This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Paul Richard Blum
Most authors who refer to Marsilio Ficino's famous Prooemium to his translation of Plotinus' works, addressed to Lorenzo de'Medici, discuss the alleged foundation of the Platonic Academy in Florence, but rarely continue reading down the same page, where – for a second time – Georgios Gemistos Plethon is mentioned. The passage reads as follows:
Nowadays, few have interpreted his [sc. Aristotle's] thought – apart from our complatonicus Pico – with the same faithfulness (pietate) as once did Theophrastus and Themistius, Porphyrius, Simplicius, Avicenna, and recently Plethon.
This statement contains more than one surprising claim: - Plethon is a reliable interpreter of Aristotle. - Plethon and Pico are the most recent Aristotelians; more precisely, they are the latest candlebearers of true Aristotelian tradition. - Plethon, along with the other authors mentioned, is religiously orthodox. The three claims are surprising because they are outright wrong. So the question is: Whom or what is Ficino praising in eulogizing Plethon? I propose to examine the three statements in reverse order. I. Plethon's religious orthodoxy is suggested by the fact that the sentence quoted was copied and pasted by Ficino into the Plotinus preface from his letter to Johannes Pannonius (de Varadino) of 1484/85. Then and later, Ficino chastised the Alexandrist and Averroist schools for destroying religion at large, negating divine providence, and for misrepresenting Aristotle anyway. Consequently, these good Aristotelians succor true religion. Because, as Ficino continues, "whoever thinks that an impiety so widely diffused … can be vanquished by mere simple preaching of faith will be immediately and manifestly proved wrong and terribly mistaken. For this task requires much greater power. It entails … at least that philosophers, after they have listened gladly to a philosophic religion at some point will be persuaded by it."  No doubt Ficino suggests that Pico and Plethon are representatives of such "philosophic religion" that eventually might convert – but convert to what? Well, to the same piety that unites Pico, Plethon, and the Platonizing interpreters of Aristotle. Plethon qualifies as an Aristotelian for having criticized Aristotle, and Averroes and Alexander on matters of philosophic theology in his famous treatise De differentiis (i.e. On where Aristotle is at variance with Plato). Specifically he suggested that Aristotle's concept of the Prime Mover was located in one celestial sphere among others, which would contradict a divinity that transcends all finite beings. Plethon maintained, in matters of nature, that Aristotle was too much influenced by Anaxagoras, a philosopher who seemed to advocate some logos beyond all things, but ultimately tended to atheism. Aristotle had the same tendency: talking about various divinities, but eventually fostering atheism.  Plethon concluded his pamphlet with an extended refutation of Aristotle's refutation of the Platonic theory of Forms/Ideas, which all comes down to the fact that Aristotle missed the most important doctrine because he denied the creation of
On the other side are Plato and the Platonists. No doubt. In his Nomon syggraphe. For this argument to be valid.  but I want to take up the motive of ancestry because this leads us to the second claim in Ficino's remark about Plethon. Plotinus. namely the pious reading of Aristotle in a genealogy that runs from Theophrastus through "nuper Plethon" to Giovanni Pico. i. namely that of a consistent and continuous genealogy of wisdom. This all sounds pretty orthodox. even to Ficino himself. This casts a twilight on Ficino's protest against unreligious Aristotelianism and his call for a "religion that pleases philosophers". Porphyrius. there is no evidence that Ficino ever read the full Nomoi. one should demonstrate . There. had not Plethon started his defense of Plato and attack on Aristotle by saying: "Our. Ficino's device to counter corrupt Aristotelianism is exactly to create a counter-tradition that parallels Platonism. Gemistos discussed the basic tenets of what he suggested to be a theology that may have political and moral meaning."  The message of thisexordium is not that some distant people preferred Plato. Porphyry. Plethon wrote this pamphlet during the Council of Florence in 1439 and the Greek and Romans were not the ancients but the audience present: Eastern and Western scholars. ancestors esteemed Plato much more highly than Aristotle. I am not intending to prove Plethon's heterodoxy here because it is well known. east or west. As for Plethon. De fato. As is well known.that Pico and Plethon deliberately followed Theophrastus. well. If we say. beatitude is what all men are seeking. his basic creed draws its legitimacy from eternal (aei) succession of divine men. both the Greeks' and the Romans'. . Simplicius. known as prisca theologia.that these can be seen as serious defenders of a religious philosophy. the spell of which binds all well thinking men up to and including the present speaker.eternal substances and the wellspring of all things in one source of being. the book starts with stating that a variety of opinions haunts humanity as to what are the most important issues in life. Ficino used a makeshift genealogy for the sake of argument and rhetoric. nevertheless a look at Plethon's philosophy of religion is revealing. the question arises: What genus of religion are these authors apt to defend? Now. which obviously drew upon the book of "Nomoi" by Plato.e. who understand God as "the universal sovereign over all existing things. effective in humanism ever since Francesco Petrarch and Coluccio Salutati. his argument collapses. but to supplant it. when he employs Plethon as his ally.  