!\nIt is n o w possible to reconstruct and to understand what Bruno wanted. Far f r o m being a champion of progress, democracy, technology, or\necology, Bruno was merely a thinker w h o tried to reinfuse vitality into\nthe most sophisticated values, the most amazing i n the Western Middle\nAges. A n attempt which, ending i n bloody defeat, w o u l d \u2014 h a d it not\nbeen for the atrocious end of its protagonist\u2014have remained buried for-\nDangerous Liaisons\n79\never amongst the oddities of history, along w i t h the productions of a\nGiulio Camillo, a Peter of Ravenna, or a Fabio Paolini.\nDIANA\nWhile the statue of Actaeon was simple and univocal, the statue of Diana presents multiple aspects which, t h o u g h forming an indissoluble\nunity, are nevertheless capable of being analyzed one by one. Thus Diana is simultaneously nature, the moon, and also the queen, Elizabeth of\nEngland.\na. Nature]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.\nAgrippa and Bruno were both impulsive men w i t h an amazing incapacity to understand the people and situations surrounding them. But,\nwhereas Agrippa seems to renounce (for the sake of form?) his past as\nan occultist and to enter the ranks of the reformers, Bruno aspires to\ndefend his ideas even into martyrdom, convinced that people great i n\nspirit do not flinch from physical pain. Agrippa is too naive to compromise but sufficiently realistic to retract his ideas; on the other hand,\nBruno is too p r o u d to retract, but, having yielded to impulse w h i c h let\nh i m d o w n paths of no return, he still hopes to f i n d a solution through\ncompromise. Here again, he sins not through na\u00efvet\u00e9 but its opposite,\nexcessive guile, which has the same result.\nWe have cited some of Bruno's attempts to convert his followers to the\nuse of the Art of Memory. We recall that his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=118\nPages: 118\nsig.f 22, vol. II, 2, p. 166). There is no artificial memory without very\nstrong affectivity, emotionally charged images. A n d there can be no superior intelligence and contemplation w i t h o u t passing through the gatew a y of emotional images (ibid., 22-23, pp. 166-67).\nIt is easy to guess h o w much discernment on the part of the manipulator was required by Bruno's method. He was simultaneously required\nto be \u202b \u05f4\u202ch o t \" and \u202b \u05f4\u202cc o l d , \" intoxicated w i t h love and totally indifferent to all\npassion, continent as w e l l as debauche. That explains the abundant oxymoron i n his poetry, the contiguity of contradictory images and symbols.\nMost of the time he describes his state of soul as a mixture of fire and\nice, w h i c h w e can understand all too well, having studied his magic\npractices. 14\n(v) Of Magic as General Psychosociology\nBruno's erotic magic, though unorthodox, has allowed us a close view of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.\nThe first scandal was caused by an unfortunate debate w i t h t w o Oxford doctors that Bruno decided to immortalize i n his tract La Cena de le\nceneri, dedicated to Michel de Castelnau. The t w o parties indulged i n a\nrivalry cruelly w a n t i n g i n tact. The Southerner, to be sure, was w r o n g to\ncount too heavily on respect for the laws of hospitality, whereas the\nbarbarian inhabitants of that island toto orbe divisa were only concerned\nw i t h their dignity and independence. Bruno's contempt for the two Oxonians was expressed i n such a w a y \u2014 \u202b \u05f4\u202ci m b u e d w i t h Greek, but also\nw i t h beer\"\u2014that he ended by alienating the sincere friendship of Fulke\nGreville, whose name was distressingly implicated in that unprecedented offense not only against the w o r t h y scholars and the chauvinistic\ncommoner, but also against British lack of civility i n general.]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=104\nPages: 104,105\nworks has been mentioned i n passing i n the foregoing pages. I n order to\nenhance comprehension that is still peripheral to what w i l l follow, the\nreader is requested always to keep i n m i n d that magic is a phantasmic\nprocess that makes use of the continuity of the individual pneuma and of the\nuniversal pneuma. We shall see i n due course h o w this continuity is ensured and by what means magicians hope to attract the collaboration of\nsupernatural presences. Beyond this presupposition common to all\nmagic, erotic magic reveals other aspects, disconcertingly modern, requiring separate treatment. Bruno is the first to exploit the concept of\nmagic to its ultimate conclusions, envisaging this \u202b\u05f4\u202cscience\u202b \u05f4\u202cas an infalli-\nEros and Magic\n89\nble psychological instrument for manipulating the masses as w e l l as the\nindividual h u m a n being. Awareness of the appropriate \u202b\u05f4\u202cchains\u202b( \u05f4\u202cvinculo) enables the magician to realize his dream of universal Master: to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=129\nPages: 129\nPneumatic Magic\n113\ni n a material object made for this purpose or i n an animal. W i t h this\nreservoir of spiritual energy w i t h i n his grasp, the magician counts either\non obtaining either knowledge of the future or on achieving some practical purpose. 1 2\nCredit for having synthesized i n an original fashion the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic elements that make up the theoretical basis for Renaissance magic is due to Synesius of Cyrene, w h o , having been the\ndisciple of the Neoplatonist martyr, Hypatia of Alexandria (d. 415), ended by converting to Christianity and becoming a bishop. 1 3\nFor the Stoics, the functional relationship between the cardiac synthesizer (hegemonikon) and the pneuma was clearly determined: the\nhegemonikon \u202b\u05f4\u202cis like a receiving post to w h i c h all impressions received\nby the senses are communicated. 1 4 \u202b \u05f4\u202cO n the other hand, the Stoic philosophers also develop a theory of phantasms produced by the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=23\nPages: 23\nphenomenon itself was not understood, all the erudition i n the w o r l d is\nuseless, for w h a t it can do comes d o w n to very little, specifically to perfecting our knowledge about the existence and manifestations of a phenomenon w i t h o u t , however, broaching the m u c h more important\nproblem of the cultural presuppositions that keep it i n existence at a\ngiven time. The doctrine of the phantasmic pneuma is not an isolated\noddity produced by the gropings of premodern science. O n the contrary, it is the principal theme that w i l l help us to understand the mechanics and goal of that science as well as being the horizon of hope 4\ntoward w h i c h h u m a n existence stretched for a long period i n the past of\nour species.\nAs early as the sixth century the Sicilian physician, Alcemaeon of\nCroton, like the Pythagoreans, speaks of vital pneuma circulating i n the\narteries of the h u m a n being. The relation of blood to pneuma\u2014the latter]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=131\nPages: 131\nmagic. I n order that some result may be obtained, it is essential that the\npneuma be pure, that nothing carnal obscure the clarity of the mirror. 2 5\nSoothsaying through dreams, of w h i c h we have already heard f r o m\nCicero, is justified by virtue of the same principle: the events of the\nnoetic world, w h i c h is stable and eternal, that is, not subject to the dimension of time, are reflected i n the pure pneuma and f o r m veracious\ndream images that one can recall w h e n awake. \u202b \u05f4\u202cA n d I k n o w not\nwhether this sense,\u202b \u05f4\u202csays Synesius i n his praise of the pneumatic\nsynthesizer,\nis not more saintly than others. For it is because of it that we\ncan communicate w i t h the gods, either through sight, through\nconversation, or by other means. It is not to be wondered at if\ndreams are, for some men, their most precious treasure; because, for example, if someone sleeps tranquilly and, d u r i n g\nsleep, speaks to the Muses and listens to what they have to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=142\nPages: 142\nby the voluntary use of chemical substances w i t h psychedelic effects.\nThe magician is an analyst w h o can only practice his profession after\nbeing analyzed himself. But access to the unconscious can be left open to\nh i m i n t w o different ways: by \u202b\u05f4\u202cinvasion,\u202b \u05f4\u202ceither pathological or brought\nabout by external means, or by assimilation of the tradition. I n the seco n d instance, no analogy w i t h schizophrenia is admissible\u2014any more\nthan it w o u l d be i n the case of anyone w h o learns anything, including\nthe scientist.\nThese thoughts, w h i c h w e shall develop later (see below, chap. 7), are\na preamble to the account of inter subjective magic f r o m al-Kindl to Giordano Bruno. The concept of \u202b\u05f4\u202cradiation,\u202b \u05f4\u202cfundamental to al-Kindl, is\ngradually replaced by the concept of Eros. Pneumatic harmony of the\nuniverse is the general assumption f r o m Ficino to Bruno and its instrument is Eros. T h r o u g h Eros the universe knows a certain concentus,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=122\nPages: 122,123\nand of the future.\n5 Pneumatic Magic\n(i) The Starting Point of Magic\nThe inception of magic is represented by Eros: this gives rise to the construction of an erotic magic\u2014a f o r m of intersubjective magic\u2014functioning by virtue of the law of pneumatic interaction between individuals. It\ngoes w i t h o u t saying that this interaction, i n Ficino's theory, is predetermined by prenatal circumstances of an astrological kind. They play a less\nimportant role in the theories of Giordano Bruno.\nFrom Ficino to Bruno, the doctrine of erotic magic undergoes transformations analogous to those of the concept of \u202b\u05f4\u202ctransference\u202b \u05f4\u202cf r o m Freud\nto Lacan. For Freud, transference is a complex phenomenon limited to\nthe relations between analyst and patient; to Lacan, the entire w o r l d of\nmankind is merely a transference function of gigantic proportions i n\nwhich everyone, i n turn, plays the parts of analyst and of patient. I n the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=144\nPages: 144,145\ncombination of Ficino's magic and Trithemius's demonomagic is to be\nf o u n d i n the three books of Agrippa's not very original but very influential Occult Philosophy. Giordano Bruno's magic is inspired i n the first\nplace by Ficino, utilizing as complementary sources Albert the Great,\nTrithemius and Agrippa. W i t h respect to Tommaso Campanella, a dissident Calabrian m o n k at the beginning of the seventeenth century,\nwhose political utopia seems to have exerted a decisive influence on the\ngroup of German friends w h o produced the \u202b\u05f4\u202cfarce\" (ludibrium) of the\nRosicrucians, 44 he too cultivated a pneumatic magic deriving from\nPneumatic Magic\n129\nFicino, with (inoffensive) rituals that were greatly appreciated by Pope\nUrban.45\nFrom Ficino to Campanella, a number of writers know about Ficino's\ntheory of the pneuma without always making use of its magic side.\nAmong them we mention Pico della Mirandola, Francesco Cattani da]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76,77\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,\nlike Giulio Camillo's theater. To u n d e r s t a n d something about his w o r k s ,\nposterity, interested i n t h e m because of his m a r t y r d o m , was obliged to\neliminate eight-tenths of them: all the mnemotechnic a n d magical tracts.\nPosterity claimed to be satisfied, for Bruno h a d been a defender of\nCopernicus a n d even the first to connect the idea of the i n f i n i t y of the\nuniverse w i t h heliocentrism. Yet a huge gulf separates this Neoplatonic\npantheist f r o m rationalists like Spinoza. Grasping h o w uninteresting\nBruno's w o r k was to the m o d e r n age, Hegel, w h o f o u n d his doctrine\ni n v o l v e d a n d repulsive, termed his p h i l o s o p h y \u202b\u05f3\u05f3\u202cbacchantic,\" probably\nan excuse for being unable to read h i m . A l l of w h i c h proves that, far\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=143\nPages: 143\nendowed w i t h a hegemonikon located, generally speaking, i n the heart,\nthe organ corresponding to the sun i n the cosmos, has the capacity to\nimpart voluntary changes to his o w n phantasy. These changes, due to\nthe continuity of the pneuma, are transmitted to the objects aimed at by\nthe manipulator.\nThis phenomenon is natural, produced w i t h o u t conscious manipulation on the part of either the sender and/or the receiver of the pneumatic\ncurrent, and its starting point is self-consciousness, w h i c h is Eros. The\nlatter establishes links between individuals according to the transcendental information that the pneumatic conveyances of their souls have\naccumulated d u r i n g their descent through the planetary heavens.\nAs for magic proper, it represents knowledge permitting the performer to exploit the pneumatic currents w h i c h establish occult relations between the world's parts. N o w these relations are regular and can be]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=146\nPages: 146,147\nmessages transmitted by the soul to reach the inner sense.\nThe pneuma is a mirror with two faces, one of which reflects perceptions coming from the external senses and the other the phantasmagoria\nof the soul. If the surface turned toward the soul is not sufficiently clean,\nthe individual is reduced to a lower, almost bestial state. What can be\ndone to remedy this situation common to most mortals? Well, nothing\ncould be simpler: it is just a matter of polishing the mirror, removing its\nimpurities\u2014acquired, not congenital\u2014restoring to the clouded spirit its\noriginal transparency as well as its purity, flexibility, and hardness.\n130\nIntersubjective Magic\n131\nFor spirit is the intermediary between the gross body of the\nw o r l d and the soul. I n it and through it there are stars and\ndemons. . . . M a n draws from it through his o w n spirit,\nw h i c h conforms to the other by virtue of its nature. But that\ncan be done mainly if this spirit, thanks to art, is made more]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=117\nPages: 117,118\npneuma, w h i c h is gained, for one thing, through sexual continence.\nA l l those ideas are concentrated i n a treatise that appeared i n 1657,\nAlphabeti vere naturalis Hebraici brevissima Delineatio, by Franciscus Mercurius van Helmont (1614-98), son of the famous Paracelsian iatro-\n102\nThe Great Manipulator\nchemist Ioannes Baptista van Helmont (1577-1644): 12 \" I f semen is not\nemitted, it is changed into a spiritual force that preserves its capacities to\nreproduce sperm and invigorates breath emitted i n speech. 13 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nI n his De vinculis, Giordano Bruno probably refers to a similar tenet\nexalting continence for its ability to create vincula, magic bonds. It is\nremarkable that only physical continence is at issue, since, on the psychic\nlevel, Bruno recommends producing voluptuous phantasms whose purpose is to influence the subject's internal consciousness.