Anexo 2: Presentación de las unidades de ELE analizadas

not appear in Dee’s library catalogues as a separate item, it is difficult to imagine that—with several copies of De occulta philosophia—he would not have known about it, especially since many chapters of De

incertitudine . . . were attached as appendix to De occulta . . . (under the

title: “The censure or retraction of Henry Cornelius Agrippa, concerning magic, after his declamation of the vanity of sciences, and the excellency of the word of God,” Agrippa 1997, 689).20 _{Since De incertitudine . . . also}

excercised great influence on the imagination of the sixteenth century, I shall discuss it, too.

De incertitudine et vanitate omnium scientiarum

Charles Nauert devoted a voluminous study to the philosophy of Agrippa and developed the following thesis as the backbone of his argument: the appearance of magical themes in Renaissance philosophy displayed the crisis of early modern thought and the very same crisis can be detected in the fact that Agrippa’s two main works were so much the opposites of each other (cf. Nauert 1965). Nauert’s monograph was written at the height of the so-called mannerism debate that characterized the 1960s

and early 1970s.21 _{At one point in this debate even the whole Reforma-}

tion was interpreted as a crisis phenomenon of the Renaissance. I do not think that the entirety of Agrippa’s magic could be interpreted as a prod- uct of crisis; rather, De occulta philosophia represents one of the peaks of the occult philosophy as developed by the sixteenth century. If we speak about crisis, I see it in one specific area, indeed. Although Agrippa and others tried to meticulously separate white from black magic, that proved to be a futile effort and subsequently led to a feeling of uncertainty and discomfort. Combined with other aspects of the growing intellectual crisis toward the end of the sixteenth century, these opinions can natu- rally be interpreted as characteristic features of mannerism.

In any case, when trying to find clues for the contradictions in Agrippa’s work we must proceed to a more refined micro-analysis of

De incertitudine. . .22

The general tone of the work, which consists of over one-hundred short chapters, is sarcastic irony, found first in the preface where the author compares himself to Hercules, brave enough to attack the sci- ences. And he is aware of the expected consequences:

I well perceive what a bloody battle I have to fight with them hand to hand, and how dangerous this fight will be, seeing that I am beset on every side with an army of so mighty enemies. O with how many engines will they assail me, and with how many shames and villainies will they load me? [. . .] The obstinate Logicianers will cast against me infinite darts of syllogisms; the long-tongued Sophisters, which wrest to every part their talk, with intricate snares of words, like a bridle, will stop my mouth. The Musicians with their many tunes will make me a laughing stock through the streets, and with jarring sounds and unpleasant ringing of pans, basins and dishes will trouble me more than they are wont at their weddings which be twice married [. . .]. The vain worker in the art Perspective will engrave and depaint me more brutish and deformed than an ape, or Thersites; [. . .] the monstrous Gunner will cast against me the revenging flames of Jupiter, and the fire of lightning. [. . .] The monstrous Magicians will transform me, as it were another Apuleius or Lucian, into an ass, yet not of gold, but perchance of dirt. The black Necromancer will persecute me with spir- its and devils; [. . .] the circumcised Cabalists will wish me their fore- skin; [. . .] the almighty Bishops will reserve my sins for everlasting fire. [. . .] The obstinate Divine Sophistical Doctors will call me heretic, or compel me to worship their idols; our grim masters will enforce me to recant. . . . (Agrippa 1575, Av–iAiiv₎

In the second half of the preface Agrippa reveals his motivation in attack- ing all the human sciences:

Now, Reader, thou perceivest through how many dangers I shall pass. Yet I hope easily to escape these assaults if you, supporting the truth, and setting envy apart, shalt come with a gentle mind to the reading of these things. Beside this, I have the Word of God wherewith to defend myself. [. . .] Furthermore, in many, and almost in all places of study, a perverse custom and damnable use is grown, in that they bind with an oath the scholars which they receive to teach, never to speak against Aristotle, Boethius, Thomas, Albert, or against any other of their scholars, being accounted as a god, from whom if a man differ a finger breadth in thought immediately they will call him heretic, a sinful person. [. . .] These then so unadvised giants and enemies of the holy scriptures are to be assaulted, and their fortresses and castles ran- sacked; and to declare how great a rashness and presumptuous arro- gance it is to prefer the schools of philosophers before the Church of Christ. (Aiv₎

