[Below, Walker focuses on the ways in which Agrippa's writings called attention to demonic elements in the philosophy of Marsilio Ficino.]

Any discussion of Agrippa's views on magic is made somewhat uncertain and complicated by the following facts. He did not publish his De Occulta Philosophia, which had been completed by 1510, until 1533, several years after the publication of his De Vanitate Scientiarum (1530), which contains a retraction of the former work and several discussions of various kinds of magic. Agrippa reprinted these at the end of the De Occ. Phil.; in his preface he refers the reader to them and uses Ficino's feeble words to excuse himself for printing a book he had publicly renounced: "I am merely recounting these things, not approving of them". He also says that he has made considerable additions to it.

Before giving any weight to this retraction, we must remember, first, that the De Vanitate is a Declamatio Invectiva, that is, a rhetorical set-piece, and that therefore, though much of it is seriously evangelical, by no means all of its destructive scepticism is meant to be taken in earnest; secondly that, thought it contains one formal retraction of the De Occ. Phil., this is limited to magic involving bad demons, and that the other discussions of magic, though far more cautious and less favourable than the De Occ. Phil., do contain a defence of natural magic and even of theurgy, by which he means the obtaining of benefits by operations directed towards angels, including planetary ones. There is, however, a real difference of attitude between the two books which indicates an unresolved conflict in Agrippa's mind. In the De Vanitate, and perhaps in later additions to the De Occ. Phil., he is an earnest Evangelical, who is harsh on what he regards as superstitious abuses in the Catholic Church, and who is obviously wanting a Christianity as free of magic as possible. On the other hand, the chapters on magic in the De Vanitate, the fact of his publishing the De Occ. Phil., and other evidence collected by Thorndike [in A History of Magic and Experimental Science, 1923-1958], show clearly that he continued to believe in the value of magic, even of the most dangerous kind.

Agrippa is the only writer I know of earlier than Paolini and Campanella to give a full exposition of the theory of Ficino's astrological magic, including the details of his planetary music. This exposition is taken, often verbatim, from the De Triplici Vita, and is combined with an Orphic Conclusio of Pico and an interpretation of the Orphic Hymns as astrological invocations; but it is dispersed and embedded in Agrippa's vast survey of magic, and therefore closely associated, one might say contaminated, with quite different kinds of magic. Though the De Occ. Phil. is predominantly Neoplatonic in its terminology and underlying metaphysical scheme, it includes many strands of magical theory, some of them hopelessly unorthodox; Agrippa has no cautious timidity about angels or demons, let alone talismans and incantations.

How Ficino's spiritual magic is transformed by appearing in the rich and varied context of Agrippa's magic can best be shown by a few examples. In all of these it must be remembered that Agrippa never openly cites modern writers, but frequently quotes from them; he is skilful at doing this, so that fragments of Ficino and Pico merge smoothly into the flow of his argument and seem to become part of it.

Early in his treatise Agrippa writes a chapter on the spiritus mundi, largely taken from Ficino, where he explains how planetary influences are conveyed by this spirit, which is analogous to man's. This is followed by fairly harmless chapters listing the various things which, containing an abundance of spirit and subject to various planets, are to be used for acquiring celestial benefits. But then come directions for obtaining, not only celestial, "but even intellectual and divine" benefits, and this is accomplished by using these planetary things, herbs, incense, lights, sounds, to attract good demons or angels into statues, as in our familiar Asclepius passage, to which Agrippa refers. These directions are given without a word of caution, and moreover are said to be exactly parallel to the attraction of evil demons by obscene rites.

Part of Ficino's rules for planetary music, combined with the Pico Conclusio on the use of Orphic Hymns in magic, appear in a chapter on incantations. These are to be directed towards the "numina" of stars, and the planetary angels are to be given their proper names. The operator's spirit, instead of being conditioned by the music into a suitably receptive state for planetary influence, as in the De V.C.C., is here an active instrument, which is projected "into the enchanted thing in order to constrain or direct it". Ficino's musically transformed spirit appears here, "warm, breathing, living, bearing movement, emotion and meaning with it, articulated, endowed with sense, and conceived by reason", but in Agrippa's hands it has become a means of enchanting, compelling, directing planetary angels.

