Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Craven2005 Style and Substance in The Early Writings of Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola
Craven2005 Style and Substance in The Early Writings of Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola
051234
Page 363
Ordernr. 051234
344
W. G. CRAVEN
brief treatise on Being and the One, and an encyclopaedic polemic against astrology
in twelve books. In addition he composed a short, early work on the Platonic
doctrine of love, in the form of a commentary on a poem by his friend Girolamo
Benivieni, poems in Latin and the vernacular, letters, commentaries on several
psalms and brief spiritual writings.
Centenary celebrations are not, perhaps, where one should expect to find the
keenest edge of critical scholarship. Nevertheless, it is somewhat disappointing to
note in the conference proceedings the resilience of traditional formulae and
expectations, still accepted without question or comment. While several papers
showed evidence of significant progress in particular areas, such as Picos
knowledge and use of Kabbalistic sources, there were also numerous uncritical
general statements about his doctrine of protean man and his pursuit of the single
truth underlying all philosophies and faiths. The address by Charles Trinkaus was
perhaps symptomatic of the occasion. Making no reference to his own earlier, more
incisive views, he affirmed that the Heptaplus was a central work, one which
revealed Picos vision of the universe and man within the parameters of his Christian
faith, as well as his basic hypotheses and method. It exemplified his vision of
concordia, and of the single truth that he believed had been disseminated by God in
a great variety of philosophies. Trinkaus also emphasized the similarity and
complementarity of the views of man in the Heptaplus and the Oratio. A quarter of a
century earlier he had admitted that he found it difficult to regard the Heptaplus as
genuinely philosophical, and had acknowledged the contrast between the dynamic
view of man in the Oratio and the surprisingly non-operative, extraordinarily
passive, almost statuesque view in the Heptaplus.2
Rather than attempting to review the whole range of contributions, let alone the
wider field of Pico scholarship, my intention in this paper is to examine the work of
two scholars who participated in the centenary observances but whose approaches, I
will suggest, do open the way to new understandings of Picos intellectual
development. Louis Valcke delivered a paper at Mirandola in 1994, while Francesco
Bausi contributed to the catalogue of the exhibition in Florence. Valckes
interpretation of the course of Picos intellectual and philosophical development had
been elaborated in a series of articles and in a long introductory essay which
complements the French translations by Roland Gallibois of two of Picos works.3
2
Charles Trinkaus, LHeptaplus di Pico della Mirandola: Compendio tematico e
concordanza del suo pensiero, Convegno internazionale, I, 10525 (esp. pp. 105, 116, 122);
and In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought, 2 vols
(London: Constable, 1970), II, 51920.
3
Page 364
Ordernr. 051234
345
Bausi published a study of the language, style and sources used in Picos early works
in 1996, and has since produced editions with exhaustive notes of two of Picos
important early letters.4 Their interests converge on the question of Picos different
stylistic registers and their possible significance for the interpretation of his works.
Style and its significance was a subject of explicit interest to Giovanni Pico, and was
the theme of one of his early letters. The variety of styles he employed is something
that forces itself on the attention of readers. Most obvious is the contrast in style
between the Conclusiones, the nine hundred propositions he proposed to defend in
Rome in 1487, and the Oratio, the speech intended to introduce the disputation. In
an introductory note to the Conclusiones Pico warned that they were written in the
terse, unpolished style of the disputations conducted at the University of Paris, the
style used by nearly all the philosophers of the time. The Oratio, in striking contrast,
is an elaborate and florid rhetorical tour de force.
I propose to show why I believe that the work of these two scholars is particularly
valuable, but also to suggest that their approaches are complementary in quite
specific ways. By examining their publications in detail, I hope to promote the kind
of intensive scholarly interaction most likely to lead to fuller understanding. At the
same time, the encounter between the two approaches may serve to exemplify a
wider issue: the delicate interplay between style and substance in Renaissance texts,
and the sensitivity required to recover their meanings.
Page 365
Ordernr. 051234
346
W. G. CRAVEN
to its fascination while living in Florence in 1486. It was not simply the diffused,
domesticated Neoplatonism which had long since been absorbed into the scholastic
tradition, nor was his enthusiasm due merely to the influence of Marsilio Ficino. The
ideas he found so intoxicating came from his own direct knowledge of the Enneads
of Plotinus. In the Oratio the precision of his quotations and allusions showed that
he had assimilated the thought of Plotinus to the point where he adhered to it totally
and had made it his own. He took up the idea of the cathartic function of philosophy,
serving as the preamble for holy theology, purifying the soul for mystic union with
God. Neoplatonic propositions occupied a crucial place in his lists of topics for
disputation, located at the interface between familiar and esoteric material.
Neoplatonism was undoubtedly the hidden bond which Pico claimed as existing
between his propositions. His own Conclusiones paradoxae clearly showed the
dominance of Plotinus, especially his defence of a higher knowledge which the soul
attains preceding mystical ecstasy. His account of natural magic was also based on
Plotinus. The Heptaplus, the seven-fold commentary on Genesis which he published
in 1489, was still heavily dependent on Neoplatonic doctrines. It invoked as its basic
framework the affinities between the worlds, the real foundation of analogical
language and of that mystic participation which was presupposed by the vision of
man the microcosm. Pico was, however, becoming increasingly uneasy about the
incompatibilities between Neoplatonism and Christian theology, and De ente et uno
marked the end of his fascination with it. His return to Aristotelianism was given
unequivocal expression in the Disputationes, his attack on astrology. There he
rejected the Orphic vision of the universe along with its magical and astrological
concomitants. Whereas the monism of Plotinus had blurred or obliterated the
distinction between the first cause and secondary causes, Pico now drew a clear line
between what belonged directly to the first cause and what pertained to the order of
secondary causes, whose autonomy, relative though it was, Pico vindicated. His
intellectual development was characterized, therefore, not by one decisive turning
point or conversion, but by two.5
The question of Picos different styles intersected with Valckes account of his
intellectual development. One of Valckes articles discussed the disputes between
exponents of humanism and scholasticism that constituted the background and
context of Picos writing. In relation to this issue too Pico changed his alignment
twice. In a letter to him, the humanist Ermolao Barbaro had written slightingly of the
scholastic philosophers, those barbarous Germans and Teutons whose crude,
unpolished style condemned them to oblivion or ignominy. He urged Pico not to
waste his time and energy on them. Picos reply was, according to Valcke, a
passionate speech in their defence, addressed, through Barbaro, to the whole
5
Valcke and Gallibois, Le priple, pp. 5253; Valcke, Raison et foi, pp. 20108, 22123;
Numrologie et mathematiques, pp. 5056; Le chant, p. 502; Il ritorno, esp. pp. 34049. I
have adopted the convention of using the past tense when describing the views of other
historians, and the present tense when proposing my own.
