sgray neo-platonism and hermeticism in the renaissance

7/27/2019 SGray Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism in the Renaissance

1/18

Why and how did Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism offer new perspectives on man

and nature at the beginning of the Renaissance?

Introduction

Many social, political, cultural, and religious factors contributed to the rise of

Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism at the beginning of the Italian Renaissance. This essay

will explore the reasons for this transition and the factors which contributed to it, which

will in turn shed light on why and how Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism offered new

perspectives on man and nature at this time in history. Contributing factors which will

be addressed include the decline of Aristotelianism, interpretations of the relationship

between Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism, the role of the Church, scientific advances,

and even geopolitical influences.

The Middle Ages

To discover how Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism came to have such a

significant impact at the beginning of the Renaissance, it is necessary to look back at the

Middle Ages for a view of the processes which both brought them to the forefront and

hid them in the background at different times. Not many of the writings of Plato were

known to the West in the Middle Ages, as the only major Platonist work which had been

translated into Latin was the Timaeus. Two minor works and part of a third had been

translated, but the majority of Platonic philosophy in this period was passed on in the

form of commentaries and translations of commentaries. As well, a significant part of

Platonic material that was available in medieval times was actually attributed to

Aristotle instead of Plato, clouding the distinction between the two.1

On the other hand, a significant amount of Aristotle was translated into Latin in

the Middle Ages, making Aristotelian philosophy much more accessible in the West. 2

This greater availability combined with the attribution of translated works of Plato to

Shawn Gray sg@shawngray name January 2009
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/18

Aristotle resulted in much more exposure to, and acceptance of, Aristotelian ideas by

Western medieval thinkers and so Aristotle came to replace Plato to a large extent in the

medieval period. The acceptance of Aristotelian ideas over those of Plato occurred not

only in the academic institutions, but also in the Church.

A strict, dry formalism developed whereby reason was elevated to the point

where it was only superseded by theology. Reason was seen as useful, but it still

required the revealed truth of Scripture to be considered valid. 3 The Church had thus

firmly placed itself at the top of the hierarchy of not only religious authority, but also

scientific and academic authority as well. A cold, Stoic view developed whereby a fixed

link of known causes became necessary to prove anything, and as just mentioned, the

truth of Scripture (as interpreted by the Church) was the lynchpin required to hold any

academic or philosophical argument in place. This was connected to a fatalistic

worldview. Fate was seen as fixed, as the stars were seen to be fixed in place at the time,

and so an astral determinism developed whereby the fate and destiny of man (both as an

individual and as a race) were viewed as unchangeable, with the Church having the only

key - their own interpretation of Scripture.4

Although the Church claimed unquestionable authority over both theology and

philosophy, a strict division was made between the two fields in the Aristotelian view.

Thomas Aquinas, considered by some as the Churchs greatest theologian and

philosopher, is one example of an Aristotelian who held to such a distinction. Despite

being a leading figure in both fields, he was required to maintain a division wherein

each had its designated place with well-defined boundaries. Neither Platonism nor

Hermeticism made such a strong distinction however, which was one of the factors

which contributed to the polarization of Aristotelian philosophy on one side and

Platonism and Hermeticism on the other. In fact, Hermeticism was really only accepted

at the time by the minority of philosophers who held Platonic or anti-Aristotelian world



3/18

views.5

Geopolitical Factors

This preeminence of Aristotle began to decline with the westward expansion of

the Ottoman Turks. As Turks gradually encroached on the old Byzantine empire,

scholars and theologians began to migrate westward as refugees ahead of the Turkish

advance, taking with them manuscripts and other invaluable sources of Arab and Greek

knowledge and culture.6 With exposure to more Greek manuscripts and the translations

that soon resulted, more and more of Platos works became available in Latin for the

first time in the early Renaissance period, giving Italian thinkers their first opportunity

to critically compare the works of Aristotle and Plato. The result was of considerable

importance.

This increased contact with the Greek world of the declining Byzantine

empire in the fifteenth century cased the Latin West to undergo a

significant philosophical shift which [] chiefly involved a growing

regard for Plato over Aristotle whose works had formed the mainstay of

medieval thought and science following their introduction through the

Arab world in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.7

With its location between the sources of Jewish Kabbalah in Spain to the West

and the sources of Greek and Arab learning coming from the East, Italy was in a prime

geographical position to become the birthplace of the Renaissance.