\nTo sum up: Bruno's manipulator has to perform t w o contrary actions:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=238\nPages: 238,239\n6. See m y article \u202b\u05f4\u202cMagia spirituale e magia demonica nel Rinascimento,\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nRivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa (Turin) 17 (1981): 360-408, esp. 373-74.\n7. A n exhaustive exposition of these theories is set forth i n G\u00e9rard Verbeke's\nexcellent work L'\u00c9volution de la doctrine du pneuma du sto\u00efcisme \u00e0 saint Augustin\n225\n226\nNotes to Pages91-113226\n(Paris and Louvain, 1945), pp. 13-215; more recently in M. Putscher, Pneuma\nSpiritus, Geist (Wiesbaden, 1973).\n8. See Verbeke, p. 14; Pollak, p. 140.\n9. On the influence of the Corpus hippocraticum on the theories formulated by\nPlato in his Timaeus see the excellent work of Anders Olerud, L'id\u00e9e de macrocosmos et de microcosmos dans le Tim\u00e9e de Platon (Uppsala, 1951).\n10. Cf. Aetius, Placita, IV, 19, 1.\n11. See note 1 above. The data of the problem are competently discussed in\nKudlien's article (1963).\n12. See Verbeke, p. 76.\n13. The comparison is in Calcidius, Commentary on the Timaeus, chap. 220 (see]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=104\nPages: 104\nhopes to profit. I n order to do so he must gather knowledge of the nets\nand bait that he must p u t out i n order to gain the desired result. This\nprocedure is called by Bruno to \u202b \u05f4\u202cb i n d \u202b( \u05f4\u202cvincire) and its processes bear\nthe generic name of - \u202b \u05f3\u202cc h a i n s \u202b( \u05f4\u202cvincula). The doctrine of the identity of\nlove and magic, already outlined by Ficino, is only carried to its logical\nconclusions by Giordano Bruno.\nSince the first part of this w o r k has been devoted to the phantasms of\nEros and, to a certain extent, to artificial memory, the subject of erotic\nmagic seems to me the most appropriate to ensure the continuity of m y\naccount. I take it u p here w i t h the reservation that it can only be explored i n more depth after the mechanism and origins of pneumatic\nmagic have been explored (chap. 5). The principle underlying the way it\nworks has been mentioned i n passing i n the foregoing pages. I n order to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\nBut let us return to Bruno's magic. We shall see later that his magia\nmathematica is nothing but a demonomagic compilation whose principal\nsources are Trithemius and Agrippa. As to his natural magic, that simply amounts to Ficino's spiritual magic, whose ultimate consequences\nregarding Eros are set f o r t h i n the t w o editions of the treatise De vinculis\nin genere. Proof that he meant to profit f r o m Grillandi\u202b \u05f3\u202cs leniency in distinguishing between merely sacrilegious magic and heretical magic is\nthe fact that, i n his De Magia, he presents a doctrine of demons which,\nthough inspired by Psellus's w o r k translated into Latin by Ficino, is not\ncompletely lacking i n originality.\nDemons are invisible spirits w h o have the ability to act u p o n the intelligence and judgment. They produce visual and auditory hallucinations,\nsometimes simultaneously. Bruno differentiates five categories of demons. The first, w h o correspond to Psellus's subterranean and aquatic]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=128\nPages: 128,129\nthe b o d y , \u202b \u05f4\u202ca contagione corporis, to move about i n time, learning things\npast or to come. To judge f r o m the result, this function performed by\ndreams differs i n no w a y f r o m that performed by prophets i n a state of\nwakefulness: Nam quae vigilantibus accidunt vatibus, eadem nobis dormientibus.9 To deliver oracular responses, the vates make use of external stimuli, especially of certain fumes (anhelitus) f r o m the earth, 1 0 i n w h i c h may\nbe f o u n d the \u202b\u05f4\u202csoothsaying pneuma,\u202b \u05f4\u202cthe spirit of prophecy mentioned\nby Plutarch of Chaeronea. 11\nFrom soothsaying activity to real magic there is only one step. Whereas soothsaying actually represents the ability to make use of the natural\nflights of the pneuma, the magic of the papyri of Late Antiquity is none\nother than a series of practical methods to attract, nourish, and accumulate or store u p the divine spirit. I n most cases, the pneuma is contained\nPneumatic Magic\n113]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=46\nPages: 46\nimages it can appraise the bodies themselves.\nThe metaphor of the mirror applied to the pneuma is to appear at\ngreater length i n the chapter devoted to theurgical purifications (IV, 1\nand 3). I n any case, it is useful to recall that, for a phantasm to f o r m on\nthe polished and reflective surface of spirit, it is first necessary that the\nobject be seen and its image carried to common sense through the pneumatic canals. It goes w i t h o u t saying that the phantasm is not only visual\nor audiovisual; it is, so to say, synesthetic, engendered by the collaboration of several or all senses simultaneously. Nevertheless, sight certainly\nplays the most important part i n forming the phantasm: it is one of the\nreasons w h y it is believed to be, throughout the Platonic tradition, \u202b\u05f4\u202cthe\nnoblest of the senses.\"\nWe recall that, i n Plato's theory of optics, the image was produced by\na circuit bringing the visual ray from the eyes to its place of origin and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=174\nPages: 174,175\nBruno seems determined not to include necromancy and maleficent\nmagic i n his boiled-down classification of the varieties of magic, and, on\nthe other hand, that he transfers to the category of mathematical magic a\nconsiderable part of the processes performed through the intermediary\nof demons. Can we understand the motivation for this rather intricate\nstrategy? Yes, if w e refer to a semiofficial document (such as the Malleus), the Treatise on Magic Spells by Paul Grillandi, written about 1525\nDemonomagic\n159\nand published i n L y o n i n 1536 under the title Tractatus de Haereticis et\nSortilegiis. Here Grillandi states that invocations of the demon by modum\nimperii, those that Bruno earmarks for small demons, are not heretical\nbut only sacrilegious. O n the other hand, foretelling the future is always\nheretical.39\nN o w Bruno was a person of dazzling culture for his period, and it is\nunusual for even his most insignificant writings not to contain certain]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=130\nPages: 130,131\nthan the heart. 2 3\nWe have already seen that Epictetus compared the pneuma to a basin\nfilled w i t h water, a liquid mirror. Plutarch of Chaeronea is the first to\nspeak of a pure mirror, nothing more. 2 4 For Synesius, this double-faced\nmirror provides the opportunity for t w o parallel surfaces to meet on\nneutral territory. Insofar as it is the intermediary between the intelligential w o r l d and the sensory w o r l d , this mirror, if perfectly clear, w i l l make\nit possible for inner judgment to contemplate the w o r l d above epito-\nPneumatic Magic\n115\nmized by the reasoning part of the soul, and w i l l give the latter the\nopportunity to perceive and to judge the sensory objects whose image is\ntransmitted to common sense through the external senses. The pneumatic\nsynthesizer becomes, for Synesius, the preeminent terrain of soothsaying and\nmagic. I n order that some result may be obtained, it is essential that the]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=104\nPages: 104,105\nworks has been mentioned i n passing i n the foregoing pages. I n order to\nenhance comprehension that is still peripheral to what w i l l follow, the\nreader is requested always to keep i n m i n d that magic is a phantasmic\nprocess that makes use of the continuity of the individual pneuma and of the\nuniversal pneuma. We shall see i n due course h o w this continuity is ensured and by what means magicians hope to attract the collaboration of\nsupernatural presences. Beyond this presupposition common to all\nmagic, erotic magic reveals other aspects, disconcertingly modern, requiring separate treatment. Bruno is the first to exploit the concept of\nmagic to its ultimate conclusions, envisaging this \u202b\u05f4\u202cscience\u202b \u05f4\u202cas an infalli-\nEros and Magic\n89\nble psychological instrument for manipulating the masses as w e l l as the\nindividual h u m a n being. Awareness of the appropriate \u202b\u05f4\u202cchains\u202b( \u05f4\u202cvinculo) enables the magician to realize his dream of universal Master: to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248,249\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano\nBruno (Florence, 1955), is inspired by Marxism; and indirectly inspired by it is\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne V\u00e9drine's book, La Conception de la nature chez Giordano Bruno (Paris,\n1967). Frances A. Yates's book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London\nand Chicago 1964) is still very important, especially as it is supplemented by\nobservations on Bruno contained in The Art of Memory and, more recently, in\nAstraea. Yates's undeniable merit is to have integrated Bruno's oeuvre into its\ncultural context; for the first time in the history of modern philosophy, Bruno\nwas not envisaged as the clumsy, grotesque, and \"bacchanalian\" precursor of\nmodern thinking but as one of the most impressive representatives of Renaissance thought. It is, fundamentally, a question of applying different categories\n236\nNotes to Pages 91-113 236\na n d of measuring h i m by the standards of another era, and historians of ideas]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=144\nPages: 144,145\ncombination of Ficino's magic and Trithemius's demonomagic is to be\nf o u n d i n the three books of Agrippa's not very original but very influential Occult Philosophy. Giordano Bruno's magic is inspired i n the first\nplace by Ficino, utilizing as complementary sources Albert the Great,\nTrithemius and Agrippa. W i t h respect to Tommaso Campanella, a dissident Calabrian m o n k at the beginning of the seventeenth century,\nwhose political utopia seems to have exerted a decisive influence on the\ngroup of German friends w h o produced the \u202b\u05f4\u202cfarce\" (ludibrium) of the\nRosicrucians, 44 he too cultivated a pneumatic magic deriving from\nPneumatic Magic\n129\nFicino, with (inoffensive) rituals that were greatly appreciated by Pope\nUrban.45\nFrom Ficino to Campanella, a number of writers know about Ficino's\ntheory of the pneuma without always making use of its magic side.\nAmong them we mention Pico della Mirandola, Francesco Cattani da]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\nBut let us return to Bruno's magic. We shall see later that his magia\nmathematica is nothing but a demonomagic compilation whose principal\nsources are Trithemius and Agrippa. As to his natural magic, that simply amounts to Ficino's spiritual magic, whose ultimate consequences\nregarding Eros are set f o r t h i n the t w o editions of the treatise De vinculis\nin genere. Proof that he meant to profit f r o m Grillandi\u202b \u05f3\u202cs leniency in distinguishing between merely sacrilegious magic and heretical magic is\nthe fact that, i n his De Magia, he presents a doctrine of demons which,\nthough inspired by Psellus's w o r k translated into Latin by Ficino, is not\ncompletely lacking i n originality.\nDemons are invisible spirits w h o have the ability to act u p o n the intelligence and judgment. They produce visual and auditory hallucinations,\nsometimes simultaneously. Bruno differentiates five categories of demons. The first, w h o correspond to Psellus's subterranean and aquatic]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76,77\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,\nlike Giulio Camillo's theater. To u n d e r s t a n d something about his w o r k s ,\nposterity, interested i n t h e m because of his m a r t y r d o m , was obliged to\neliminate eight-tenths of them: all the mnemotechnic a n d magical tracts.\nPosterity claimed to be satisfied, for Bruno h a d been a defender of\nCopernicus a n d even the first to connect the idea of the i n f i n i t y of the\nuniverse w i t h heliocentrism. Yet a huge gulf separates this Neoplatonic\npantheist f r o m rationalists like Spinoza. Grasping h o w uninteresting\nBruno's w o r k was to the m o d e r n age, Hegel, w h o f o u n d his doctrine\ni n v o l v e d a n d repulsive, termed his p h i l o s o p h y \u202b\u05f3\u05f3\u202cbacchantic,\" probably\nan excuse for being unable to read h i m . A l l of w h i c h proves that, far\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88\nlady of a strange country\u2014but the symbol of spiritual adventures as\nwell as metaphysical entities.\nBruno is perfectly familiar w i t h Ficino's theory of love and also w i t h\nPico della Mirandola's Commento. Part of the Heroic Furors (II, p. 3) is\nmade u p of an exchange of questions and answers between heart and\neyes, pneumatic organs w i t h a familiar role i n the psychology of Eros.\nHowever, the new scholasticism of w h i c h Ficino had been the most famous representative is ridiculed by Bruno i n his comedy Candelaio, published i n Paris i n 1582.64 The character Scaramur\u00bf, a charlatan magician\nand astrologer, recites this passage taken almost literally f r o m Ficino's\nworks:\nFascination is produced by virtue of a shiny and rarefied spirit, generated by the heart from the purest blood which, sent\nout i n the f o r m of rays from open eyes . . . , w o u n d s the\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=104\nPages: 104\nhopes to profit. I n order to do so he must gather knowledge of the nets\nand bait that he must p u t out i n order to gain the desired result. This\nprocedure is called by Bruno to \u202b \u05f4\u202cb i n d \u202b( \u05f4\u202cvincire) and its processes bear\nthe generic name of - \u202b \u05f3\u202cc h a i n s \u202b( \u05f4\u202cvincula). The doctrine of the identity of\nlove and magic, already outlined by Ficino, is only carried to its logical\nconclusions by Giordano Bruno.\nSince the first part of this w o r k has been devoted to the phantasms of\nEros and, to a certain extent, to artificial memory, the subject of erotic\nmagic seems to me the most appropriate to ensure the continuity of m y\naccount. I take it u p here w i t h the reservation that it can only be explored i n more depth after the mechanism and origins of pneumatic\nmagic have been explored (chap. 5). The principle underlying the way it\nworks has been mentioned i n passing i n the foregoing pages. I n order to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176,175\nto cultivate is not extraneous to the processes employed through the\nintermediary of demons. A t this point he is obliged to accept Grillandi's\nprecept, w h i c h he had implicitly disputed t w o pages before. He recognizes that mathematical magic can be maleficent, but he hopes, very\nprobably, that if judged according to Grillandi's criteria it w i l l only be\nsacrilegious and not heretical.