Page 366
Ordernr. 051234
347
Page 367
Ordernr. 051234
348
W. G. CRAVEN
Valcke reiterated the point and developed it further in a subsequent article. The
letter to Barbaro had argued for a radical dichotomy between philosophical and
rhetorical speech. That dividing line ran right through Picos work. All his properly
doctrinal treatises were written in scholastic style, whereas his letters and the
introductions to his treatises sparkled with stylistic brilliance. He often made explicit
the transition from one style to the other. He practised a systematic alternation
between styles. It did not match exactly the boundaries of his enthusiasm for
Neoplatonism. He enlisted the plain Paris style in the service of Neoplatonic
propositions in the Conclusiones, and the Heptaplus treated Neoplatonic themes in a
sober style, closer to that of the Paris philosophers than to that of the humanists. On
the other hand, the De ente, which announced the end of his Neoplatonic enthusiasm,
was also written in the style of the philosophers. The same was true of the
Disputationes, with its explicit rejection of correspondences and the whole
Neoplatonic cosmology.9
10
Page 368
Ordernr. 051234
349
The two letters to Barbaro and to Lorenzo were written in an elaborate, Apuleian
style, with a vocabulary drawn from Silver Age authors and a profusion of rhetorical
figures. The texts in fact consisted of a mosaic of quotations and allusions. The style
of the later writings was certainly different, but they could not simply be lumped
together as exemplifying Picos other style, his severe, philosophical style. The
Heptaplus dispensed almost completely with poetic and literary references, and its
quotations were overwhelmingly from Scripture. On the other hand, there were few
technical scholastic terms, it avoided the stylistic characteristics of medieval Latin
and it used expressions from Picos preferred Silver Age authors. The language of
the De ente was more strongly technical in character, but had little in common with
the Conclusiones and Apologia. Moreover, the passage in the dedicatory letter to
Poliziano where Pico excused himself for a lack of elegance and for using terms
which were not authentic Latin revived the ambiguity characteristic of the early
letters. It echoed a well-known text of Manlius which had been used by Poliziano
not long before. In terms of style, the De ente went further in the direction set by the
Heptaplus. The Disputationes went further still, allowing no deviation from sober,
abstract language other than rare invectives and a final exhortation.11
For Bausi, Picos position in his early letters was not a rejection of eloquence or
humanistic studies but an oscillation between philosophy and eloquence. The
sentiments of the fictional barbarian philosopher could not be attributed to Pico. He
denied that he agreed with them, and claimed to be acting like Glaucon, in Platos
Republic, who spoke against justice only in order to provoke Socrates to speak in its
defence. Furthermore, the speech itself was deliberately and flagrantly incongruous.
The vocabulary was drawn from Silver Age authors, there were words and
expressions from poetic usage, and a barrage of rhetorical figures. Pico deliberately
laid himself open to Ciceros paradox concerning Socrates in Platos Gorgias. In a
well-known passage in De oratore, Cicero remarked that if the arguments of
Socrates against oratory carried the day, it was because he was the better orator.12 In
what must have been a conscious parallel, Pico composed a deliberately self-refuting
speech, showing the necessity of eloquence even to reject eloquence. Barbaro and
Poliziano were quite justified in taking up and exploiting the reference to De oratore
in their responses. As if to increase the vulnerability of his fictional speaker, Pico
misrepresented well-known texts, reversing their point, and signalling their source
for good measure. Yet despite all the layers of paradox and ambiguity, at least part of
the speakers case corresponded to Picos own convictions. His statement of
exasperation, Some grammarians make me sick, occurred13 outside the rhetorical
11
12
13
Bausi, Nec rhetor, pp. 1419, 3035, 5862; Commento, in De hominis dignitate,
Heptaplus, De ente et uno, ed. by Eugenio Garin (Florence: Vallecchi, 1942), p. 548.
Page 369
Ordernr. 051234
350
W. G. CRAVEN
framework of the letter, and the speakers earlier reference to true and false gold was
repeated in another of Picos writings from the same period.
From this vantage point, Bausi reassessed the letter to Lorenzo de Medici in
which Pico compared Lorenzos poetry with that of Dante and Petrarch. The point of
the letter was not much different from the arguments of the fictional barbarian in
the letter to Barbaro. Bausi made the point that the names of the two poets
represented two types rather than the two historical figures. Dante stood for content
at the expense of style: his content was profound but his style was rough. Petrarch
stood for the opposite. His content was trivial, though under an elegant exterior.
Lorenzo miraculously combined wisdom and eloquence, and was therefore superior
to both. Of the two types, however, Pico clearly preferred Dante, who was
comparable with the barbarous philosophers of the letter to Barbaro. (In the
Heptaplus Moses would be identified as another such figure.) The terms of the
comparison were taken from De oratore. Petrarch was made to exemplify the
Asian style, using excessive refinement to mask poverty of ideas. Lorenzos poetry
was praised in the terms used by Cicero and Quintilian to characterize the Attic
style, distinguished by its sobriety. There was ambiguity here too, however. Pico
praised Lorenzos Attic sobriety in the same contrived, far-fetched Apuleian style as
he used in the letter to Barbaro. Ornate praise of Lorenzos stylistic restraint
paralleled the incongruously rhetorical defence of the barbarous style of the
philosophers. The two letters, which Pico sent together to Beroaldo in 1491, could be
considered as two panels of a diptych about the relationship between philosophy and
eloquence.14
On the basis of his analysis of the letters, Bausi formulated a hypothesis. Their
ambiguity was the expression of an ambivalence characteristic of Picos first
period. He was devoting himself to a demanding programme of philosophical
studies. At the same time, he was applying himself to humanistic and literary studies,
composing Latin and vernacular poetry, and employing a prose style marked by
extreme linguistic and stylistic refinement. The philosopher and the humanist
coexisted in him, though not without discomfort. His undated letter to Poliziano, in
which he described himself as trying to sit on two stools at once and missing both in
the attempt, expressed the tension between the two. From the end of the 1480s, he
made philosophy his definitive option. His increasingly severe style reflected this
choice.15
From the perspective of Bausis evolutionary interpretation, the Conclusiones and
Apologia constituted an anomaly. They did not fit into the line of evolutionary
14
Bausi, Nec rhetor, pp. 6784. Pico sent the two letters together to Beroaldo, see Opera
Omnia (Basel: Henricpetri, 1557), p. 347. More recently, Bausi has argued convincingly that
the letter to Lorenzo was composed after, not before, the letter to Barbaro: Lepistola, pp.