The Rise of Neo-Platonism

The Council of Ferrara and Florence was held in 1438-1439 with the purpose

of discussing church unity. Georgios Gemistos Plethon, one of the most notable

philosophers in the late Byzantine period, took part in this conference. Although



4/18

opinions of the value of his contribution to the actual Council vary, Plethon also

attended philosophical meetings outside of the Council, where he gave teachings on

Plato. A staunch Platonist, Plethon had made it his cause to preserve any remnants of

Hellenism remaining in Greek theology, having gone so far as to rename the Chaldean

Oracles and purge them of any Christian influence, hoping to inspire a Platonic idea in

society. Championing Platos philosophy, he attempted to demonstrate at these

philosophical meetings that Aristotle went astray of truth every time he departed from

the teachings of Plato, his teacher. The wealthy and influential Italian statesman Cosimo

de Medici was also in attendance at the meetings and was deeply impressed by

Plethons arguments.8

Returning from the Council, de Medici became a patron of Marsilio Ficino, an

influential humanist philosopher who had mastered the difficult Classical Greek of

Platos works, and ordered that Ficino translate them into Latin. A delay in this

translation was incurred by the discovery of the Corpus Hermeticum, which Medici

insisted that Ficino translate first. Thetranslated works of Plato were finally published

in Latin for the first time in 1484. This was the first time that the complete works of

Plato became available to the West.9

This watershed accomplishment marked the beginning of the decline (although

not the complete abandonment) of Aristotelian thought in the West, as well as an

important line between Platonism and Neo-Platonism. Plethon, one of the last great

Platonists, had been very critical of Aristotle, and had been very influential on de

Medici. Ficino, patronized by de Medici, shared similar views a respect for Plato and

a revulsion for Aristotle.10 There was one important difference however, and that lay in

their views of Hermes. Plethon, while the champion of Plato that he was, passed

completely over Hermes without a word, while Ficino, having translated the Corpus

Hermeticum, regarded Hermes as a revered sage.11 Although Ficinos translations had



5/18

given new impetus to Platonic thought, they had also done the same for Hermetic

thought, and so while Platos star began to eclipse that of Aristotle in the sky of the

early Renaissance, there would be no return to the original Platonism as Plethon would

have desired.12

Three main reasons can be seen for the decline of Aristotelianism and the rise

of Neo-Platonism (as opposed to the original Platonism) in the Renaissance. The first is

the growing body of observations that Aristotelian views of the physical universe were

flawed. The second is the ease with which the newly discovered Hermetic teachings

melded with the newly translated Platonic translations, and the third is the efforts of

Ficino and others like him to marry this new combination of Hermeticism and Neo-

Platonism with Christianity.

The Aristotelian scholastic method had come to be accepted in medieval times

as a set of formal models by which teaching was structured. 13 This system attempted to

impose very black and white views on the universe, views which also applied to

physical science such as the movement of the heavenly spheres, which were seen to be

fixed in their specific stations. Aristotle had insisted on the immutability of the spheres

in 4 BC in Athens. However, stellar events such as comets and exploding stars were

being observed with more and more accurate scientific instruments, and this began to

bring Aristotles theories into question. German alchemist Oswald Croll expressed his

belief that an imminent revolution was about to overturn the old Aristotelian doctrines.14

Other voices were more outspoken, such as Giordano Bruno, whose opinion that

Copernicus understood more than Aristotle attracted the animosity of the Church.15

Unlike the strict formalism of academic Aristotelianism, Platonism was more

open to receive new ideas. This allowed it to account for new developments as well as

to accommodate other flexible systems such as Hermeticism, with which it maintained a

link before actually fusing with it in the philosophy of Neo-Platonism. Although there



6/18

were still chairs for teachers of the old Aristotelian ideas at academic institutions, Neo-

Platonism remained extra-academic rather than strictly logical, inspiring artists as well

as statesmen those who were out changing the world rather than debating amongst

themselves in the ivory halls of the scholastic institutions.16

The new fusion with Hermeticism brought Neo-Platonism into greater conflict

with the Church, however. The idea of a prisca sapientia and apia philosophia which

formed a lineage of sages reaching all the way back to Moses, Zoroaster, and Hermes

the former not necessarily being seen as coming prior to the others opened up debates

in the Church. Had Hermes, deemed holy sage to the Hermeticists, been able to

understand the true teachings of God? To what degree was he a valid and legitimate part

of the true Christian philosophical heritage?17 Other Hermetic teachings such as the

Asclepius were condemned outright by the Church,18 and its magical and theurgical

practices were eyed with suspicion.

