 Recently, some historians of thought have explained Porta’s endeavor in the context of Porta’s (often covert) adherence to the traditions of European Astrology and related magical doctrines. And indeed Porta incorporates ideas developed in medieval Aristotelian tradition, especially by Albertus Magnus, which later became an issue for Pietro Pomponazzi and his followers. They have emphasized that such ideas were believed to be in accordance with Aristotelianism and the status of astrology as a science. (Weill-Parot 2013, Verardi 2018). While it is certainly true that Porta cultivated a life-long interest in these theories (and presumably also in their practice), at least his public attitude seems to have changed significantly. This was certainly in part due to the fact that astrology had been condemned in ever harsher terms in the last decades of the 16th century, and to Porta’s ensuing personal difficulties with censorship. Probably in response to these pressures, Porta radicalized his naturalism; it was indeed more profitable to write comedies and to showcase marvelous inventions than to become involved in metaphysics. Moreover, Porta was also highly sensitive to the individual predilections of his addressees, who were more often than not potential patrons. Even with the late and unfinished Thaumaturgia Porta was again trying to cater to Rudolf the Second, that great patron of the occult arts. Perhaps for the first time in his long life, this unfinished work testifies to Porta’s systematic interest in demonology and Neoplatonic magic (Maggi 2015, Verardi 2018).