Nietzsche's Reduction: Savonarola

A review of Foucault’s four relations of similitude or resemblance from the “Prose of the World” from The Order of Things demonstrates three things: a) two senses of convenientia, b) aemulatio is accidental or unnecessary, and c) Foucault does not apply Nietzsche’s genealogical method to the Premodern doctrines of macro and micro analogies and sympathies. Even with his three faults, Foucault has provided a map to navigate Premodernity, even though he does not discuss the six terms of barbarity ( cannibalism, human sacrifice, homosexuality, idolatry, witchcraft, absence of belief in God) applied to observations of the New World. To apply a Nietzschean reduction to philosophical theology of Premodernity is uncharted waters. Nietzsche’s reduction is simply this: What is ‘beyond good and evil?’ Whoever is speaking about good and evil and the prejudices that govern their discourse about good and evil? Analogously, what is God? Whoever is speaking about God and the prejudices that govern their discourse about God? Premodernity provides us with several ways of talking about God, which share some prejudices and others are mutually exclusive. 

Accordingly, we have several Gods emerge in Premodernity: Savonarola’s prophetic God versus Neo-Platonic/Hermetic God, Calvin’s Trinitarian God versus Servetus’ Unitarian God, German rational spiritualism, and Bruno’s Pantheism. Premodernity is rich with new Gods. A new pantheon of Gods! Instead of the death of God, new Gods are born. This is one of the most interesting facts about Premodernity, because of its striking contrast to modernity. Secondly, the philosophy of religion of Premodernity is fresh territory, which can be navigated by Nietzsche’s reduction. These Gods do disagree with the Scholastic God, so Savonarola and Bruno are burned at the stake as heretics by the Catholic Church. New Gods also disagree with one another: Servetus is burned by Calvin. Usually, when the Gods disagree, nasty consequences emerge to the mortals, because the mortals are doing all the talking, but the Gods are quiet.

 Our story begins, as usual, in our fair city of Florence with two Gods: Girolamo Savonarola’s prophetic God versus the Neo-Platonic God of Ficino. Savonarola regards Ficino as one of the “philosophers, [who] believe that every movement under the heavens depends entirely on the movement of the heavens…if the movements of the heavens were to cease, every motion of the earth of the world under heaven would cease” (Savonarola, 5). He is correct that Ficino holds such a metaphysical belief due to his belief in Divine Eros. He also correctly accuses him of maintaining the doctrine macro and micro analogy: “The philosophers say quod homo est minor mundus: man is a lesser world, because he contains within himself and partakes of everything—angles, animals, plants – and man generates another man, through whom all these other things are created” (Savonarola, 7).

Savonarla is again correct: Ficino believes that man is the microcosm of the cosmos. Ficino, on the other hand, says that Savonarola is “a certain utterly incomparable craftiness in this Anti-Christ persistently feigning virtues while in truth disguising vice, a vast passion, a savage audacity, an empty boasting, a Luciferean pride, a most impudent mendacity supported at every point with imprecations and oaths” (Savonarola, 356). Obviously, Savonarola and Ficino knew each other and did not like each other, because they maintained different Gods. The Catholic Church found Savonarola’s God far more dangerous than Ficino’s God. Savonarola claimed to be a prophet, who had been divinely inspired to prophecy to reform the Catholic Church; while Ficino and Pico were more interested in metaphysical distinctions about God to be concerned with reforming the Catholic Church.

Accordingly, Ficino and Pico were never burnt by the Catholic Church. Under Savonarola’s advice, Pico recanted his 900 theses, because 22 theses were heretical and the work was placed on the Catholic Index. Savonarola, on the other hand, was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church, even though he was a Dominican friar. In fact, Ficino had a part in the decision to have Savonarola burned at the stake, after the Medici family retook Florence. Not only did Scholastic Catholic God wanted Savonarola dead, but also the revived Neo-Platonic God wanted him dead as well. Pico, on the other hand, was Savonarola and Ficino’s friend and his work reflects a mean between the extremes of Savonarola and Ficino. Pico was not as interested in astrology as Ficino, but believed firmly in the microcosm myth of man. He was also interested in Scripture far more than Ficino, but not as much as Savonarola.  

In Psalms (1494), Savonarola rails against the Catholic Church, because of its acceptance of astrology. Astrology is a pre modern form of divination meant to predict the future due to the course of the celestial spheres, and astrology explains how celestial bodies influence and empower terrestrial entities. “I say that astrology, since it tries to divine the future, is the cause of much superstition and heresy” (Savonarola, 60). Savonarola provides two arguments to demonstrate the falseness of astrology, and maintains his powers of divine prophesy. The logic is obvious: to defend his status as a prophet, he has to put the astrologer (like Ficino) out of business, because they are competitors. Each has the alleged function of predicting the future: astrology depends upon the movement of the celestial spheres, while prophesy relies upon divine inspiration to predict the future. His two arguments are not impressive. His first proof turns on a disjunctive between astrology and philosophy: "either philosophy is true or false; if it is true, astrology is false, because the truth concerning future contingencies has not been determined; if philosophy is false, then astrology is false, because philosophy demonstrates those things which astrologer presupposes as first principles” (Savonarola, 60). 