In doing this he certainly bestowed a classic formula and apparent logic on a form of thought. And at any rate.that these in point of fact form something like a prisca philosophia peripatetica. and Avicenna . the creator of creators. Plethon invoked a pageant of pagan sages and legislators – mythical and real alike – that connected Zoroaster with Plato. Behind this captivating address stands Plethon's agenda of restoring ancient pagan wisdom in order not to enhance Christianity. because our common ancestors did it. Themistius. should do so. and Jamblichus. and . Plutarch. In a move that tastes of humanism. and assume him to be the originator of originators. as Monfasani has shown from the marginalia to De fato. but that we all. Greek and Romans alike. except for its part. but the means and meaning of it seem to be controversial: pleasure. and refer everything without exception to him". a "religionis genus" fostered by divine providence. and we would be happy to incorporate Plethon in the Patrologia Graeca (as Migne actually did).
praxis) are identical. . both in private and in public. nomoi) of Plethon's theology: . his intentions and shall be discussed more extensively later. reason-guided. essence and existence (ousia.There is a hierarchy among the lower gods. a covenant of general Law. by its title. But do you be our leader in our reasonings. the former living on Olympus. erudite and eloquent.The Gods of Olympus and of Tartarus form a grand and holy One. For without you we should not be able to complete so great a task. ye who distribute them to whomsoever you wish. and in order to do this. and virtue are the favorites. and in duration without beginning and end. Chapter I 5 informs the reader about the general dogmas (dogmata. Logios can have the meaning of: logical. we would be tempted to relate it to Plato.In Zeus. to be set as a possession for ever before those of mankind who wish to pass their lives. the latter dwelling as Titans in Tartarus.He is unbegotten (agenetos) and self-engendered (autopatros). But Plethon wrote this around the year 1400 or in the first half of the 15th century. such as the identification of essence and existence. ye who are guardians of scientific knowledge and true belief. together with ancient Greek theogonies. established in the best noble fashion. After this initial chapter follows a chapter on the major authorities in theological matters.They are begotten (genetoi) from the one cause of all. We also recognize Peripatetic. and grant that this book may have all success. a syggraphe. if not scholastic. I will take no pride in mentioning Gemistos' sources. Of course we recognize a plethora of ethical treatises which are repeated with this assessment. those who stem from Zeus.Poseidon is his first son and head of all other Gods. Plethon is evidently praying to those who control both science and opinion (episteme and doxa) that they may guide the rational discourse of this book. and the differentiation of time and duration. not to speak of the intricacies of the unbegottenness of the Father and the generation of a preferred Son of God. theoi logioi. glory. Proklos and similar sources.wealth. . . or oracular. O gods of learning. .On the lowest level there are demons that operate on earth. . and once for all. The choice is ours. rationality. which is. whoever and however many ye be. in accordance with the dictates of the great father of all things.There is a plurality of Gods that admits for degrees.Zeus is the highest and mightiest of the Gods. .The Gods are more blessed than men.Nevertheless all of the Gods are outside of time and space. perhaps. The consequence Gemistos draws from this diversity is notable: we need to know the nature of man. and illegitimate ones. manifest in the importance of their actions. After a refusal of skepticism the main treatment of the subject initiates with a prayer: Come to us. . which are a key to Plethon's lasting influence and. . . However. This is quite remarkable a confession of a philosopher: his gods are the gods of learning.They provide (pronoein) for any good and no evil. . Plotinus. If this system were found in some middle Platonic fragment. we need to study the nature of things. . . Zeus the King. which leads directly to the nature of the Divine.There is even bisection among the Gods. .
