Lazzarelli as designer of the SB?

THE SOLA-BUSCA'S ARTIST, OWNER, DESIGNER

Now I want to comment more broadly, on both essays in the Brera catalog on the Sola-Busca, to the extent that I am able, plus the commentaries on the two alchemical texts that were part of the exhibition.

The essay by Andrea De Marchi, which identifies the artist as Nicola di maestro Antonio da Ancona (Firenze, 1448-Ancona, 1511), I found quite persuasive; but then I don't know a lot about these more obscure artists of the Padua/Ferrara school (with some influence from Florence, from which the artist's father, also an artist, had emigrated).

In Gnaccolini's essay, the identification of the owner of the actual colored deck, as opposed to engravings of odd cards now in various museums, as the well known Venetian diarist Marino Sanudo il Giovane (1466-1536), the "M.S." on the Aces of Batons and Swords, was attractive. The stemma of the Sanudo family (silver with blue stripe), is apparently on the Aces of Coins and Cups, and that of the Lezier [note added Feb. 3 2015: the correct name is Vanier] family, his mother's, on the Aces of Swords and Batons and trumps I, IIII, XIIII, and XV (banded silver and red). Zucker had noticed these stemmi but didn't know what to make of them. Sanudo is documented as commissioning work by Marco Zoppo, whose style is similar to that of the cards, and had hermetic interests as well as in fostering the printing trade. (Another possibility she mentions is Marco Sanudo, his cousin.) Also, the identification of the two persons on the 2 of Coins as Ercole d'Este and Michele Savonarola fits that family. His father represented Venice in Ferrara at the right time, 1457-59, to have known this physician and pioneer in the use of metallic salts to treat illness (and so an "alchemist" broadly defined). Ercole, born 1431, would have known Savonarola (grandfather of the more famous one) both before his training in Naples (1145-1460)and at the end of Savonarola's life, d. 1468. But the portrait appears modeled on a Roman coin of Caligula.

But I was disappointed by Gnaccolini's argument for identifying the designer of the SB as Ludovico Lazzarelli. The principal reasons for the identification are (a) Lazzarelli had a demonstrated interest in alchemy; and (b) his hometown of San Severino, where he returned for a short visit in 1486 after a severe illness, is about 100 km. from Ancona, where the artist lived, in the same rather undistinguished part of the Marches.

On (a), Gnaccolini says (Catalog p. 50; the quotes from Lazzarelli are from Ludovico Lazzarlli, Testi scelti, ed. Brini, 1955; the Crisciani essay is ""Hermeticism and Alchemy: the Case of Ludovico Lazzarelli", in Alchemy and Hereticism, 2000, pp. 145-159; this is in fact a special issue of Early Science and Early Medicine, readily available on Jstor):

A testimonianza di un diretto interesse alchemico del Lazzarelli resta poi il Vade mecum ('Firenze, Biblioteca Riccardia.na, Ms. 984), una raccolta di ricette di Raimondo Lullo e altri, probabilmente trascritte per uso personale dall'umanista, che nell'introduzione presenta l'alchimia come "magia naturale", "congiunzione del corpo nel corpo" da cui deriva "la pietra dei filosofi" 202, in relazione con il testo del Picatrix, traduzione medievale di un famoso testo islamico sulla magia 203. Recentemente la Crisciani ha individuato anche una sua trascrizione del trattato Preziosa Margarita Novella di Pietro Bono, alchimista nel solco di Geber latino (Modena, Biblioteca Estense, Lat. 299) 204. Gli studiosi tendono a far coincidere la nascita dei suoi studi in campo alchemico con la notizia che suo maestro in questa disciplina sia stato, intorno al 1494, il borgognone Jean Rigaud de Branchiis 205, ma in realtà si trattò probabilmente dell'approfondimento di interessi precedenti già presenti, in parallel con lo studio delle tematiche ermetiche.

(As evidence of a direct alchemical interest by Lazzarelli is the Vade Mecum (Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, Ms. 984), a collection of recipes of Ramond Lull and others, probably transcribed for the personal use of the humanist, to which his introduction presents alchemy as "natural magic", "conjunction of the body in the body", from which is derived "the stone of the philosophers" [202], in relation to the text of the Picatrix, the translation of a famous medieval Islamic text on Magic [203]. Recently Crisciani identified also a transcription of the Treatise New Pearl of Great Price by Pietro Bono, an alchemist in the tradition of the Latin Geber (Modena, Estense Library , Lat. 299) [204]. Scholars tend to confuse the birth of his studies in alchemy with the news that his master in this discipline was, around 1494, the Burgundian Jean Rigaud de Branchiis [205]; but in reality it probably deepened previous interest already present, in parallel with the study of hermetic issues.)

In the introduction to the pseudo-Lullian texts he transcribes, Lazzarelli says that he learned the secret of elixir from his master in 1495. Therefore this introduction, at least, was written after 1495. It is possible that the epigram to the other transcribed work was written earlier, but if so not by much. In any case, Gnaccolini offers nothing to tie Lazzarelli's manuscript in particular to the cards. Pseudo-Lullian texts and Pietro Bono's "Pearl of Great Price" were widely read. Likewise, the terms she quotes from Lazzarelli's introduction--"natural magic'', "quintessence", "philosopher's stone" etc.--are very general. Except for the obscure "conjunction of the body in the body" ("congiunzione del corpo nel corpo"), the terms are just what would come to anyone's mind in relation to alchemy. Any special relationship to the Sola-Busca cards is not apparent.