Relationship with the Church

Many of the influential Neo-Platonists were able to maintain a close

relationship with the Church however, as they resolved to find ways to marry their ideas

with Christian theology. Ficino, for example, continued to hold Augustine in high

regard, and following earlier Platonists, was excited by the pseudo-Hermetic

definitions of God as the monad and as a circle whose circumference is everywhere and

centre nowhere. He thus sought to bring the Christian teaching of divine creation into

line with the accounts of both Hermeticism and Platonism.19

The Platonists had been trying to resolve differences with Christian theology

since the Middle Ages, by fusing Christian theology with the views of the natural world

found in the Timaeus, for example.20 In the Renaissance, Neo-Platonism came to beseen as a compatible alternative to what some now described as the heretical and anti-



7/18

Christian obscenities of Aristotelianism. In the light of the new translations of

Platonic works, Platonism was seen to be more reconcilable with the teachings of

Christianity than were the works of Aristotle.21

Ficino was one who tried very hard to bring his Neo-Platonic views into line

with his Christian beliefs. He focused on Platonic elements that could be accommodated

by Christianity (using the Monad to explain Christian ideas, for example), to the

exclusion of others. Although initially enthusiastic about Hermes as well, he later

rejected the many elements he saw as being incompatible with Christianity and focused

more on the works of Plato and those of Plotinus, the founder of Neo-Platonism.

Despite his enthusiasm about these teachings, he could not ultimately let them assail his

unshakeable belief in the pre-eminence of Christian theology. If there were

incompatibilities at any point, it was always the non-Christian view that was rejected.

Although Ficino took over many important doctrines of Plotinus and his fellow

Platonici in his campaign for a Christian philosophy, he was never tempted to exalt

pagan metaphysics at the expense of Christian theology.22

Others who were more willing to accept the pagan elements of Neo-Platonism

and Hermeticism had to be careful how they approached their subjects. After the

Council of Sens, many authors were cautious about how they approached the topic of

the spirit, for example.23 One had to be very careful about how one worded ones

writing. Despite this, though, many of the European elite maintained a cautious

curiosity about the pagan metaphysics.24 The key to safety was to be obscure or to

remain anonymous when one put thoughts to paper on these topics. With this

background, it is quite easy to understand the reason that the language used to discuss

these themes came to be encoded, both textually and pictorially, and the reason that

secret societies formed for the transmission of this controversial knowledge came into

being.



8/18

Not all were willing to keep silent or veil their views with vague language,

however. Copernicus published his greatest work, De revolutionibus orbium caelestium

(The Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) although he waited almost until his death

out of fear being attacked by Aristotelian traditionalists. Bruno later agreed with

Copernicus that it was the earth going around the sun, and not the other way around. 25

Not merely a provocateurwithin the realm of Christianity as some others had been,

Bruno rejected Christianity altogether, considering himself to be an Egyptian magus.

This radical step put him completely outside the borders of normal Christianity, as he

pursued the core of Hermeticism, magic, to the full.26 Bruno exemplifies one who took

his rejection of the old Aristotelian views to the extreme, and in turn experienced a

corresponding reaction from the Church being burned at the stake for so clearly

voicing his beliefs.

Secular Influences

Although the Church was resistant to some of the new ideas brought to the

West by Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism, in the secular world this was less the case. In

the same way that Aristotelian philosophy was debated in the sterile halls of academic

institutions while those more engaged in the real world found that a Neo-Platonic

view better addressed the questions of their daily lives, a similar gap was developing

between the traditional religious views held in the sacred halls of the Church and the

real scientific discoveries that were being made in the laboratories and observatories of

the scientists of the day those who were actually applying the lessons of their

philosophy to the real world instead of merely meditating on and debating them. As

advances in the types and accuracy of scientific instruments took place, the Church

found it harder and harder to refute the evidence being brought forward. Little by little,

the solar-centric Copernican model of the solar system started to gain acceptance. The



9/18

old Aristotelian views were gradually left farther and farther behind. Of course this

didnt happen overnight, but the process was gradually accelerating.

One of the catalysts of this change was Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II of

Prague. Although his personal interest in magic, alchemy, and astrology distracted him

from his political responsibilities and ultimately led to the loss of his throne (and almost

his sanity), the vast amount of resources that he invested into the sponsorship and

patronage of the greatest minds in Europe in his time (including Brahe, Dee, and others)

helped to sow the seeds of the Scientific Revolution which would eventually flower

much later.27 The newly discovered Neo-Platonic and Hermetic philosophies were thus

taken and used to change the world not by the prevailing religious establishment or by

the self-appointed, stuffy Aristotelian elite who had exiled themselves to university

classrooms, but by the brilliant philosophical and scientific minds who were bent on

new discoveries and on the application of this new world-view to the challenges of the

day, by those who applied the theories to realistic models and situations, by those who

actually did the ground work of observation, calculation, and experimentation. These

were the ones who were taking Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism and making it real

through practical application to life - to man and to nature.