then he must have reconciled such parlance with Roman Christian dogmatics. I hope that a clearer understanding of Plethon might afford a key to understanding Ficino and other Renaissance Platonists of the West. against Scholarios' rage. Bessarion. opted for the Roman Church. etc. political. not much different from Christian scholasticism. because Ficino might have depended on Gemistos' inspiration. Kardinal Bessarion. did not hesitate to assume that Plethon would "join the Olympian gods" and – supposing the Pythogorean doctrine was acceptable – that Plato's soul had been reborn in Plethon. as Laws. This question had been raised by Scholarios himself. Three things should be addressed. for example. and referring to Ficino would be begging the question. But this scenario leaves open the question of whether or not Gemistos Plethon actually believed what he was teaching. On the other hand. he might have set to work like a 19th or 20th century classicist by harmonizing and ordering the ancient upper. had no qualms to see Plato reincarnated in Marsilio Ficino. Plethon's theogony. The humanist Janus Pannonius. one has to ask: what is the purpose of such metaphors? From the perspective of Greek national identity. Plethon's work marks an interesting option within the tribulations of the Byzantine Church. indeed. nor as an apology or as an exhortation. as confirmed by Pythagoras. to preserve the Eastern Orthodox Church at the mercy of the Turks. and. is only remotely in concordance with ancient mythology as known from Homer and the other sources. another student of Plethon's. he had been appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. but clearly as a work of instruction. who also never hesitated to refer to Greek mythology in order to promote his Platonizing theology. since his letter was addressed to the defunct's sons. or the fact that Werner Jaeger sincerely hoped to restore ancient "Paideia" in Weimar Germany. Scholarios' solution was.and underworld. as actually happened. If Gemistos had intended to spread belief in the Ancient Olympic deities. It seems Plethon suggested to save Greek identity by restoring the ancient. and conveniently so. But Scholarios was also one of the Byzantine scholars who introduced scholastic philosophy into the Greek world: in 1435/36 he had translated Petrus Hispanus' Logic. it appears to be a treatise that can be labeled as systematic. Bessarion would take sides with the sage of Mistra. The Byzantine sage also probably should have . First. unique Greek culture. Let us just recall the legend that Wolfgang Schadewaldt used to pray to the Greek Gods. Second. as an outline of social. As Arnold Toynbee convincingly argued. if we believe that in the eyes of the Roman Cardinal there was nothing wrong with Olympic gods. it is presented not as a quaestio.As is well known. I am not giving into the temptation to compare Plethon's or Bessarion's words with Marsilio Ficino. Still. If we take Bessarion's witness as an indication that Gemistos' Nomoi were to be taken metaphorically we may absolve him easily of heresy. here. by Mehmet the Conquerer. after 1453. and moral order. now Patriarch of Byzantium. in a letter of condolence. And third. Plethon's Nomoi was in part destroyed posthumously by his friend and former student.  This interpretation leaves us with the task to understand Gemistos's intentions when he incorporated recognizable Christian theology in a theogony of pre-Christian outlook. which was about to dissipate between the millstones of the pressing Ottoman empire and the Roman Church. and he would have tried to make his readers believe that Zeus had quite a powerful command over the affairs of this world. in drawing upon Greek gods. Rather. Georgios Gennadios Scholarios. who believed the whole theology to be a reinstating of ancient polytheism. in which he made his career as a Cardinal.