That Lazzarelli was interested--in a general way--in alchemy before 1495, including the late 1480s, may well be correct, even though there is no direct evidence of such interest in his writings before 1495. Moshe Idel has argued that a quotation in Lazzarelli's "Crater Hermetis" points to Yohanan Alemanno's manuscript collection of Kabbalist writings, and that since they were both in Padua in the 1460s they probably knew each other (Hanegraaff, Ludovico Lazzarelli: The Hermetic Writings and Related Documents, p. 86ff). Checking superficially on the Internet (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... 00704.html), I see that Allemano's Collecteania in fact also discusses Jewish alchemy approvingly. Given the similarity of Alemanno's Kabbalah and Lazzarelli's hermeticism, it is likely that Lazzarelli would have been at least interested in alchemy, if only out of curiosity. Many humanists looked favorably on alchemy. Any could have inserted the alchemical imagery, such as it is, into the Sola-Busca. It shows no great profundity of understanding, as I will show in another post. In any case, Gnaccolini makes no effort to connect it to Lazzarelli in particular.

As for the Picatrix, Lazzarelli only mentions "Piccatrix" as the author of the text he is citing,"The Key of Wisdom". That is a text usually attributed to Artifeus; he does cite it correctly according to Hanegraaff (p. 275 n. 5), as his source for his view that alchemy is concerned with "the conjunction of the body in the body" (or "a body with a body", in Hanegraaff's translation of "corporis in corpore"). If this doctrine, on top of the pseudo-Lullian ideas, were expressed visually in the cards, that would be of interest. Gnaccolini makes no such claims.

Another text Lazzarelli mentions, for its quotation of a variant on the Emerald Tablet's "as above so below", is pseudo-Aristotle's "Secret of Secrets to Alexander". A treatise by that name, translated from Arabic, wass "one of the most widely read books of the High Middle Ages", according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretum_Secretorum. The 13th century enlarged version did contain a version of the Emerald Tablet, Wikipedia says.

Gnaccolini does attempt to connect the illustrations in the two 15th century alchemical texts exhibited at the Brera exhibition with the cards. But she makes no claims that they have anything to do with Lazzarelli. One, an "alchemical miscellany", was done for a Benedictine monastery near Florence, c. 1467-1470, Gnaccolini says. That is interesting in itself, given that one of two monasteries she suggests for that honor is a Comaldolesan one under the jurisdiction of the Monasterio dell'Angeli where Ficino lectured, as early as 1469 according to Lackner ("The Camaldolese Academy", in Marsilio Ficino: His theology his philosophy, his legacy, p. 31). That might suggest a connection between the cards and Florence; but it is a long way from a relationship to Lazzarelli.

Might Lazzarelli have used this manuscript for his transcriptions? Gnaccolini offers nothing to indicate that he did. What relation did he have to Florence? His humanists were in Rome, being favored over the Florentines for jobs by the Pope. (On the other hand, Crisciani says that Lazzarelli's connection with Pico and Ficino is "documented" (p. 158); frustratingly, she says nothing else.) Is there anything that can tie Lazzarelli to Florence, or his version of pseudo-Lull with the Florentine one? That is an issue Gnaccolini did not pursue.

The illustrations are in fact quite unlike the cards; all Gnaccolini points to is an "agricultural" theme in both. That is simply too general: the metaphor of the alchemist's "seeding" and "growing" the metals was a common one.

The illustrations of the second manuscript, called "Secreta secretorum philosophorum", may relate better to the cards; at least Gnaccolini does attempt to relate a few to the cards. Their style, she says, is Paduan-Venetian of the 1460s, but also corresponds to the watercolors in an illuminated printed Petrarch Trionfi/Canzioniere of Venice 1488. If Lazzarelli had this manuscript in his possession, acquired in the 1460s, that would mean something. But Gnaccolini makes no such suggestion. It is difficult to imagine Lazzarelli having the wherewithal in the 1460s for such a purchase. Probably the manuscript was in Venice in the 1480s, available to the designer as a source of illustrations. Lazzarelli, as I will explain shortly, was probably nowhere near Venice at that time.

Apart from the illustrations, it is possible that the "Secreta secretorum" text mentioned by Lazzarelli is the same as the "Secreta secretorum" exhibited in the Brera. But Wikipedia mentions that there was another book by the same name, with the same title, giving alchemical recipes and a description of the alchemical laboratory. Gnaccolini makes no mention of Alexander, or the Emerald Tablet, in the book that the Brera exhibited; so more likely it is a different book by the same name. She neither affirms nor denies that they are the same book.

Another way of clarifying whether Lazzarelli was the designer of at least the trumps would be by ascertaining his relationship to the very specific Latin sources about Roman history that scholars have identified for the names of Roman heroes on the cards. She assumes that Lazzarelli would have known them, since he was associated with Leto's "academy" in Rome in the 1470s and early 80s. If so, why are none of them mentioned in his writings? He appears to have had no interest in Roman history. Many of the heroes are rather obscure.To be sure, that this part could have been done by someone else. But that person likely would have had enough familiarity with alchemical imagery to be able to insert it into the cards at appropriate places.