Even where Agrippa is closely following Neoplatonic sources, he differs strikingly from Ficino and most later syncretists in that he makes no effort to force them into a Christian framework, or to warn the reader against the unorthodox religious ideas they contain. But he does not, like Diacceto, for example, merely omit such considerations and give what could be taken as an uncommented, historical account of Neoplatonic magical theories; he frequently, especially in the 3rd Book, discusses Christian prayers and ceremonies in relation to magic and pagan religions, and plainly regards them all as examples of the same basic activity. Magic and religion, Christian or pagan, are for him of the same nature; the prisca theologia is also a prisca magia and is accepted in a quite exceptionally "liberal" way. It was, of course, generally held that most of the prisci theologi were also magi; astrology and magic, for those who approved of them, were part of the ancient, extra-Christian revelation. The invention of these arts is regularly ascribed to Zoroaster; … the importance of Hermes Trismegistus for Ficino's magic, and of Orpheus and the Neoplatonists [has been noted].

Agrippa's remarkably thorough-going syncretism can be clearly seen even in the unusually careful chapter entitled: "On the two props of ceremonial magic, religon and superstition". Here we are told that all creatures, in their own several ways, worship their creator;

But the rites and ceremonies of religion vary with different times and places; and each religion has something good, which is directed towards God Himself the Creator; and although God approves of only the Christian religion, nevertheless He does not wholly reject other cults, practised for His sake; and does not leave them unrewarded, if not eternally, at least temporally…

God's anger is directed towards the irreligious, not towards those who worship Him in a mistaken way. In so far as these other religions differ from the true religion (i. e. Christianity), they are superstitious, but they all contain some spark of the truth:

For no religion, as Lactantius tells us, is so mistaken that it does not contain some wisdom; wherefore those may find forgiveness who fulfilled man's highest office, if not in reality, at least in intention.

Moreover, even superstition is not wholly to be rejected. It is tolerated by the Church in many cases, and can, if believed in with sufficient force, produce by this credulity miraculous effects, just as true religion does by faith. Examples of this are the excommunication of locusts in order to save crops, and the baptism of bells so that they may repell devils and storms. But, Agrippa goes on, we must remember that the prisci magi were idolaters, and not let their errors infect our Catholic religion. It is difficult here to tell whether Agrippa the Evangelical is having a shot at Catholic practices he thinks are superstitions, or whether Agrippa the Magician is using them to justify his own magical practices. The caution about the prisci magi is quite exceptional, and I strongly suspect it is one of the later additions he mentions in his preface.

Elsewhere Agrippa makes no attempt to distinguish between true religion and superstition or magic. In a series of chapters towards the end of the 3rd Book on prayers, sacraments and other religious rites, he constantly places Christian examples side by side, and on a level, with pagan or magical ones. In the chapter on prayer, for example, we are told, first, that if we are praying to God for, say, the destruction of our enemies, we should recall in our prayer the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., and use those names of God that are expressive of anger and vengeance; secondly, that we should also address an "invocation" to the angel, star or saint, whose particular job it is to do this kind of work. The invocation is to be composed

in accordance with the rules given when we treated of the composition of incantations. For there is no difference between them, unless it be that they are incantations in so far as they affect our soul, and dispose its passions in conformity with certain spirits (numina), and are prayers in so far as they are addressed to a certain spirit in honour and veneration of it….

Agrippa also thinks that prayers and purifications will be more effective on days and at times that are astrologically favourable—it was not "without cause that our Saviour said 'Are there not twelve hours in the day?'" In this part of his book ceremonies such as the baptism of bells are not said to be superstitious; they are effective "sacred incantations", used by the "primitive Church".

One can see from all this that, although Agrippa's exposition of Ficino's spiritual magic certainly gave it a wide diffusion, it may also have frightened people away from it. He exposes what Ficino, rather feebly, had tried to conceal: that his magic was really demonic. He also mixes it up with magic that aims at transitive, thaumaturgic effects, whereas Ficino's effects were subjective and psychological. Finally, and most importantly, by treating magic, pagan religion and Christianity as activities and beliefs of exactly the same kind, he demonstrates strikingly how dangerous Neoplatonic magic was from a Christian point of view. It is also relevant to this point that the spurious 4th Book of the De Occ. Phil., where the magic is evidently black, was sometimes later believed to be by Agrippa, in spite of Wier's well-founded denials [De Praest. Daem., 1583], which also did not prevent belief in the sinister stories about Agrippa's black dog. Ficino has got into bad company….