while the sophists don't care about truth but strive to elevate themselves above the humans. the Argonaut Iphitus." Better than any man. Plotinus. the variety of understanding of the meaning of life was the initial question that opened the Nomoi. as has been said. because they deal with the common good and with truth as basis of wellbeing. He does not dwell upon them in this place. Then Plethon refers summarily to the Brahmans of India. A brief look at Plethon's more famous writing. Pittacus. but the very title page of his Nomoigives an important clue.. his dissection of Aristotle's dissent from Plato. and Myson.established a system of virtues. is their universal concordance to the effect that "never their truth was newer than what has wrongly been stated". Porphyry. but that he – at the same time – created the awareness that they were really past. Plethon's authorities also exclude the poets. namely the authorities he evokes for his work. What distinguishes these sages from the sophists. and Jamblichus. because he had introduced the Eleusinian mysteries to Athens. Chiron. in the same way we have to acknowledge that Gemistos' message to any learned reader of his Nomoi must have been that they were done with the ancients and should brace for a new religion. How should one read this list? Gemistos hastens to affirm that he is not at all intending to say anything new (oud' …neoterioumen). and ambition leads to innovation. identified with any of these deities. which taught the immortality of the soul. Plethon's work would have been to some extent a restoration and Renaissance of Ancient creed. indeed. who taught metempsychosis. i. Thales. Plethon mentions further sources. who distinguished themselves for having taught some of the major tenets listed above. Plethon adduces as his authorities Zoroaster in the first place. one prophet Polyeidos. The question is: what kind of religion? This becomes clear by a subordinate question to the puzzlement over his mythology. He announces: . like Giordano Bruno would do in his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante. among others the priests of Dodone as interpreters of the oracles.e. Pythagoras. according to Plethon. Bias. and the Curetes. Timaeus. reveals who the sophists might have been: the Aristotelians. Plutarchus. is the ambition of the Sophists. Plato. In the same way as it can be argued that Petrarch rediscovered antiquity when he was writing personal letters to ancient authorities like Cicero and Livy. This list is rounded up by some more familiar authorities. To this follow the legislators Minos. as the sophists do. This lead to the question: which were the best possible guides in the quest for the divine? In chapter 2 of book 1. namely the ranking of second and third order deities and the immortality of the creation and offspring of Zeus. then Teiresias. and Numa. and the Seven Sages: Chilon. followed by Eumolpos. Cleobulus. Therefore. "Both drag the divine down to the more human level and elevate the human to the more divine level according to the human measure. namely. because vanity was the major cause responsible for Aristotle's apostasy from Platonism. Lycurgus. Parmenides. he effectively closed the door to the historical past by pretending to reopen it. contrived from the spoils of the Greeks. Solon. the legislators (nomothetoi) and philosophers are able to pronounce soundly (pythoit' an tis ti hygies) on these matters. Persians. a claim that will be one of the points of criticism for Scholarios who insistently reproached Plethon's inventive innovations. Plethon dismisses the poets and the sophists: the poets aim at pleasing their readers.Innovation. the Mages of Medians. As already mentioned. but since he only picked part of the mythologies of the Ancients and rearranged them around a theological system that cares much about systematic issues like the ontological status of the gods.
the prayer quoted above is even more revealing. It starts by exhorting: "These are the main chapters that anyone who wants to be prudent or right-minded (phronimos) has to know: First this about the gods that they exist…" The startling word. antiquity is the measure of truth. as any classicizing writer would have emulated. Also. Plethon. This becomes even more evident in a summary of his doctrines. to a sense which does […] conform to the greatest possible degree [with philosophy]… This is a clear rejection of the mythological theology of these ancients. put enormous effort in affirming the harmony of the ancient teachers and their status.  but even there this property is dependent on logos. is phronimos. but restoring them from the sense given them by the distortions of poets. which do not precisely conform with philosophy. nothing close to wisdom and sanctity. In order to boost Zoroaster's authority. some Hellenic gods – namely Zeus. some of these ancient authorities are legendary at best. He appears to have been dependent on construing a strong claim of antiquity for a philosophical theology. This virtue. Unfortunately. The capstone of his construction of ancient wisdom was certainly Zoroaster. Ancient Greek mythology is restored to rational philosophy. using for the gods recognized by philosophy the traditional names of the gods known to the Hellenes. and Plethon justifies his claim with the list of authorities just mentioned. Aphrodite. And this restoration is remarkable by some blatant absences: not only the Muses.  In Plato's book Nomoi there is only one passage that suggests some sapiential meaning of this word. in as much as they are gifted with reason (logikon ti zoon). is divided into piety. and they guide knowledge based on science and opinion. This piety can do well without revelation. physike. Not surprisingly. the most ancient of all sages. euboulia). Plethon even edited the Chaldaean Oracles from Michael Psellos and published them as Zoroaster's oracles. and certainly no grace familiar to Christians. Every scholar as learned as Scholarios could detect this. and on the whole. Scholarios had an easy time mockingly suspecting that Plethon certainly never read all of them. Plethon's mythology is Greek or Hellenic only in appearance. the past was for Plethon a means to an end. As we already observed in the initial prayer. every scholar of his time could easily verify this maneuver. this lack of authenticity necessarily jeopardized their teachings. phronesis exercises reason in humans. natural knowledge. Nevertheless. but also Apollo. the context belongs to ethics more than to theology. who – in Plethon's narrative – revealed the truth about the gods to the Persians and other Asian peoples. Therefore. Most probably he endeavors to meet the expectations of an audience filled with . The most common usage of this word refers to practical knowledge. Therefore. which exactly did not originate among the Ancients. Plethon's gods are ambiguous: they are connected with logos. rightmindedness in this world. and Hera – are reinstated. and as such they are both reasonable and oracular. here. And again. It is not addressed to the Muses. which I will treat only briefly. Poseidon. then. however.This work comprises: Theology according to Zoroaster and Plato. Athena. From this point of view. and soundness of judgment ( theosebeia. It should also be noted that in Plethon's system of virtues. The absence of the muses and the poetical deities indicates that there is no room for mystical inspiration from the Gods. This brings us to the second question. but to the philosophical gods. and many other gods that inhabited the Olympus seem to have moved out.