There is also the question of the contemporary humanists that Gnaccolini says are being referred to on the cards: Carbone, Sandino, Sarafino (on the Knight of Coins) etc. Lazzarelli does mention fellow Academy members in his Fasti? Hanegraaff gives a list: "Bartolmeo Platina, Sulpizio de Veroli, Paolo Marsi, Publio Astre, and Aurelio Brandolini". Yet none of these are on the cards; nor are the ones that are on the cards mentioned by Lazzarelli. That is not surprising, because in Gnaccolini's account of these figures, none is documented where Lazzarelli was at the times in question.

There is also the question of the humor in the cards as compared to the writings of Lazarelli. His writings are humorless, in the style of hymns or devotional writings. The cards, however, are irreverent to the point of being grotesque. Related to this, there is the homoerotic content of the cards. Lazzarelli seems to have been heterosexual, given that he fell in love with a certain Arianna in the 1460s, as Hanegraaff concludes based on a passage in the Fasti (Hanegraaff p. 10f). After that, his relationships seem to have been confined to his Muses. They, of course, are infallibly female.

And how, or why, would Lazzarelli have known the artist? That San Severino is close to Ancona is the second reason why Gnaccolini associates Lazzarelli with the cards. But betwen 1473 and 1495 he was rarely anywhere near. His brother Filippo reports a visit home once, in 1486 after an illness (Hanegraaff p. 48), and when he was in between Rome and Naples. Yes, San Severino is only about 100 km. from Ancona, but it is the other way from Rome or Naples. He does not seem to have spent much time there, because he was soon in Naples tutoring Angelo Colocci, then around 12 years old (Hanegraaff p. 52). In a Vatican codex that once belonged to Angelo, Maria Paolo Sacri recently discovered an autograph manuscript by Lazarelli (Hanegraaff p. 50). In it is a passage in which he alludes to meeting Ferrante and complains of no further attention from him:

Twice the moon has been full and twice she has been gone
since I offered my Fasti to the King.
And since then I could neither come into the King's presence,
nor speak with many--my modesty is well known.

This lament must also be put in the context of another occurrence in 1486. Ferrante invited Lazzarelli's hero and master Giovanni "Mercurio" da Correggio to come to Naples. On the way, at Easter, Correggio preaches his Hermetic gospel in Florence, where he is imprisoned on order of Lorenzo de' Medici and investigated for heresy. Ferrante then writes Lorenzo asking for his release, which is granted. Hanegraaff observes:

Based on what we know of Correggio's experiences in Florence, Lazzarelli's first meeting with Ferrante must have taken place briefly after his arrival in Naples; otherwise it would be hard to explain the king's interest in calling for Correggio, in the same year of 1486, and intervening on the prophet's behalf after he had been imprisoned by the order of Lorenzo il Magnifico.

Lazzarelli's job tutoring Angelo Colocci appears to have lasted until the boy moved to live with his uncle in Rome in 1490. At the time Lazzarelli was finishing his poem De Bombyce (the Silkworm), which he dedicated to the boy in language suggesting a tutor-pupil relationship. (See the end of this post for more on this dating.)

This is precisely the time period when Lazzarelli is supposed to be designing an innovative tarot, which is fairly securely dated, in its colorized version, to 1491! How would that have been possible? Unfortunately, Gnaccolini hasn't done the chronology carefully. She simply does not address the time between his visit home in 1486 and his writing of hte "Crater Hermetis" in Naples 1492-1494, except for saying that he was engaged in the "rearrangement of his Fasti" in Naples;

Dopo la morte di papa Sisto IV nel 1484, mutando il clima romano per l'ascesa al soglio pontificio di Innocenzo Vili, Lazzarelli pensò dapprima di cercare protezione presso Mattia Corvino poi, alla morte del re ungherese e dopo un certo periodo in patria intorno al 1486 per una grave malattia, alla corte aragonese (a questo periodo risale il rimaneggiamento dei Fasti). A Napoli dovette dimorare con certezza, come dimostra la dimestichezza con il vecchio re Ferrante, ritratto insieme al Pontano nella posizione di discepolo del Lazzarelli nel Crater Hermetis del 1493-1494...

(After the death of Pope Sixtus IV in 1484, the Roman climate changing with the ascent to the papacy of Innocent VIII, Lazzarelli thought at first to seek protection from Matthias Corvinus, and then, upon the death of the Hungarian king and after some time at home around 1486 with a serious illness, the Aragonese court (in this period was the rearrangement of the Fasti). He must certainly have lived In Naples, as he demonstrates familiarity with old King Ferrante, portrayed along with Pontano in the position of disciple of Lazzarelli in the Crater Hermetis of 1493-1494...)

Since the Fasti was mainly finished in Rome, it would not take much time to "rearrange" it. That would give ample time for the Sola-Busca, especially if he is in San Severino recuperating for part of this period. But it is unlikely that it went that way, as Hanegraaf's careful study shows. (I notice that his book, which came out in 2005, is not in Gnaccolini's bibliography.) The information about the illness comes from his brother Filippo and a fragment from the lost Vita by Fabrizio Lazzarelli. What Filippo says is that Lazzarelli "fell sick in the City"--meaning Rome--and "moved back to his home town" (Hanegraaff p. 297). The fragment from Fabrizio says that the poet returned to San Severino in 1486, in the wake of a grave illness. Hanegraaff concludes:

But rather than having stayed there for the rest of his life, as one would coclude from Filippo's accouunt, it appears that he eventually moved on to Naples.