1421.
15
Page 370
Ordernr. 051234
351
17
Valcke, Il ritorno, pp. 334 (Convinto, o quasi convinto); and 340 (Quel fascino,
per, non fu mai radicale e sotto un entusiasmo letterario apparentemente senza limiti, Pico
nutriva le pi serie riserve nei confronti del neoplatonismo). See also Valcke, Le chant, pp.
491, 498; Valcke and Gallibois, Le priple, pp. 142, 150.
18
Page 371
Ordernr. 051234
352
W. G. CRAVEN
be made. His work on the early letters sets a challenging standard for future
scholarship. One would hope that the same kind of analysis would now be applied to
the Heptaplus and the later, minor works, especially the ascetical letters and the
commentaries on the psalms. Valcke, in emphasizing the important place of Plotinus
in Picos thinking in the 1480s, has cast welcome light on some of the more
mysterious Conclusiones paradoxae, and on Picos attitude to magic. He has
produced a plausible and satisfying theory to explain why Pico turned away from
magic and astrology, making it an intellectual recognition rather than a religious or
moral conversion. More generally, he has freed himself almost completely from the
myths and stereotypes which have so persistently misdirected Pico scholarship. At
the same time, however, he appears to have exaggerated the intensity of Picos
commitment to Neoplatonism in the late 1480s, and in doing so to have created
problems of inconsistency if not incoherence in the early writings. While his theory
of alternation of styles is vulnerable to Bausis objections, it has the virtue of
highlighting the different genres and different intentions that characterize Picos
works.
As a contribution towards an assessment of the respective strengths of the two
interpretations, it may be helpful to compare how each contributes to the
understanding of Picos most famous work, the Oratio. Again, the views of each
scholar will first be described and then assessed. Suggestions will also be offered as
to how their divergences might be reconciled.
Page 372
Ordernr. 051234
353
eloquence, he did not take it up. In the Oratio he was aligning himself with humanist
theses, and seemingly adopting a humanist point of view.19
Nevertheless, Valcke still wanted the content of the Oratio to be accorded
recognition at a philosophical level. He wanted it to be acknowledged as something
more than a rhetorical flight. In his view, it was significant evidence of Picos
commitment to Neoplatonism. Twice, in one of his earlier writings and in his latest
on the subject, he remarked that Pico was writing as a humanist, and humanists
tended to identify rhetoric and philosophy.20 The implication seems to be that the
Oratio was philosophy by humanist standards, even if not by those of philosophers.
This would be a position not unlike the notorious doctrine of Double Truth. What
might be more to the point is Valckes reflection that Pico was a philosopher not in
the Aristotelian sense of a seeker after causes, but in the Plotinian sense of a seeker
after salvation. This was certainly the kind of philosophy that Valcke found in the
Oratio: philosophy as catharsis, an ascetical process purifying the soul and yielding
knowledge that is a means to salvation in mystical union.21
Even at this first stage of his intellectual development, Valcke believed, Picos
pursuit of knowledge was always a means, not an end in itself. His goal was spiritual
salvation. At this time he believed that philosophy was the means by which he could
attain it. It was a preparation, even if a necessary one, for holy theology. In the
Oratio, moral philosophy, dialectic, and natural philosophy were presented as the
stages of a catharsis leading to mystical union. In all these respects, he showed the
imprint of the Enneads of Plotinus on his thinking. Plotinus had taught that
philosophy was not to be pursued for its own sake, but as a means to salvation. It
was an ascetical process that purified the soul, and the knowledge to which it gave
access was a means towards mystical union. Valcke pointed out parallels in the
Oratio. For example, there was the theme of flight from the world, the idea of
mystical drunkenness, and the description of mystical absorption in God that is
nevertheless not an annihilation of the souls identity. While conceding that Pico was
drawing on recurrent themes of mystical literature, he insisted that the philosophical
basis of that literature was in Neoplatonic doctrine. He also believed that Picos
formulations were close enough to Plotinus to show that he had assimilated the
doctrine from its source, to the point where at this time he adhered to it totally and
had made it his own.22
19
Valcke and Gallibois, Le priple, p. 86; Valcke, Le retour, pp. 264, 269; Humanisme,
pp. 181, 183, 199.
20
21
22
Par la prcision des reprises et des rappels de Plotin, Pic montre sufficance quil a
longuement frquent et quil a vritablement assimil la pense plotinienne, au point qu
cette poque il y adhrait totalement et lavait faite sienne: Valcke, Raison et foi, p. 204; see
also pp. 194, 20204.
Page 373
Ordernr. 051234
354
W. G. CRAVEN
23
Valcke and Gallibois, Le priple, pp. 9799. On Ficino, see Paul Oskar Kristeller, The
Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino, trans. by V. Conant (New York: Columbia University Press,
1943, repr. Gloucester, MA: Smith, 1964), pp. 13558.
24
Page 374
Ordernr. 051234
355
certainly the main theme of the central core of the work. At the same time, it could
be suggested that he has overstated his case.
His analysis of the passage about Jacobs Ladder is a good example. Valcke
declared it the central, unifying symbol of the Oratio, and he emphasized its
Neoplatonic credentials. Pico explicitly invokes the authority of Dionysius for his
interpretation of the angelic orders and their functions. Valcke, however, saw the
symbolism of the Ladder as being founded in the doctrine of Plotinus, further
modified by Ficino.25 Pico first describes the figura of a ladder with many steps
extending from the lowest earth to the highest heavens. The Lord is seated at the top,
and angels engaged in contemplation are alternately ascending and descending. Pico
has just exhorted his listeners to aspire to the angelic way of life, imitating in turn
the Thrones, the Cherubim and the Seraphim. According to Dionysius the three
ranks of angelic beings correspond to the three ways, and it is these three stages, of
purification, illumination, and perfection, in which we are to be exercised. This same
exhortation is then reiterated through a procession of figures, symbols and allegories.
The meaning is first established with the authority of Saint Paul, as interpreted by
Dionysius, then reinforced by Old Testament and gentile sources. The same threefold pattern is found in each case. In each case it yields the same message.