one time. to which the latter does not belong in the first place? Argumentative "misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows". The association of Pico and Plethon is even more questionable because Plethon had endeavored to prove that Aristotle is at variance with Plato. to whom it is dedicated." Pico's artifice. Furthermore. If there is any canopy that covers Plethon and Pico. one month after Lorenzo's death (8th April). according to Pico." His authority is Georgios Gemistos. because it is in Pico's "Commentary on a Song of Love". We may conclude from this that the Aristotelianism allegedly represented by Plethon and Pico is actually anti-Aristotelianism. there is Ficino's harsh rebuttal of De ente et uno in the commentary on Plato'sParmenides with the famous passage "Utinam ille mirandus iuvenis": "Had this admirable youngster just diligently pondered over the disputations and queries. while he does not advocate this very paganism. Specifically Pico refers to the technique of the ancients to hide truth behind metaphors.humanist classicism. is an image to signify the Angelic Mind.Pico quotes Plethon. they stick their heads out at opposite ends. even though De ente et unowas written in 1491 by this complatonicus. before being so cocksure as to assail his teacher and so headstrong as to publish views that run counter to those of all Platonists …!" . Already in 1484. and with Christianity. but in point of fact he brings this phase of emulation to an end. God founded the whole world. so dear to his Florentine colleague. here. then. This is justified. he claims. is to channel ancient and Gemistian mythology back into clear waters of Christianity. The De ente et uno was to become a sample of this project. but in a context that makes their association by Ficino's pen even more surprising. he did not withdraw his references to Pico in it. as David says. "a much approved Platonist" – approved by whom? So Pico hastens to add: "These are the waters. II. has less likeness with the legendary founder of a still existing religion of venerable age than with Nietzsche's Zarathustra. from which he who drinks never thirsts anymore: these are the waters or the seas upon which. and the defense of religion is of dubitable Christianity. Now we are prepared to address the other two riddles of Ficino's praise: is it legitimate to lump Pico and Plethon together into one Aristotelianism. Here Pico betrays that he is familiar with Gemistos' work and offers his own hermeneutics of mythology: Oceanus. "the cause and source of every other creature which comes after it. "father of gods and of men". presented above. Plethon's Zoroaster. With this collapses the first claim proffered in the quoted statement. this is the living fountain. but it had already been solemnly presented to him on 12th November 1490. This does not mean that Plethon is Christian. by the same Themistius. who in Ficino's praise is a founding father of true Aristotelianism. A few remarks on chronology: The Plotinus edition was printed on 7th May 1492. Whenever Ficino wrote his preface. indeed. which is known to be a harsh criticism of Ficino's appropriation of ancient mythology. Pico announced to Ermolao Barbaro that he was about to divert from Platonic studies in order to show that Plato and Aristotle contradict only in words while in the matters they were most concordant. whereas Pico just recently had wielded an attack on the distinction between Platonic and Peripatetic conceptions of the One and of Being. but that Pico at best has learned from him how to translate pagan wisdom philosophically. but turns it into biblical correctness.
