How did the enlightenment bring together ideas of both the renaissance and the reformation?

ABSTRACT

This essay introduces the collection of articles contained in this special issue, explaining their necessity and contextualizing them within the historiographical debates around “ancient theology” and “civil religion”. It does so by referring to well-known influential figures in Renaissance and Enlightenment studies such as Daniel P. Walker, Frances A. Yates, Charles B. Schmitt, Eugenio Garin, Cesare Vasoli and Franco Venturi, as well as to more recent studies such as that by Dmitri Levitin. It further provides a brief overview of each contribution and places the special issue within the disciplinary context of global and comparative intellectual history.

The essays presented herein partly originate from a symposium titled “From Ancient Theology to Civil Religion, from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment”, which was held under the aegis of the Sydney Intellectual History Network at the University of Sydney, Australia, 9–10 November 2015. Six of the papers – those by Vasileios Syros, Fabrizio Lelli, Miguel Vatter, Umberto Grassi, Daniel Canaris and Jennifer Mensch – were presented there and have been subsequently significantly revised for publication in this special issue, while Maurizio Campanelli, Giacomo Corazzol and Jeremy Kleidosty were invited to join the project at a later stage with original contributions. In order to begin to summarize the papers and the special issue as a whole, the diversity of methodological approaches adopted by each author should be emphasized. The widely differing approaches relate to how Martin Mulsow describes “global intellectual history” as a discipline in the making

which not only displays many of the characteristics of already existing forms of intellectual history – from conceptual history to network analysis, from the history of political languages to the philological study of texts – but which ultimately amount[s] to innovative approaches to an old subject. The extension of the perspective into the global creates new and unique problems that require imaginative solutions.1

Recent scholarship on the “radical Enlightenment” has emphasized the theologico-political strategies adopted by this philosophical movement to bring about a conception of the state that is “neutral” or “tolerant” in relation to religious (and perhaps also non-religious) world views. However, while one of the important concepts employed in this strategy revolves around the idea of a “civil religion”, the prehistory of this civil or political conception of religion remains less well explored. This special issue aims to bridge this gap by exploring the connections between the Renaissance idea of “ancient theology” and the Enlightenment idea of “civil religion”. Although influential scholars such as Daniel P. Walker, Frances Yates and Charles B. Schmitt have argued that the Renaissance idea of “ancient theology” proved fundamental to the development of the European and Anglo-American Enlightenment, and in particular led to a republican conception of civil religion that inscribes religious tolerance into the political constitution, the precise nature of this filiation and its meaning has until recently remained to be explored.2 Moreover, not enough attention has been given to the ramifications of this movement in relation to early eighteenth-century theological writings, which – although resisting the secularist currents of the Enlightenment – similarly drew upon and reacted to the Hermetic tradition in an attempt to accommodate other religions within a Christian theological framework. This collection of essays has been created in order to provide a contribution to fill such lacunae.

As emphasized by one of the volume's reviewers, Guido Giglioni, the body politic – like the bodies of all living beings – is inherently vulnerable and exposed to the possibilities of decline and destruction. Within this traditional way of representing the nature of human commonwealths, Giglioni continues, religion can be seen as both the pathogen and the antidote (as, for instance, addressed by Miguel Vatter's essay on Machiavelli). Between the late medieval and early modern periods, when religious divisions were often the cause of or trigger for political and social unrest, reflections over the essence of divine creation and governance of the world represented an integral part of the political thinking of the times (an example of this is Jeremy Kleidosty's article on Hobbes, who built his theory of political sovereignty on the experience of the English Civil War and the notion that religion had a fundamental public role on which the stability of a commonwealth depended).

This collection of articles engages with this theologico-political predicament, moving from the assumption that some of its more original and innovative features originated from the way in which Renaissance authors (such as Leonardo Bruni, Jochanan Alemanno, Georgios Gemistos Plethon, Marsilio Ficino, Giovanni Pico and Niccolò Machiavelli, among others examined in the volume) recovered and reinterpreted themes belonging to the tradition of Greco-Roman historiography and political thought, as well as to biblical exegesis, historical narratives of ancient wisdom and travel reports on Indian and Chinese cultures.