Jacobs Ladder is the first of the Old Testament references, and it presents an
immediate challenge to Picos ingenuity. The Ladder has many rungs. How can it
serve as a symbol for three stages? His third Old Testament symbol, the tabernacle
of Moses, is more tractable: the three stages are outside the tabernacle, inside the
Sanctuary and, finally, the inner part of the temple. Picos solution in the case of
Jacobs Ladder is to make the whole Ladder correspond to the second stage, with the
ground as the first, and above the Ladder as the third. Valcke concentrated his
attention on the Ladder and its rungs, which he saw as representing the unbroken
continuity of procession and conversion between the world and its Principle. As Pico
uses it, however, it could represent continuity only within the second stage. His
scheme reproduces the three distinct ways of the Pseudo-Dionysian Celestial
Hierarchy, and the Ladder stands for only the second of those ways. Certainly the
antecedents of the scheme were Neoplatonic, but what Pico is invoking is the
domesticated Neoplatonism of the Christian mystical tradition rather than something
drawn directly from Plotinus. At the same time, despite Valckes opinion to the
contrary, it does appear to be closer to the doctrine of Plotinus, with his ontologically
distinct hypostases, than it is to Ficinos version, where differences were not of kind
but only of degree.
25
Valcke, Le chant, pp. 49192; Valcke and Gallibois, Le priple, pp. 9799. Oratio, in
De hominis dignitate, pp. 11416; Oration on the Dignity of Man, trans. by Elizabeth
Livermore Forbes, in The Renaissance Philosophy of Man, ed. by Ernst Cassirer, Paul Oskar
Kristeller and John Herman Randall (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1948), pp. 22354
(pp. 22930).
Page 375
Ordernr. 051234
356
W. G. CRAVEN
Another idea to which Valcke attached crucial significance was the possibility of
attaining the contemplation of God in this life. Pico was so drawn to Plotinus,
Valcke believed, because there he found a method, an intellectual and ascetical
technique for achieving this goal. The evidence is a sentence in the Oratio which
takes the form of a rhetorical question: Who would not desire [...] to become the
guest of the gods while yet living on earth, and, made drunk by the nectar of eternity,
to be endowed with the gifts of immortality though still a mortal being?.26 Valcke
interpreted these words as expressing the distinctively Plotinian promise that the
soul, purified by an intellectual asceticism, could rise from the sensible to the
intelligible and be united with its Principle.27 Again, however, this passage is only
one in the series of descriptions of the highest, theological stage, in this instance
the first of the testimonies drawn from pagan sources. After the apostle Paul and the
Old Testament references, Pico turns to the gentiles and the theology of the ancients.
First the mysteries of the Greeks are invoked to show the advantages for us and the
dignity of these liberal arts about which I have come to dispute. The degrees of
initiation into the mysteries are again made to correspond to the three stages with
their respective disciplines. The third stage affords a vision of divine things by
means of the light of theology, and this is the prospect which prompts the rhapsodic
rhetorical questions which follow. The passage does not occupy a climactic location
in the text, as one might expect if it represented a claim or promise more specific or
more significant than the other descriptions of the third stage. The imagery of pagan
mythology is employed, so there is less reason to suppose that the prospect being
held out is to be taken as a literal possibility in this life. Furthermore, there is
specific evidence against a literal interpretation. As Valcke explicitly acknowledges,
Pico flatly denies the possibility of attaining the highest state in this life in the
Commento, the text he was composing at the same time as the Oratio.28
26
The full sentence reads: Quis humana omnia posthabitens, fortunae contemnens bona,
corporis negligens, deorum convivia adhuc degens in terris fieri non cupiat, et aeternitatis
nectare madidus mortale animal immortalitatis munere donari?: Oratio, in De hominis
dignitate, p. 122; trans. by Forbes, p. 233.
27
Valcke, Le chant, pp. 494, 496, 502; see also Raison et foi, p. 194. The idea of being
drunk on the nectar of the gods occurs in Plotinus, Enneads, VI.7.35; trans. by A. Hilary
Armstrong, Loeb Classical Library (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1966), VII, (1988), 197. Valcke repeatedly draws a parallel with the
youthful Augustine, who also found in Neoplatonism the hope of attaining beatitude in this
life through the perfect knowledge of God: e.g., Raison et foi, p. 192.
28
Termina el suo cammino, n gli licito nel settimo, quasi sabbato del celeste amore,
muoversi pi oltre: Commento, in De hominis dignitate, p. 569. The translation given above
is from the Commentary on a Canzone of Benivieni, trans. by Sears Jayne (New York: Lang,
1984), p. 160. The conflict is acknowledged in Valcke, Il ritorno, p. 341; and Valcke and
Gallibois, Le Priple, p. 146.
Page 376
Ordernr. 051234
357
Pico argues that progress through the first two stages is achieved through an
ascetical programme consisting of philosophical disciplines. As Valcke noted,
philosophy as purification or asceticism was a central theme in the doctrine of
Plotinus. It is also a central theme, even the central theme, of the first part of the
Oratio. For all that, the resemblance is not a close one. Plotinus deals at length with
the theme in the third tractate of the first Ennead. There, however, he refers only to
dialectic, even though he does so in a wide-ranging fashion, considering its essential
role in other branches of philosophy.29 In Picos programme, moral philosophy and
dialectic are proper to the first stage, while natural philosophy belongs to the second.
In the case of Jacobs Ladder, those who would climb it must be purified by moral
philosophy and instructed in how to climb by dialectic before they may set foot on it.
Once purified and instructed, they go up and down the rungs of the Ladder, which
represents nature.
Eventually they may hope for the consummation of theological bliss, in the
bosom of the Father who is above the Ladder. Valcke believed that Picos
characterization of this highest stage, mystic union, contained echoes of Plotinus. He
spoke, in fact, of a faithful paraphrase. Again, however, the similarities are not as
close as he seems to suggest. He referred specifically to the passage already
examined, where the experience of epopteia is described as being made drunk by
the nectar of eternity. The comparison with a drunken state occurs again in the next
allegory, when Bacchus, as leader of the Muses, will make us drunk with the
abundance of the house of God. Plotinus in the sixth Ennead compares the
experience of union to being made drunk with nectar, and uses the analogy of
entering the house of a god.30 Valcke also saw a similarity between Picos
description of union, We shall now be not ourselves, but Himself who made us,
and that of Plotinus, There were not two, but the seer himself was one with the
seen.31
Similarities are there, understandably, but they are less than conclusive. One
notable difference between the two descriptions of the highest state is that whereas
for Plotinus there is not even any reason or thought, Picos highest state is
somehow identified with holy theology.32 Just as philosophical disciplines are
matched with the first two stages, theology characterizes the third, and the exercise
29
30
[...] iam non ipsi nos, sed ille erimus ipse qui fecit nos. Oratio, in De hominis dignitate,
p. 124; trans. by Forbes, p. 234; Enneads, VI.9.11; trans. by Armstrong, VII, 341. See also,
however: It comes to Intellect and accords itself to it, and by that accord is united to it
without being destroyed, but both of them are one and also two: Enneads IV.4.2; trans. by
Armstrong, IV, 143.