Consequently we may sum up the narrative as follows: Plethon convinced Cosimo that Hermetism and Platonism contain "mysteria". Thus. At this point. in Ficino's view. Now as is well known according to Ficino’s narrative. which.The controversy is well known among Ficinisti. well aware of the pagan implications of Plethon's doctrine. that opens the whole work. two rhetorical strains merge: the Pico strain with the Plethon strain. making these key texts available in Latin. when in 1439 Cosimo encountered Plethon. was particularly dear to Poliziano. Ficino had to parallel Plethon with the unsuspected Pico. Ficino may now present Plotinus' works to Lorenzo as the source that discloses the "philosophiae mysteria" which had inspired Cosimo. the addressee of the preface died before the book came out. serves as a stepping stone between the remote event of the Council of Florence. Finally. to return to the initial question: whom is Ficino actually praising when he praises people we wouldn't expect him to hold in praise? We should not forget that a dedicatory letter addressed to the backer of the book should first of all praise him. we may state that Ficino actually needs Pico in order to justify his own work. close friend of Pico's. in order to tie up the whole narrative. the reader has already been enchanted by the praise of Pico who is inferred to have been providentially instrumental in stimulating Ficino to continue his work. even worse. made Pico his accomplice. Looking back in the text. Pico was to help saving Ficino's reputation as a religious philosopher. i. must be the completion of the Medici project. Ficino muses about being unfortunate. Ficino makes reference to Angelo Poliziano. Ficino employed the figure of young Pico as having urged him to translate Plotinus – and we may leave the miraculous circumstances aside – in order to explain why he went beyond the command of Cosimo's who had commissioned only the Corpus Hermeticum and Plato. For this purpose. or at least not in the same way. then. So. and the new translation of Plotinus. Giovanni Pico. which is now presented as an attempt to save religion. So Ficino eulogizes Lorenzo and his Grandfather and their friends. and certainly a competitor in the attention from Lorenzo. came to Cosimo from Gemistos Plethon. must have been in the making while Pico published hisDe ente et uno and Ficino introduced Plotinus. Appropriately. while reading the preface to Plotinus. to be dedicated to Cosimo's grandson Lorenzo. but this would have sounded dubitable if related only to Plethon. in his new brief dedication to Pietro de'Medici. As it happens. he has to applaud them for intentions he does not share. consequently. this idea that had been associated with the founding of the so called Platonic Academy. hitherto unknown. to the effect that Plethon became so to say christened. inspired by Cosimo de'Medici. "alumnus tuus". Plotinus.e. exactly because Pico had criticized the non-Christian implications and inconsistencies of Neo-Platonism and because he had advocated the compatibility of Aristotle and Plato from a "higher point of view" (as he maintained in his letter to Ermolao Barbaro). Ficino perceives the passing of times against which he pursues his Platonic project. The divine inspiration – instilled by Plethon and forwarded from Cosimo via Pico to Ficino – allegedly Christianizes the project. and he craves recognition by those he praises. Ficino. This achieved. Ficino mentions that Porphyry's Life of Plotinus. what I want to emphasize at this point is that Ficino's outburst – if it was factually justified – presupposes that Pico possibly could have read (and not perhaps anticipated) the Parmenides-Commentary. . And. as Ficino describes it. the professor of Aristotelian philosophy. and that means that in the passage quoted.