Bringing together specialists in the conceptions of religion, politics, literature and philosophy between the fourteenth and eighteenth centuries and a variety of methodological and disciplinary approaches (such as textual criticism, political science, history of philosophy and intellectual and cultural history), the volume aims to present its readers with fresh historical research and new ideas while also addressing a number of interrelated issues. It establishes links between the notion of civil religion and the complementary ideas of ancient theology, poetic theology and natural theology, the uses of prophetic knowledge in the elaboration of political strategies, the role of cosmology in the development of a civil use of religion, the discourse of prophetology from Machiavelli to Kant and the application of Hermetic theories to the shaping of a number of theological debates involving European encounters with Islamic, Jewish and Chinese civilizations. Not only is the spectrum of positions outlined throughout this volume wide and diverse, but the temporal and spatial coordinates are also well represented, ranging from the antiquity through the Middle Ages to the early modern period, analysing the Zoroastrian, Greco-Roman, Jewish, Christian and Muslim civilizations and including heterodox and orthodox perspectives alongside popular and learned traditions.

Although such feeling cannot be assumed for all contributors, I felt the urgency to assemble a collection of critical perspectives to engage with traditional accounts of the connection between the “Renaissance” and the “Enlightenment” periods and integrate them with more recent interpretations of the early modern period in Europe. At first, my interest was sparked by Italian historian of philosophy Eugenio Garin's notion of a long Enlightenment, which spans from Petrarch's fourteenth century to Rousseau's eighteenth century, and which Garin himself problematized further after borrowing it from Delio Cantimori's work on the periodization of European history.3 Such a notion, in short, considers the French Revolution as the end of the age of Renaissance Humanism, enclosing in one ideal world scholastics and humanists and the revolutionary thinkers of the early Enlightenment “from Petrarch to Rousseau”. The most influential Italian historian of the Enlightenment, Franco Venturi (1914–1994), reacted to this interpretation in his “Trevelyan Lectures” delivered at Cambridge University in 1969, in which he protested against the tendency of scholars such as Peter Gay and Ernst Cassirer to match philosophy and history of the Enlightenment, and in particular against Cantimori, “one of the men for whom the age of humanism ended with the French revolution. He too enclosed in an ideal world scholasticism and the humanists up to the dawn of the Enlightenment, from Petrarch to Rousseau”.4

Venturi was reacting to such an interpretation, which he claimed had been Cantimori's own since the late 1930s and which Garin had begun to embrace in his early work on the English Enlightenment published in 1942,5 emphasizing it once again thirty years later in his 1970 Dal Rinascimento all’Illuminismo in clear opposition to Venturi's “Trevelyan Lectures”, in which Cantimori had been attacked. Garin pointed out that he still considered fruitful Cantimori's representation of a connection between the “humanistic renewal” and the “start of the Enlightenment”.6 The difference between Cantimori's and Garin's interpretations was that while Cantimori was interested in the political history of groups of heretical and revolutionary intellectuals, Garin rather emphasized a philosophical theme – that of the “consciousness of rebirth [la coscienza del rinascere]”. In this sense, for Garin the theme originally proposed by Cantimori was morphing into a notion of a long Enlightenment divided into two different moments: the “moment of the rebirth [il momento della rinascita]” (when the light comes back after a period of darkness) and that of Enlightenment (when the light spreads out).7 Garin, thus, was without hesitation including the idea of modernity in the centuries spanning from Petrarch to Rousseau. It should be noted, however, that Garin's main interests were never devoted to the autonomy and specificity of the age of the Enlightenment, while Venturi opposed such a philosophizing conception as he considered it a major obstacle to achieving a satisfactory understanding of the reforming features of the Italian Enlightenment, which he viewed as much more historically sound.8