After this strictly orthodox introduction, he rejects scientific research in general. Referring to the doctrines of deification that several authors asso- ciate with the advancement of learning, Agrippa states that learning plays no part in salvation and in fact hinders it. He provides two arguments: since all sciences are based on certain basic principles, without those knowl- edge collapses, meaning that finite investigation cannot grasp the infinite truth. Furthermore, all scientists are tyrants, who enforce their opinion on men rather than offering honest and convincing reasoning.

In a similar style, the following chapters condemn logic, natural philosophy, politics, church government, medicine, law, even theology:

Lastly it resteth to speak of divinity. [. . .] But let us speak first of scholastical divinity, which doctrine was first made by the Sorbonistes of Paris, with a certain mixture of God’s worde and philosophical rea- sons, fashioned like two bodies, as if were of the Centaurs kind. [. . .] Hereof it is come to pass that the high science of school divinity is not free from error and naughtiness, so many sects, so many heresies have the wicked hypocrites and hair-brained sophisters brought up. (chapter 97, 168v_–171v₎

In the middle of the work several chapters are devoted to the magical arts. These (chapters 41 through 48) were also appended to the 1533 edition of De occulta philosophia, perhaps to camouflage the radicalism of

that work. Interestingly, although he criticizes the practices dealing with magic, he finds little condemnable in the principles of the occult arts. “Of Magic in general” Agrippa says:

Magic therefore comprehending all philosophy, natural and mathemati- cal, joins the powers of religions to them. Hence also they contain in them goetia, and theurgia, for which cause many divide magic into two parts, viz. natural and ceremonial. (chapter 41, quoted from Agrippa 1997, 689)

The greatest danger of magic, he says furthermore, is that even if it is practiced without the intention of goetia or necromancy, wicked spirits may arise instead of the invoked angels. As we shall see, Casaubon argued similarily when condemning John Dee’s angel magic. Although Agrippa is more permissive concerning theurgy, he finally calls it futile: “Now many think that theurgia is not unlawful, as if this be governed by good angels” (chapter 46, Agrippa 1997, 699). Interestingly, he cites Porphyry to deny the possibility of magical exaltatio:

Of this theurgia, or magic of divine things, Porphyry disputing at large, at length concludes that by theurgical consecrations the soul of man may be fitted to receive spirits, and angels, and to see God: but he altogether denies that we can by this art return to God. (ibid.)

Here he mentions his own De occulta philosophia which he interprets in a new light: “Here is great need of caution, as we have lately discoursed at large in our books of Occult Philosophy” (ibid.). In fact, as I have quoted, in De occulta . . . he spoke about magical deification—and the cabala—in the loftiest tone. Here he calls it “pernicious superstition, by the which they gather at their pleasure, defaming the Scriptures, they calumniate the Law of God, and by the supputations of words, syllables, letters, numbers impudently extorted, they assay to bring violent and blasphemous proofs for their unbelief ” (chapter 47, Agrippa 1997, 701– 02). Let us remember that in the second book of De occulta . . . Agrippa did his best to fuse Christian number symbolism and the cabala, devel- oping complicated tables of the principal sacred numbers, always giving the corresponding Hebrew letters, too (“The name of Jehovah with ten letters collected; The name of Jehovah with ten letters extended . . . ” 2.12, Agrippa 1997, 288).

The title of chapter 100 in De incertitudine . . . is “De verbo Dei” and admits only the Scripture as the receptacle of truth. However, as

Keefer observes, Agrippa does not speak merely about the truth of the Word (that is, Christ, the Logos), he also introduces here the concept of a type of illumination which the occult sciences can substitute. To be precise, this illumination can fulfill what magic is incapable of:

[This faith] truly is much higher and more stable than all the credulity of human sciences by as much as God himself is more exalted and more truthful than men. Nay rather God alone is truthful, and every man a liar. [. . .] Indeed God alone contains the fountain of truth, from which he must drink who desires true doctrines: since there is not, nor can be had, any science of the secrets of nature, of the separate sub- stances, much less of God their author, unless it is revealed by divine inspiration. (chapter 100, Agrippa 1575, 177v₎