Cesare Vasoli. fol. in Michael J. col. 119-129 (this issue is dedicated to "Georgios Gemistos Plethon (1355-1452). 13. 1994). p. p. Traité. Avicenna.  Ficino: Opera. Klára Pajorin: "Ioannes Pannonius e la sua lettera a Ficino. p. Sebastiano Gentile: "Giorgio Gemisto Pletone e la sua influenza sull'umanesimo fiorentino". in Paolo Viti (ed. pp. ed. 1998).): Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone.p. § 32. pp. qui nostrum saeculum antecesserunt …": Georgii Gemisti Plethonis De Platonicae atque Aristotelica philosophiae differentia libellus. Zoroaster and the Rivival of Plato". Cf. I altered Woodhouse's translation.. 193. 1999). Georgius Chariander. 308.  A fabulous Thracian singer and priest of Ceres. 308.  The name refers to (Nagy-)Várad. Basel 1574. called this preface a "geschickt inszenierte Legende" (a cunningly contrived legend). 2002). 1990). 199 edition of Ficino's marginal note on De fato from Cod. 253282.  Pléthon: Traité des lois. pp. 1966). Marsilio Ficino. Byzantion 43 (1973) 312-343. His Legacy (Leiden: Brill. 871 sq. S. pp. Viti (eds.  Woodhouse. stampe e documenti. pp. I. reprint Budapest: Balassi. Verehrer der alten Götter"). 236): "Nuper in Elysiis animam dum quaero Platonis. B. James Hankins: "Cosimo de' Medici and the 'Platonic Academy'". Migne PG 160. qua Theophrastus olim et Themistius.): Marsilio Ficino: His Theology.  Pléthon: Traité des lois. Quasi sit deus.  Gennádiosz Szkholáriosz: Petrus Hispanus Mester Logikájából(Greek-Hungarian). ed. 890). 1576. . pp. S. Symplicius. Appendix XV. pp. p. 179-202. Tumult. XIII-XLII. In the following Nomoiwill refer to this work. 43. n. ed. Reformpolitiker. 328 sq. 1986). Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon. p. O'Meara: Platonopolis. …" (cf. I 5. pp. 28. 561 (Epigrammatum lib. Firenze 1984. 1.): Firenze e il Concilio del 1439 (Florence: Olschki."  Traité. 2002). p. 44.): Byzantine Philosophy and its AncientSources (Oxford: Clarendon. 1858.. § 5. Cf. pp. 1537: "cuius mentem hodie pauci. 404. Marsilio Ficino on the History of Platonic Interpretation (Florence: Olschki. His Philosophy. I 2. and 1537.  Woodhouse.  Arnold Toynbee: The Greeks and their Heritages (Oxford: University Press. About this preface see Sebastiano Gentile in Marsilio Ficino. Allen and Valery Rees (eds. p.214. reprint Amsterdam: Hakkert. translation from Michael J. / Marsilio hanc Samius dixit inesse senex. György Geréby (Budapest: Jószöveg. who brought the Eleusinian mysteries and the culture of the vine to Attica (Lewis and Short). Alexandre (Paris. Gentile.: Synoptic Art. p.  Toynbee. today Oradea in Romenia.  C.  Ibid. Michael Stausberg: Faszination Zarathushtra. I 4. 144-162.pp. who also suggests parallels with a-Farabi's The Best State. B 2 v. p. Mostra di manoscritti. 167-175. Woodhouse: Gemistos Plethon. et nuper Plethon interpretantur". 813-832. both Hellenes and Romans. in idem. Piccoli and P. The Last of the Hellenes(Oxford: Clarendon. in Katerina Ierodiakonou (ed. Porphyrius. in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 53 (1990).  John Monfasani: "Marsilio Ficino and the Plato-AristotleControversy". On that codex see S. "Tam Graeci quam Romani veteres. Reprint Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo. 3032. 213. 203 sq. Studi su Marsilio Ficino (Lecce: Conte. 321:Oi men hmwn palaioteroi kai Ellhnwn kai Romaiwn Platwna Aristotelou" pollw twi meswi proetimwn. Riccardianus 76. I 2. 15. Opera (Basel: Henricpetri. which – in accordance with the Latin – translates: "Our ancestors. nr. Zoroaster und die Europäische Religionsgeschichte der Frühen Neuzeit (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. M.  Some hints at possible Neoplatonic backgrounds of Plethon's Nomoi in Dominic J. Traité. 196-199 Ficino's references toPlethon. p. 1983) II. Paul Richard Blum: Philosophieren in der Renaissance (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1999).  Janus Pannonius: Poemata (Utrecht: Wild. C. S. Woodhouse. 2002). pp. 1784. 2003). 82. 23-50. Hungary. praeter sublimem Picum complatonicum nostrum ea pietate. B. p.  Woodhouse. p. Schriften zur Verkehrswissenschaft 29 (2005). George Karamanolis: "Plethon and Scholarios on Aristotle". I. 2004).  Bernadette Lagarde: "Le 'De differentiis' de Pléthon d'apres l'autographe de la Marcienne". I (Florence: Olschki. 45. § 55. p. p. Lettere. Philosoph. Idem: "Die Graue Eminenz des RenaissancePlatonismus: Georgios Gemistos Plethon". cf. Allen: "Golden Wits. 1998) I. p.Verbum – Analecta Neolatina 1 (1999) 59-68. 55-57. 1981). 203.