32
Page 377
Ordernr. 051234
358
W. G. CRAVEN
of reason continues, however rapturous the union. In the sense in which Picos
audience would have understood it, theology meant the exercise of reason on the
materials of biblical revelation.33 In the Oratio, theology is the culmination of a
series, all three members of which demand the exercise of reason. One can only
conclude that for all the ecstatic language of mystical union, what Pico is describing
is something other than the experience Plotinus strove to elucidate.
The Oratio, it must be said again, was intended to introduce a disputation to be
conducted in the style of the University of Paris. The participants would have been
professional, academic philosophers and theologians. The theses that Pico defended
in the Apologia give us some idea of the severely rational style of discussion and
argument. In one particularly interesting passage Valcke raised the question of
whether Pico should really be called a philosopher, and concluded that he was a
philosopher in the Plotinian sense rather than the Aristotelian or Thomistic sense of
one who seeks causes and explanation. For Pico, philosophy was always a means to
an end, and the end was salvation.34 Whatever may be said about his other works,
however, the Conclusiones include a great many propositions which are philosophy
in the scholastic sense, and others for which, even if their subject-matter is esoteric,
the mode of discussion is scholastic. When Pico is defending his intention to debate
so many theses, he says of the teaching of the Platonists, Now for the first time, as
far as I know, [...] it has after many centuries been brought by me to the test of
public disputation.35 Material both familiar and unfamiliar was being put into
propositional form and subjected to the ordeal of disputation. Valcke saw it as using
the weapons of scholasticism in the service of the Neoplatonic vision of the world.
As Pico describes it, however, it is more a case of Neoplatonism and the esoteric
doctrines being subjected to scholastic method and put through the scholastic sieve.
When Pico spoke of theology as the pursuit appropriate to the third and highest
stage, the word would have conveyed to his hearers an activity with which they were
professionally very familiar. The best evidence we have of how the disputation
might have proceeded is Picos defence of his propositions in the Apologia. It is not
the kind of activity associated with the attainment and enjoyment of mystical union.
On the contrary, it seems barely compatible with any kind of mysticism. To
associate scholastic theology and disputation with mystical heights was a
paradoxical proposal. Interpreting the claim solemnly misses the point and blunts its
rhetorical impact. Equally, scholastic philosophy, conducted in the manner of the
disputants of Paris, was a very different pursuit from the philosophy of salvation
33
It is difficult to see any basis for the assertion of Raspanti that, unless specified as
Christian theology, theology in the Oratio meant all inquiry de rebus divinis, including the
ancient Egyptians, Aristotle and Plato, and the Platonists (p. 186, n. 37).
34
35
Sub disputandi examen est in publicum allata: Oratio, in De hominis dignitate, p. 142;
trans. by Forbes, p. 244.
Page 378
Ordernr. 051234
359
It must be acknowledged that Pico repeated these ideas in a very different (though still
hortatory) context in his commentary on Psalm 17. There, the three ways are enumerated,
and the moral fruits of philosophy are emphasized, including those of natural philosophy,
while theology impels and exhorts us ut integram retineamus humanam dignitatem. See
Garin, La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano (Florence: Sansoni, 1961), p. 248. Garin
saw it as another case where Pico reused material from the unpublished Oratio. See also
Roulier, p. 446 and n. 83; Raspanti, pp. 24445.
37
Conclusiones nongentae: Le novocento Tesi dellanno 1486, ed. by Albano Biondi
(Florence: Olschki, 1995), pp. 78, 80, 106; Valcke, Numrologie et mathematiques, pp. 45
49; Raison et foi, p. 206; Le chant, pp. 49395; Il ritorno, pp. 32935.
38
Valcke, Magie et miracle, pp. 15758; Raison et foi, pp. 21011; Il ritorno, pp.
33537.
Page 379
Ordernr. 051234
360
W. G. CRAVEN
Valcke, Raison et foi, pp. 20408, 20814; Valcke and Gallibois, Le priple, pp. 71
73.
40
See the letters to Ficino, 8 September, to Andrea Corneo, 15 October, and to an
unknown friend, 10 November, in Opera omnia, pp. 36768, 378, 385.
41
42
Page 380
Ordernr. 051234
361
of public disputation.43 In this sense, all the theses had a provisional character,
pending the outcome of the debate. Before attributing particular views to disputants,
we need to keep in mind that public disputations were performances with
conventions of their own.
Valckes remark about the hypothetical character of some of the theses followed
his consideration of what was to become the Commento. Without retracing the
complex editorial history of this work,44 it should be remembered that at the time
when he was compiling his topics for disputation and composing the Oratio, Pico
was also writing the components of what was, in effect, an incisive critique of
Marsilio Ficinos interpretation of Platonic doctrine and of his philosophical method.
In an early article, Valcke discussed the Commento briefly under the heading
Respect for the Integrity of Doctrines. He insisted that it was not a critique of
Neoplatonism as such. It showed that Pico clearly distinguished philosophical and
theological orders, and that he rejected Ficinos glossing over the doctrinal
incompatibilities between Neoplatonism and Christian doctrine.45 His complaint was
not that Ficino expounded Neoplatonic doctrine, but that he was insufficiently
rigorous in doing so. In his more recent articles Valcke allowed that the Commento
showed the beginnings of that critique of Neoplatonic doctrine which was to
culminate in the De ente. In this latter work Pico argued, contrary to the Neoplatonic
position, that Plato had not espoused the priority of the One over being in the
Parmenides. It marked his return to Aristotle. In the Commento he had taken a more
Aristotelian position on the way beauty is perceived, and, as noted earlier, he denied
that the human soul can attain the contemplation of God in this life. Instead of
drawing a veil over the differences between Neoplatonism and Christianity, as
Ficino had done, Pico pointed out that on several essential questions the authentic
Plotinian tradition was incompatible with Christianity.46 For one as committed to
Christian religion as Pico was, a commitment on which Valcke has insisted, such
incompatibilities must have imposed severe limitations on his adherence to
Neoplatonism.
The Commento is, therefore, a major stumbling block for Valckes interpretation.