However "eventually" must have been rather soon, because Hanegraaff also has him talking to Ferrante about Correggio before Correggio's arrest in Florence at Easter. This makes sense. Lazzarelli merely returned to San Severino briefly in between Rome and Naples. He would not have traveled while suffering a "grave illness"; but he might have done so after he had sufficiently recovered. And then his relatives, in recounting his life, simply omitted the embarrassing parts about Correggio and Hermeticism. Filippo does not even mention Lazzarelli's "Crater Hermetis".

So at least until 1490, Lazzarelli was finishing a major poem and serving the Colocci household; generally tutors had more to do than just give a pupil lessons. Also, if his mind was primarily on alchemy then, it is strange that none of the apparent revisions of the Fasti, alluding to Hermeticism, allude to alchemy. Nor does the 1492-94 "Crater Hermetis" make the least reference to alchemy, although it would have been easy enough to do so.

Since the chronology of Lazzarelli's life is quite confusing, given the discrepancies among sources, I have put a summary of Hanegraeff's reconstruction of his life at the end of this post.

There is also the issue of the cards' patron in Venice. Gnaccolini supposes that Sanudo merely bought the engravings after they were made. I find it hard to imagine that someone would expend that much effort without a buyer secured. And the Ercole d'Este/Michele Savonarola portraits, which relate to his family, are engraved, not painted. Gnaccolini suggests it would have been from contacts developed in Rome, or secured by the artist himself. It is possible. But Venice and Ancona (and from there to Venice's colonies in Dalmatia) had many connections, in trade and art, without Lazzarelli.

Then there are the ancient coins that the artist used as models for the faces on the cards. These were valuable and must have come from a collector, I would guess traced by another artist in Venice or Ferrara and the tracings sent to the Ancona artist. This at least shows the involvement of others besides a humanist in Naples.

I conclude that any association between the cards and Lazzarelli is quite dubious.

TIME-LINE FOR THE LIFE OF LAZZARRELLI (based on Hanegraaff)

1447 February. Born in San Severino.
1448 or a little later. Father dies, family moves to Campli, his mother's hometown.
1450s. Tutored by Christoforo de Montone in Campli.
1460. Writes heroic poem celebrating battle of San Flaviano, Ferrante's victory. Poem allegedly presented to Alessandro Sforza, also comes to notice of Roman poet Luca Torzoli.
1462-1464, some portion. Tutoring Bernardino di Capua in Atri.
1464-66. Tutor in Teramo to family of humanist bishop Giovanni Antonio Campano, friend and correspondent of Ficino, who had finished his Hermetica translation 1463.
1460s. Falls in love with a certain Arianna, as recounted later in his Fasti, leading nowhere.
1468. Attends tournament in Padua, writes a heroic poem commemorating it, amply rewarded, according to Filippo's memoir, by its dedicatee John Chetworth, rector of the University of Padua.
1468. Writes Hymn to Prometheus dedicated to the Venetian ambassador.
1468. Living in Sacile with his brother Gerolamo, he recites an oration to the Emperor in nearby Pordenone and is awarded a laureatte. An oration at the ceremony, Nov. 30, praises Lazzarelli's skills.
1468-1469. In Venice writing his De gentilium deorum imaginibus. Originally dedicated to Borso d'Este, who died 1471.
After 1469. Moves to Camerino, year unknown, tutors the Duke Giulio Cesare da Varano's son Fabrizio. At some point family moves to Pioraca to escape the plague. (These places are both inland from San Saverino.) He begins his Fasti. Meets Lorenzo Zane in Pioraca.
1473. Moves to Rome in service to Zane. Deserted by Zane. Joins reformed Roman Academy.
1480. Still in Rome, finishes first version of Fasti.
1481. Meets Giovanni da Corregio at his first appearance in Rome, then returning home in Bologna.
1482. Gives Correggio a translation of all the known Hermetica, including the Differentia Asclepii translated by himself and not part of Ficino's edition.
1483. Giovanni calls himself "Mercurio" da Correggio.
1484. Correggio's 2nd appearance in Rome, as documented by Lazzarelli.
1484. Pope Sixtus IV dies, succeeded by Innocent VIII, known for his bull against witchcraft and condemnation of Pico in early 1487.
1486. Correggio invited by King Ferrante to come to Naples.
1486. Easter. Correggio preaches in Florence, probably on his way to Naples; imprisoned on order of Lorenzo de' Medici, investigated for heresy.
1486. Ferrante writes Lorenzo to request release of Correggio, which is granted.
1486. Lazzarelli in San Severino after a serious illness.
1486. Lazzarelli apparently in Naples, probably invited there by Francesco Colocci, to tutor his younger cousin Angelo, then 12. Lazzarelli's former employer Campano, now King Ferrante's secretary of state, is also friends with Colocci. Lazzarelli probably has an audience with Ferrante, prompting letter to Lorenzo on Correggio's behalf. Lazzarelli dedicates De Bombyx to his pupil Angelo Colocci.
1490. Angelo moves to Rome. Various brief poems and notes by Lazzarrelli, e.g. Latin riddles, are kept by Angelo.
1492-94. Still in Naples, writing "Crater Hermetis".
1494. Jan., death of King Ferrante.
1494. Bergundian alchemist John Rigaud de Branchiis in Siena practicing alchemy in collaboration with a master Albertus, physician from Perugia.
1495. Feb., Charles VII of France enters Naples.
1495, after Feb. Lazzarelli in Rome visiting Angelo. Bombyce printed on Angelo's orders in Rome 1495-98.
1495. Lazzarelli probably proceeds to Bologna, giving his transcription of "Pearl of Great Price" to Correggio, with its epigram to his "teacher". That would explain why the manuscript ended up in Modena. (It might have been Rigaud that he gave it to.)
1495. Year Lazzarelli says Rigaud imparted the "secret of the elixir" to him.
1495 or later. Return of Lazzarelli to San Severino.
1500. Lazzarelli dies in San Severino.