\nA l l these doctrinal subtleties are peculiar not only to Bruno but to all\nthose writers w h o , while dealing w i t h magic i n the sixteenth century,\nare nevertheless trying to save appearances. A m o n g them Bruno seems\nthe most naive. Though unusually perceptive, Bruno handles his o w n\nimpulsiveness badly\u2014and this character trait is to prove fatal. O n the\nother hand, Father Trithemius, w h o also has friends i n h i g h places, is a\n\u202b\u05be\u202c160\nThe Great Manipulator\nmodel of shrewdness. Where does Bruno err tactically? By never being]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=249\nPages: 249\na n d of measuring h i m by the standards of another era, and historians of ideas\ncan never be sufficiently grateful to Yates for having patiently explained the\ndifference. That does not prevent her f r o m labeling as \u202b\u05f4\u202cHermeticism\u202b \u05f4\u202call sorts of\ndoctrines of Late A n t i q u i t y of w h i c h Hermeticism d i d indeed make use but\nw h i c h d i d not have a \u202b \u05f4\u202cH e r m e t i c \u202b \u05f4\u202corigin. The quotations i n the text and i n the\nfootnotes conform to the editions of Bruno's works mentioned at the beginning\nof this footnote. The passage concerning the interrogation of May 30, 1592, is\nreproduced by Gentile, II, p. 211, no. 1.\n33. These biographical data are indisputable. They are to be found i n nearly\nall the works cited i n n. 32 above.\n34. J.-R. Charbonnel, L'Ethique de Giordano Bruno et le deuxi\u00e8me dialogue du Spaccio . . . Contribution \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude des conceptions morales de la Renaissance (Paris, 1919),\np. 35.\n35. Ibid., p. 276.\n36. Henninger, p. 44.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=175\nPages: 175\nprevent Bruno, i n the classification of the three kinds and nine species of\nmagic, from being dependent on semiofficial writings such as the Tractatus de Sortilegiis. Indeed, Grillandi himself draws u p a \"hierarchy of\nintolerance\" of the Church directed at the forms of magic i n which, exactly as w i t h Bruno, soothsaying is at the bottom of the list as being the\nmost condemnable of all. That easily explains Bruno's classification,\nwhich is inspired by a treatise against magic such as Grillandi's, while\nproposing other criteria for determining the degree of culpability of\nmagic disciplines. A m o n g other things, he disagrees w i t h Grillandi o n\nthe subject of divination and seems inclined to reject demonomagic\nmore than Grillandi himself, even if it takes place per modum imperii. But\nhe rescinds this at once, since the mathematical magic he himself seems\nto cultivate is not extraneous to the processes employed through the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,81\nfactions must have tried to w i n h i m over; time was short because the\nknight died i n 1586, perhaps not before discreetly revealing his preference for the Bruno and Dicson faction.\nThe humiliating setback described i n Cena was useful to Bruno. Quickly he grasped the situation and submitted to a dialogue w i t h the Puritans. The t w o works he dedicated to Sidney bear the stamp of that wise\ndecision.\n64\nPhantasms at Work\nThe second of these, De gl'heroici furori, the one that interests us here,\ncannot be understood w i t h o u t a foray into Bruno's mnemonical kitchen.\nW i t h o u t having any immediate connection w i t h the system employed i n\nthe Heroic Furors the Spaccio w i l l be of considerable help to us i n grasping\nBruno's technique and his attempt to adjust to English usage.\nThe Spaccio propounds an artificial memory i n w h i c h the place and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=75\nPages: 75\nremains i n a state of catalepsy, as Celio Agostino Curione seems to inf o r m us i n the appendix to the Hieroglyphica of Pierio Valeriano. 29 After\nvery few variations, the description of binsica reappears i n Baldesar Castiglione, Egidio da Viterbo, Francesco Giorgio Veneto, Celio Calcagnini,\nLeo the Hebrew (Dialoghi d'amore), and Giordano Bruno (Heroici furori).30\nW i t h Bruno, we enter the unfathomable arcana of Eros i n w h i c h the\npure theory of the Florentine Platonists leads to several quite mysterious\nconclusions. One of these, at least, relates to the dangerous liaisons that\nBruno was inclined to maintain all his life, u n t i l his death at the stake, to\nw h i c h he consented i n order not to contradict his o w n illusions, brought\nh i m ultimate freedom. The smoke had hardly dissipated w h e n Giordano\nBruno was almost unanimously proclaimed a \u202b\u05f4\u202csymbol of democracy.\u202b \u05f4\u202cA\nstrange paradox that crowned the posthumous fate of the man w h o was]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248\nAntonio Corsano, II pensiero di Giordano Bruno nel suo svolgimento storico (Florence,\n1940), a work which, though very useful, systematically neglects Bruno's magic\nthought and mnemotechnics. This same defect is also evident in earlier studies:\nErminio Troilo, La filosofia Giordano Bruno, 2 vols. (Turin and Rome, 1907-14),\nand Giordano Bruno (Rome, 1918); Giovanni Gentile, Giordano Bruno e il pensiero\ndel Rinascimento (Florence, 1920); Leonardo Olschki, Giordano Bruno (Bari, 1927);\nEdgar Papu, Giordano Bruno: Viata si opera (Bucharest, 1947); Bertrando Spaventa,\nRinascimento, Riforma, Controriforma (Venice, 1928); Augusto Guzzo, I dialoghi di\nGiordano Bruno (Turin, 1932), etc. Very valuable data on Bruno is to be found in\nP. O. Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (Stanford, 1964), and in\nE. Garin, La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano (Florence, 1961), and Storia\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=121\nPages: 121\nEros and Magic\n105\nWhat could be hoped for through knowledge of intersubjective\nrelationships?\nA homogeneous society, ideologically healthy and governable.\nBruno's total manipulator takes u p o n himself the task of dispensing to\nsubjects a suitable education and religion: \u202b\u05f4\u202cAbove all it is necessary to\nexercise extreme care concerning the place and the way i n w h i c h someone is educated, has pursued his studies, under w h i c h pedagogies,\nwhich religion, w h i c h cult, w i t h w h i c h books and writers. For all of that\ngenerates, by itself, and not by accident, all the subject's qualities\" (De\nMagia, LII). Supervision and selection are the pillars of order. It is not\nnecessary to be endowed w i t h imagination to understand that the function of Bruno's manipulator has been taken into account by the State and\nthat this new \u202b\u05f4\u202cintegral magician\" has been instructed to produce the\nnecessary ideological instruments w i t h the view of obtaining a u n i f o r m\nsociety.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176\n\u202b\u05be\u202c160\nThe Great Manipulator\nmodel of shrewdness. Where does Bruno err tactically? By never being\nable to agree w i t h anybody; he could have stayed out of trouble if he had\nmade it clear at the beginning that he shared the other person's views u p\nto a certain point but differed on the details\u2014which was often the case.\nBut, Bruno proceeds i n the very opposite way: he begins by attacking\nsomeone only to make it clear later that what is at issue is basically a\nquestion of detail.\nIf we have taken the right view of this\u2014and the classification of De\nMagia is either by Grillandi or another writer of treatises against magic\nand sorcery\u2014then we must agree that Bruno's entire procedure is very\nstrange: what he borrows f r o m implicitly incriminating sources is much\nmore important than what he rejects. A n d he avoids saying so explicitly\nmerely to save appearances.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=99\nPages: 99\nsymbolism he adopts so p r o m p t l y has a metaphysical value for h i m that\nprobably escaped Raleigh and Chapman, also adherents. W i t h unbelievable audacity, Bruno, w h o always remains a great specialist and professor of the A r t of Memory, addresses his chosen public i n language\nthat was all too familiar to everyone. The \u202b\u05f4\u202cstatue\u202b \u05f4\u202cof artificial memory\nthat dominates the dialogues w r i t t e n i n England is of Diana. Sidney and\nGreville, not to speak of persons i n the k n o w such as Raleigh and Chapman, associate Diana w i t h Queen Elizabeth or, what amounts to the\nsame thing, had the ability to represent Diana without any special effort since,\nin their phantasy, she spontaneously assumed the features of the revered queen.\nBruno's allegory, designed to introduce metaphysical ideas and mnemonical personal techniques, also had the advantage of gaining for its\nauthor a very good reputation i n the eyes of her w h o had been exalted\u2014]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=232\nPages: 232,233\ni n particular, he can made the stars come d o w n to earth (lines 1790 sq.)\nand convinces Cipriano of his talents by moving a mountain (lines 2579\nsq.).\nAs to Cipriano himself, he learns necromancy, pyromancy, and palmistry and, i n order to perform magic, he forms graphic symbols, ensuri n g the cooperation of the stars, the winds, and the spirits of the dead\n(lines 2720 sq.), i n the tradition of Marsilio Ficino, Cornelius Agrippa,\nand Giordano Bruno.\nT r u t h to tell, magic rites are described quite superficially i n the Magico\nprodigioso. The important thing was to establish a direct relationship be-\nDoctor Faust, from Antioch to Seville\n219\ntween magic and the devil, between the devil and the Renaissance, enemy number one of the Reformation. Calder\u00f6n accomplishes this without any difficulty. He then concentrates on what we might call the equation Eros = magic, which also stems from the Renaissance. It is at this]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=10\nPages: 10,12\nphysics, less so i n the \u202b\u05f4\u202cnatural sciences\" and technology). Rather, let us\nForeword\nxiii\nkeep to Couliano's observations on the survival, or reappearance, of a\ncertain \u202b\u05f4\u202cmagic\u202b \u05f4\u202cin the modern sciences of psychology and sociology. It\nis significant that this book, w h i c h begins w i t h the history of the concept\nof \u202b\u05f4\u202cinner sense\u202b \u05f4\u202cf r o m Aristotle to the Renaissance, should end w i t h the\nlegend of Faust i n the interpretations of Marlowe and Calder\u00f3n. These\ntwo writers exemplify, though in different ways, the rise of Puritanism:\ntheir literary imagination was laboriously curbed by what the author\ncalls \u202b\u05f4\u202can excessive moralism.\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nMIRCEA\nELIADE\nUniversity of Chicago\nFebruary 1982\nAcknowledgments\nThe American edition of this work, appearing now in Margaret Cook's\ntranslation, is a revised version of my Eros et Magie a la Renaissance (Paris:\nFlammarion, 1984). Except for the appendixes, ommitted in the present]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=243\nPages: 243\nexception of Bruno's Italian writings and their interpretation. For the rest,\nthough I have long since broached the subject of the study of Ars combinatoria by\nRamon Llull and his commentaries (see Raymundi Lullii Opera ea quae ad adinventam ab ipso artem universalem . . . , Argentorati-Sumptibus Haeredem Lazari Zetzneri,\n1651, 1110 + Index + 150 p., in12\u202b)\u05be\u202c, the incomplete nature of m y research has\nnecessitated giving priority to the commentaries of Paolo Rossi, F. A . Yates, and\nE. Gombrich. This part of m y book might have been put i n an appendix, had it\nnot been indispensable for understanding all that is to follow.\n9. Yates, p. 71; cf. Aristotle, De anima, 432a9, and De memoria et reminiscentia,\n449b31; Yates, p. 32.\n10. Yates, pp. 86-103; see also Paolo Rossi, Clavis universalis (Milan and Naples, 1962).\n11. Yates, p. 112; Rossi, passim.\n12. Published i n Venice, 1533; see Yates, p. 115.\n13. Congestorium, p. 119, according to Yates, fig. 6b, chap. V.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=249\nPages: 249\na n d of measuring h i m by the standards of another era, and historians of ideas\ncan never be sufficiently grateful to Yates for having patiently explained the\ndifference. That does not prevent her f r o m labeling as \u202b\u05f4\u202cHermeticism\u202b \u05f4\u202call sorts of\ndoctrines of Late A n t i q u i t y of w h i c h Hermeticism d i d indeed make use but\nw h i c h d i d not have a \u202b \u05f4\u202cH e r m e t i c \u202b \u05f4\u202corigin. The quotations i n the text and i n the\nfootnotes conform to the editions of Bruno's works mentioned at the beginning\nof this footnote. The passage concerning the interrogation of May 30, 1592, is\nreproduced by Gentile, II, p. 211, no. 1.\n33. These biographical data are indisputable. They are to be found i n nearly\nall the works cited i n n. 32 above.\n34. J.-R. Charbonnel, L'Ethique de Giordano Bruno et le deuxi\u00e8me dialogue du Spaccio . . . Contribution \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude des conceptions morales de la Renaissance (Paris, 1919),\np. 35.\n35. Ibid., p. 276.\n36. Henninger, p. 44.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=252\nPages: 252\ntranslations of courtly medieval romances: \u202b\u05f4\u202cThey were so popular that, once\nagain, the Cours d'amour were established among the entourage of Fran\u00e7ois I and\nHenri II, with the code of fine manners and the whole amorous jurisprudence so\ndear to the ladies of the Middle Ages\u202b( \u05f4\u202cp. 3). As to G. Weise, he fails to establish\nthe genetic connection, though an obvious one, between Ficino's Platonism and\nFrench love poetry in the sixteenth century.\n81. Yates, Astraea, p. 52.\n82. Ibid., p. 77. About a similar symbolism at the French court, see now Sheila\nFfolliott, \u202b\u05f4\u202cCatherine de\u202b \u05f3\u202cMedici as Artemisia,\u202b \u05f4\u202cin Margaret W. Ferguson and\nothers (eds.), Rewriting the Renaissance (Chicago, 1986), pp. 227-41.\n83. Yates, Astraea, p. 73.\n84. Ibid.\n85. Ibid., pp. 78 sq.\n86. Ibid., p. 76.\n87. Ibid., pp. 76-77.\n88. Ibid.\n89. Ibid., pp. 94-96.\n90. The lunar Church (and the solar Christ) represents a cabbalistic tradition\n(see F. Secret, in Le Soleil \u00e0 la Renaissance, p. 225).]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=243\nPages: 243,244\n13. Congestorium, p. 119, according to Yates, fig. 6b, chap. V.\n14. Rossellius, Thesaurus artificiosae memoriae (Venice, 1579), p. 119 v, accordi n g to Yates, p. 119.\n15. Yates, pp. 130 sq.\n16. Published at Udine i n 1594; cf. D. P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic\nfrom Ficino to Campanella (London, 1958), p. 141.\n17. That is Yates's opinion, p. 136.\n18. Francisci Georgii Veneti Minoritae Familiae, De Harmonia Mundi Totius\nCantica Tria (Venice, 1525).\nNotes to Pages 91-113\n231\n19. Yates, p. 155.\n20. Ibid., p. 136.\n21. Cf. J. Flamant, Macrobe (Leiden, 1977), pp. 544 sq.\n22. Giulio Camillo, \u202b\u05f4\u202cLTdea del Teatro,\u202b \u05f4\u202ci n lutte le opere (Florence, 1550), p.\n67; cf. Yates, p. 140.\n23. Ficino, Vita coeL, chap. 19.\n24. Opera, II, p. 1768.