In the paper he delivered at Mirandola he did little more than restate the problem.
Feverish exaltation supposedly masked Picos profound reservations and recurrent
43
Valcke and Gallibois, Le priple, pp. 14748; Valcke, Il ritorno, p. 340 and Le chant,
p. 497. See also Jayne, Introduction, pp. 30, 31, 39.
Page 381
Ordernr. 051234
362
W. G. CRAVEN
48
Valcke, Raison et foi, pp. 19697; Le chant, p. 497 ; Il ritorno, p. 344; Valcke and
Gallibois, Le priple, p. 148. The idea was originally suggested by Eugenio Garin in his
Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Vita e dottrina (Florence: Le Monnier, 1937), p. 28.
49
50
Page 382
Ordernr. 051234
363
humankind in the centre of the cosmic ladder. For confirmation, it was enough to reread the opening pages of the Oratio.51
The lines about mans ability to rise or to fall in his level of existence according
to his free choice are, in fact, one of the places where Pico may have been echoing
Plotinus. In the third Ennead Plotinus explained why we must strive for the heights:
In man, however, the inferior parts are not dominant but they are also present; and in
fact the better part does not always dominate; the other parts exist and have a certain
place. [...] Therefore one must escape to the upper world, that we may not sink to the
level of sense-perception by pursuing the images of sense, or to the level of the
growth-principle by following the urge for generation and the gluttonous love of good
eating, but may rise to the intelligible and intellect and God. Those, then, who
guarded the man in them, become men again. Those who lived by sense alone become
animals [...]. But if they did not even live by sense along with their desires but coupled
them with dullness of perception, they even turn into plants; for it was this, the
growth-principle which worked in them, alone or predominantly, and they were taking
care to turn themselves into trees. [] Who, then, becomes a spirit? He who was one
here too. And who a god? Certainly he who was one here.52
52
III,
See Henri de Lubac, Pic de la Mirandole (Paris: Aubier Montaigne, 1974), pp. 184204.
54
Oratio, in De hominis dignitate, p. 104; trans. by Forbes, p. 225; Valcke, Raison et foi,
p. 235.
55
Garin, Medioevo e Rinascimento, 2nd edn (Bari: Laterza, 1961), pp. 100, 156.
56
Page 383
Ordernr. 051234
364
W. G. CRAVEN
57
58
Oratio, in De hominis dignitate, p. 102. He invokes the idea of the microcosm later in
the Oratio (p. 124) to validate his eccentric interpretation of Know thyself as an exhortation
to investigate nature.
59
Di Napoli noted the contrast: Nella Oratio la peculiare grandezza delluomo vista
nella sua libert, mentre nello Heptaplus essa vista nella struttura delluomo come sintesi
riassuntrice di tutti i momenti o stadi del creato (p. 375). See also De Lubac, who was
convinced that Pico achieved a synthesis of the two, though how it was done remained unclear
(p. 89).
Page 384
Ordernr. 051234
KATERN 13
365
style as the letters, the only difference being that they were further accentuated. This
stylistic continuity was reinforced by Bausis interpretation of the two letters. Picos
own highly elaborate rhetorical style showed that he was not rejecting eloquence
outright, while no disparagement of poetry was implied in his praise of Lorenzos
ability to combine it with public life.60 It was not necessary, therefore, to propose a
hypothetical conversion.
From an examination of the earlier version of the Oratio discovered by Garin,
Bausi proposed three phases of composition, involving prolonged editorial labour.
The third phase included the addition of the whole second part, in which Pico
defended his project of a public disputation against his critics. Bausi suggested that it
was added when criticisms were voiced following the publication of the nine
hundred Conclusiones in December 1486. He emphasized the contrast between the
two parts of the final document, including stylistic changes. The second part would
have been composed in a fairly short time, probably in the month between
publication of the Conclusiones and the time when the Oratio might have been
delivered. A sign of haste was the re-use of a page already composed for the
Commento. The addition of the second part would have altered the literary coherence
of the earlier text, with its tight organization and careful structure. Bausi drew
attention to the articulation of the text, built on the number three, a number rich in
symbolism.61
While the stylistic elegance of the Oratio had always been emphasized by
scholars, it had led some to underestimate the philosophical value of the work. They
saw it as a purely, or at least predominantly, literary, humanistic piece. It belonged to
the genre of introductory discourses or academic prolusions, allowing Pico to
present a less closely technical and more brilliantly poetic exposition of his thought.
There were two key ideas in the Oratio: the indeterminacy of man, which was the
basis of his uniqueness and privileged position within creation, and the concord of
philosophies, or, better, the capacity of each one to reveal a different aspect of truth,
contributing to more perfect knowledge. Bausi accepted these ideas from the existing
literature without further demonstration or justification, although he added that the
second, the concord of philosophies, was more strongly stated in the earlier version
of the text.62 He then went on to develop what can only be described as a very
60
Bausi, Nec rhetor, pp. 15657. Valcke had found an implication that poetry was merely
a diversion, and that the poet was not to be taken seriously: Humanisme, pp. 17980 and n.
57. But Bausi disagreed (p. 69, n. 88, p. 81).
61
Bausi, Nec rhetor, pp. 11316. The concluding section of the Commento is repeated in
the Oratio, in De hominis dignitate, pp. 156, 58081; Commento, trans. by Jayne, pp. 16970.
62
Nec rhetor, pp 15556, 15859. Bausi quoted Di Napoli (p. 400) on the indeterminatio
of man; and for the concord of philosophies, see Garin, Le interpretazioni del pensiero di
Giovanni Pico, in Lopera e il pensiero di Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (Florence: Istituto
Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 1965), I, 18. The idea was reiterated by Jeder Jacobelli,
Pico della Mirandola, 3rd edn (Milan: Longanesi, 1986), ch. 13, Alla ricerca della
Page 385
Ordernr. 051234
366
W. G. CRAVEN
elegant theory about the correspondence between the two ideas and the language in
which Pico proclaimed them. As has been noted, Bausi showed that the language of
the Oratio shared its composite character with the two letters, including rare Silver
Age words and poetic expressions. To these were now added a larger admixture of
late, Christian and medieval components. The result was an extremely variegated
language, a confluence of archaisms from Plautus and Christian medieval terms,
poetic allusions and philosophical technicalities, Apuleian hapax and neologisms.