In more recent decades, the work of Cesare Vasoli (1924–2013) has surveyed the so-called myth of the “prisci theologi [ancient theologians]”. Although Vasoli, who was a student of Eugenio Garin’s, began writing on this subject in the 1960s, studying the influence and circulation of ancient theology in Symphorien Champier's sixteenth-century France, he later returned to the sources of the “myth” – that is, to the Italian humanist movement, and particularly to Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), and, before him, to the Byzantine philosopher Georgios Gemistos Plethon (1355–1452). In doing so, Vasoli insisted on the close relation that he saw between the return of the “prisca theologia [ancient theology]” and the desire for a “renovatio [renewal]” of the Christian religion to be established among humanists on the rediscovery of the ancient roots of a common truth. This truth would be unveiled with the support of the philological sensibility that was so central to the humanistic attitude towards a cultural “rebirth” such as the “Renaissance”.9

From a different – perhaps reversed, in a sense, and healthily non Italo-centric – perspective, the scholarship on ancient theology intended as the history of “histories of philosophy between ‘Renaissance’ and ‘Enlightenment’” is examined in a recent study by Dmitri Levitin entitled Ancient Wisdom in the Age of New Science,10 which looks at the same categories but starting from an interest in abandoning the category of “early enlightenment” because it “obscures more than it reveals about seventeenth-century scholarship”. I found it instructive, in the context of the controversy referred to above, to read what Levitin notes in regard to the need to escape disciplinary history, and “instead examine seventeenth-century histories on their own terms”:

It emerges that many of the conclusions supposedly unique to the “critical” and “enlightened” historians – especially the rejection of Jewish and patristic narratives of pagan-Christian syncretism, and new attitudes to the relationship between ancient and modern natural philosophy – were not only present, but sometimes even commonplace, in the seventeenth-century discussions, and that there was no intrinsic connection between “criticism” and heterodoxy. It is not only the fetishisation of “enlightenment” that has led to neglect of this; it has been a problem from the side of Renaissance scholarship also. It remains customary to claim that Renaissance attitudes to ancient philosophy were “syncretist”, obsessed with developing narratives of a prisca sapientia or a philosophia perennis. The seventeenth century then falls into the gaps, as scholars are unsure whether to classify seventeenth-century attitudes to the history of philosophy as “syncretist” or “enlightened”. However useful the terms prisca sapientia or prisca theologia are for the fifteenth century – and that itself is dubious – they will not be used here. Take for example the following different views: all philosophy derives from Moses or the ancient Israelites; certain natural religious truths descended from Noah to his children and then to the whole world; the Hebrews had vague foreshadowings of Christian doctrines like the trinity which then spread to some pagan philosophers; all pagans believed in God; all pagan theists were monotheists. All of these views have been labelled prisca sapientia or prisca theologia by modern historians, but they are all fundamentally different positions, and were recognized as such by seventeenth-century men of letters.11

Levitin’s argument usefully addresses the connection between the historiographical categories of ‘Renaissance’ and ‘Enlightenment’, and efficaciously exposes the prevalent stereotype of the latter as one that witnessed a move away from humanist modes of thought. The articles selected for this collection contribute to this concern from a different angle and show how the “syncretist” attitude so common in Renaissance scholarship could be fruitfully substituted by a different focus: to consider “ancient theology” a political category (and therefore tied with the discourse on civil religion) and not primarily a philosophico-religious one (and therefore connected to the dubious notion of syncretism).

The contributors to this special issue, although not always directly, engage with these views – and they do so from a range of different critical and disciplinary perspectives. Thanks to the research they have produced, a number of scholarly achievements should be recognized: the acknowledgment that religious experience played an often positive and constitutive role in shaping political and philosophical reflections; the process of cultural hybridization issuing from the merging of the essential characteristics belonging respectively to the prophetic lawgivers in Jewish and Muslim traditions with the idea of the philosopher-king of Platonic origin; and the view of Greco-Roman history and the Bible as repositories of models and examples to be appropriated by a new political science. Two results of the inquiry as a whole are to also be appreciated: the efforts made by many of the contributors to provide an approach to the notion of global or comparative intellectual history; and the legitimacy and productivity of the “Renaissance” as a historiographical category.

