Ph.D Tina Adamou Fikas- Philosophic Allegories in Renaissance Art

-She received a degree in Philosophy from the University of Crete

-a Master Diploma in Cultural Management from Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences and

-a doctorate of philosophy (Ph.D.) from the University of Athens.

She is the author of the book, Ideal Societies. From Plato to Campanella, Academy of Athens, Athens, 2005.

The shift to classical antiquity, which occurred during the Renaissance breathed new life into most philosophic systems. But it was mainly platonic philosophy that became the focal point of in terest in the Renaissance. The center of this revival of Platonism and Neoplatonism was Florence ¹. On several occasions there was a close cooperation between philosophers and artists. Such collaborative work resulted in the production of a great number of mythological and philosophic allegories ², whose symbolisms and meanings trouble even today the iconologists.

The Primavera (1477- 78) ³ and the Birth of Venus (1483 -84) ⁴ by Botticelli are both works permeated by the neoplatonic philosophy ⁵. As it is known, Botticelli had been related from a very early age to the Medici family

¹The platonic Academy in Florence was found in 1459 by Cosimo de’ Medici. The most exceptional members of the platonic circle in Florence was Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), director of the Academy and translator of the works of Plato and Plotinus, and Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) who made a synthesis of the neoplatonic philosophy along with neopythagoric concepts and Kaballah elements.

²Allegory is based on the principle of aliud dicitur, aliud demonstrator. For the significance of allegory in neoplatonism cf C. BLACK, Pico’s Heptaplus and Biblical Hermeneutics, Lieden-Boston, Brill, 2006.

³ Tempera panel painting (2.03×3.14m)., Florence, Uffizi.

⁴ Tempera on canvas, (1.75×2.79m)., Florence, Uffizi.

⁵The interpretation of Primavera in the light of neoplatonism was advocated by André Chastel, Erwin Panofsky (Renaissance and Renaissances in Western Art) and Edgar Wind (Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance).

and thus, came into contact with the humanistic and neoplatonic circles of that time. Actually, Botticelli is considered to be the one who introduced mythological themes into art and advocated the revival of antiquity that had been so often linked to the Medician Florence.

Primavera consists of two parts which are in harmony, around a central axis which is defined by goddess Aphrodite. These two parts express the two separate facets of the goddess, Aphrodite Pandemos and Aphrodite Ourania.

Flora represents the earthly or Pandemos Aphrodite, t he eternal bearer of life, while Zephyrus, who enters forcefully into the painting, seizing the Nymph Chloris, symbolizes the unbridled passion.

Aphrodite in the middle of the painting symbolizes spiritual love, which allows the ascent of the soul to th e pure intellect, like Diotima in Plato’s Symposium shows the way to beauty and celestial love. Aphrodite is found in the middle of a process which takes place between gods and humans and is accomplished in three time stages: a) outflow, meaning creativity , b) inversion and c) return to heaven and reunification with gods.  Aphrodite rules the past, the present and the future.

The unity of Aphrodite is unfolded through the triad of Graces, who represent Beauty, Love and Bliss. It is at the Grace found in t he middle that Eros (Cupid) ⁶ is aiming his arrow. For the Renaissance philosopher, Eros is the means that bridges the distance between God and his creations. With his burning arrow he will awaken the dormant will of the psyche and spur it to seek God. This heroic enthusiasm will come to an end with the union of the hunter with i ts prey according to a picture used by Ficino and late r by G.Bruno. The fact that Eros is blindfolded indicates the development of the internal vision ⁷ which is a prerequisite for one to get acquainted with the divine nature of the immortal soul.

⁶ In Plotinus’ Love, which was translated and commented on by Ficino, a distinction is made between Aphrodite and Eros (Love), which explains their different roles in the painting of Boticelli. “if Soul be the mother of Love, and Aphrodite mean Soul, and Love be an act of a Soul seeking good”, PLOTINUS, The Enneads, engl. transl. St. MacKenna, London, Faber and Faber Limited, 1962., III.5.4.21-22, p. 195.

⁷Plotinus refers to this internal vision which is necessary for the return of the Soul to its “homeland”: “Let us flee then to the beloved Fatherland!…What then is our course, what the manner of our flight?… «you must close

At the end of the painting Hermes declares the ultimate goal of love, the union with the spirit. Hermes is the god who reveals the secrets of “hermetic” ⁸ knowledge. Revealing the mysteries means removing the veils that cover the truth. Hermes has turned his back to the natural world and looks at the true being. Along with Zephyrus, they constitute complementary forms ⁹. The renunciation of the world through Hermes’ detachment, and the entrance to it through Zephyrus’ vehement force are the two sides of love. Zephyrus and Hermes are two stages of a periodically repe titive process. Whatever descends to earth through the blow of passion must return to heaven through the spirit of meditation. Ever ything comes from the being and returns to it. This invisible world towards which Hermes is turning and from which Zephyrus enters is permeating the whole painting ¹⁰.

Botticelli wishes to depict the idea which, according to Neoplatonists, is beyond reality ¹¹. That is why all the elements of the painting are used not to interpret reality, but to transcend it. In that way, all the rules of knowledge which had been constructed at the beginning of the century collapse. The perspective as structure of space coll apses, the light as natural reality collapses as well as the corporeality as specification of things and space. At this point, it is worth highlighting the role of icons based on the platonic and neoplatonic philosophy. The icon is viewed positively insofar as it contributes to the ascent from the perceived to the conceivable. According to Plato, icons allow people to get grad ually closer to reality although they are shadowy representations of the prototype from which they differ ontologically.  For the Neoplatonists the ascension from the lower to the higher ranks in the universe is feasible, precisely because of the relation between the prototype and the icon. The sight of the visible objects directs the external senses and the internal human vision to the sight of the prototype. That is exactly where their value lies. The similarity of the icon to

the eyes» and call instead upon another vision which is to be waked within you, a vision, the birth-right of all, which few turn to use”, cf. PLOTINUS, op. cit., Ι.6.8.16-27, p. 63.

⁸As Pico della Mirandola mentions in Heptaplus and in Commento, “the divine things are called mysteries and they wouldn’t have this name if they weren’t secrets”, cf. BLACK, op. cit., pp. 97-100.

⁹ Cf. E. WIND, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, London, Faber and Faber Limited, 1968, pp. 122-124.

¹⁰ E. WIND, op. cit., pp. 124-126.

¹¹ Cf. G..C. ARGAN, Storia dell’arte italiana, v. 2, Sansoni, 1977, p. 238.

the prototype does not constitute a mere reflection but a communion ¹² to i ts reality and makes the communication among distinct ontological realities possible.

Share on Facebook

Tweet