Eugenio Garin (Florence: Vallecchi. Poliziano e l’Umanesimo de fine Quattrocento. 115. 1984). pp.  Plethon: Peri aretôn (De quatuor virtutum justa explicatio). in: Allen/Rees. Cf. – Scholarios contraposed sophos and hieros to phronimos in his polemics agains Juvenalios." I partly used the translation in Jill Kraye: "Ficino in the Firing Line: A Renaissance Platonist and His Critics". ed. 1572. Traité. X. in Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: De hominis dignitate. Hermolae. The virtues are explained as: Theosebeia regards the divine.  Eugenio Garin: Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. 1972). II 19. 377-397. 30-32. p. p. 1942). p. phrónimos dé.  Ficino. Videor tamen (dicam tibi.  Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Commentary on a Canzone of Benivieni. Paris 1935. See Henry George Liddell. sc. II. 238. reprint Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo. together with Bessarion and Nicholas of Cusa. ac tam secure contra Platonicorum omnium sententiam divulgasset. 2. Catalogo (Florence: Olschki.): Pico. 12. I p. et bonum adaequavisse. when criticizing Aristotle: Joannes Franciscus Picus Mirandulanus: Opera omnia.  Plato: Nomoi. pp. pp. 9. 880. 1573. 1971). reprint 1999). 42. Robert Scott: A Greek-English Lexicon. 1937. 34. ita ut si verba spectes. Supplementum. Heptaplus. Louis Petit. says the dedication of De ente et uno to Angelo Poliziano dates 1492. euboulia the human things. et Platonem una cum Aristotele ipsum cum ente unum. Traité. translation from Woodhouse. 379. Vita e dottrina(Florence: Le Monnier. In Parmenidem. p. 319. s. ed. Mostra. seems to have known only the De differentiis. nihil pugnantius.  Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Opera omnia (Basel: Henricpetri. book 4. 1025. quod sentio) duo in Platone agnoscere. cf. 32. I p. physike the natural.On Lorenzo's personal copy see: Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone. which he adduced. who tended his uncle's legacy. 963 e: "aneu de au logou psuchê phronimos te kai noun echousa out' egeneto pôpote". 2. 1994). 2002). p. 507 f. p. 262. Woodhouse. these might have been written beforehand.Traité. 6-7 (letter to Manuel Raoul Oises). (Basel: Henricpetri.  Shakespeare: The Tempest. 30. Sears Jayne (New York: Lang.  Paul Oskar Kristeller: Supplementum Ficinianum (Florence: Olschki. PG 160. CXXVIII and CLVIII. p. I. 119." Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios. 147-149. n. 865. oudè hierós. pp. tome 4. 1164): "Utinam ille mirandus iuvenis disputationes. Traité. Sideridès and Martin Jugie. 115. 504. ut inquit ille [Themistius]. pp.        . 865-882.  According to Kristeller. cap. si quis eos altius introspiciat. De ente et uno e scritti vari . PaoloViti (ed. CXX. 482. and Poliziano started teaching Aristotle's Ethics in 1490-91: Paul F. 368 f. discussionesque". 47 (Opera II. et Homericam illam eloquendi facultatem supra prosam orationem sese attollentem.  PG 160. p. vol. verum explorator." Cf. in his Examen vanitatis doctrinae Gentilium.  It should be noted at this point that Gianfrancesco Pico. cum Aristotele omnino communionem. Traité. reprint: Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo. Grendler: The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. by stating: "Allà sophòs men ouk ên. transl. but Ficino complains that Pico should have read his "disputationes. et divinum Parmenidem simpliciter esse logicum. which in fact appear like independent quaestiones inserted into the commentary. p. with alterations. who suggests "prudent" and "right-minded" for phronimos. 322.v. Traité. et sensuum. antequam tam confidenter tangeret praeceptorem. p. discussionesque superiores diligenter consideravisset. pp. 1937). 1239 sq. p. si res nihil concordius. Raymond Marcel: Marsile Ficin (Paris: Les Belles Lettres. sed non transfuga. a pupil of Plethon's. p. Act II.: „Diverti nuper ab Aristotele in Academiam. Eugenio Garin: "Introduzione". but there Pico speaks in present tense about "Ethica hoc anno publice enarras". the Parmenides commentary was begun after November 1492. p. 1958). A. p.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.