Gnaccolini says that Lazzarelli first knew Francesco Colocci in the 1460s, during the time he was tutoring an "Andria Bernardino Acquaviva" in "the Kingdom of Naples", the son of a city's ruler.

La sua vita ci è stata tramandata dalla biografia latina manoscritta stésa dal fratello Filippo [177] e da quella tarda posta da Francesco Lancinoti a introduzione dell'edizione del Bombyx, uscito a Jesi presso Pietro Paolo Bonelli nel 1765 [178], con alcune aggiunte che si ricavano da citazioni di autori contemporanei. Da queste fonti risulta che il Lazzarelli, terminati gli studi (durante i quali già si distinse per una produzione poetica), fu per un certo periodo nel Regno di Napoli presso Francesco Colocci, quindi istitutore ad Andria di Bernardino Acquaviva, figlio di Matteo signore della città.

(His life has been handed down in the Latin biography manuscript drawn up by his brother Filippo, and [177] what was put down later by Francesco Lancilloti in introduction to his edition of the Bombyx, published at Jesi by Peter Paul Bonelli in 1765 [178], with some additions that are derived from quotations by contemporary authors. From these sources it is seen that Lazzarelli, having completed his studies (during which he already distinguished himself by a poetic production), was for a time in the Kingdom of Naples with Francesco Colocci, then tutor of Andria Bernardino Acquaviva, son of Matteo lord of the city.)

That Lazzarelli tutored an "Andria Bernardino Acquaviva" is a confusion foisted by Lancilotti, the 18th century editor of De Bombyx, according to Hanegraaff. Matteo Acquaviva took over rulership of Atri (near Pesaro) from di Capua in 1464; Lazzarelli had been tutor to Bernardino di Capua and did not go into Acquaviva's service. There is also the erroneous notion that De Bombyce was dedicated to Angelo Colocci at his birth in 1467; hence Lazzarelli was working for Francesco Colocci then or before. In fact, Hanegraaff says, Angelo was born in 1474 according to family records, and "the reference to Angelo's pleasant demeanor does not seem to fit a newborn baby" (p. 52, which has a long discussion of this point, using among other sources Federico Ubaldini, Vita di Mons. Angelo Colocci, Edizione del testo originale italiano, Vatican 1969).

LAZZARELLI'S WRITINGS ON ALCHEMY

Now I want to comment more thoroughly on what Lazzarelli's writings on alchemy might tell us about the tarot sequence, either the Sola-Busca or more generally. My point of departure is Gnaccolini's comments about his Vade Mecum (Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, Ms. 984), his transcription of pseudo-Lullian works, for which his introduction presents alchemy as "natural magic", "conjunction of the body in the body", from which is derived "the stone of the philosophers"; and his transcription of the New Pearl of Great Price by Pietro Bono, an alchemist in the tradition of the Latin Geber (Modena, Estense Library, Lat. 299), for which he wrote a short introductory twelve line poem entitled "The poet Lodovico Lazzarelli of Sanseverino to his teacher Johannes". eWhether this "teacher" is Giovanni da Correggio or Jean Rigaud de Branchiis is unclear. Since it ended up in Modena, Hanegraaff thinks it was to Correggio.

Hanegraaff has translated the first two sections of Lazzarelli's Tractatus de Alchimia, his introduction to the pseudo-Lullian alchemical writings that he transcribed. Here is what Lazzarelli says:

HERMES, the father of theologians, magi, and alchemists, has revealed the secrets of theology and magic and alchemy in one brief statement to his children, when he said: What is above i like what is below, and what is below is like what is above, to accomplish the miracles of the one thing. Its father is the Sun, its mother is the Moon etc. A dictum which was quoted by Aristotle in the Secret of Secrets to Alexander, where he says: And oru father Hermogenes, who is Threefold in philosophy, gave an excellent prophecy and said: THE TRUTH is as follows, and it is beyond doubt, that the lower things respond to the higher, and the higher to the lower, etc. These three mysteries are none other than what Piccatrix says in his book that is called the Key of Wisdom, namely the conjunction of a body with a body [corporis in corpore], the conjunction of a soul [spiritus] with a body [spiritus in corpore], or the conjunction of a soul with a soul [spiritus in spiritu].

The conjunction of a body with a body is the conjunction of the heavenly flesh, namely the quintessence, with the body of a virginal and purified earth: the result is the philosophers' stone, and this is the natural magic about which all the alchemists speak.

He then goes on to say that "conjunction of spirit with body" means bringing down the spirits of the planets into corporal images, the celestial magic of Zoroaster, "disapproved of by the holy fathers; and the "conjunction of spirit with a spirit" is the unity of the Spirit of God with the spirit of man, a doctrine he finds in St. Paul's First Corinthians. I want to focus on the first, body with body, which is what pertains to Lazzarelli's conception of alchemy.

