Ficino, Plato, and Pico Musings

Ficino was a philosopher of the renaissance who made Plato’s works more widely available to the people of Italy. He adopted and adapted some of Plato’s ideas from the world of forms and explained these ideals to the people he had correspondence with. However, I think that it is his connection to Pico that is more interesting. He states that “It was not for small things but for great that God created men, who, knowing the great, are not satisfied with small things.” This is a direct connection to Pico. He believes that man has the ability to achieve greater things because they are privy to the knowledge of the heavenly world. Plato’s belief that souls were once in a world of pure contentment and were provided for by God but they began to desire worldly things so they fell from that exalted place down into the Realm of Senses. They passed through the river Lethe which made them forget the heavenly world and what they previously knew. The soul then joined the body of a human and now had the task of remembering the heavenly truth through the shadows and memories of them that are represented in the material world. I think the difference between Plato and Ficino is that the purpose for seeking knowledge is different. For Plato, knowledge is achieved because the soul is subconsciously trying to remember being in such a place that was blessed and pure. However, Ficino’s belief is that people grow because God willed them that option to become greater than they originally were. God created humans with the ability to grow and achieve limitless possibilities despite what the constraints may appear to be. Pico also felt that this was the way to “climb the ladder.” He also believed, though, that one could fall from the ladder to the level of the brutes. Ficino’s belief is that people could ignore that ability to grow and only focus on the material world in front of them instead of the betterment of themselves. This is a connection to Plato because he states that they are nurturing their human body “a wild, cruel and dangerous animal” while they allow the soul “to starve to death.” Plato would have agreed with this if it was in pursuit of knowledge because he wanted people to strive for information so the souls could once again reach the realm of the souls. They were both under the thought that “we are spiritual beings having human experience” not human beings searching for a spiritual experience.  I think that all of the writers and postulators believed that philosophy was the correct way to achieve a return or a level of divine nature although Ficino also encourages love, poetry, mysteries and prophecy to reach the level of divine frenzy needed to reach the heavenly world.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola

“The cherub glows with the splendor of intelligence. The seraph burns with the fire of love. The throne stands by the steadfastness of judgment.” These are the things that people are supposed to immolate according to Pico. He believes that people should study and ponder life and their surroundings to reach the cherub’s level of thinking. He thinks that people should strive for the love of God to reach the seraphic level of passion for God. The thrones were those who sat close to God and were the judges. It is Pico’s belief that we should study and go back to the teaching of the ancient fathers to see how each of these types of categories responded to life. To strive to be equal to each of these types of heavenly beings the human beings will climb the ladder to a more successful, holy lifestyle. All of these things are the important qualifications to ascend to the heavens. By taking action to be more like the Cherub, Seraph and the Throne then it is a preventative action to falling down the ascent to heaven and becoming a brute.

How this connects to the Renaissance: he is a firm believer in the will power and the betterment of man. He thinks that man has the capability to reach the heavenly beings but they also have the ability to fall from grace and level themselves with the worms. It is a Renaissance ideal because he is not denying the existence of God but more supporting the creation of mankind. He obviously believes in education because he thinks that philosophers, like himself, are the humans that are closest to being heavenly beings. He thought that by studying philosophy it was possible to climb the ladder to reach the glory that the angels have. This would represent the subcategories of the Humanistic connection to the Renaissance. I think he also shows a bit of the virtuosity that is found in the Individualism category from the Renaissance. Since he listed philosophers as the closest to heaven he has high aspirations in the importance of his profession. It also evokes the idea of Secularism. Despite the fact that this has to do with God and how he gave humans the abilities to become heavenly beings; Pico states that it is up to the person themselves to climb the ladder and achieve that status. There is still the vertical ascent towards heaven instead of the horizontal embrace of the material world, but there is no interference from God and the humans are able to have choice and free-will. I am not sure it this shows historical-self-consciousness. I did not see any example of that; but it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. I think that because Pico had such high hopes and trust in human kind there is a little window for the belief that he is living in a significantly important time.

Great Expectations

I don’t really know what to expect from this course. I know I expect to see some of the most amazing and influential art of this time period.  I expect to see the most popular pieces of architecture and art that I have studied in my art history text books. I am looking forward to getting to know the lesser known pieces through this class. I anticipate travelling and sight-seeing. And I am totally excited to experience the culture that is surrounding me.

As for the texts in the course I want to expand upon my English/Literature background. I think that is the best thing about this trip because it combines both my minor and major in a way that keeps me interested. I want to use what I learn here from Dr. Leininger and Dr. Adkins and how they combine the literature and pieces of art because it will be helpful for my English thesis for next semester. I am also combining literature and art, Madame Bovary and the work of Courbet and seeing how the ideology and culture of France at this time influenced both pieces. I think that this is what this course is going to be as well; a very New Historicism approach to the Renaissance. So even though I am looking at a much later time period I will be able to have an example of how to combine the two successfully. Since I will be writing my thesis next semester this is pretty much the most important thing about the class to apply for next year.

I also look forward to seeing how different texts can be dealt with outside of the classroom setting. I took a Renaissance Literature and a Medieval literature course at GWU but I want to see what else I can learn about it in the country they were written around some of the same structures that existed in that time frame. It should be an interesting comparison.

 I think the thing I fear the most is not having enough time to get to do everything that I expect to do. For example we only have a short weekend in Rome (well really it is a long weekend but the amount of time does not do the city’s history justice) and there is so much I want to see that it nearly seems impossible. I want to go to the Trevi Fountain, the Coliseum, the Pantheon, etc. But because the visit is so limited in the city, I fear I won’t be able to experience it all while I can. I also am a bit apprehensive about working with the music of the Renaissance. I can appreciate it because I am an artistic person but I don’t know how much of it I will be able to comprehend.

So I suppose I do expect a lot from the course but I am also aware of how my expectations could actually be sub-par from the actual experiences that I am going to have while in Italy.