\n25. Cf. E. Gombrich, \u202b\u05f4\u202cIc\u00f4nes Symbolicae,\u202b \u05f4\u202ci n Symbolic Images: Studies in the\nArt of the Renaissance II (Oxford, 1978), p. 222, no. 82, and pp. 158-59.\n26. Cf. E. Iversen, The Myth of Egypt and its Hieroglyphs in European Tradition\n(Copenhagen, 1961).]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=249\nPages: 249\nYates, pp. 274-75. Fundamentally, Perkins was more correct than Yates thinks;\nit is true that with respect to Peter of Ravenna an absolutely inoffensive practice\nis at issue (he believes the image of an old love is particularly suited to being\nrecorded by the memory, due to its emotional charge). However, in Bruno's case\nthe technique assumes a systematic character, as evidenced by this very interesting passage from the Sigillus sigillorum (Op. lat., II, 2, p. 166): Excitent ergo, quae\ncomitante discursu, cogitatione fortique phantasia movent affectum, quibusque zelantes,\ncontemnentes, amantes, odientes, maerentes, gaudentes, admirantes, et ad sensuum trutinam referentes, cum zeli, contemptus, amoris, odii, maeroris, gaudii, admirationis et\nscrutinii speciebus, cum memorandae rei forma efficimur. Porro fortiores atque vehementiores fortius consequentia quadam atque vehementius imprimunt (21). Has autem si vel]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=230\nPages: 230\nresembles Justina but is actually only a diabolic apparition. Deeply impressed by the strength of Justina and her God, Cyprian himself is converted and follows her to martyrdom.\nApart f r o m its conclusion, the structure of Faust's Volksbuch is quite\nsimilar; and i n the f o r m of drama, shorn of its many moralistic digressions of the prose version, it must resemble still more closely the legend\nof Cyprian and Justina: it deals w i t h a magician w h o has recourse to a\npact w i t h the devil to obtain, among other favors, those of a young girl\nand the simulacrum of the beautiful Helen of Troy.\nLet us imagine that someone had the opportunity to see a theatrical\nproduction of Faust, i n English or i n Dutch, w i t h o u t understanding a\nw o r d of it. He w o u l d have taken it to be a pessimistic version of the\nlegend of Cyprian i n w h i c h the magician, instead of following Justina to\nmartyrdom, was damned. It seems that this was the case w i t h Calderon]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,\ndid not last long. Apart from the fact that both were of the Saturnian\ntype, suited to penetrating contemplation of theological truths, it is difficult to imagine two people more dissimilar.\nThe son of Cosimo de' Medici's physician, Ficino was instructed by\nhis protector to translate Plato's works into Latin. In youth he is attracted to Augustinianism but loses no time in submitting to Scholasticism, of which he is to become undoubtedly the most valuable representative in the Renaissance. Burdened by defects, physical and psychic, he was hunchbacked, had a slight stammer,1 and often fell into fits\nof melancholic despair, so grievous that he once almost died of starvation. Aside from that, he was head of the Academy of Careggi and also a\npriest, which did not permit him to give up the public obligations devolving on him. He resigned himself to leading a healthy and frugal life,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=87\nPages: 87\nw h i c h this apparent compliment lends itself i n Bruno's designs, since he\nwas far f r o m being an admirer of British civilization of the sixteenth century). A m o n g those nymphs the peerless, the \u202b\u05f4\u202cunique Diana\"\u2014Queen\nElizabeth\u2014shines like the sun amidst the planets:\n. . . Vunica Diana\nQual'e tra voi quel che tra gli astri il sole.\n(Iscusazion del Nolano alle piu virtuose e leggiadre dame,\n(II, p. 306; cf. p. 302)\nThough not inspired by a w o m a n , Bruno's poems according to h i m\nwere inspired by a goddess, a mistress of nymphs, Diana, w h o is partly\nidentifiable w i t h Queen Elizabeth. This is all undeniable, but the conclusion reached by A . Sarno and F. Flora is, ultimately, quite platitudinous.\nWhile they think they are cutting a Gordian knot to reach the truth,\nw h i c h essentially must be simple, those t w o scholars do not realize that\nthey are at the center of a network of very complicated meanings at the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=246\nPages: 246\nby A. Cortese, vol. I, Milan, 1976, p. 74.\n70. Chastel, p. 168.\n71. Am., VI, 9, pp. 100-101.\n72. Theol. plat., XVI, 7.\nChapter 3\n1. Here is his portrait by the biographer Giovanni Corsi, in his Vita written in\n1506 and published in Pisa in 1771: Statura fuit admodum brevi, gracili corpore et\naliquantum in utrisque humeris gibboso: lingua parumper haesitante, atque in prolatu\ndumtaxat litterae S balbutiente: et utraque sine gratia: cruribus, ac brachiis sed praecipue\nmanibus oblongis: fades illi obducta: et quae mitem ac gratum adspectum praebent color\nsanguineus, capilli flavi, ac crispantes; ut qui super frontem in altum prominebant. Besides Corsi\u202b\u05f3\u202cs biography, there is another, probably by Pietro Caponsachi, in both\na long and short version (cf. R. Marcel, Marsile Ficin, pp. 679 sq.). The following\ndetails are drawn from it: Ficino studied in two-hour stretches; during the intermissions he played the lyre to rest his spirit (ethereal body). He took great care]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=12\nPages: 12,13\nsatisfaction that I took notice, now and then, of enthusiastic reviews.\nThere has been only one negative reaction to date, and I felt relieved\nwhen 1 read it: if things went too smoothly, the book would be forgotten\nin no time. After all, it was meant to be provocative on some issues.\nSince 19841 have occasionally given lectures on Renaissance magic, an\nxv\nxvi\nAcknowledgments\nenterprise from which I shall refrain in the future. In Chambery, where I\nwas invited by Jean Burgos, three real witches happened to attend my\nspeech and accused me of talking about things I did not know from\nexperience. I admitted it only too gladly and humbly asked for some\nunderstanding for a poor historian who was merely doing his job. This\nwas apparently not granted, for strange things happened: a couple of\npeople fainted, while my colleague the Africanist Hans Witte and I each\ngot a terrible headache, which persisted till after we left the place. We]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.\nThe first scandal was caused by an unfortunate debate w i t h t w o Oxford doctors that Bruno decided to immortalize i n his tract La Cena de le\nceneri, dedicated to Michel de Castelnau. The t w o parties indulged i n a\nrivalry cruelly w a n t i n g i n tact. The Southerner, to be sure, was w r o n g to\ncount too heavily on respect for the laws of hospitality, whereas the\nbarbarian inhabitants of that island toto orbe divisa were only concerned\nw i t h their dignity and independence. Bruno's contempt for the two Oxonians was expressed i n such a w a y \u2014 \u202b \u05f4\u202ci m b u e d w i t h Greek, but also\nw i t h beer\"\u2014that he ended by alienating the sincere friendship of Fulke\nGreville, whose name was distressingly implicated in that unprecedented offense not only against the w o r t h y scholars and the chauvinistic\ncommoner, but also against British lack of civility i n general.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=273\nPages: 273\nFiorentino, F., 65\nFlora, S., 70\nFludd, Robert, 197, 205\nFosse, Giovan Pietro della, 37, 58\nFoucault, Michel, 115\nFouilloux, Jacques du, 72\nFrancesco, Giovan, 54\nFrancis, St., of Sales, 153\nFrancisco of Toledo, 220\nFran\u00e7ois I, king of France, 35, 81, 199\nFrazer, Sir James, 168\nFrei, Andreas, 215\nFreud, Sigmund, 38, 39, 46, 51, 90, 107\nGalen, 7-10, 22, 29, 114\nGalileo, xix, 179, 183\nGanay, Germain de, 54, 168-69\nGanel, 167\nGarin, Eugenio, 37, 54-55, 68\nGascoine, George, 83\nGaurico, Luca, 186, 188-89\nGeiler, Johannes, of Keisersberg, 210, 214\nGelasius I, Pope, 216\nGent, P. F., 215\nGentile, Giovanni, 68, 84\nGerard of Cremona, 11\nGervais of Tilbury, 16\nGhent, Arnoldus Bostius of, 199\nGhent, Henry of, 48\nGilson, Etienne, 226 n.23\nGiorgi, Francesco, 35, 129\nGiorgione, 211\nGiotto, xxiii\nGlauber, Johann Rudolf, 222-23\nGoethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 166, 219\nGohory, J., 129\nGramsci, Antonio, 89\nGratian, 152\n261\nGregory of Nazianzus, 216\nGreville, Fulke, 60, 62-63, 82\nGrevin, Jacques, 81]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=272\nPages: 272\nColonna, Francesco, 32, 40-42, 57\nColumbus, Christopher, 184\nConstantine the African, 10, 11, 19\nCopernicus, 23, 59-61, 179, 204, 206\nCorbin, Henry, 18, 39\nCorreggio, 211\nCorsi, Giovanni, 233 n.l\nCortusio, Luigi, 212\nCosimo, Piero de, 211-12\nCossa, Francesco del, 211\nCousin, Gilbert, 35\nCrashaw, Richard, 52\nCrasso, Leonardo, 40\nCredi, Lorenzo di, 211-12\nCuriona, Celio Agostino, 58\nCyprian, St., 167, 215-21\nD'Alex, d'Aranton, 153\nDante, 18, 22-23, 39, 65, 69, 164\nDavalas, Alfonso, 35\nDee, John, 6 0 - 6 3\nDelminio, Friulain Giulio Camillo. See\nCamillo Delminio\nDel Rio, Martin, 149-51, 169, 203\nDemocritus, 51\nDe Quincey, Thomas, 52\nDescartes, Ren\u00e9, 5, 183, 186\nDesportes, Philippe, 81\nDiacceto, Francesco Cattani da, 129\nDicson, Alexander, 63\nDigges, Thomas, 60-61\nDiodes of Carystus, 8, 225 n.l\nDodds, E. R., 27\nDonne, John, 52\nDullinger, Sigismond, 169\nDurer, Albrecht, 46, 49, 52\nEbrard (peasant), 15\nElich, Philip-Ludwig, 149\nEliot, T. S., 125\nElizabeth I, queen of England, 70, 80-83]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=99\nPages: 99,100\nauthor a very good reputation i n the eyes of her w h o had been exalted\u2014\nthe Queen herself. Unfortunately, complicated political considerations,\nor rather Sir Philip Sidney's disgrace, compelled Bruno to leave the English court w i t h o u t having had time to garner the vainly awaited fruits\nof his praise.\nDangerous Liaisons\n83\nT H E PARABLE OF T H E N I N E B L I N D M E N\nThe presence of Diana i n Bruno's theater of phantasy is not the only sign\nof British influence. Through the intermediary of the French ambassador, w h o had taken part i n it, Bruno was probably familiar w i t h the\nallegory staged i n Woodstock i n 1575 by Sir Henry Lee i n honor of the\nQueen, related i n English, Latin, Italian, and French by George Gascoine i n a pamphlet that appeared at the end of the same year. Henry\nLee, the best man-at-arms i n Elizabeth's time and a friend of Philip\nSidney's, gave an \u202b\u05f4\u202centertainment\" featuring the story of the hermit]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,81\nfactions must have tried to w i n h i m over; time was short because the\nknight died i n 1586, perhaps not before discreetly revealing his preference for the Bruno and Dicson faction.\nThe humiliating setback described i n Cena was useful to Bruno. Quickly he grasped the situation and submitted to a dialogue w i t h the Puritans. The t w o works he dedicated to Sidney bear the stamp of that wise\ndecision.\n64\nPhantasms at Work\nThe second of these, De gl'heroici furori, the one that interests us here,\ncannot be understood w i t h o u t a foray into Bruno's mnemonical kitchen.\nW i t h o u t having any immediate connection w i t h the system employed i n\nthe Heroic Furors the Spaccio w i l l be of considerable help to us i n grasping\nBruno's technique and his attempt to adjust to English usage.\nThe Spaccio propounds an artificial memory i n w h i c h the place and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=57\nPages: 57,58\nwork is very limited. One of them surely is the respectable monk from\nTreviso, Francesco Colonna, who, having become sacristan of the monastery of St. John and St. Paul in Padua, died in 1527 at the age of ninetyfour. 39 He is the author of a work almost unique of its kind, the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, which, as the author points out in the book's explicit, had been finished May 1, 1467, but was not published until 1499\nby Aldo Manuzio; it was paid for by a magistrate of Verona, called\nLeonardo Crasso. 40\nThe contents of the Hypnerotomachia tally with the date 1467. Indeed,\nthe work is external to the current of ideas circulated by Marsilio Ficino\nEmpirical Psychology and the Deep Psychology of Eros\n41\nFIGURE 3. \u202b\u05f4\u202cTwo wretched damsels, naked and disheveled.\u202b \u05f4\u202cFrom Francesco\nColonna, Discours du Songe de Poliphile [Hypnerotomachia] (Paris, 1554). Courtesy\nof the Wing Foundation, The Newberry Library, Chicago.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=232\nPages: 232\nits message i n the t o w n of Yepes, i n 1637\u2014when the Magico prodigioso\nwas performed for the first time? This time, Cyprian\u2014like Johann or\nJorg Faust\u2014represents a symbol not of pagan antiquity vanquished by\nChristianity but of the Renaissance vanquished by the Reformation. Its\nmessage is therefore the repudiation of Renaissance values i n favor of\nthe values of the Reformation as portrayed by a y o u n g girl w i t h flattened\nbosom called Faustina-Justina.\nFrom the outset of Calderon's play, the sorcerer Cipriano is shown to\nbe a disciple of the Renaissance, viewing the w o r l d as a fascinating w o r k\nof art (lines 146-47, Morel-Fatio). I n turn, the devil himself only repeats\nthe same ideas, making it clear that he has been the p u p i l of Marsilio\nFicino and Cornelius Agrippa. It is as though they were n o w identified\nw i t h the devil i n the new popular interpretation by the Reformation.\nCalderon's devil is no longer a transnatural apparition; he is merely an]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=12\nPages: 12\nFlammarion, 1984). Except for the appendixes, ommitted in the present\ntranslation, this edition is almost identical to the Italian one, published\nby Mondadori. The Introduction to both these editions was written in\nChicago, where I spent the Spring Quarter 1986 as a visiting professor of\nhistory of religions and Hiram Thomas Guest Lecturer. During this period I gave a course on Renaissance magic and profited from stimulating\ncontacts with the students. I also had the privilege of meeting Allen G.\nDebus on more than one occasion, and this renewed my interest in the\nLullian system of memory and in Renaissance astrological medicine.\nThe good time I spent in Chicago, for which I thank all my colleagues\nin the Divinity School and especially its dean, Franklin I. Gamwell, was\nshadowed by a very sad event, the death of Mircea Eliade. He not only\nwrote the foreword to this book but also encouraged its author, over no]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=213\nPages: 213\nI n 1519 he was h i r e d as t o w n councillor of M e t z , where, as usual, he\nmade himself u n p o p u l a r , this time w i t h the inquisitor for h a v i n g forcef u l l y intervened i n defense of a so-called w i t c h f r o m the village of W o i p p y . 9 H e had no misgivings, moreover, about a b a n d o n i n g this substantial sinecure because of a quarrel w i t h the prior of the Dominicans o n the\nquestion\u2014defended b y Lef\u00e8vre d'Estaples\u2014of the m o n o g a m y of St.