Hanegraaff does not translate or even transcribe the actual pseudo-Lullian works that Lazzarelli included. All he says is (p. 98):

...even more strongly than in the Crater we find the concept of Nature as a subtly graded "stairway to heaven"; her manifestations reflect her Maker on every level, and thus by exploring Nature's forces and secrets, we will gradually be led to the "sanctuaries of the Word-begotten God."

The idea of a "stairway" is also suggested in alchemical imagery of the time, in which the various stages of the work are represented as planets, with the top being either the Sun and the Moon or those two plus a star. One example is from the "Heilege Dreifaeltigkeit" in a manuscript of the third quarter of the 15th century: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chemherita ... otostream/. There are also these, from later on, 1625 and 1588: http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/61 ... 29.jpg.jpg

However the alchemist (and sometimes also the Hermeticist) is not engaged in a vertical ascent.

The "Crater Hermetis" is Lazzarelli's hermetic/kabbalist version of the ascent to God. But in it there is no ascent to heaven, and no bringing of heaven to earth. Rather, there is "soul-making", the creation of invisible helpful spirits.

... just as the Lord or God the begetter (genitor)
generates the celestials and procreates the angels
who are the forms of things, the heads (206) (qui rerum species, qui capita omnium)
and first examples of all,

Just so the true man creates divine souls (divas sic animas verus homo facit)
which the ancient host used to call gods of the earth,
who are glad to live close to human beings
and rejoice at the welfare of man.

They give prophetic dreams, they offer help
to man's need, they punish the godless,
and splendidly reward the pious,
Thus they fulfill the command of God the Father.

They overcome the trials of fate
and chase away destructive illness,
thereby fulfilling the words of the prophets.
They create the Word of God. (207) (Hi verbum faciunt Dei.)

That is why the Begetter has given man
a mind like his own, and speech, [208]
that he, like the gods, may bring forth gods,
fulfilling the decrees of the Father.

Most happy is he that knows the gifts of fate;
he will gladly fulfill it,
for he is to be reckoned among the gods,
he is not inferior to the gods above.
____________________
206. Cf. Asclepius 23: 'deorum genus omnium confessione manifestum est de mundissima parte naturae esse prognatum signaque eorum sola quasi capita pro omnibus esse' (Nock & Festugière [ 1946] comment that 'signa' means "astral forms", which are like heads without body, while the statues of gods (species deorum) fabricated by man depict the whole body)
207. A less daring translation would be "They speak the Word of God," but the context (cf. next couplet) suggests that Lazarelli has something stronger in mind.
208. Cr. Crater Hemetis 25.3 with n. 188.

So now I have to give 25.3 and n. 188. This part is in prose, Lazzarelli addressing King Ferrante (Ferdinandus) (Hanegraaff p. 145, 147):

Because the human mind is the image of the first mind, it has received from the latter not only fertility, but also immortality: these two main gifts are given by that mind itself to its image, that is to say, to the word. That is why Hermes says that the mind and the word are as precious as immortality and why he admonishes us that whoever uses these gifts the way he should is in no way different from the immortals--he even says that through them he is finally brought into the choirs of the blessed. (188) These two things combined, Your Majesty, bring forth a divine offspring.
________________
188. C.H. XII.12 indeed states that God has granted to mankind (but not to any other mortal animal) two things, i.e. "mind and reasoned speech, which are worth as much as immortality" (Cop. 45), and continues by saying that the man who uses these gifts as he should will not be distinguished in anything from the immortals. Ficino's translation is faithful to the meaning of the original [I omit Ficino's Latin translation.] But notice how Lazzarelli manipulates his audience by suggesting that the "two main gifts" are fertility and immortality. This statement is not at all supported by the hermetic reference, but the way Lazzarelli presents his case suggests that it does.

So the created souls are much like the spirits which exist between humanity and the gods of which Socrates had spoken in the Symposium, and which the Asclepius had said could be persuaded to descend into statues. But Lazzarelli is saying something different: they are actually created by man, just as God had created man, through speech. He perhaps has in mind something like Abulafia's permutations of the letters of the alphabet, or Ficino's hymns to Orpheus sung accompanied by his lyre. It is more than what an author does in creating his characters: something real, in some sense, is created. In creating by his word, he is thus like his creator. From these verses it is a very short step to soul-creation by alchemy, which combines conscious thought and prayer with the manipulation of minerals.

For more details it might be helpful to go to the actual pseudo-Lullian texts that Lazarelli has transcribed. Since these are not available, I go to Chiara Crisciana, in "Hermeticism and Alchemy: The Case of Ludovico Lazzarelli" (Early Science and Medicine, 2000). She has several pages of paraphrase from these texts, rather difficult to summarize, and I am not always clear when she is talking about pseudo-Lull and when she is talking about Lazzarelli. I will focus on her discussion of the idea of uniting body with body:

Pseudo-Lull thus proposes a general project for the transformation and restoration of both man and the cosmos which ranges from transmutation to a universal therapy. The models and aims of perfection to which the Testamentum refers are, on one hand, the image of the perfect body of man as represented by Adam and, on the other hand, the image of the earth taken back, through a positive apocalypse, in the pure and immobile perfection of the crystal.

This description seems to be the same thing that Lazzarelli is talking about in his introductory comments, with a few details more. It is a return to the original state. But how is this a "stairway"? And what kind of "apocalypse"?