An overview of the articles included in this collection could help to engender a general sense of the project. Vasileios Syros takes into consideration the “strongman syndrome” and its long lineage in premodern European and Islamic political thought by analysing the narrative that Italian humanist Leonardo Bruni (ca. 1370–1444) provides in his History of the Florentine People of the ascension and downfall of Walter VI of Brienne in 1342 in Florence and then comparing it with the History of Fīrūz Shāh written one hundred years earlier by historian and political writer Żiyā' al-Dīn Baranī (ca. 1285–1357), who examines the failed leadership of the sultan of Delhi Muḥammad b. Tughluq (r. 1324–1351). In his exploration of specific variants of autocratic leadership in Renaissance Florence and the Delhi Sultanate, as recorded in Bruni's and Baranī's respective writings, Syros demonstrates that both authors seek to offer reflections on the emergence and gradual degeneration of strongman rule that are embedded in a broader discussion of the didactic value of the study of history and its relevance to good government. In a detailed examination of premodern modes of envisioning strongman rule which provides useful insights into the circumstances that incubate the ascent of strong leaders, Syros performs a comparative analysis by showing how both Bruni and Baranī highlight the transience of political authority and the dangers that can arise when a leader is out of touch with the overall social climate, alienates his constituency and operates without popular consent.

In Fabrizio Lelli's contribution, the theme of “Moses legislator” is analysed within the Jewish context of fifteenth-century Italy and in contemporary Christian authors. Lelli notes how such an appraisal of the figure of Moses should be understood against the background of the revival of Platonic thought in the West. Said revival led Jewish scholars – especially those active in Italy – to emphasize the Platonic trends which had long characterized Jewish medieval thought, while, at the same time, the Jewish authors’ involvement in intellectual debates with non-Jews caused them to engage with some of the classical and scholastic sources available at the time to Christians. This adaptation of Arabic–Jewish Platonic texts to Aristotelian humanistic thought eventually gave rise to a new understanding of politics, which stressed its practical more than its theoretical aspects. According to Lelli it also created a new attitude towards political thought, which allowed fifteenth-century Jewish and Christian scholars to interpret the Mosaic legislative corpus not only as a divinely revealed collection of moral and religious precepts but also as the paradigm of a modern legal system that would be employed for motivating the different forms of government of early European nation states on the basis of the political exegesis of Biblical institutions. Lelli's interpretation, thus, sheds much-needed light on the growing impact that the scholarly study of the Bible had on political thinking during the early modern period, in particular with respect to the figure of Moses as a lawgiver.

Maurizio Campanelli tackles Ficino's Latin translation of the Greek Corpus Hermeticum, which was carried out in 1463 at Cosimo de’ Medici's request and was first printed – without the translator's consent – in Treviso in 1471. Ficino's translation, together with his preface detailing Hermes Trismegistus’s life and writings, is analysed by Campanelli as the starting point of modern hermeticism, emphasizing – among forty extant manuscripts, twenty-four editions printed by the end of the sixteenth century and a number of translations in many vernacular languages – that one of the treatises attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, the Pimander, was by far the most widespread of Ficino's work. Before Ficino's translation, a profile of Hermes Trismegistus could be found only in Arabic Hermetic literature translated into Latin during the late Middle Ages. Rich in philological information, the article reveals the multilayered nature of Hermes Trismegistus’s persona and should be read as an introduction to Campanelli's superb critical edition of the Pimander, published in 2011.12