This language, and the whole complex literary texture of the document, matched
and mirrored the ideas Pico was presenting. Just as the language and expression of
the letter to Barbaro communicated a message of its own, so here Picos language
was chameleon-like and protean, in continuous transformation. The same adjectives
which Pico used about the nature of man could be applied to the language in which
he characterized it: indiscreta, desultoria, versipellis, se ipsum transformans; varied,
manifold and inconstant, with no inborn image of its own but many assumed from
outside itself. Furthermore, this language also reflected, embodied and represented
the idea of the concord of philosophies and religions, cooperating in the quest for
Truth. In pursuing that quest Pico invoked the most diverse authorities: Chaldeans
and Greeks, Pythagorean and patristic sources, the prophets and Mohammed,
Delphic sayings and medieval philosophers. The language mirrored this very
diversity. Moreover, just as the concord of differing points of view consisted not in
reducing them to a common denominator, but in a reciprocal integration, each
retaining its own character like the pieces in a mosaic, so the language of the Oratio
did not aspire to a fluid uniformity but flaunted its composite character.63
Bausi also found particular significance in the concepts of participation and
analogy. Di Napoli had invoked them in explaining how Pico could marshal such an
array of authorities. It was not simply a rhetorical association. Participation and
analogy made it possible to express a concept under diverse figures and in diverse
terms. On this point there was a convergence, noted by Bausi himself, with Valckes
approach. The Heptaplus was to be the work most clearly inspired by the principles
of analogy and participation, with man the microcosm as its pivotal idea. The work
itself was also a microcosm, whose structure reflected that of creation. Bausi then
concordia, esp. pp. 12832; and by Jacques Queron, Pic de la Mirandole (Aix-en-Provence:
Universit de Provence, 1986), pp. 4, 50, 10708. It was mentioned repeatedly at the
Mirandola Convegno in 1994. See, for example: the introductory address by Ezio Raimondi
(pp. xxxi, xxxiii); the papers by August Buck (pp. 1012) Charles Trinkaus (pp. 106, 116),
and Gian Carlo Garfagnini (p. 247); and the Conclusioni by Cesare Vasoli (pp. 650, 658, 663,
672). Fernand Roulier attempted to find a textual basis for the idea of the concord of all
doctrines in his Jean Pic de la Mirandole, pp. 9899. He claimed over a hundred instances of
accorde. In contrast, the limited nature and extent of Picos comparisons was emphasized in
W. G. Craven, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Symbol of His Age (Geneva: Droz, 1981), pp.
94107; and noted by Raspanti, p. 193.
63
Bausi, Nec rhetor, pp. 15961; n. 64 explores the parallel with Apuleius.
Page 386
Ordernr. 051234
367
transferred this idea back to the Oratio. As in the Heptaplus, there was
correspondence between form and content. The language and style, and the
fundamentally ternary conformation, corresponded to Picos conception of the
world, of man and of knowledge. The work of the philosopher was of the same
nature as the work of God, not by literary contrivance but by virtue of the analogical
link between all the levels of the universe.64
Bausis theory is very appealing. He shows an impressive ability to draw themes
together and connect them in satisfying patterns. He links his stylistic studies of the
letters and the Oratio with ideas which have long been held to be the Oratios
significant content, as well as finding close analogies between it and the Heptaplus.
The whole pattern constitutes an impressive synthesis. It is unfortunate, however,
that the scholarly tradition set up for him ideas which were so invitingly congruent
with the characteristics he found in the language and style. In reality, neither the
indeterminacy of man nor the concord of philosophies is incontestably central to the
Oratio, and the apparent congruence may well be an illusion. On the other hand, the
ternary configuration, on which Bausi touched only in passing, dominates that
section of the Oratio that he identifies as the original text. The subject-matter of the
repeated triadic figures is barely mentioned in his account. He considered it
sufficient to quote Di Napoli, passing on without further comment to the next topic.65
The result is a serious dislocation of what is central to the Oratio.
Di Napoli, in the passage quoted, recapitulated the three ascetical stages of
Pseudo-Dionysius. He related them first to the passage about peace, then to the
tabernacle of Moses and the Delphic oracles. He identified the triadic pattern, and
the ascetical programme of philosophical disciplines and theology that constitutes its
substance. The passage quoted gave no idea, however, of the rhetorical impact of the
insistent repetition of that pattern, ten times in all, with its corresponding
variations.66 The series begins by establishing the three stages with the authority of
Saint Paul, as interpreted by Pseudo-Dionysius. The same three stages are then
discovered in, or extracted from, three Old Testament figures (Jacobs Ladder, Job as
interpreted by Empedocles, and the tabernacle of Moses), and four examples from
the theology of the ancients (the Greek Mysteries, Delphic precepts, Pythagoras and
Zoroaster). The stages are then recapitulated in the personages of the archangels
Raphael, Gabriel and Michael. This triad is the structural message of the Oratio,
and it is exactly congruent with the verbal message. Moral philosophy and dialectic,
natural philosophy and finally theology are disciplines corresponding to the three
stages of this ascent to the heights. The range of possibilities open to man, his
indeterminacy, occupies only the opening pages. Its function is to launch the
64
Bausi, Nec rhetor, pp. 16163, and p. 158, n. 61; Valcke, Le retour, pp. 26768.
65
66
Page 387
Ordernr. 051234
368
W. G. CRAVEN
rhetorical celebration of the programme by which man can achieve the highest of
those possibilities.
The idea of the concord of philosophies is another traditional one that appears to
rest on a misunderstanding. In the second part of the Oratio, Pico defends his
proposing so many topics for disputation. He affirms that he has resolved to pledge
his allegiance to the doctrines of no man, but instead to range through all the masters
of philosophy, to investigate all writings, to come to know every school. He does not
claim that all of them are true, even in part. He does make the far more modest and
quite plausible claim that there is in each school something distinctive that is not
common to the others. He then goes through the litany of philosophers names and
their distinctive attributes. He asserts that if any school attacks truer doctrines, it will
serve only to strengthen truth. In other words, he is allowing for the possibility that
not all will make a direct, positive contribution. His intention in bringing forward
every sort of doctrine is to ensure that through the comparison of several sects and
the discussion of many philosophies, the light of truth may dawn more brightly in
our minds like the sun rising from the deep.67 What he is proposing is a bringingtogether and discussion, in the context of the public disputation. There is no theory
of universal truth, nor even a programme for universal reconciliation. His emphasis
is on the characteristics that are distinctive to each, not on what they might have in
common. The only doctrines between which he promises to show concord are those
of Plato and Aristotle, Thomas and Scotus, and Averroes and Avicenna. This
promise was, one might think, a challenging enough task as it was.