\nAnne. On this matter he shows a Puritan zeal probably explicable by\nvirtue of his contacts with Trithemius ten years earlier (Trithemius belonged to an association called Joachim, founded by Arnoldus Bostius of\nGhent, which upheld the idea of St. A n n e ' s immaculate conception of\nthe Virgin).\nBut how can we explain A g r i p p a \u202b \u05f3\u202cs ambivalence, w h i c h is the more\nstriking w h e n w e reflect that he h a d to leave Pa via i n a h u r r y because he]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=34\nPages: 34,35\na subject, clear and lucid. . . . Were it not for petty minds\neager for scandal and inclined to slander, I w o u l d here comment on the beauty that God lavished on her body as well as\non her soul, w h i c h was a garden of generosity. . . . A t the\ntime I used to visit her I carefully observed the noble qualities\nof her person besides what the company of her aunt and her\nfather added to it. Thus I took her as the prototype for inspiration of the poems contained i n this book, love poems,\ncomposed of elegant and sweet phrases, albeit I have not\nbeen able to succeed i n expressing even part of the emotion i n\nm y soul that meeting this y o u n g girl aroused i n m y heart, nor\nthe wholehearted love I felt, nor the stamp that her continuous friendship left on m y memory, nor the grace of her spirit\nand her modesty of demeanor, because she is the object of\nm y Quest and of m y hope, the Purest virgin [al-Adkra albatul]. Nevertheless, I have succeeded i n p u t t i n g into verse\n18]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nriots and, recommended b y the k i n g himself, w e n t to England to His Majesty's ambassador called seigneur de M a u vissi&re, Castelnau b y name. 3 2\nBruno's natural m e m o r y being unequal to his artificial m e m o r y , he is\nmistaken about the l e n g t h of his first stay i n Paris, b e g i n n i n g i n 1581 a n d\ne n d i n g i n June 1583, after w h i c h , under the protection of M i c h e l de\nCastelnau, he m o v e d to L o n d o n , w h e r e he remained u n t i l October\n1583. 33\nBy a strange optical illusion, Giordano Bruno has been envisaged as\nthe herald of the future, freemason a n d liberal, whereas this u n f r o c k e d\nNeapolitan m o n k was, wherever he w e n t , merely one of the last impassioned defenders of the culture of the phantasmic era. This explains his\nrebuffs i n Protestant circles, w h e r e he soon f o u n d himself worse off t h a n\ni n the bosom of the C h u r c h he h a d been rash e n o u g h to abandon: 3 4]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.\nAgrippa and Bruno were both impulsive men w i t h an amazing incapacity to understand the people and situations surrounding them. But,\nwhereas Agrippa seems to renounce (for the sake of form?) his past as\nan occultist and to enter the ranks of the reformers, Bruno aspires to\ndefend his ideas even into martyrdom, convinced that people great i n\nspirit do not flinch from physical pain. Agrippa is too naive to compromise but sufficiently realistic to retract his ideas; on the other hand,\nBruno is too p r o u d to retract, but, having yielded to impulse w h i c h let\nh i m d o w n paths of no return, he still hopes to f i n d a solution through\ncompromise. Here again, he sins not through na\u00efvet\u00e9 but its opposite,\nexcessive guile, which has the same result.\nWe have cited some of Bruno's attempts to convert his followers to the\nuse of the Art of Memory. We recall that his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88\nlady of a strange country\u2014but the symbol of spiritual adventures as\nwell as metaphysical entities.\nBruno is perfectly familiar w i t h Ficino's theory of love and also w i t h\nPico della Mirandola's Commento. Part of the Heroic Furors (II, p. 3) is\nmade u p of an exchange of questions and answers between heart and\neyes, pneumatic organs w i t h a familiar role i n the psychology of Eros.\nHowever, the new scholasticism of w h i c h Ficino had been the most famous representative is ridiculed by Bruno i n his comedy Candelaio, published i n Paris i n 1582.64 The character Scaramur\u00bf, a charlatan magician\nand astrologer, recites this passage taken almost literally f r o m Ficino's\nworks:\nFascination is produced by virtue of a shiny and rarefied spirit, generated by the heart from the purest blood which, sent\nout i n the f o r m of rays from open eyes . . . , w o u n d s the\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=99\nPages: 99\nsymbolism he adopts so p r o m p t l y has a metaphysical value for h i m that\nprobably escaped Raleigh and Chapman, also adherents. W i t h unbelievable audacity, Bruno, w h o always remains a great specialist and professor of the A r t of Memory, addresses his chosen public i n language\nthat was all too familiar to everyone. The \u202b\u05f4\u202cstatue\u202b \u05f4\u202cof artificial memory\nthat dominates the dialogues w r i t t e n i n England is of Diana. Sidney and\nGreville, not to speak of persons i n the k n o w such as Raleigh and Chapman, associate Diana w i t h Queen Elizabeth or, what amounts to the\nsame thing, had the ability to represent Diana without any special effort since,\nin their phantasy, she spontaneously assumed the features of the revered queen.\nBruno's allegory, designed to introduce metaphysical ideas and mnemonical personal techniques, also had the advantage of gaining for its\nauthor a very good reputation i n the eyes of her w h o had been exalted\u2014]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.\nThe first scandal was caused by an unfortunate debate w i t h t w o Oxford doctors that Bruno decided to immortalize i n his tract La Cena de le\nceneri, dedicated to Michel de Castelnau. The t w o parties indulged i n a\nrivalry cruelly w a n t i n g i n tact. The Southerner, to be sure, was w r o n g to\ncount too heavily on respect for the laws of hospitality, whereas the\nbarbarian inhabitants of that island toto orbe divisa were only concerned\nw i t h their dignity and independence. Bruno's contempt for the two Oxonians was expressed i n such a w a y \u2014 \u202b \u05f4\u202ci m b u e d w i t h Greek, but also\nw i t h beer\"\u2014that he ended by alienating the sincere friendship of Fulke\nGreville, whose name was distressingly implicated in that unprecedented offense not only against the w o r t h y scholars and the chauvinistic\ncommoner, but also against British lack of civility i n general.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248,249\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano\nBruno (Florence, 1955), is inspired by Marxism; and indirectly inspired by it is\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne V\u00e9drine's book, La Conception de la nature chez Giordano Bruno (Paris,\n1967). Frances A. Yates's book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London\nand Chicago 1964) is still very important, especially as it is supplemented by\nobservations on Bruno contained in The Art of Memory and, more recently, in\nAstraea. Yates's undeniable merit is to have integrated Bruno's oeuvre into its\ncultural context; for the first time in the history of modern philosophy, Bruno\nwas not envisaged as the clumsy, grotesque, and \"bacchanalian\" precursor of\nmodern thinking but as one of the most impressive representatives of Renaissance thought. It is, fundamentally, a question of applying different categories\n236\nNotes to Pages 91-113 236\na n d of measuring h i m by the standards of another era, and historians of ideas]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=94\nPages: 94,95\ncan enjoy his companion, the naked goddess.\nWe can already understand Bruno's presumptions (let us confine our-\n78\nPhantasms at Work\nselves to the etymological meaning of this word): he states that he himself is this \u202b\u05f4\u202cdead m a n a l i v e / \u202b \u05f3\u202cthis man liberated f r o m the confines of the\nh u m a n species. He considers himself a religious leader w h o , like St.\nThomas, Zoroaster, St. Paul, etc., has opened the \u202b\u05f4\u202cseal of seals,\u202b \u05f4\u202cw h o\nhas been loved by the virgin goddess, the unattainable Diana. 69\nI n this framework it is easy to understand that the Inquisition sent\nh i m to the stake. Should he not, i n principle, have been capable of a\nsmall miracle to save himself? A n d was not the wise and w i l y Inquisition\nsure that no one had been able to perform such a miracle? I n every\nwitchcraft trial\u2014and I believe Bruno's was one\u2014the passion of Jesus]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=95\nPages: 95\nreceiving your sentence of death.\u202b\u05f4\u202c\nIf he sought to be the apostle of a new religion, Bruno no doubt accomplished that wish. His name influenced the spirit and the voice of\nmany a freemason, freethinker, revolutionary, materialist, or anarchist\nof the nineteenth century, and the place where Bruno's statue n o w\nstands, i n front of the palace of the Papal chancellery, on the Campo de\u202b\u05f3\u202c\nFiori, the site of his stake, has remained by tradition the rendezvous of\nthe anarchists of Rome. Unfortunately, all those w h o transformed h i m\ninto the champion of their social and political cause misunderstood his\nw o r k and his personality, only recalling his martyrdom i n the struggle\nagainst the Church. Bruno, indeed, has become the prophet of a religion\nof w h i c h he w o u l d never have approved, whose ideals were, on the\ncontrary, diametrically opposed to his own. He, the most antidemocratic\nof thinkers, w i n d s u p as a symbol of democracy!]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214,215\nuse of the Art of Memory. We recall that his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante\nwas a rejection of the signs of the zodiac, replacing them with a veritable\nCensoring Phantasy\n201\ncohort of virtues and vices. By such means Bruno meant to give to the\nsystem of astrological memory a more abstract and Christian character.\nBruno was not the first to have the concept of a \u202b\u05f4\u202cChristian sky.\u202b\u05f4 \u05f4\u202cThe\nMiddle Ages wished to replace all the signs of the zodiac by others,\nborrowed f r o m the Bible\u2014which Hippolytus rejected, w a r n i n g against\nastro-theosophists. A Carolingian poet (the priest Opicinus de Canistris,\nof Santa Maria Capella) proposed replacing the Ram by the Lamb\n(Christ), and, i n 1627, Julius Schiller suggested, i n his Coelum stellatum\nchristianum, substituting the apostles for the signs of the zodiac. L'Astroscopium by Wilhelm Schickhardt, i n 1665, sees the Ram as the animal of\nIsaac's sacrifice, the Twins as Jacob and Esau, and connects the Fishes]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,79\nout against the A r t of M e m o r y . 4 5\nIf Bruno succeeded nevertheless i n w i n n i n g a disciple and the tacit\napproval of Sir P h i l i p Sidney, he o w e d that i n great measure to the\nm e m o r y of John Dee. 4 6 Dee h a d been professor of p h i l o s o p h y to Sidney,\nGreville, a n d E d w a r d Dyer, w h i c h perhaps explains w h y Greville be-\nDangerous Liaisons\n63\ncame close to Bruno, and w h y the latter unceasingly dedicated writings\ninfested w i t h the A r t of M e m o r y to Sidney i n the hope of converting h i m\nto his opinions.\nConflict broke out i n 1584, but Bruno d i d not take part i n it personally.\nHis disciple, Alexander Dicson, w h o had published a treatise, De umbris\nrationis, inspired by Bruno's mnemonic writings, was repeatedly attacked by the Reverend William Perkins of Cambridge, a supporter of\nRamus. Dicson\u2014under the pseudonym Heius Scepsius, w h i c h comes\nfrom Metrodorus of Scepsis, originator of the mnemonic system based]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82,83\nw h o m he borrowed many of the themes of the Commento, Bruno does\nnot hesitate to copy certain poems which, according to F. Fiorentino,\nbelong to Tansillo of Venosa, the main character and Bruno's spokesman i n the dialogue. But most of the sonnets are the creation of the\nauthor himself, whether they be commentaries i n verse on the representations of Eros or poetic expressions of the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheroic furors.\"\nI n the Sigillus sigillorum, Bruno had already explained the deep reason\nfor ut pictura poesis, the equivalence between painting and poetry. Zeuxis\nis the painter of internal images i n the memory, w h o excels i n phantastica\n66\nPhantasms at Work\nvirtus, imaginative power. I n turn, the poet possesses powers of thought\nout of the ordinary whose source is also spiritual. \u202b \u05f4\u202cI t follows that philosophers are also painters and poets, poets are painters and philosophers,\nand painters are philosophers and poets. 5 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cIndeed, since intellect is]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not\nable to separate the sphere of the profane f r o m that of the divine.\nBruno's u n k n o w n precursor seems, i n this sense, to be a misogynous\nmystic on the order of Sana\u202b!\u05f3\u202c, for w h o m the feminine hypostasis of the\nIntelligence has no actual reference.\nThis comparison, though somewhat pertinent, tells us nothing about\nthe historical context influencing Bruno. We must remember that we are\nin the middle of the Reformation and that p u r i t a n i s m \u2014 i n the timeless\nmeaning of the w o r d \u2014 i s growing harsher on the Protestant as w e l l as\nthe Catholic side. To be sure, that a former monk should make no effort\nto hide his carnal relations is a very serious matter for all concerned. A l l\nthe same, his attitude is forgivable if he acknowledges the t r u t h of that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\n(iv) The Wiles of Giordano Bruno\nGiordano Bruno was undoubtedly one of the most complex individuals\nof the sixteenth century. I n contrast to Agrippa, he is easy to classify:\nBruno was a representative of the phantasmic era at the time of the Reformation. But the Reformation's influence u p o n h i m is not to be overlooked. A t Nola, i n the Dominican convent, he had bursts of iconoclasm\nw h i c h brought u p o n h i m persecution and rebuffs by the religious authorities. I n England he played the role of defender of the A r t of Memory against Ramism. N o w , i n the Puritan view, the mnemotechnics of the\nRenaissance were out-of-date and diabolical, u n w o r t h y of their general\nmoral reforms, especially as they seemed to be linked i n some way w i t h\nthe activities of the Catholic Church. Bruno, a foreigner i n Italy, was no\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=175\nPages: 175\nunusual for even his most insignificant writings not to contain certain\nallusions whose source must be k n o w n i n order for their meaning to be\ndeciphered. I n the last part of this book I shall analyze the polemical\nscope of one of Bruno's theses that has always been deemed original,\nthat of the ass and of \u202b\u05f4\u202casinity\" (asinitas) as saintly qualities. Suffice it to\nsay here that the whole theory of saintliness and heroism is developed\nby Bruno i n direct polemic w i t h one of the writings of the reformed\nperiod of Cornelius Agrippa, a writer Bruno held i n h i g h regard. It is\ntherefore not out of the question that i n De Magia he should implicitly\ntake issue w i t h Grillandi, demonstrating that, far f r o m being maleficent,\nthe highest form of divination is always beneficent. But that does not\nprevent Bruno, i n the classification of the three kinds and nine species of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,81\nfactions must have tried to w i n h i m over; time was short because the\nknight died i n 1586, perhaps not before discreetly revealing his preference for the Bruno and Dicson faction.