His argument is contradictory: first, he regards astrology as a philosophical belief. He associates astrology with the philosophers. Secondly, he claims that astrology turns upon philosophical first principles, so how can they be mutually exclusive. Thirdly, his philosophical remark about future events being undetermined is only one philosophical belief among many. Accordingly, Savonarola’s first argument against astrology begs the question, a false dilemma, and is simply stupid, because he presumes what he negates. His second argument is structurally the same as the first except, but differs only in that he removes “philosophy” as a term and exchanges it for faith. Accordingly, his second argument begs the question, a false dilemma, and is again really stupid. Savonarola also creates a straw man, because he attributes a view, which no astrologer of pre modernity maintains: “according to the astrologer, faith comes from inclination of a fixed star which inclines men to this faith” (Savonarola, 60). Astrologers believe that celestial spheres empower terrestrial entities, but none of them would ever say that faith is empowered by a star, unless he is referring to Calvin’s theo-astrology of regeneration of the elect, but the Holy Spirit serves that function not a star. 

Savonarola regards himself as a Prophet of Old Testament; he claims divine knowledge through revelation, which surpasses scientia (or demonstration). Scholastic theology draws a sharp distinction between scientia and opinio: scientia involves self-evident principles and necessary demonstrations; opinio is a view grounded upon the testimony of authorities of Antiquity. God’s knowledge surpasses scientia: “first principles are more certain than their conclusions, which are inferred from them by our intellects, but for God there is no such intervention because He does not know causes through effects; to Him conclusions are known from their principles and effects from the causes without reasoning it out” (Savonarola, 61).

Unlike scientia, God does not think or infer from effects from their causes; instead, God knows the conclusions. Savonarola is more certain of his participation of this divine perspective of God, knowing the conclusions without requiring inference from cause or effect, than “two and two make four, more certain than I am that tough the wood of this pulpit, because the light is more certain than sense of touch (Savonarola, 61). Savonarola is more certain of his divine knowledge or “light” than he is of mathematical truth and his senses. His divine light is not for his sake, but for others in order to warn and advise them of God’s will, “for this light does not make a man pleasing to God” (Savonarola, 61).

Interestingly, if one participates in God’s divine knowledge, God is not pleased with you. God curses those who he allows to participate in his Divine knowledge. The Old Testament prophets would ask God to find someone else to reveal His divine judgment, God compels them to act, but he never punishes them nor is unpleased by them for doing His duty. On the contrary, God loves his prophets, but this is not what Savonarola is saying, nor does he refuse God’s request to be a prophet. Instead, “I began to see things more than fifteen, maybe twenty years ago, but I began to speak of them only in the last ten years” (Savonarola 61). With his divine knowledge, Savonarola has predicted “that all Italy will be turned upside down and Rome, and afterwards the Church, must be renewed” (Savonarola, 62). They should believe him, because “God has told” them, not him, because his prediction is based upon God’s divine knowledge, not on human reason and perception. He has more certain of this prophesy than mathematical truth and any perception of any object. The Church must be reformed, because “when you see God permitting the heads of the Church go overflow with wickedness and simony, the scourge of the people draw near” (Savonarola, 62). Human reason, nor perception has provided him with the “light” to see the corruption of Church, but God’s divine knowledge, which also tells Him that God will bring down a “scourge” upon the people unless the reform the Church. 

Savonarola’s view of God takes on the rhetoric of the Old Testament, because to defend his divine vision of the “scourge” he uses examples of God’s scourge from the Old Testament. “Whenever God takes away the holy and the good, say that the scourge is near. This can be proven: when God wanted to send the Flood, He removed Noe and his family. He rescued Lot from Sodom when H wanted to burn it” (Savonarola, 63). First, Savonarola’s God takes the role of God of the Old Testament, but he is a prophet who is uncharacteristic of the Old Testament. Secondly, even though he claims to have divine knowledge as a prophet (which means no inference from causes to effects, but mere conclusions), he provides taxonomy of four ways to interpret the Bible, which are four distinct types of inference or reasoning about a Text. “Scripture has two senses: first, a literal one, which is what the one who composed and wrote the letter, understands by it; the second is a mystical sense, which is conveyed in three modes: allegorical, tropological, and anagogical” (Savonarola, 64).

No prophet of the Old Testament discusses hermeneutics, because they do not interpret, but simply say what God commands them to say. Divine prophesy is straightforward: God tells you x, and you say x. Savonarola, on the other hand, has a complicated hermeneutic with the typical pre modern exoteric (literal meaning) and esoteric distinction (mystical), which he innovates with three fold partition of allegorical, tropological, and anagogical. What does a prophet allegedly modeled after the Old Testament need with pre modern hermeneutics? Savonarola uses his pre modern mystical hermeneutic to develop his prophetic vision. Allegorical figure requires a literal sense, historical sense, and be in Holy Scripture.