The quotation suggests that faith is not the ultimate goal, rather a means that opens the gates of sacred illumination and allows man to peep through this entrance into the supernatural world. A passage from chap- ter 98 seems to confirm this reading. Here Agrippa writes of interpretive theology, acknowledging that he himself does not belong to those elect who have this divine gift. He can only interpret the prophecies, thus trying to get nearer to God. There are, however, more ways than one to interpret prophecies. Agrippa rejects “defining, dividing, and compound- ing” Aristotelians because God “cannot be defined, or divided or com- pounded” (quoted by Keefer 1988, 634). The more acceptable way lies

midway between this and the prophetic vision, which is the agreement of the truth with our purged intellect, like a key with a lock. As our intellect is most desirous of all truths, so it is perceptive of all intelligibles, and therefore it is termed the passive intellect [intellectus passibilis] by which even if we do not perceive in a full light the things which the prophets set forth, nonetheless the gate is opened to us, [. . .] and it is granted us to read and understand, not with outward eyes and ears, but to perceive with better senses, and with the veil taken away. . . . (Chapter 98, Agrippa 1575 71v_-172)23

The allusions to the New Testament are obvious here,24 _{but the}

reader well versed in hermetic literature can immediately add a comple- mentary text from chapter 13 of the Corpus hermeticum, the so-called hymn of light:

Powers within me, sing a hymn to the one and the universe. Sing together, all you powers within me, for I wish it. Holy knowledge, you

enlightened me. [. . .] I thank you, god, power of my energies; through me your word hymns you; through me, O universe, accept a speech offering, by my word. (13.18; Copenhaver 1992, 53)

Chapter 102 of De incertitudine . . . is a perplexing digression on the praise of asses (Ad encomium asini digressio). Here Agrippa praises the simple ass on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Knowledge is the inven- tion of the Serpent, so it is reasonable that Christ invited no rabbis and learned priests as his apostles, rather simple working men who themselves were “asses.”

The conclusion of the work also refers to the asses, and Agrippa calls the pious reader thus:

Wherefore O ye asses, [. . .] be you loosed from the darkness of flesh and blood. If ye desire to attain to this divine and true wisdom, not of the tree of the knowledge of good and ill, but of the tree of life, cast aside the sciences of man. Now entering not into the schools of phi- losophers and sophisters, but into your own selves, ye shall know all things: for the knowledge of all things is compact in you. . . . (Peroratio, Agrippa 1575, 186)

After putting on this tone of the propagator of holy simplicity and naive illumination, in the last paragraph Agrippa takes yet another turn. By alluding to the wisdom of Solomon and the apocryphal Book of Wis- dom, he echoes the hermetic teachings once more:

It is he that hath given me the true knowledge of those things which are, that I might know the disposition of the compass of the earth, the virtue of the elements, the beginning, consummation, middle, and revolutions of times, the course of the year, the disposition of the stars, the natures of living creatures, the anger of beasts, the force of the winds, the thoughts of men, the difference of plants, the virtue of roots, and finally I have learned all things which be hidden or un- known, for the Artificer of all things hath taught me wisdom. (Peroratio, Agrippa 1575, 187v₎25

What is this if not a reminiscence of the exaltatio of the magus? This biblical locus, not entirely fitting in with the general tone of De

incertitudine . . . , makes us aware of Agrippa’s possible multiple inten-

tions, showing the work to be much more complex than it looks at first sight. This becomes even clearer if we discover with Keefer Agrippa’s conscious misquoting: “In the Vulgate the last words of this passage are

‘omnium enim artifex docuit me sapientia.’ Agrippa, adding one letter, writes ‘sapientiam’—and wisdom becomes, not his teacher, but the con- tent of what he is taught, not an aspect of God, but an instrument of his own desire for power over nature” (Keefer 1988, 640).