The Role of Nature

The growing interest in the workings of the natural world on the part of these

thinkers paved the way for the adoption of Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism. More

highly sophisticated tools of observation, measurement and calculation were now in the

hands of more highly independent and objective individuals. No more content to simply

swallow the ideas of Aristotle from 4 BC, disseminated to the populace by the ruling

religious elite, these forerunners of modern science accelerated the evolution of the

scientific method with their enthusiastic pursuit of knowledge and experience.28



10/18

This new sense of investigation and discovery of the natural world resonated

well with the system of hierarchies in the Asclepius - a book which the Church had

condemned, as mentioned earlier. This system of hierarchies is one of the hallmarks of

Hermeticism and therefore one of the things that makes the Asclepius such a

representative Hermetic text. These hierarchies are of beings that control and represent

everything that exists the stars, the sun, the seven planetary spheres, etc.29 In an

exploration and categorization of the natural world, these hierarchies can be used to

classify and organize everything in the natural world. One use of this system of

classification was that it provided a filing system for the practitioners of natural

philosophy. Everything could now have its own distinct place in creation, and thus the

view of nature as an orderly system began to develop. The hierarchies also give greater

understanding of the meaning of the universe, and a view into the processes by which

Renaissance astrologers and mages sought to understand the natural world around

them.30

Ficinos contribution to this model of hierarchies lay in the position in which he

put man in an intermediate position between God and nature. This is key to

understanding the contributions of Neo-Platonism and Hermeticism to the view of man

and nature in the Renaissance. Ficinos placement of man in this central position meant

that man is no longer separate from nature, no longer isolated from it. Rather, he is an

essential part of nature, a partaker in all that he finds around him in the physical world.

To the Neo-Platonic concept of divine inspiration and creation as a series of emanations

from deity was added the model of hierarchies from Hermeticism, and the placement of

man in the center of this model now meant that he was a microcosm who combined

within himself all the powers, virtues, and properties of the natural world, or

macrocosm, around him.31

Astronomer Tycho Brahe echoed similar sentiments, from a slightly different



11/18

point of view. Mans placement in the center of creation allows him not only to have

power over it, but through interaction with it to come to know God. He wrote that the

universe is the best teacher of theology. The idea of man in the center of creation and his

interaction with the natural world not only means that man acts upon nature, of course,

but also that nature acts upon man it is a two-way relationship. Brunos vision of the

universe was that it is a living entity, which strengthens the idea of bilateral

relationship.32 The Hermetic concept of a dynamic universe fit perfectly with his

heliocentric view of the solar system. In Cena de le ceneri, Bruno cites an interior

principle as the cause for the movement of the heavenly spheres, adding that the

celestial bodies move according to individual differences in this interior principle. 33 No

longer subject to the fixed determinism of Aristotelian philosophy, nature could now not

only be acted upon by man, but could dynamically act upon him in return.

The Role of Man

Prior to the acceptance of the idea of hierarchies by Renaissance minds, the

universe had long been perceived to remain essentially static. In the hierarchical model,

the difference between God and man and nature is essentially that of a gradation of

attributes. Ficinos innovation was to take the traditional concept of the world soul and

apply it to the model of hierarchies, resulting in an all-pervading spirit which links

everything from one end of the hierarchal ladder to the other. With divinity at the top of

the ladder, the physical world at the bottom, and angelic beings, celestial forces, and

man in between, any change or movement at one point in the chain would have a

rippling effect up and down the ladder, affecting those parts of the universe which were

connected. Thus man was intimately intertwined with the living universe itself, rather

than simply being a removed observer - an intimate relationship between man and the

universe had been formed.



12/18

This magical equivalence between each human soul and the world soul

thus became the hallmark of Renaissance Neo-Platonism. By placing the

human soul, like a droplet of divinity, at the centre of the universe, Ficino

initiated a fundamental spiritual revolution in mans self-regard. Withinhis dynamic cosmology, the soul thus combined in itself everything, knew

everything, and possessed the powers of everything in the universe.34

Aristotelian thought did not account well for such a hierarchal model. For

example, Aristotelian philosophy held that spiritual beings could not affect the physical

world directly, because direct physical contact would be necessary to do so.