Giacomo Corazzol provides an original contribution to the study of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's relation to Hebrew sources by providing an account of how, in the summer of 1486, he came into possession of what he regarded as the original Chaldean text of the Chaldean Oracles, superseding the Greek text known to him thus far. In his Nine Hundred Theses [Conclusiones nongentae], printed in Rome in 1486, Pico della Mirandola (1463–1496) devoted to the Chaldean Oracles fifteen conclusions, which Corazzol analyses in the first part of the article, pointing out the kabbalistic themes and symbols derived from the original text. In the second part, an in-depth analysis of one of these conclusiones demonstrates that Pico della Mirandola's reading implies that the Greek translator had missed the kabbalistic content of the original. Corazzol convincingly shows that the Nine Hundred Theses aimed at proving that the transmission of kabbalah to Zoroaster and from Zoroaster to the Greek world – in other words, the existence of a divinely revealed prisca theologia transmitted through the ages – could be demonstrated on the basis of philological analysis. Furthermore, Corazzol, in concluding, shows how – according to Pico della Mirandola – the Nine Hundred Theses should be considered as the culmination of the studia humanitatis, thus establishing a connection between the studia humanitatis and studia divinitatis of great importance in the development of any understanding of how the history of humanism is to be conceived.

Miguel Vatter's contribution, to be read as a follow-up to his recent “Machiavelli, ‘Ancient Theology’, and the Problem of Civil Religion”,13 asks whether or not Niccolò Machiavelli's political and religious thought should be considered aligned with Epicureanism, addressing the recent scholarship that has identified him as the foremost representative of such a philosophy in sixteenth-century Florence. Vatter offers a new reading of the incomplete epic poem The Ass (L’asino, 1517), laying bare a Machiavelli close to a Platonic variant of classical naturalism linked with the idea of a natural virtue modelled on the lives of animals. In reading the poem through the lens of Plutarch's Life of Numa, the author recovers – through the studies by Alison Brown and Gennaro Sasso – Arthur Lovejoy's and Franz Boas's notion of “animalitarianism” (i.e. the thesis of the moral superiority of non-human animals over human animals) to show that Plutarch's discussion of that topic in Gryllus influenced Machiavelli. Vatter, perhaps in a Straussian vein, argues that in the poem Machiavelli adopted the view of history and political change typified by the ancient theology of Platonic origin. Vatter's article provides a powerful argument against Alison Brown's interpretation of The Ass, and is concerned to show that the link to Lucretius and a Lucretian heritage in Machiavelli's thought is not as strong as the link to Plato and Platonism.

Umberto Grassi examines the inquisitorial trials of a number of heretics whose ideas are reminiscent of the heresies of Domenico Scandella, known as Menocchio, the miller from Friuli studied by Carlo Ginzburg in his groundbreaking The Cheese and the Worms, first published in 1976. In a learned and original inquiry into forms of popular religiosity centred on the interplay of inquisition, heresy and sexuality, the author bases his interpretation on trial proceedings of the Spanish Inquisition in Sicily and the Roman Inquisition in Naples, Pisa and Venice. Grassi's analysis, which brings to light previously unexplored archival material, is based on twenty-six cases spanning from the second half of the sixteenth century to the beginning of the eighteenth. The general interpretative framework is of a comparative nature, and Ginzburg's Menocchio works as a point of reference in the discussion of topics such as the Eucharist, resurrection, ecclesiastic hierarchy and universal salvation. Grassi adopts a broadly comparative approach enhanced by several possible connections between Christianity, Gnosticism and Islam. The interpretation proposed by Grassi, in addition to providing an original contribution to the history of religious dissent in Italy, sheds new light on the history of religious toleration in the early modern period, unveiling hitherto unnoticed connections between the belief in universal salvation and the quest for sexual freedom.

Daniel Canaris’s article contributes to an understanding of the way in which China figured within the European philosophical imaginary by tackling the question of how Giambattista Vico (1668–1744) viewed China and concentrating on the way in which he responded to the Jesuit theory of cultural accommodation. Canaris, without denying the importance of China to Vico's polemic against libertinism, argues that his representation of China is best understood in view of its theological significance to contemporary Jesuit accommodations of Confucianism. Demonstrating extensive knowledge of the literature on the relationships between Europe and China in the early modern period (Ricci, Kircher, Hornius, Vossius, Martini), Canaris provides a comprehensive account of Vico's position, from the Diritto universale to Scienza nuova in its different editions. Furthermore, he argues the link between Vico and the Hermetic tradition in a convincing way, successfully situating Vico's work in a global context by referring to instances of concrete and historical borrowings and appropriations.