After this one could ask if Agrippa really became a sceptic, or rather had he something to hide on the pages of De incertitudine . . . ? Ponder- ing this question, Frances Yates noticed some interesting textual parallels (1979, 42–44). She mentioned The Golden Ass of Apuleius where the hero has to turn into an ass to rid himself of earthly drag before entering mystical initiation. Similarly, Agrippa leaves behind secular sciences be- fore the sacred illumination. Yates entertained the thought that Agrippa’s ambivalent attitude in De incertitudine . . . could be interpreted as covert subversion. There were too many attacks against him with charges of black magic, so with a witty humanist treatise he discredited the branches of scholasticism unappreciated by the new learning. With this he testified to his Christian faith and othodoxy.26 _{The rejection of traditional sciences}

by no means guaranteed pious orthodoxy. Faustus, in Marlowe’s drama, does something similar and his arguments in his first soliloquy are quite close relatives of Agrippa’s sarcastic criticism. Still, out of desperation, Faustus ends up making a pact with Satan. In the light of this possible outcome of the disillusionment with the human sciences, Agrippa’s sub- version gains unresolved significance.27

Agrippa’s scepticism could be rooted in, at least partly, the humanist literary traditions, too. In this respect two possible parallels can be men- tioned. The first is Cusanus’ De docta ignorantia (Of learned ignorance, written in 1440), which explains in a quasi-naive manner that learned ignorance “is a practice and style of mystical contemplation that depends upon a prior committment to rational knowledge and to the investiga- tion of nature” (Koenigsberger 1979, 125). The second parallel is the

Praise of Folly (Encomium moriae, 1511), written by Agrippa’s contempo-

rary and fellow-humanist, Erasmus of Rotterdam. In the Praise of Folly Erasmus mocked monastic life as well as scholastic sciences in a manner quite similar to De incertitudine. . . . The allegorical woman personifying Folly discredits not only the corruption of the church and the stupidity of the monks, but she also rejects sciences from grammar through math- ematics to magic. The conclusion of the work is again similar to that of Agrippa: the only firm truth can be found in the Gospels. Erasmus also entertains thoughts on sacred illumination; here he speaks of the “madnesses” of Plato and his concept of illumination is not far from the concepts of Ficino and Pico discussed earlier.28

One can also see interesting biographical connections between Erasmus and Agrippa. While the former was working on the Praise of Folly in the house of Thomas More near London, Agrippa also traveled in England (1510). There is no evidence that the two humanists met at that time but later they corresponded on various occasions. In 1530 Erasmus recom- mended to Agrippa a student who wished to pursue studies in the occult philosophy. In this letter Erasmus also mentioned that he had heard of

De incertitudine . . . as a “bold work.” Agrippa quickly answered, calling

himself an Erasmian and a faithful Christian, and asked for Erasmus’ opinion about his work. The scholar of Rotterdam replied only three years later, already after the publication of De occulta philosophia. Erasmus politely praised Agrippa’s scholarship, but made his intention clear that he would not be involved in the debate concerning the German’s magical work.29 _{In this correspondence we see an Erasmus different from that}

younger and more enthusiastic scholar who had passionately defended the Christian-cabalist Reuchlin a few decades ago—at about the time when he himself had alluded to neoplatonic exaltatio in the Praise of Folly. By the 1530s he had become distrustful of number symbolism and other magical and mystical practices.30

We have come closer to the ideological context and the literary models of De incertitudine . . . , but so far we have not been able to explain Agrippa’s strategy in publishing his two works in the described manner. His argu- mentation quite certainly rules out that his purpose with De incertitudine . . . was merely to open an ideological safety valve, although the 1533 edition of De occulta . . . , especially its paratext, the various prefaces and dedica- tions, definitely reveal some ironic and subversive gestures. In the general preface, “To the Reader,” Agrippa emphasizes that De occulta . . . was a product of his foolish youth: “I wrote this being scarce a young man, that I may excuse myself, and say, whilst I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child” (Agrippa 1997, lii). Realizing what logical question would arise from this remark, he immediately puts it up himself: “You may blame me again, saying, behold though being a youth didst write and now being old hast retracted it; what therefore hast thou set forth?” (ibid.). Then he tries to convince the reader that his only purpose with the late publication was to eliminate the danger resulting from the circulation of corrupted manuscripts and prints.

As opposed to this, in his next preface, dedicated to Prince Hermann,