Chapter 2 Matter as a Mirror: Marsilio Ficino and Renaissance ...

Matter as a Mirror 53
to be blamed for having broken the law of silence). 17 This typical intertwining
of Aristotelian and Neoplatonic traditions probably accounts for the limited
extent to which Ficino took notice of the genuine Platonic idea that matter
functions as a space or as a container. Rather than as a serious theoretical
assumption, this appears in Ficino as merely another of Plato’s metaphors
for matter. 18 In this, Ficino relies on Chalcidius who blurs the distinctions
between the concepts of “matter as space” (Plato) and “matter as subject to
change” (Aristotle). 19 Even so, Ficino develops his own account of matter,
which at first sight turns out to be fascinatingly un-Aristotelian. Yet, on closer
inspection, many of Ficino’s ideas can be found in the most widely studied
peripatetic libri naturales or texts on natural philosophy. Treatises On the
Heavens, On Coming to be and passing away, the Meteorologica, On the Sense,
and the Physics, were all basic text books in contemporary Italian university
curricula. The Aristotelian background probably accounts for the fact that
Ficino does not equate matter with privation, as Plotinus had done. 20 The
contrary is in fact true, for according to Ficino matter exists before quality,
it never perishes or dissolves (“pure matter” has no contrary), 21 and it is the
foundation of all natures, the destruction of which would entail the ruin
of the physical world (machina mundi se corruet). 22 As will shortly become
17 In Timaeum chapt. 40, OO, 1464: “sed haec [sc. mixtio invicem commutatio elementorum]
ferme omnia Pythagorico more sub obscuris metaphoris involvuntur: apertioribus
autem verbis Platonem auditoribus suis tradidisse putamus, et Aristotelem prae
caeteris manifestius eadem literis commendasse.” Aristotle’s natural philosophy was accepted
by Middle Platonists; see, for instance Winden (1959) 144–145.
18 In Timaeum chapt. 40, OO 1464: “Adduxit [sc. Plato] in medium multa materiae
nomina, scilicet speciem invisibilem, Sinum informem omniumque capacem formarum,
Naturam Potentiam, Matrem mundi, Nutricem formarum, Subiectum, Receptaculum,
Locum. Sed ex hoc loci nomine videre licet Peripateticum adeo ineptum, sive malevolum
potius, ut dementiae Platonem insimulet, quasi materiam voluerit esse proprie mathematicum.
Quod quidem per caetera materiae nomina evidentissime confutatur.” For further
reference about the integration of Aristotelian natural Philosophy into Renaissance Neoplatonism,
see for instance, Keßler (2001) 82 with n. 5.
19 Winden (1959) 249.
20 Theologia I, 3: I, 112 emphasizes that matter is distinct from extension. See Allen
(1989) 69–70 with n. 30.
21 Theologia X, 3: II, 62 is one of the rare instances in which Ficino associates matter
with something clean.
22 Theologia V,8: I, 179: “Partes enim per quantitatem fiunt. Materia vero quantitati
praecedit: est enim quantitatis qualitatisque subiectum. Subiectum vero semper rem illam