Jeremy Kleidosty's article examines the relationship between politics and theology in Parts 3 and 4 of Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651), introducing it with a general overview chronicling the main stages in the development of the Western and European notion of civil religion. The author argues that Hobbes's attempt to divest religion of its civilizing power is one of the most original and radical features in the Leviathan. Following an overview of a long line of pagan and later monotheistic Christian and Muslim thinkers who advance the position that religion is a way of civilizing or uniting the masses, including Thucydides, Cicero, Augustine, Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Pomponazzi, Kleidosty suggests that Hobbes turns this notion on its head by arguing that religion can contribute to the de-civilizing of the masses and foment civil war. Such a view leads Hobbes to the solution of separating belief from practice, with the former becoming a solely private matter and the latter the exclusive purview of the state. Kleidosty investigates the distinction between the public and the private in a very fruitful way, drawing attention to the fact that the “great divorce” of belief and practice – rather than a call for tolerance or pluralism – is the necessary sacrifice for creating the religious homogeneity required to sustain the body politic in the form of the great Leviathan.

In the final paper, Jennifer Mensch sets out to show how vocabularies of life have been employed by philosophers to explain all manner of cosmological, theological and epistemological events. Mensch's study explores the ideas of the natural history of humankind and self-forming faculties in Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), showing that some of the roots of these kinds of philosophical investigations can be traced back to Marsilio Ficino's recovery of Stoic and Neoplatonic themes – in particular, the doctrine of the logoi spermatikoi. The author also demonstrates that the use of seeds as a metaphor to explain the transmission of truths can be reconnected to the subject of the prisca sapientia and the idea of a self-forming power in the mind developing in history. Narrowing her focus to the eighteenth-century legacy of a particular set of discussions that was begun by Plotinus and other Neoplatonists, and later reinterpreted by Ficino, Mensch persuasively advances an interpretation of Kant as the proponent of a natural history of the unfolding of reason across the ages, which she defines as an “epigenetic” development of reason, and something rather different from the Platonic belief in a pristine self-revelation of reason.

In congruously concluding the set of articles selected for this special issue, Mensch shows how, like Ficino, Kant was focused on the role of education – particularly in the lives of future leaders – and on the task which educators faced in their cultivation of character in both citizens and statesmen alike. However, in Kant's formulation it was mankind's special vocation as a whole to pursue perfection, a pursuit made possible insofar as each person contained a germ of the good, a claim which the author pursues to its first appearances in the Italian Renaissance.

Francesco Borghesi teaches in the Department of Italian Studies at the University of Sydney. His interests are concerned with the development of philosophical ideas in European history, especially between the thirteenth and the sixteenth century, and places itself at the intersection of the histories of philosophy, religion, and literature. His current project focuses on the diffusion of the idea of ethical concord during the Renaissance and among his more recent publications are: Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, ‘Oration on the Dignity of Man’ (Cambridge UP, 2012) and the critical edition of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's letters (Olschki, 2018).

Notes

1. Mulsow, “New Perspectives on Global Intellectual History”, 1. See also Mulsow, “Reference Theory of Globalized Ideas”.

2. See especially Walker, Ancient Theology, 1–62; Yates, Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition; Schmitt, “Perennial Philosophy”; Schmitt, “Prisca Theologia e Philosophia Perennis”.

3. See Garin, Dal Rinascimento all’Illuminismo; Cantimori, “La periodizzazione dell’età del Rinascimento”; Cantimori, “Valore dell’Umanesimo”. Eugenio Garin (1909–2004) and the slightly older Delio Cantimori (1904–1966) were both historians; the former modernized the study of the Renaissance and its philosophical culture, especially with the research which he carried out between the late 1930s and the 1970s, and the latter became the leading figure in the study of the Reformation in Italy due to explorations of sixteenth-century culture such as his Eretici italiani del Cinquecento, which influenced an entire generation of Italian Reformation scholars. On Garin's scholarship, see Rubini, The Other Renaissance, 228–92.