Bausi recognized analogy and participation as key concepts, especially the
analogy between multiform human nature and the composite and multiple character
of knowledge. It may be that he regarded the long series of parallels as a
demonstration of that composite and multiple character, concordant by virtue of
analogy and participation. It must be emphasized, however, that the series of
authorities is used not to show some kind of concord of philosophies but to extract
what was, precisely, a common denominator: three stages corresponding to
purification, illumination and union. This is the hidden doctrine in which all his
authorities agree. The common triadic pattern is then used to celebrate not a concord
of philosophies or a mosaic of contributions to truth, but a programme of
philosophical studies, culminating in theology.
Picos extravagant encomium of philosophy and theology makes better sense
when it is seen in terms of the occasion for which the Oratio was written. It belongs,
as Bausi acknowledged, to the genre of academic prolusions, speeches delivered at
the beginning of an academic year or to introduce a particular course. He did not,
however, regard the genre and the occasion as a sufficient explanation for the style
67
Page 388
Ordernr. 051234
369
68
69
70
Page 389
Ordernr. 051234
370
W. G. CRAVEN
While, as they say, I am trying to sit on two stools at once, I miss both of them, and so
it is that I am neither poet nor orator, nor yet a philosopher.71
72
73
Non tam ad delectationem quam ad doctrinam: Opera omnia, p. 350; ed. by Bausi, p.
30 and n. 50.
74
Page 390
Ordernr. 051234
371
the active and contemplative life. Corneo had exhorted him to leave his chosen
seclusion and his life of study to play an active part in public life as counsellor to
one of Italys great princes. He must have expected to provoke a defence of the
contemplative life, and he did so. Pico rejects the suggestion indignantly. He extols
the dedicated and disinterested pursuit of wisdom, the self-sufficiency of the
philosopher and the values that underpin the philosophers way of life.75 He takes the
opportunity to portray himself as a philosopher in terms recognized in antiquity:
withdrawal from ordinary life, independence of the demands and the accepted
standards of civil society, dedication to the pursuit of wisdom without thought for
mere utility, reward or recognition. This letter has much in common with the lament
over the state of contemporary philosophy that Pico inserted in the Oratio at about
the same time. There he decries the low esteem in which philosophy is held and the
mercenary motives of those who claim the title of philosophers. He contrasts their
self-interest with his own disinterestedness and dedication, and his refusal to be
deterred by the slurs of those who are personally ill-disposed towards him or who are
enemies of wisdom.76
These letters provide an illuminating perspective on the Oratio. For three years he
had been working to establish his identity as a philosopher. Abandoning his
frustrating attempt to be both a humanist and a philosopher, he chose to be known as
a philosopher, and set about making his preference known. The proposed public
disputation in Rome, with participants from the universities of Italy, would be the
culmination. It would establish that he was to be taken seriously as a philosopher. By
convention, the first part of the prolusion that was to introduce his disputation
provided an opportunity to extol his chosen discipline. He took the opportunity with
enthusiasm, setting out to persuade his listeners that it was through philosophy that
human beings could attain the dizzying heights of which they were capable. It would
lead them through the stages of purification and illumination to the ultimate
contemplative union in theological bliss. He revived the idea of philosophy as an
asceticism, an idea proposed by Plotinus and by Plato before him, and applied it to
the kind of philosophy he was about to debate.
Valcke believed that in the Conclusiones Pico used the resources of scholasticism
in the service of an essentially poetic, Orphic vision. What is clearer is that in the
Oratio he used the resources provided by his humanistic education in the service of
the rival educational programme, philosophy. In the letter to Barbaro, one of his
more outrageous tricks had been to appropriate an incident recounted by Aulus
Gellius and turn it from criticism of philosophers into praise for them at the expense
of grammarians. Now he is asserting that philosophy, conducted according to the
methods of the scholastics, could lead men to the highest destiny of which they were
capable. Since Petrarch, humanists had been complaining, as did the grammarian in
75
76
Page 391
Ordernr. 051234
372
W. G. CRAVEN
Noctes Atticae, that academic philosophy was remote from human, moral concerns,
wasting time on obscure questions and futile intellectual exercises, while humanistic
studies dealt with human, moral concerns. Now Pico was reasserting the claim of
philosophy to guide men to their highest goal. Moral philosophy and dialectic
purified them, natural philosophy illuminated them, and theology brought them to
perfection and mystical union with God.
As has been suggested earlier in this paper, these exalted claims need to be put in
perspective. Inaugural orations were occasions for grandiloquence and exaggeration.
The kind of philosophy encapsulated in many of Picos topics for disputation was
known neither as uplifting nor as pacifying. Its irrelevance to human interests and
concerns is exemplified in several of Picos condemned theses discussed in the
Apologia. Its capacity to arouse enmity rather than to pacify was demonstrated by
the hostile reactions his theses aroused. The whole method of disputation was
adversarial. Picos assertions in the Oratio were, if not outrageous, then at least
paradoxical.
Complementary Approaches?
The researches of Valcke and Bausi have, in different ways, contributed significantly
to the understanding of Picos writings. Each body of work deserves careful
consideration in its own right. Furthermore, their approaches can be seen as
complementary. Even if, as I have argued, Pico did not embrace Plotinian
Neoplatonism with the commitment Valcke attributed to him, and even if the Oratio
is not a radically Neoplatonic manifesto, there remain issues concerning the
paradoxical, mathematical and magical Conclusiones to which Valcke has rightly
drawn attention. He has brought to light a whole series of fault lines and shifts in
Picos philosophical development. As a result of his work, it will be less defensible
than ever to present Picos thought schematically or synchronically. Within the early
years, encompassing what Valcke saw as the period of his Neoplatonic fervour, there
are bewildering crosscurrents. There is his ambivalent, even paradoxical stance with
regard to humanistic rhetoric; there are propositions for debate that seem to
presuppose the metaphysics of Plotinus, despite the contemporaneous warnings in
the Commento about the incompatibility between Greek philosophy and Christian
doctrine. By Valckes account, Picos early development was riven by
inconsistencies, conversions and alternation of styles. Even if his diagnosis of
extreme Neoplatonism was an exaggeration, the inconsistencies demand some
explanation.
It is at this point that Bausis approach may prove particularly helpful. His
sensitivity to the pitch and tone of particular texts, based on meticulous analysis of
their style and textual allusions, reminds scholars that it is no easy matter to discern
the focus or the level of an authors commitment, or the point of a literary or
philosophical performance. Bausi demonstrates how essential it is to remain
Page 392
Ordernr. 051234
373
Page 393