On the allegorical figure, “the Church has two walls: one is the prelates of Church, the other, the secular princes, who also have to support the Church” (Savonarola, 65). On the tropological figure requires a literal sense, absence of something, and be in Holy Scripture. On the tropological figure, the black smith’s prohibition to make tools signifies the lack of fire in Jerusalem, which also signifies the lack of charity. Anagogical figure requires a literal sense, signification of distinct perpetual historical periods, and be in Holy Scripture. On the anagogical figure, “the white signified the time of Apostles; the red signified the time of martyrs; the black signified the time of heretics; the pale signified the time of lukewarm, which is today” (Savonarola, 66). From his three mystical hermeneutic figures, Savonarola concludes that “in Rome there remains no charity at all, but only the devil” (Savonarola, 66). 

 Anagogical figure is interesting, because it signifies perpetually repeating theme in a Text. Savonarola using the rhetoric of scourges of the Old Testament is an interesting example: Just as God caused the great Deluge and burned Sodom and Gomorrah, God will repeat this scourge in the future again and again. Is Savonarola an Old Testament prophet, or is he a Premodern, who believes he has a hermeneutic which can provide him with Divine knowledge which is more certain than mathematical demonstration or sense perception? My answer is the latter, because i) he does not try to refuse God the task of being a prophet, ii) he claims that God does not like the prophet, and iii) his prophesies are all reducible to the application of his hermeneutic to the Bible as chart to man’s future. Instead of using the celestial spheres to predict the future, as the astrologers, Savonarola uses his mystical three figures hermeneutic to interpret the Bible to predict the future.

Strictly speaking, Savonarola is closer to a Premodern astrologer than an Old Testament prophet, because both use a text (whether the heavens or Scripture) and methods of interpretation to predict the future. He uses anagogical figure in this statement: “I saw, through the power of the imagination, a black cross above Babylonian Rome” (Savonarola, 68)  The Roman Church is a repeat of Babylon clothed in a black cross, which indicates the devil or the Anti-Christ. He claims that “if Christ were to return today, He would once again be crucified (Savonarola, 74). Just as God choose the people of Israel, so God has chosen the Florentines: “[God] chosen [Florentine] as His own” (Savonarola, 72). Just as God choose the early Christians through Christ over the Hebrews, so “God will take the apple away from you and will give it to another (Savonarola, 72). These anagogical figures are interpreting Scripture and applying it to current affairs or the future by drawing perpetual cycles. Just as a perpetual cycle occurred in Scripture, these perpetual cycles will continue until judgment day.  

In Aggeus (1494), Savonarola uses an anagogical interpretation of the Ark to defend theological doctrine of predestination of the elect. “What the ark means and its significance: to be in the ark is nothing other than to be in this world and out of this world. The blessed and the damned, who are out of this world, are not in the ark, the damned, because they are dead to God and to the world and the blessed, though dead, live hidden in Christ” (Savonarola, 139). This is not an allegorical figure, because it is more than symbolic. The ark does not merely represent those who are in the ark are saved, and those who are outside damned; instead, the ark shows that just as you are both in this world and out of this world, so those who are out of this world are not in the ark, but are either dead (annihilated) or are mortified in the body of Christ. 

Ark has a double meaning: first, it signifies those who are going to heaven and those who are not; and second, those who no longer exist, are not the ark, but either nothing or part of Christ. To be human and saved means to be in the ark. To be outside of the ark is to be either damned and annihilated or hidden in the body of Christ. Analogously, Florence has been put in the ark and saved from the French. This is how analogical figure interprets the Ark in relation to the current cycle: “Who has allowed [Florence] to pass safely through this ordeal, and let us give endless thanks to God and us do all the good for His Glory and for the salvation of his elect” (Savonarola, 140). Just as the French Deluge swept Italy, destroying many cities, Florence is in the ark and saved from the Great French Deluge in order to save his elect.

Interestingly, Savonarola goes back to the Scholastic scientia/opinio distinction to justify his special interpretation of the ark. “These philosophers divide type of knowledge into science, opinion, and faith, and they say that science has evidence and firmness; opinion has evidence but lacks firmness; and faith has firmness and no evidence” (Savonarola, 140). Savonarola is clever. He classes faith as a form of knowledge. Scholastic Theology draws the distinction between scientia/opinio, but never regards faith as a form of knowledge, but he does, which means that to have faith means to know something and demonstrate something. Accordingly, faith is interchangeable with his divine light, which is more certain than mathematical reasoning (scientia) and perception (opinio). Prophesy is a product of true faith, not God’s calling, because it is form of knowledge which can be demonstrated (firmness) with his mystical hermetical taxonomy. “Just as one cannot assign a reason for first principles because they are so obvious (scientia), so God gives these elect ones of His this ray of light, which makes these things so obvious in their minds that they cannot believe the opposite” (Savonarola, 141). 

This is not Old Testament prophesy, but Premodern divine demonstration of future events based upon self-evident principles, which are only self-evident to the elect, and which the Holy spirit reveals to them in such a manner that their negation implies a contradiction. Savonarola is a member of the elect, who has been shown by the Holy Spirit the method of prophesy through his first principles of his mystical hermeneutical taxonomy. Savonarola is far closer to Ficino than to any Old Testament prophet. He is the prophet of Premodernity, not the Old Testament.