35

As has

been shown, this kind of dry, literal formalism was typical of Aristotelian thought. In

Hermetic thought however, all things are connected physical contact is not considered

to be a condition for connection and influence between the spiritual and physical.

Hermeticism unfolded as not simply a coherent set of doctrines that one should

believe in, but as a method of spiritual evolution, leading gradually to a better

understanding of the universe, and ultimately to knowledge of, and even union with,

the transcendent God who is its final cause.36 This melded well with the new attitudes

of scientific exploration and discovery in the Renaissance. The process of learning more

about the physical universe was an exercise in spiritual development, of bringing the

explorer closer to the Source of his being.

The Renaissance was a blossoming garden of manifestoes of this newfound

freedom of man to grow and evolve. Perhaps the most famous of these was Picos

Oration on the Dignity of Man, which marked a critical point of difference between

medieval and modern minds. The developing Renaissance humanism gave man

autonomy and dignity, and the freedom to become whatever he wishes to be, to evolve

as he wills.37 This concept of free will became an essential one, seen by Renaissance

thinkers as given to them by God, who had instilled in man a self-transforming nature



13/18

whereby he can grow and progress as he sees fit.38 Philosophers such as Brahe, Bruno,

Ficino and Krebs held that this free will enabled man to rise above his circumstances

and to reach beyond the stars, and that this ability in fact deifies him. This was a novel

view - man was no longer seen as a pawn at the whim of an unchanging, deterministic

universe, but as one who can affect the universe, Nature, and his own destiny. This was

indicative of the new humanism of Renaissance thinking and was a significant

divergence from the fixed authority of the Church. Reactions to old authoritarian and

deterministic systems began to take place all over Europe. Luther's theses were one such

reaction. Others took the form of declarations about the nature of the physical universe.

Advances in technology and philosophy allowed learned minds to see that the universe

was not fixed and static as Aristotle and the Church had taught. It is dynamic, changing,

and Man can change with it.

Conclusion

With the onset of the Renaissance, the combination of Neo-Platonism and

Hermeticism thus contributed to new perspectives on the nature of man and the

universe, and on the nature of their relationship. Man is not separate from the physical

universe, but an intimate, essential part of it, and by interacting with it in a spirit of

discovery and exploration, he can himself evolve. Armed with these new ideas,

Renaissance philosophers pioneered the concept of human sovereignty and for the first

time secured mans place in the center of the universe a dynamic position of potential

to become all that he dreams he can be.



14/18

NOTES AND REFERENCES



15/18

1 Leijenhorst, Cees, Neoplatonism II: Middle Ages, inDGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelofvan den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), p. 837.2 Leijenhorst, Cees, Aristotelianism, inDGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek,and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), p. 97.3 ibid., p. 98.4 Leijenhorst, Neoplatonism II: Middle Ages, p. 838.5 Leijenhorst, Aristotelianism, p. 98.6 Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas, Unit 2: Italian Renaissance Magic and Kabbalah, (unpublished studyguide, Module HPSM150, EXESESO, HUSS, University of Exeter, undated), p. 26.7 ibid., pp. 26-27.8 Tambrun, Brigitte, Plethon, Georgios Gemistos, * ca. 1355-1360 Constantinople, 26.6.1452 (?)Mistra, in DGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden,The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), p. 960.9 Leijenhorst, Neoplatonism III: Since the Renaissance, p. 841.10 Goodrick-Clarke, Unit 2: Italian Renaissance Magic and Kabbalah, p. 28.11 Tambrun, p. 961.12 Leijenhorst, Neoplatonism III: Since the Renaissance, p. 841.13 Leijenhorst, Aristotelianism, p. 98.14