\nThe humiliating setback described i n Cena was useful to Bruno. Quickly he grasped the situation and submitted to a dialogue w i t h the Puritans. The t w o works he dedicated to Sidney bear the stamp of that wise\ndecision.\n64\nPhantasms at Work\nThe second of these, De gl'heroici furori, the one that interests us here,\ncannot be understood w i t h o u t a foray into Bruno's mnemonical kitchen.\nW i t h o u t having any immediate connection w i t h the system employed i n\nthe Heroic Furors the Spaccio w i l l be of considerable help to us i n grasping\nBruno's technique and his attempt to adjust to English usage.\nThe Spaccio propounds an artificial memory i n w h i c h the place and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,87\nthey are at the center of a network of very complicated meanings at the\nvery heart of Bruno's philosophy as w e l l as of the spirit of his era.\nA T T H E H E A R T OF B R U N O ' S D O C T R I N E\nCentral to Bruno's moral doctrine is Ficino's thesis of the dispossessing\nof the subject, of the loss and the transfer of its \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\" into the\nDangerous Liaisons\n71\nobject. To be sure, that applies exclusively, as w i t h Pico della Mirandola,\nto the state of mystic love, whose object is the Deity. Hence the mors\nosculi, as we shall see, as w e l l as the story of the nine b l i n d men, which,\nthough a revival, literal i n places, of the eclogue Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco Antonio Epicuro, takes its inspiration equally f r o m Pico's\ntheory of prophetic blindness as formulated i n his Commento.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=75\nPages: 75\nremains i n a state of catalepsy, as Celio Agostino Curione seems to inf o r m us i n the appendix to the Hieroglyphica of Pierio Valeriano. 29 After\nvery few variations, the description of binsica reappears i n Baldesar Castiglione, Egidio da Viterbo, Francesco Giorgio Veneto, Celio Calcagnini,\nLeo the Hebrew (Dialoghi d'amore), and Giordano Bruno (Heroici furori).30\nW i t h Bruno, we enter the unfathomable arcana of Eros i n w h i c h the\npure theory of the Florentine Platonists leads to several quite mysterious\nconclusions. One of these, at least, relates to the dangerous liaisons that\nBruno was inclined to maintain all his life, u n t i l his death at the stake, to\nw h i c h he consented i n order not to contradict his o w n illusions, brought\nh i m ultimate freedom. The smoke had hardly dissipated w h e n Giordano\nBruno was almost unanimously proclaimed a \u202b\u05f4\u202csymbol of democracy.\u202b \u05f4\u202cA\nstrange paradox that crowned the posthumous fate of the man w h o was]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=251\nPages: 251\nhis edition of De gl'heroici furori, p. xx, which agrees with Sarno's interpretation.\n64. Candelaio: Comedia del Bruno Nolano, Academico di nulla Academia, detto il\nFastidito. In Parigi, Appresso Guglielmo Giuliano, Al Segno de l'Amicizia, 1582 (Op.\nit., III, 1923). The hero of the comedy, an untutored painter called Gioan Bernardo, was identified by Spampanato (p. xxxii) as being the Neapolitan painter\nGiovan Bernardo, pupil of Andrea Sabatini, who worked until 1600 and was\nfamous in his day. However, we must not overlook the fact that Gioan Bernardo\nis the anagram of Giordano Bruno and that the latter likes to call himself a\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cpainter,\u202b \u05f4\u202ca philosophic painter and poet, whose canvas is the pneuma and\nwhose colors are phantasms. It should also be made explicit that Bruno accepts,\nwithout comment i n his works on magic, that same scholasticism of Ficino's that\nhe mocks in the Candelaio. Suffice it to quote here this definition of spirit (Theses]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,89\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate\nthe body and spirit of the other person. (Ill, pp. 48-49)\nElsewhere as well, Bruno reveals that Ficino's ideas do not satisfy him.\nI n the pro-prologue of the comedy (III, p. 27) he makes f u n of contemplative melancholies and their exceptional powers (quelli . . . a quai\nSaturno hapisciato il giudizio in testa).\nWithout saying so explicitly, Bruno scorns Ficino for his pedantry.\nThat can be explained by the phantasmic essence of Bruno's culture\nstemming from Ficino's preaching. But, while Ficino's writings comprised very exact and often tedious descriptions of phantasmic mecha-\nPhantasms at Work\n72\nnisms, Bruno's are living descriptions of inner scenarios. Ficino's distinctive\npeculiarity is scholastic, the use of locutions chosen to express fixed concepts; that of Bruno is mnenotechnic, a very careful and often tedious\npresentation of phantasms of the artificial memory. The ground on]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=248\nPages: 248,249\ndella filosofia italiana, vol. 2 (Turin, 1966). Nicola Badaloni's La filosofia di Giordano\nBruno (Florence, 1955), is inspired by Marxism; and indirectly inspired by it is\nH\u00e9l\u00e8ne V\u00e9drine's book, La Conception de la nature chez Giordano Bruno (Paris,\n1967). Frances A. Yates's book Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London\nand Chicago 1964) is still very important, especially as it is supplemented by\nobservations on Bruno contained in The Art of Memory and, more recently, in\nAstraea. Yates's undeniable merit is to have integrated Bruno's oeuvre into its\ncultural context; for the first time in the history of modern philosophy, Bruno\nwas not envisaged as the clumsy, grotesque, and \"bacchanalian\" precursor of\nmodern thinking but as one of the most impressive representatives of Renaissance thought. It is, fundamentally, a question of applying different categories\n236\nNotes to Pages 91-113 236\na n d of measuring h i m by the standards of another era, and historians of ideas]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=254\nPages: 254\nmodernen Naturwissenschaften, Studia Leibniziana, no. 7 (Wiesbaden, 1978), p. 63.\n11. Ibid., p. 64.\n12. Ibid., pp. 63 sq.\n13. Ibid., p. 63.\n14. A t one time I thought this an expression of the coincidentia oppositorum (see\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cM o t i v u l \u202b\u05f4\u202ccoincidentia oppositorum\u202b \u05f4\u202cla Giordano Bruno,\u202b \u05f4\u202cunpublished paper\ngiven i n November 1970 at the University of Bucharest), especially as it was\namply documented by Bruno's philosophical works. However, this interpretation was too greatly influenced by reading Mircea Eliade's Patterns in Comparative\nReligion. The oxymoron i n Bruno's poetry can rather be explained as indicative of\na technique and practice of a magical kind. We are dealing not w i t h stylistic f o r m\nbut w i t h concrete descriptions of controlled psychic functions.\nChapter 5\n1. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic, pp. 82-83.\n2. See Lubac, Pic de la Mirandole, pp. 130 sq.\n3. Olerud, L'id\u00e9e de macrocosmos . . . (see chap. 1, n. 9, above).\n4. See my \u202b\u05f4\u202cMagia spirituale,\" n. 85.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not\nable to separate the sphere of the profane f r o m that of the divine.\nBruno's u n k n o w n precursor seems, i n this sense, to be a misogynous\nmystic on the order of Sana\u202b!\u05f3\u202c, for w h o m the feminine hypostasis of the\nIntelligence has no actual reference.\nThis comparison, though somewhat pertinent, tells us nothing about\nthe historical context influencing Bruno. We must remember that we are\nin the middle of the Reformation and that p u r i t a n i s m \u2014 i n the timeless\nmeaning of the w o r d \u2014 i s growing harsher on the Protestant as w e l l as\nthe Catholic side. To be sure, that a former monk should make no effort\nto hide his carnal relations is a very serious matter for all concerned. A l l\nthe same, his attitude is forgivable if he acknowledges the t r u t h of that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88,87\nthey are at the center of a network of very complicated meanings at the\nvery heart of Bruno's philosophy as w e l l as of the spirit of his era.\nA T T H E H E A R T OF B R U N O ' S D O C T R I N E\nCentral to Bruno's moral doctrine is Ficino's thesis of the dispossessing\nof the subject, of the loss and the transfer of its \u202b\u05f4\u202csubjectness\" into the\nDangerous Liaisons\n71\nobject. To be sure, that applies exclusively, as w i t h Pico della Mirandola,\nto the state of mystic love, whose object is the Deity. Hence the mors\nosculi, as we shall see, as w e l l as the story of the nine b l i n d men, which,\nthough a revival, literal i n places, of the eclogue Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco Antonio Epicuro, takes its inspiration equally f r o m Pico's\ntheory of prophetic blindness as formulated i n his Commento.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.\nAgrippa and Bruno were both impulsive men w i t h an amazing incapacity to understand the people and situations surrounding them. But,\nwhereas Agrippa seems to renounce (for the sake of form?) his past as\nan occultist and to enter the ranks of the reformers, Bruno aspires to\ndefend his ideas even into martyrdom, convinced that people great i n\nspirit do not flinch from physical pain. Agrippa is too naive to compromise but sufficiently realistic to retract his ideas; on the other hand,\nBruno is too p r o u d to retract, but, having yielded to impulse w h i c h let\nh i m d o w n paths of no return, he still hopes to f i n d a solution through\ncompromise. Here again, he sins not through na\u00efvet\u00e9 but its opposite,\nexcessive guile, which has the same result.\nWe have cited some of Bruno's attempts to convert his followers to the\nuse of the Art of Memory. We recall that his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=86\nPages: 86\nbe separated from the realm of divine contemplation w i t h a clarity that\nPetrarch, the repressed sensualist, lacked.\nThe anti-Petrarchism 61 of Bruno represents, fundamentally, an attempt to relegate to the sphere of pure consciousness the turbid selfsatisfactions of the subconscious, which, i n Petrarch's w o r k , are systematically raised to a level of intellectual dignity that f r o m the point of view\nof the Nolan they do not deserve. I n Bruno's ethics there is no room for\nthe phantasms of a degenerate imagination.\nA n attitude not w i t h o u t ambiguities: first, because he accepts w o m a n\nas an object of utility, provided that her use be not accompanied by\nphantasy; second, because he himself does not hesitate to hypostasize\nw o m a n while taking care to keep his distance f r o m Dante, w h o m he\nenvisages only as a companion of the unfortunate Petrarch.\nBruno's feminine hypostasis is not Beatrice, i n w h o m Dante was not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76,77\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,\nlike Giulio Camillo's theater. To u n d e r s t a n d something about his w o r k s ,\nposterity, interested i n t h e m because of his m a r t y r d o m , was obliged to\neliminate eight-tenths of them: all the mnemotechnic a n d magical tracts.\nPosterity claimed to be satisfied, for Bruno h a d been a defender of\nCopernicus a n d even the first to connect the idea of the i n f i n i t y of the\nuniverse w i t h heliocentrism. Yet a huge gulf separates this Neoplatonic\npantheist f r o m rationalists like Spinoza. Grasping h o w uninteresting\nBruno's w o r k was to the m o d e r n age, Hegel, w h o f o u n d his doctrine\ni n v o l v e d a n d repulsive, termed his p h i l o s o p h y \u202b\u05f3\u05f3\u202cbacchantic,\" probably\nan excuse for being unable to read h i m . A l l of w h i c h proves that, far\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=93\nPages: 93\nbeen before, he becomes wild as the stag and the desert\ndweller. In this vast forest, he lives in the lairs of the cavernous mountains, lairs which do not belong to the artificial memory\n[stanze non artifiose], in which he admires the sources of great\nrivers, vegetates in purity, far from the contamination of ordinary desires.\nThe two fragments that explain the subject's rites of passage to the\nintellectual state are at pains to state precisely that this passage consists\nin outstripping phantasmic knowledge. In the sensory world, man is condemned to acquire knowledge only through phantasms. On the other\nhand, Bruno's great original approach, which pertained to the intelligible world, gains knowledge without the intermediary of phantasms, facie ad faciem, without requiring spiritual mediation between body and\nsoul, since man only lives in and through the soul. It is, of course, a\nparadoxical state whose strangeness and peculiarity Bruno does not attempt to conceal:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=176\nPages: 176,175\nto cultivate is not extraneous to the processes employed through the\nintermediary of demons. A t this point he is obliged to accept Grillandi's\nprecept, w h i c h he had implicitly disputed t w o pages before. He recognizes that mathematical magic can be maleficent, but he hopes, very\nprobably, that if judged according to Grillandi's criteria it w i l l only be\nsacrilegious and not heretical.\nA l l these doctrinal subtleties are peculiar not only to Bruno but to all\nthose writers w h o , while dealing w i t h magic i n the sixteenth century,\nare nevertheless trying to save appearances. A m o n g them Bruno seems\nthe most naive. Though unusually perceptive, Bruno handles his o w n\nimpulsiveness badly\u2014and this character trait is to prove fatal. O n the\nother hand, Father Trithemius, w h o also has friends i n h i g h places, is a\n\u202b\u05be\u202c160\nThe Great Manipulator\nmodel of shrewdness. Where does Bruno err tactically? By never being]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82,83\nw h o m he borrowed many of the themes of the Commento, Bruno does\nnot hesitate to copy certain poems which, according to F. Fiorentino,\nbelong to Tansillo of Venosa, the main character and Bruno's spokesman i n the dialogue. But most of the sonnets are the creation of the\nauthor himself, whether they be commentaries i n verse on the representations of Eros or poetic expressions of the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheroic furors.\"\nI n the Sigillus sigillorum, Bruno had already explained the deep reason\nfor ut pictura poesis, the equivalence between painting and poetry. Zeuxis\nis the painter of internal images i n the memory, w h o excels i n phantastica\n66\nPhantasms at Work\nvirtus, imaginative power. I n turn, the poet possesses powers of thought\nout of the ordinary whose source is also spiritual. \u202b \u05f4\u202cI t follows that philosophers are also painters and poets, poets are painters and philosophers,\nand painters are philosophers and poets. 