It seems that the alchemists thought of the stages of the work in terms of the seven days of creation, and also a corresponding seven ages of the world. We are now living in the sixth age, on the sixth day, in which androgynous Adam was created in the image of God. The sixth age was inaugurated by Jesus's birth from Mary, and the seventh age will be inaugurated by Jesus in his second coming.

Moreover, the alchemist in his laboratory can duplicate these days and ages, with the help of God. They are the seven stages of the opus, at the end of which is the conjunction of the "heavenly flesh" of Adam with the "virginal earth" with the "pure and immobile perfection of the crystal", resulting in the philosopher's stone.

It seems likely to me that Hieronymus Bosch's "Garden of Earthly Delights" (with which Hanagraaff starts his essay "Sympathy and the Devil", at http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/VolumeII/Sympdevil.html) is meant to represent the state of the new earth where people are rejuvenated by the philosopher's stone. The exterior doors to this painting show a strange vegetative earth enclosed in crystal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiero ... ers%29.jpg). Laurinda Dixon argues for this alchemical interpretation in her book Bosch, p. 273f:

Bosch's monochromatic image of the transparent globe containing clouds of vapour, water, and earth represents God's creation of the earth, which alchemists imitated, and recalls the egg in its common laboratory form, a spherical or ovoid glass vessel. The image of a drowned and soggy earth, encased in a glass container, corresponds to the alchemical vision of the stage of 'ablution', also called the 'flood of Noah', when the ingredients were washed, cleansed and resurrected. In the laboratory, alchemists noted that the heavy parts of earth remained in the bottom of the flask and the subtle vapours rose upwards. Bosch expertly reproduces the reflective properties of glass and the steamy vapour clouds as they appeared at this time.

On the surface of this earth are odd vegetable-like parts of pods and stems. They resemble pieces of gourds, such as we see carried in the Sola-Busca 5 of Batons (http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/images/t ... _Busca.jpg). On the surface of Bosch's earth, shoots are sprouting here and there, sometimes inside the shells, e.g. a couple on the lower right of the left door. These are the new beings. At the top Bosch has put (along with a little God), in Latin, "For he spoke, and it was" and "By his command, they were created". But what new beings? And who is their creator I would think they are the beginnings of same souls that earlier Lazzarelli proposed were created by speech, created by art rather than nature or God, or rather by God in the art, as my next long quote will make explicit.

Another work that Lazzarelli includes in his transcriptions from alchemy is the "New Pearl of Great Price" by the Ferrarese alchemist and physician Pietro Bono, from the 1330s. In relation to Lazzarelli's comments about the "conjunction of a body with a body", we find the following, in an 1894 translation (http://archive.org/stream/newpearlofgre ... a_djvu.txt) that compares reasonably with another translation I found, by C. G. Jung, except at the end. I highlight the most relevant part:

...It is God alone that perfects our Stone, and Nature has no hand in it. It is on account of this fact that the ancient Sages were able to prophecy: the influence of the supernatural Stone exalted them above the ordinary level of human nature. The prophecies which they uttered were frequently of a special and most important character. Though heathens, they knew that there would come for this world a day of judgment and consummation; and of the resurrection of the dead, when every soul shall be reunited to its body, not to be severed from it thenceforward forever. Then they said that every glorified body would be incorruptible, and perfectly penetrated in all its parts by the spirit, because the nature of the body would then resemble that of the spirit. Bonellus, in the Turba says: All things live and die at the beck of God, and there is a nature which on becoming moist, and being mingled with moisture for some nights, resembles a dead thing; thereafter it needs fire, till the spirit of that body is extracted, and the body becomes dust. Then God restores to it its soul and spirit. Its weakness is removed, and it is raised incorruptible and glorious. Our substance conceives by itself, and is impregnated by itself and brings forth itself, and this, the conception of a virgin, is possible only by Divine grace.

Jung has a different translation of the last part (Psychology and Alchemy, p. 374f):

The old philosophers discerned the Last Judgment in this art, namely in the germination and birth of this stone, for in it the soul to be beatified unites with its original body, to eternal glory. So also the ancients knew that a virgin must conceive and bring forth, for in their art the stone begets, conceives, and brings itself forth.

This last is the famous lapis/Christ parallel of alchemy, in the imagery of the Last Days. All of this is in the alchemist's retort, the "crystal" in which the "new earth" is generated. It reproduces the sequence of the body's death, the soul's ascent, the perfection of the body, and its uniting with the purified spirit.

Dixon (p. 274f) goes on, in her exposition of the outer panel of Bosch's Garden, to cite the 15th century alchemist George Ripley to a similar point:

Ripley, who was court alchemist for King Edward IV of England, spoke of paradise lost and paradise regained after the "flood', reflecting the belief that success would result in a return to Eden for the human race. Likewise Bosch's triptych would have connected the luscious garden of delights with the rewards of a life devoted to earnest study and Christian devotion.

It seems to me that the last two cards of the Sola-Busca are one way of approaching the idea of the re-creation of Eden (not on earth, but in the retort). Nembroto is the evil dross that the fire of God separates from the body and the spirit. Then the last card has a dragon in the background, in a crystal-like sphere. The dragon, in alchemy, is the symbol both of the chaos at the beginning of the work (, and of the end of the work, when it flies upward, transcending the world, but also remains in the retort. Adam McLean, discussing animal symbols of the Nigredo, talks first about the Crow or Raven, then the Toad, and finally the Dragon (http://www.levity.com/alchemy/animal.html):

The Toad was a better symbol of the Putrefaction [than the Crow or Raven], the decaying mass slowly pulsating and shifting as gasses were given off, while the substance rotted down to a black mass. Another symbol of this stage was the dragon, a familiar inhabitant of the alchemists flasks. The dragon is however a more complex symbol and is also used when winged as a symbol for the spiritualising of the earthly substance. Thus to the alchemists the dragon appeared at the beginning and at the end of the work.