4. Venturi,Utopia and Reform in the Enlightenment, 5. See also the Italian edition of this book: Venturi, Utopia e riforma nell’Illuminismo, 13. And see Venturi, Settecento riformatore, I, xiv–xv.

5. Garin,L’illuminismo inglese. I moralisti, 12.

6. Garin, Dal Rinascimento all’Illuminismo, 11.

7. Ibid., 12.

8. See in particular Ferrone, “Garin”, 270–74. For a wider perspective, see Ricci, “Garin lettore di Cassirer”.

9. See at least the following three studies: Vasoli, “Il mito dei «prisci theologi»”; Vasoli, “Da Giorgio Gemisto a Ficino”; Vasoli, “«Prisca theologia» e scienze occulte”. On Vasoli's scholarship on ancient theology, one can now read Gentile, “Vasoli, Ficino e il mito dei ‘prisci theologi’”. For an excellent study in the footsteps of Garin and Vasoli, see Muccillo, Platonismo, ermetismo e «prisca theologia». On Ficino's views on the Jewish tradition and ancient theology, see Bartolucci, “Introduzione”.

10. Levitin,Ancient Wisdom, 1–31. For a different perspective focused on Italy, see Casini, L’antica sapienza italica.

11. Levitin, Ancient Wisdom, 8.

12. Trismegisto, Pimander sive De potestate et sapientia Dei. On this critical edition, see the review by Malavasi, “Ficinus redivivus”. Incidentally, it should be noted that Campanelli's work provides a valuable integration to the chapter on Ficino in Hanegraaff, Esotericism and the Academy, 41–53, as well as to Eugenio Garin's studies on hermeticism: see Garin, Ermetismo del Rinascimento; Garin, “La sapienza antichissima e l’ermetismo”.