5 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cIndeed, since intellect is]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=70\nPages: 70\nwhich they lavished each other with more or less sincere compliments,\ndid not last long. Apart from the fact that both were of the Saturnian\ntype, suited to penetrating contemplation of theological truths, it is difficult to imagine two people more dissimilar.\nThe son of Cosimo de' Medici's physician, Ficino was instructed by\nhis protector to translate Plato's works into Latin. In youth he is attracted to Augustinianism but loses no time in submitting to Scholasticism, of which he is to become undoubtedly the most valuable representative in the Renaissance. Burdened by defects, physical and psychic, he was hunchbacked, had a slight stammer,1 and often fell into fits\nof melancholic despair, so grievous that he once almost died of starvation. Aside from that, he was head of the Academy of Careggi and also a\npriest, which did not permit him to give up the public obligations devolving on him. He resigned himself to leading a healthy and frugal life,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nriots and, recommended b y the k i n g himself, w e n t to England to His Majesty's ambassador called seigneur de M a u vissi&re, Castelnau b y name. 3 2\nBruno's natural m e m o r y being unequal to his artificial m e m o r y , he is\nmistaken about the l e n g t h of his first stay i n Paris, b e g i n n i n g i n 1581 a n d\ne n d i n g i n June 1583, after w h i c h , under the protection of M i c h e l de\nCastelnau, he m o v e d to L o n d o n , w h e r e he remained u n t i l October\n1583. 33\nBy a strange optical illusion, Giordano Bruno has been envisaged as\nthe herald of the future, freemason a n d liberal, whereas this u n f r o c k e d\nNeapolitan m o n k was, wherever he w e n t , merely one of the last impassioned defenders of the culture of the phantasmic era. This explains his\nrebuffs i n Protestant circles, w h e r e he soon f o u n d himself worse off t h a n\ni n the bosom of the C h u r c h he h a d been rash e n o u g h to abandon: 3 4]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\ni n the bosom of the C h u r c h he h a d been rash e n o u g h to abandon: 3 4\nNeither i n L o n d o n , nor i n M a r b u r g , neither i n W i t t e n b e r g\nnor i n Helmstadt, nor even i n Frankfurt h a d he met w i t h the\nliberal a n d expansive welcome of his dreams. Calvinists a n d\nPeripatetics h a d h u n t e d h i m d o w n mercilessly. H e was n o\nmore successful w i t h the Lutherans, w h o s h o u l d have been\ninfluenced to adopt a more hospitable flexibility b y virtue of\nMelanchthon's doctrine. 3 5\nO n l y the iconoclasm of y o u t h , w h i c h b r o u g h t d o w n u p o n Bruno the\nfirst conflicts w i t h C h u r c h authority, remotely resembles Protestantism.\nO n the other hand, all his culture, of w h i c h he was so p r o u d a n d for\nw h i c h he was somewhat r e n o w n e d , was i n the sphere of the past, of the\nphantasmic, of mental acrobatics: i n sum, i n the realm of the grotesque,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nPhantasms at Work\n60\nf r o m being the man of the future misunderstood i n his o w n time, Bruno\nwas misunderstood precisely because fundamentally he belonged to a\npast too subtle, too complicated for the new spirit of rationalism: he was\nthe descendant of those w h o proclaimed the least accessible arcana of\nthe era of phantasms: mnemotechnics and magic.\nSCANDAL I N\nLONDON\nI n London, Bruno soon f o u n d himself at the center of one if not t w o\nscandals. As early as 1584, i n the dedication to Sir Philip Sidney of the\nSpaccio della Bestia trionfante, he shows himself so sensitive to the\n\u202b \u05f4\u202cw o u n d i n g and painful discourtesies\u202b \u05f4\u202cof w h i c h he was the object that\nhe considers leaving the country. It is certain that Sidney, and perhaps\nalso Bruno's old friend Fulke Greville (Folco Grivello, as he called him),\nplayed an important part i n keeping h i m there u n t i l autumn of the foll o w i n g year.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\ncommoner, but also against British lack of civility i n general.\nThe scene of the debate is a memorable one: having cleverly replied to\none harmless doctor, \u202b\u05f4\u202ca domestic ass,\" Bruno was taken over by another, \"whose ignorance equaled his presumptuousness.\" The Neapolitan d i d not spare this \" w i l d ass,\" \" a rude pig w i t h o u t manners,\"\nwhose academic chain should have been replaced by a halter.\n\" L o o k , be still, and learn,\" this imposing beast of burden tells him, \" I\nshall teach y o u about Ptolemy and Copernicus.\" Of course Bruno loses\nhis temper, especially as the man seeks to persuade him, while admonishing h i m to be silent, that the earth of Copernicus occupied a place\nwhere i n reality there was nothing but a point of the compass.\nA l l this must seem very strange if we reflect that England was the first\ncountry i n w h i c h heliocentrism had met w i t h success. I n 1576, Thomas\nDigges, a prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of the learned John Dee, published a Perfit Description]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=214\nPages: 214\n(iv) The Wiles of Giordano Bruno\nGiordano Bruno was undoubtedly one of the most complex individuals\nof the sixteenth century. I n contrast to Agrippa, he is easy to classify:\nBruno was a representative of the phantasmic era at the time of the Reformation. But the Reformation's influence u p o n h i m is not to be overlooked. A t Nola, i n the Dominican convent, he had bursts of iconoclasm\nw h i c h brought u p o n h i m persecution and rebuffs by the religious authorities. I n England he played the role of defender of the A r t of Memory against Ramism. N o w , i n the Puritan view, the mnemotechnics of the\nRenaissance were out-of-date and diabolical, u n w o r t h y of their general\nmoral reforms, especially as they seemed to be linked i n some way w i t h\nthe activities of the Catholic Church. Bruno, a foreigner i n Italy, was no\nless foreign i n Germany and i n England.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88\nlady of a strange country\u2014but the symbol of spiritual adventures as\nwell as metaphysical entities.\nBruno is perfectly familiar w i t h Ficino's theory of love and also w i t h\nPico della Mirandola's Commento. Part of the Heroic Furors (II, p. 3) is\nmade u p of an exchange of questions and answers between heart and\neyes, pneumatic organs w i t h a familiar role i n the psychology of Eros.\nHowever, the new scholasticism of w h i c h Ficino had been the most famous representative is ridiculed by Bruno i n his comedy Candelaio, published i n Paris i n 1582.64 The character Scaramur\u00bf, a charlatan magician\nand astrologer, recites this passage taken almost literally f r o m Ficino's\nworks:\nFascination is produced by virtue of a shiny and rarefied spirit, generated by the heart from the purest blood which, sent\nout i n the f o r m of rays from open eyes . . . , w o u n d s the\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=75\nPages: 75\nremains i n a state of catalepsy, as Celio Agostino Curione seems to inf o r m us i n the appendix to the Hieroglyphica of Pierio Valeriano. 29 After\nvery few variations, the description of binsica reappears i n Baldesar Castiglione, Egidio da Viterbo, Francesco Giorgio Veneto, Celio Calcagnini,\nLeo the Hebrew (Dialoghi d'amore), and Giordano Bruno (Heroici furori).30\nW i t h Bruno, we enter the unfathomable arcana of Eros i n w h i c h the\npure theory of the Florentine Platonists leads to several quite mysterious\nconclusions. One of these, at least, relates to the dangerous liaisons that\nBruno was inclined to maintain all his life, u n t i l his death at the stake, to\nw h i c h he consented i n order not to contradict his o w n illusions, brought\nh i m ultimate freedom. The smoke had hardly dissipated w h e n Giordano\nBruno was almost unanimously proclaimed a \u202b\u05f4\u202csymbol of democracy.\u202b \u05f4\u202cA\nstrange paradox that crowned the posthumous fate of the man w h o was]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=175\nPages: 175\nunusual for even his most insignificant writings not to contain certain\nallusions whose source must be k n o w n i n order for their meaning to be\ndeciphered. I n the last part of this book I shall analyze the polemical\nscope of one of Bruno's theses that has always been deemed original,\nthat of the ass and of \u202b\u05f4\u202casinity\" (asinitas) as saintly qualities. Suffice it to\nsay here that the whole theory of saintliness and heroism is developed\nby Bruno i n direct polemic w i t h one of the writings of the reformed\nperiod of Cornelius Agrippa, a writer Bruno held i n h i g h regard. It is\ntherefore not out of the question that i n De Magia he should implicitly\ntake issue w i t h Grillandi, demonstrating that, far f r o m being maleficent,\nthe highest form of divination is always beneficent. But that does not\nprevent Bruno, i n the classification of the three kinds and nine species of]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=85\nPages: 85\nsacred things themselves. I n the former we can contemplate the \u202b \u05f4\u202cw o r k\nof the Divine,\u202b \u05f4\u202ci n the latter, the \u202b\u05f4\u202cexcellence of h u m a n i t y \u202b( \u05f4\u202cII, pp. 33233). I n Bruno's concept of heroic frenzy, commentators have seen \u202b\u05f4\u202cthe\nidea of the universal immanence of the divine that leads . . . to a universally coherent conclusion concerning the h u m a n w i l l and capacity for\nawareness.\" 5 8 \u202b\u05f4\u202cThe feat of the Heroic Furors is the changing of man into\nGod, the homoiosis theo,\" E. Garin 5 9 tells us, and G. Gentile speaks of\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cthe sublimation of reason i n the progress of t r u t h . \" 6 0 A l l of that, as\nP. O. Kristeller has recognized, makes Bruno a w o r t h y representative of\nRenaissance Platonism, a disciple of the Florentine school of w h i c h Marsilio Ficino had been the leader. Yet Bruno's originality and genuineness, hard to classify, explode i n joyous fireworks from the opening\npages.\nThis time Bruno's victim is Petrarch, representative of the shameful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=250\nPages: 250,251\ngrace. The hero stands in contrast to the saint, and Bruno finds it preferable to be\na hero rather than a saint. That is w h y the title Heroic Furors has nothing to do\nwith amor hereos.\n57. See my aforementioned article \u202b\u05f4\u202cLe vol magique. . . . \"\n58. R. Mondolfo, Figure e idee della filosofia del Rinascimento, Italian trans. (Florence, 1970), p. 73.\n59. E. Garin, La cultura filosofica, p. 703.\n60. G. Gentile, Giordano Bruno e il pensiero del Rinascimento, p. 91.\n238\nNotes to Pages91-113238\n61. Cf. V. Spampanato, L'antipetrarchismo di Giordano Bruno (Milan, 1900).\n62. Cf. H.-P. Duerr, Traumzeit: Uber die Grenze zwischen Wildnis und Zivilisation\n(Frankfurt, 1978), p. 73.\n63. A. Sarno, \u202b\u05f4\u202cLa genesi degli \u202b\u05f3\u202cEroici furori\u202b \u05f3\u202cdi Giordano Bruno,\u202b \u05f4\u202cGiorhale\ncritico della \u00dflosofia italiana (Rome), 1920, pp. 158-72; see also F. Flora's preface to\nhis edition of De gl'heroici furori, p. xx, which agrees with Sarno's interpretation.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=250\nPages: 250\nmeaning of the word \u202b\u05f4\u202chero\"\u2014at least in the context of the dialogue\u2014is not the\ncurrent Neoplatonist meaning (a being from the worlds between, a higher disembodied soul, a kind of demon). O n the contrary, here, Bruno's \u202b\u05f4\u202chero\" is a\nhuman figure who can manipulate phantasms at w i l l and, by means of this procedure, which stems both from mnemotechnics and magic, is able to raise himself to knowledge of the intelligential world. The \u202b\u05f4\u202cheroic passion\" is not,\ntherefore, an atrabilious syndrome but a special faculty consisting in the correct\nchanneling of emotions. Those who have it at their disposal are \u202b\u05f4\u202cthe violent\"\n(see n. 49 above), capable of intense love and hate which stimulate their imagination and their memory. It is they who can become \u202b\u05f4\u202cheroes,\" that is, who can\nmaster that access to the noetic world that is granted the saints through divine\ngrace. The hero stands in contrast to the saint, and Bruno finds it preferable to be]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=84\nPages: 84\nA M B I G U I T Y OF EROS\nA n Italian scholar recently thought he glimpsed i n the title Heroici furori\nan allusion to the medieval syndrome amor hereos or heroycus.56 N o w ,\neven if Bruno was aware of that k i n d of melancholy, as he probably was,\nhe had i n m i n d something else w h e n he wrote his treatise on ethics.\nI n Bruno, heroic love is defined as the antithesis, on the one hand, of\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cnatural\u202b \u05f4\u202clove and, on the other, of the passive anticipation of grace\ncharacteristic of a certain k i n d of mysticism.\nFirst of all, the heroic Eros establishes its positive existence i n contrast\nto the natural Eros, \u202b \u05f4\u202cw h i c h attracts toward procreation.\u202b \u05f4\u202cIts object is a\nwoman; the object of the other k i n d is God. The same dichotomy separates it from the melancholic state of mind: \" I t is not an atrabilious\nfrenzy . . . but heat generated i n the soul by the intelligential sun, and a\ndivine impetus (impeto) that makes it grow w i n g s \u202b( \u05f4\u202cII, pp. 333-34)\u2014an]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=80\nPages: 80,81\nfactions must have tried to w i n h i m over; time was short because the\nknight died i n 1586, perhaps not before discreetly revealing his preference for the Bruno and Dicson faction.\nThe humiliating setback described i n Cena was useful to Bruno. Quickly he grasped the situation and submitted to a dialogue w i t h the Puritans. The t w o works he dedicated to Sidney bear the stamp of that wise\ndecision.\n64\nPhantasms at Work\nThe second of these, De gl'heroici furori, the one that interests us here,\ncannot be understood w i t h o u t a foray into Bruno's mnemonical kitchen.\nW i t h o u t having any immediate connection w i t h the system employed i n\nthe Heroic Furors the Spaccio w i l l be of considerable help to us i n grasping\nBruno's technique and his attempt to adjust to English usage.\nThe Spaccio propounds an artificial memory i n w h i c h the place and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=88\nPages: 88\nlady of a strange country\u2014but the symbol of spiritual adventures as\nwell as metaphysical entities.\nBruno is perfectly familiar w i t h Ficino's theory of love and also w i t h\nPico della Mirandola's Commento. Part of the Heroic Furors (II, p. 3) is\nmade u p of an exchange of questions and answers between heart and\neyes, pneumatic organs w i t h a familiar role i n the psychology of Eros.