The dragon on card XXII of the Sola-Busca is not only winged but flying (http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Image:T21_Sola_Busca.jpg). This is a contrast not just to dragons at the beginning of the alchemical work, but also to the basilisk of card XVI (http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/images/t ... _Busca.jpg). Gnaccolini reasonably suggests, basing herself on the 12th century writer Tholopholus, that the basilisk represents a powder that was added to the work to facilitate the transmutation to gold, as symbolized by the sun on the card. If so, it was probably a poisonous substance, it seems to me, since the basilisk was also an animal notorious for killing people by its breath. The flying dragon, even as it represents the transcendence of material conditions, is confined to its hermetically sealed flask lest it create death instead of length of days.

I am not proposing that Lazzarelli is the designer of these cards. Others read the same material; the ambiguity of the dragon would have been well known and is not an image I have even found in Lazarelli. I think rather that these cards are part of a shared perspective on the "stairway" of ascent as expressed in various symbol-systems, all leading to a Last Judgment and transfiguration of human souls. Others were interested as well: for example, the same Camaldolese (with others) in Florence who read their General Trevarsari's translation of pseudo-Dionysius and listened to Ficino also--they or other Benedctine brothers then--in the late 1460s copied and had illustrated the pseudo-Lullian codex on exhibit at the Brera. As such, especially given its reference to the Last Days, this perspective may well apply to other tarot sequences besides the Sola-Busca, even without overt alchemical imagery. In this way the Sola-Busca again may not be as eccentric as it looks.

BASIS IN SCRIPTURE

This is a continuation of the post before last, posting.php?mode=reply&f=11&t=988#pr14772. I want to suggest a scriptural basis for Lazzarelli's alchemical interpretation of "conjunction of a body with a body", which produces the philosopher's stone and which in the texts he transcribes is the alchemical equivalent of the Last Judgment. I have in mind an allegorical interpretation of 1st Corinthians 15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... on=VULGATE, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=DRA):

51 ecce mysterium vobis dico omnes quidem resurgemus sed non omnes inmutabimur
52 in momento in ictu oculi in novissima tuba canet enim et mortui resurgent incorrupti et nos inmutabimur
53 oportet enim corruptibile hoc induere incorruptelam et mortale hoc induere inmortalitatem
54 cum autem mortale hoc induerit inmortalitatem tunc fiet sermo qui scriptus est absorta est mors in victoria

51. Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed.
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.

St. Paul has been discussing the resurrection of the body. There are two parts, the corruptible body and the mortal something else, which I think is the soul. The purified body unites with the purified soul. The soul itself has a body, in Hermeticism, a "subtle" body. It is the "virgin earth" with the original Adam, purified through the grace of God.

Might it be possible to have the Last Judgment in the present, through art and God's grace? There is an earlier passage which the alchemists would have found meaningful:

36 insipiens tu quod seminas non vivificatur nisi prius moriatur
37 et quod seminas non corpus quod futurum est seminas sed nudum granum ut puta tritici aut alicuius ceterorum
38 Deus autem dat illi corpus sicut voluit et unicuique seminum proprium corpus
39 non omnis caro eadem caro sed alia hominum alia pecorum alia caro volucrum alia autem piscium
40 et corpora caelestia et corpora terrestria sed alia quidem caelestium gloria alia autem terrestrium
41 alia claritas solis alia claritas lunae et alia claritas stellarum stella enim ab stella differt in claritate
42 sic et resurrectio mortuorum seminatur in corruptione surgit in incorruptione

36 Senseless man, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die first.
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be; but bare grain, as of wheat, or of some of the rest.
38 But God giveth it a body as he will: and to every seed its proper body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes.
40 And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial.
41 One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption.

Why does St. Paul go on about all these types of body, not just of the animals in water, air, and earth, but of the fiery bodies of sun, moon, and stars? This is the same St. Paul who in 2nd Corinthians talks about the man who ascended to the third heaven, whether in the body or out he did not know, and heard things it is not permissible to utter.

The soul's purification is reflected in an allegorical ascent through the heavens; but the body is perhaps left behind. I think the alchemists' idea is that the body, too, can be purified, by God's grace, in the present, by passage through the regimens of the various lesser metals, corresponding to the lesser planets, up to that of gold, the rubedo, corresponding to the sun. The Star, Moon, and Sun cards would represent these stages of the Work, the seven ages of the world in one brief span of time. Then by the parallel of the philosopher's stone to Christ, contact with the stone would give long life in the flesh to one whose soul is also purified. So the "conjunction of a body with a body" (or in a body) might be that of the stone with the mortal body of a human, or it might be the conjunction of the purified body with the purified soul.

Well, that would likely have been one interpretation, it seems to me. I have read somewhere, I think in Humfrey and Lucco's Dosso Dossi, that Ercole d'Este was given gold mixed with liquid the evening before his death. That would have been on order of his physician, who was not by then Michele Savonarola but also alchemically inclined. Gold is not the stone, evidently.