Marshall, Peter, The Theatre of the World: Alchemy, Astrology and Magic in Renaissance Prague(Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2006), pp. 129-159.15 Yates, Frances A., Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,1964), p. 235.16 Leijenhorst, Neoplatonism III: Since the Renaissance, pp. 841-842.17 ibid.18 Goodrick-Clarke, Unit 2: Italian Renaissance Magic and Kabbalah, p. 26.19 Leijenhorst, Neoplatonism III: Since the Renaissance, p. 841.20 Leijenhorst, Neoplatonism II: Middle Ages, p. 838.21 Leijenhorst, Neoplatonism III: Since the Renaissance, pp. 841-842.22 ibid.23 Leijenhorst, Neoplatonism II: Middle Ages, p. 838.24 Allen, Michael J.B., Ficino, Marsilio, * 19.10.1433 Figline, 1.10.1499 Careggi (Florence), inDGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, TheNetherlands: Brill, 2006), p. 366.25 Marshall, pp. 139-158.26 Yates, pp. 139-158.27 Marshall, pp. 149-159.28 Goodrick-Clarke, Unit 2: Italian Renaissance Magic and Kabbalah, p. 26.29 van den Broek, Roelof, Hermetism, in DGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek,and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), p. 561.30 Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas, Unit 1: Ancient Hellenistic Sources of Western Esotericism,(unpublished study guide, Module HPSM150, EXESESO, HUSS, University of Exeter, undated), p. 17.31

Goodrick-Clarke, Unit 2: Italian Renaissance Magic and Kabbalah, p. 32.32 Marshall, pp. 142-157.33 Yates, p. 243.34 Goodrick-Clarke, Unit 2: Italian Renaissance Magic and Kabbalah, p. 30.35 Leijenhorst, Aristotelianism, p. 99.36 van den Broek, Hermetism, p. 562.37 Goodrick-Clarke, Unit 2: Italian Renaissance Magic and Kabbalah, p. 35.38 Cassirer, Ernst, Paul Oskar Kristeller, John Herman Randall, Jr., eds, The Renaissance Philosophy ofMan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 225.


16/18

Bibliography

AbbreviationsDGWE Hanegraaff, Wouter J., ed., with Antoine Faivre, Roelof van

den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach,Dictionary of Gnosis &Western Esotericism (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006)


17/18

HUSS School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Exeter

EXESESO Exeter Centre for the Study of Esotericism

Primary Sources

Allen, Michael J.B., Ficino, Marsilio, * 19.10.1433 Figline, 1.10.1499 Careggi(Florence), inDGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-PierreBrach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), pp. 360-367

Cassirer, Ernst, Paul Oskar Kristeller, John Herman Randall, Jr., eds, The RenaissancePhilosophy of Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948)

Counet, J.M.Cusa, Nicholas of (Niklaus Krebs), * 1401 Kues, 11.8.1464 Todi, inDGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-PierreBrach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), pp. 293-296

Ficino, Marsilio, trans. by Charles Boer,Marsilio Ficino: The Book of Life (Woodstock,CT: Spring, 1996)

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas, Methodology and Theory in the Study of Western

Esotericism, (unpublished study guide, Module HPSM150, EXESESO,HUSS, University of Exeter, undated), pp. 1-12

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas, Unit 1: Ancient Hellenistic Sources of WesternEsotericism, (unpublished study guide, Module HPSM150, EXESESO,HUSS, University of Exeter, undated), pp. 13-25

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas, Unit 2: Italian Renaissance Magic and Kabbalah,(unpublished study guide, Module HPSM150, EXESESO, HUSS, Universityof Exeter, undated) p. 26-36

Leijenhorst, Cees, Aristotelianism, in DGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek,and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), pp. 97-102

Leijenhorst, Cees, Neoplatonism II: Middle Ages, inDGWE, ed. by Wouter J.Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, TheNetherlands: Brill, 2006), pp. 837-841

Leijenhorst, Cees, Neoplatonism III: Since the Renaissance, inDGWE, ed. by WouterJ. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek, and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, TheNetherlands: Brill, 2006), pp. 841-846

Lelli, Fabrizio, 'Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni, *1463 Mirandola, 17.11.1494Florence', inDGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek, andJean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), pp. 949-954

Marshall, Peter, The Theatre of the World: Alchemy, Astrology and Magic inRenaissance Prague (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2006)

Tambrun, Brigitte, Plethon, Georgios Gemistos, * ca. 1355-1360 Constantinople,

26.6.1452 (?) Mistra, inDGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van denBroek, and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006), pp.960-963

van den Broek, Roelof, Hermetism, in DGWE, ed. by Wouter J. Hanegraaff, Roelof van den Broek,and Jean-Pierre Brach (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2006),pp. 558-570

von Worms, Abraham, ed. by Georg Dehn, trans. by Steven Guth, The Book ofAbramelin: A New Translation (Lake Worth, FL: Ibis Press, 2006)

Walker, D. P., Orpheus the Theologian and Renaissance Platonists,Journal of theWarbug and Courtauld Institutes, XVI (1953), 100-120


18/18

sgray neo-platonism and hermeticism in the renaissance

Documents