13. Vatter, “Machiavelli, ‘Ancient Theology,’ and the Problem of Civil Religion”.

• Bartolucci, Guido. “Introduzione”. In Vera religio. Marsilio Ficino e la tradizione ebraica. Turin: Paideia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
• Cantimori, Delio. Eretici italiani del Cinquecento. Ricerche storiche. Florence: Sansoni, 1939. [Google Scholar]
• Cantimori, Delio. “La periodizzazione dell’età del Rinascimento”. In Studi di storia, 340–365. Turin: Einaudi, 1959. [Google Scholar]
• Cantimori, Delio. “Valore dell’Umanesimo”. In Studi di storia, 379–390. Turin: Einaudi, 1959. [Google Scholar]
• Casini, Paolo. L’antica sapienza italica: Cronistoria di un mito. Bologna: Il Mulino, 1998. [Google Scholar]
• Ferrone, Vincenzo. “Eugenio Garin: il lungo illuminismo «da Petrarca a Rousseau»”. In Eugenio Garin. Dal Rinascimento all’Illuminismo (Atti del Convegno. Firenze, 6–8 marzo 2009), edited by Olivia Catanorchi and Valentina Lepri, 269–279. Rome: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Garin, Eugenio. Dal Rinascimento all’Illuminismo: Studi e ricerche. Florence: Le Lettere, 1993. [Google Scholar]
• Garin, Eugenio. Ermetismo del Rinascimento. Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1988. [Google Scholar]
• Garin, Eugenio. L’illuminismo inglese. I moralisti. Milan: Bocca, 1942. [Google Scholar]
• Garin, Eugenio. “La sapienza antichissima e l’ermetismo”. In Il ritorno dei filosofi antichi. Ristampa accresciuta del saggio, 67–77. Naples: Bibliopolis, 1994. [Google Scholar]
• Gentile, Sebastiano. “Vasoli, Ficino e il mito dei ‘prisci theologi’”. Rinascimento 54 (2014): 69–83. [Google Scholar]
• Hanegraaff, Wouter J. Esotericism and the Academy: Rejected Knowledge in Western Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. [Google Scholar]
• Levitin, Dmitri. Ancient Wisdom in the Age of the New Science: Histories of Philosophy in England, c. 1640–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Malavasi, Massimiliano. “Ficinus redivivus. Su una nuova edizione della versione del Pimander e sui rapporti tra umanesimo e religione”. Rinascimento 56 (2016): 327–358. [Google Scholar]
• Muccillo, Maria. Platonismo, ermetismo e «prisca theologia»: Ricerche di storiografia filosofica rinascimentale. Florence: Olschki, 1996. [Google Scholar]
• Mulsow, Martin. “New Perspectives on Global Intellectual History”. Global Intellectual History, 2, no. 1 (2017): 1–2. doi: 10.1080/23801883.2017.1370250 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Mulsow, Martin. “A Reference Theory of Globalized Ideas”. Global Intellectual History 2, no. 1 (2017): 67–87. doi: 10.1080/23801883.2017.1332881 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
• Ricci, Saverio. “Garin lettore di Cassirer. Umanesimo, Rinascimento, Illuminismo”. In Eugenio Garin. Dal Rinascimento all’Illuminismo (Atti del Convegno. Firenze, 6–8 marzo 2009), edited by Olivia Catanorchi and Valentina Lepri, 391–442. Rome: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Rubini, Rocco. The Other Renaissance: Italian Humanism between Hegel and Heidegger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Schmitt, Charles B. “Perennial Philosophy: From Agostino Steuco to Leibniz”. Journal of the History of Ideas 27, no. 4 (1966): 505–532. doi: 10.2307/2708338 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
• Schmitt, Charles B. “Prisca Theologia e Philosophia Perennis: due temi del Rinascimento italiano e la loro fortuna”. In Il pensiero italiano del Rinascimento e il tempo nostro (Atti del V convegno internazionale del Centro di studi umanistici. Montepulciano, Palazzo Tarugi, 8–13 agosto 1968), edited by Giovannangiola Tarugi, 211–236. Florence: Olschki, 1970. [Google Scholar]
• Trismegisto, Mercurio. Pimander sive De potestate et sapientia Dei, edited by Maurizio Campanelli. Turin: Aragno, 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Vasoli, Cesare. “Da Giorgio Gemisto a Ficino: nascita e metamorfosi della ‘Prisca theologia’”. In Miscellanea di studi in onore di Claudio Varese, edited by Giorgio Cerboni Baiardi, 787–800. Rome: Manziana, 2001. [Google Scholar]
• Vasoli, Cesare. “Il mito dei «prisci theologi» come «ideologia» della «renovatio»”. In Quasi sit deus. Studi su Marsilio Ficino, 11–50. Lecce: Conte Editore, 1999. [Google Scholar]
• Vasoli, Cesare. “«Prisca theologia» e scienze occulte nell’umanesimo fiorentino”. In Storia d’Italia. Annali 25: Esoterismo, edited by Gian Mario Cazzaniga, 175–205. Turin: Einaudi, 2010. [Google Scholar]
• Vatter, Miguel. “Machiavelli, ‘Ancient Theology,’ and the Problem of Civil Religion”. In Machiavelli on Liberty and Conflict, edited by David Johnston, Nadia Urbinati, and Camila Vergara, 113–136. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017. [Google Scholar]
• Venturi, Franco. Settecento riformatore. I: Da Muratori a Beccaria. Turin: Einaudi, 1969. [Google Scholar]
• Venturi, Franco. Utopia and Reform in the Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
• Venturi, Franco. Utopia e riforma nell’Illuminismo. Turin: Einaudi, 1970. [Google Scholar]
• Walker, Daniel P. The Ancient Theology: Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century. London: Duckworth, 1972. [Google Scholar]
• Yates, Frances A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. [Google Scholar]