\nHowever, the new scholasticism of w h i c h Ficino had been the most famous representative is ridiculed by Bruno i n his comedy Candelaio, published i n Paris i n 1582.64 The character Scaramur\u00bf, a charlatan magician\nand astrologer, recites this passage taken almost literally f r o m Ficino's\nworks:\nFascination is produced by virtue of a shiny and rarefied spirit, generated by the heart from the purest blood which, sent\nout i n the f o r m of rays from open eyes . . . , w o u n d s the\nthing beheld, touching the heart, and goes on to contaminate]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=58\nPages: 58\nof the Wing Foundation, The Newberry Library, Chicago.\nbeginning more or less i n 1463. 41 From our p o i n t of v i e w , the fact that it\nescapes Ficino's influence is invaluable. Even w h e n expressing a personal point of v i e w o n love, w h i c h rarely happens, Pico della Mirandola,\nPietro Bembo, Baldesar Castiglione, Leo the Hebrew, a n d Melanchthon\nbear the indelible mark of Ficino's thought. O n the contrary, Colonna\n(though he, too, treats of the phantasmic Eros) is original and inimitable,\nless i n his ideas\u2014a c o m m o n heritage of the period, of w h i c h Ficino is to\nbecome the systematic organizer\u2014than i n the literary and didactic quality of his w o r k .\n(iv) Phantasms at Work\nLet us make the acquaintance of phantasms.\nTaken literally, the title Hypnerotomachia means a \u202b\u05f4\u202clove fight d u r i n g]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=83\nPages: 83\npossible to grasp w i t h our mere logical, historical, and comparative\nmethods and that which, to avoid being d r a w n into the revived mnemonics, w e must leave aside after a concise description.\nThe f i f t h dialogue i n part 1 is a course i n the A r t of Memory applied to\nintellectual processes, i n fifteen chapters. The impresae symbolizing the\nstages of love's sophistry are explained i n sonnets, which, i n turn, are\nthe subject matter of the prose commentary. To give an idea of the processes utilized by the painter Zeuxis, it is enough to mention the third\nmnemonic image appearing on the escutcheon of the \u202b\u05f4\u202cheroic furor\":\nthe t h i r d door on his escutcheon bears a nude adolescent,\nstretched out on a green meadow, his head leaning on his\narm, his eyes looking u p at the sky where, above the clouds,\nthere are edifices comprising rooms, towers, gardens and orchards; there is also a castle made of fire; and i n the middle\nthere is an inscription: Mutuo fulcimur.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82\nSpaccio, where Bruno gives a literal translation of the famous passage i n\nthe hermetic Asclepius concerning Egyptian statues, \u202b \u05f4\u202cf u l l of life, f u l l of\nintelligence and spirit, capable of many important functions. Those statues foresee the future, cause infirmities, and produce the remedies, joy\nand sorrow, according to the merits [of each], i n h u m a n affectivity or\nbody. 5 2 \u202b\u05f4\u202c\nThis time, the material used by Bruno is made u p of phantasmic emblems whose prestige also derives f r o m the hermetic statues. Are not\nthose spiritual constructions, i n the final analysis, forms used by magic\nitself? It is true that their use here comes d o w n to memorizing the stages\nof Eros, but is not Eros itself an anagogic force w h i c h produces the ecstatic union of the soul w i t h God?\nA t first glance, De gl'heroici furori is a series of sonnets w i t h commentary, of the type of Dante's Vita nova. Like Pico della Mirandola, f r o m]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=251\nPages: 251\nhis edition of De gl'heroici furori, p. xx, which agrees with Sarno's interpretation.\n64. Candelaio: Comedia del Bruno Nolano, Academico di nulla Academia, detto il\nFastidito. In Parigi, Appresso Guglielmo Giuliano, Al Segno de l'Amicizia, 1582 (Op.\nit., III, 1923). The hero of the comedy, an untutored painter called Gioan Bernardo, was identified by Spampanato (p. xxxii) as being the Neapolitan painter\nGiovan Bernardo, pupil of Andrea Sabatini, who worked until 1600 and was\nfamous in his day. However, we must not overlook the fact that Gioan Bernardo\nis the anagram of Giordano Bruno and that the latter likes to call himself a\n\u202b\u05f4\u202cpainter,\u202b \u05f4\u202ca philosophic painter and poet, whose canvas is the pneuma and\nwhose colors are phantasms. It should also be made explicit that Bruno accepts,\nwithout comment i n his works on magic, that same scholasticism of Ficino's that\nhe mocks in the Candelaio. Suffice it to quote here this definition of spirit (Theses]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=253\nPages: 253\nthe Virgin. Since Bruno had already invented the Diana cult in 1582, he could\nnot help being delighted to come across, in England, a whole school which venerated the same goddess. This is why the dialogue De gVheroici furori cannot be\ninterpreted as an Elizabethan allegory only; other more subtle meanings also\ncome into play. (See also my article cited in n. 91.)\nChapter 4\n1. See my article, \u202b\u05f4\u202cMagia spirituale e magia demonica,\u202b \u05f4\u202cn. 118.\n2. Amatus, \u202b\u05f4\u202cloved,\u202b \u05f4\u202cand amans, \u202b\u05f4\u202clover,\u202b \u05f4\u202care generic terms designating the\ntwo sexes. See above, chap. 3, n. 73.\n3. Heroes are pneumatic beings superior to demons; see below, chap. 7, sec. 1.\n4. .Concerning the Rosicrucians, readers can consult, w i t h prudence, Paul Arnold's book (good w h e n dealing w i t h history but very generalized otherwise), La\nRose-Croix et ses rapports avec la Franc-Ma\u00e7onnerie: Essai de synth\u00e8se historique (Paris,\n1970), and, most particularly F. A. Yates, The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (London,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=68\nPages: 68\nof Auvergne goes on to say, many piissimi ac reliogiosissimi men of his\ntime burned with desire to be seized by the melancholic sickness, that\nthey might increase their nostalgia for G o d . 6 8\nWhen the idea of the lost country atrophies, only the baneful symptoms of melancholy remain. Kierkegaard, that \u202b\u05f4\u202cintimate confidant of\nmelancholy,\" has given us a masterly description i n his Diapsalmata:\nI wish for nothing. I do not w i s h to ride horseback, it is too\nstrenuous; I do not w i s h to walk, it is too tiring; I do not w i s h\nto lie d o w n , because then either I should have to lie d o w n\nconstantly, and I do not w i s h to do so, or I should have to get\nup, and I do not w i s h to do that either. Summa summarum: I\ndo not w i s h for anything. 6 9\nAccording to Andr\u00e9 Chastel, the concept of the romantic genius who\nis variable, catatonic, prey to sudden fits of enthusiasm that disturb his\nabulia, is disclosed to the modern world through Ficino: \u202b\u05f4\u202cThe genius]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=83\nPages: 83\nand painters are philosophers and poets. 5 3 \u202b \u05f4\u202cIndeed, since intellect is\nphantasmic by nature, the philosopher must be able to manage phantasms, to be a great painter of the spirit. D i d not Aristotle say that \u202b\u05f4\u202cto\ncomprehend means to observe phantasms? 5 4 \u202b \u05f4\u202cThe place where phantasms are reflected, as we already k n o w , is the mirror of the pneuma.\nPhilosophy, poetry, painting: these are the contents of De gl'heroici\nfurori. These three stages of phantasmic speculation are so inextricably\nintertwined that it is impossible to separate them w i t h o u t destroying the\nunity of the subject. Unfortunately, being incapable, since the t r i u m p h\nof rationalism, of understanding the phantasmagoric of the great artists\nof Memory, w e shall have to make a sharp dichotomy between what is\npossible to grasp w i t h our mere logical, historical, and comparative]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=267\nPages: 267,268\n. Opere italiane. 2d ed. 3 vols. Bari: Laterza, 1923-25.\n. Des fureurs h\u00e9ro\u00efques. Edited and translated by Paul-Henri Michel. Paris:\nLes Belles Lettres, 1954.\nChastel, Andr\u00e9. Marsile Ficin et l'Art. Geneva: Droz, 1954.\n. Arte e Umanesimo a Firenze al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico: Studi sul Rinascimento e sull'Umanesimo platonico. Turin: Einaudi, 1964.\nChristinger, Raymond. Le Voyage dans l'imaginaire. Paris: Stock, 1981.\nCornelius Agrippa, Henricus. La Philosophie occulte, ou La Magie. . . . 5th ed. 4\nvols. Paris: Editions Traditionnelles, 1979-.\nCornford, Francis Macdonald. Plato's Cosmology. 2d ed. London: Routledge &\nKegan Paul, 1948.\nCouliano, loan P. Exp\u00e9riences de l'extase. Paris: Payot, 1984.\n. \"Magia spirituale e magia demonica nel Rinascimento.\" Rivista di Storia e\nLetteratura Religiosa (Turin) 17 (1981): 360-408.\n255\n256\nBibliography]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=18\nPages: 18,20\nChicago\nMay 1986\ni Phantasms at Work\nSupprime gl'eminenti, e inalza i bassi\nChi l'infinit\u00e9 machini sustenta,\nEt con veloce, mediocre, et lenta\nVertigine, dispensa\nIn questa mole immensa\nQuant'occolto si rende e aperto stassi.\nGiordano Bruno.\n1| History of Phantasy\n(i) On the Inner Sense\nSOME P R E L I M I N A R Y\nCONSIDERATIONS\nOur civilization is born of the conjunction of many cultures whose interpretations of h u m a n existence were so at variance that a huge historic\nupheaval along w i t h a fanatic faith were necessary to achieve a lasting\nsynthesis. I n that synthesis, matters of diverse origin underwent a reconversion and a reinterpretation marked by traces of the predominant\nculture of the period: the culture of a conquered people, the Greeks,\nenhanced by a conquering people, the Romans.\nI n Greek thought, sexuality was usually a secondary component of\nlove. While granting the link between sexuality and reproduction, no]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=250\nPages: 250\nquidem ita ordinantur et copulantur, ut actus consequents ab actu praecedentis non\nabsolvatur.\n54. Yates, p. 253, translates this expression thus: \u202b\u05f4\u202cto understand is to speculate w i t h images.\u202b \u05f4\u202cBut the verb speculari, in the expression intelligere est phantasmata speculari, can have no other meaning than to \u202b\u05f4\u202ccontemplate, observe,\nlook.\u202b \u05f4\u202cIn fact, the intellect comprehends by looking at the phantasms projected\nonto the screen of inner consciousness.\n55. Quoted in Gombrich, p. 123.\n56. I.e., Giorgio Agamben. Regarding the context of the dialogue, see John\nCharles Nelson, Renaissance Theory of Love: The Context of Giordano Bruno's \"Eroici\nfurori\" (New York, 1958). We must agree that the title Heroic Furors is reminiscent\nof the name of the syndrome amor hereos or heroycus. But Giordano Bruno's\nmeaning of the word \u202b\u05f4\u202chero\"\u2014at least in the context of the dialogue\u2014is not the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=100\nPages: 100\nSidney's, gave an \u202b\u05f4\u202centertainment\" featuring the story of the hermit\nHemetes, w h o , having lost his sight, regained it as soon as he arrived i n\nthe best and most wisely governed country i n the w o r l d . 8 9\nThis transparent allegory, w h i c h he had probably read and partly\nmemorized, awakened i n Bruno an adolescent memory: the pastoral\neclogue Dialogo di tre ciechi or Cecaria of the Neapolitan Marco A n t o n i o\nEpicuro. I n the last dialogues of the second part of the Heroic Furors, he\nfreely imitates Epicuro's eclogue, also having i n m i n d Pico's interpretation of the prophet's blindness.\nThe actors i n Bruno's parable are nine b l i n d men, mnemonic \u202b\u05f4\u202cstatues\" representing the nine species of love, which, through internal or\nexternal failure, predispose to sensuality, including the classic syndrome of amor hereos according to Pico della Mirandola's description.\nThe first is born blind; the second has been \u202b\u05f4\u202cbitten by the serpent of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=9\nPages: 9\nextensive comparative monograph on myths and techniques relating to\necstasy*\u2014that his most important works begin to appear.\nRemembering that the Italian Renaissance was one of my youthful\npassions and that I had chosen for my thesis the ideas of Marsilio Ficino,\nPico della Mirandola, and Giordano Bruno, the author asked me to write\na short foreword to Eros and Magic. I was tempted to enlarge upon the\nstages and great names of modern historiography concerning the Renaissance, emphasizing, for instance, recent r\u00e9\u00e9valuations of hermetic,\noccult, and alchemical traditions. What a fascinating field of study in the\nhistory of thought is the analysis of interpretations of the Italian Renaissance, from Jacob Burckhardt and Giovanni Gentile to Eugenio Garin, P.\nOskar Kristeller, E. H. Gombrich, F. A. Yates, D. P. Walker, Allen G.\nDebus, and other distinguished scholars of our day.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=82\nPages: 82\ninfringe that rule. I n concealing his o w n name, the printer avoided the\nresponsibility of having published the w o r k of a foreigner w h o had scandalized London, and Sidney's silence on the subject of Bruno (less surprising than that of Michel de Castelnau), o n the same grounds of\nexpediency, does not mean that the knight had contempt for the Spaccio.\nO n the contrary, some discreet sign of appreciation must have shown\nBruno that he was o n the right track. History is silent on the subject, but\nwithout Sidney's encouragement and generosity it is inconceivable that\nthe impulsive Neapolitan w o u l d not have kept his promise to leave the\ncountry and w o u l d have dedicated his next book to h i m also, De gl'heroici furori.\nI n the Heroic Furors, mnemonics are at the disposal of Eros. The method is already outlined i n the second part of the t h i r d dialogue of the\nSpaccio, where Bruno gives a literal translation of the famous passage i n]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/GwDdq9h9GbbAriJnw2n7dC/Ioan-P.-Coul.pdf?pdfPage=68\nPages: 68,69\nabulia, is disclosed to the modern world through Ficino: \u202b\u05f4\u202cThe genius\nw h o is familiar w i t h the alternations of inspiration and of distress, afflicted by furor and then bereft of his inner force, belongs to no conventional type: he is of interest because of the dramatic intensity of his\nexperience. 70 \u202b \u05f4\u202cWhether or not it bestows genius, melancholy is primarily a pathological syndrome that became k n o w n through the Corpus\nhippocraticus and Aristotle as well as through Sigmund Freud. This evil,\nlike the plague, has struck our continent repeatedly. Aristotle mentioned some melancholies\u2014Hercules, Bellerophon, Heraclitus, Democritus, the poet Maracos\u2014and Ficino adds others: Sappho, Socrates, and\nLucretius. 7 1 The medieval cloisters were decimated by acedia and the\n52\nPhantasms at Work\ncastles of the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries resounded w i t h the\nchants and atrabilious verses of the troubadours and love's faithful, men]"]}