Ficino's Praise of Georgios Gemistos Plethon 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.[1]

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 candle-

bearers 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[2]) 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."[3] 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.[4] 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. [5] 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

eternal substances and the wellspring of all things in one source of being. On the other side are

Plato and the Platonists, who understand God as "the universal sovereign over all existing things,

and assume him to be the originator of originators, the creator of creators, and refer everything

without exception to him".[6]

This all sounds pretty orthodox, and we would be happy to incorporate Plethon in the Patrologia

Graeca (as Migne actually did), had not Plethon started his defense of Plato and attack on

Aristotle by saying: "Our, both the Greeks' and the Romans', ancestors esteemed Plato much

more highly than Aristotle." [7] The message of thisexordium is not that some distant people

preferred Plato, but that we all, Greek and Romans alike, should do so, because our common

ancestors did it. As is well known, 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. Behind this captivating address stands Plethon's agenda of restoring ancient

pagan wisdom in order not to enhance Christianity, east or west, but to supplant it. This casts a

twilight on Ficino's protest against unreligious Aristotelianism and his call for a "religion that

pleases philosophers", i.e. a "religionis genus" fostered by divine providence, when he employs

Plethon as his ally. I am not intending to prove Plethon's heterodoxy here because it is well

known, even to Ficino himself, as Monfasani has shown from the marginalia to De fato, [8] but I

want to take up the motive of ancestry because this leads us to the second claim in Ficino's

remark about Plethon.

In his Nomon syggraphe, which obviously drew upon the book of "Nomoi" by Plato, Plethon

invoked a pageant of pagan sages and legislators – mythical and real alike – that connected

Zoroaster with Plato, Plutarch, Plotinus, Porphyry, and Jamblichus.[9] In doing this he certainly

bestowed a classic formula and apparent logic on a form of thought, effective in humanism ever

since Francesco Petrarch and Coluccio Salutati, namely that of a consistent and continuous

genealogy of wisdom, the spell of which binds all well thinking men up to and including the

present speaker, known as prisca theologia. As for Plethon, his basic creed draws its legitimacy from

eternal (aei) succession of divine men.[10] Ficino's device to counter corrupt Aristotelianism is

exactly to create a counter-tradition that parallels Platonism, namely the pious reading of

Aristotle in a genealogy that runs from Theophrastus through "nuper Plethon" to Giovanni Pico.

For this argument to be valid, one should demonstrate

- that Pico and Plethon deliberately followed Theophrastus, Themistius, Porphyrius, Simplicius,

and Avicenna

- that these in point of fact form something like a prisca philosophia peripatetica, and

- that these can be seen as serious defenders of a religious philosophy.

If we say, well, Ficino used a makeshift genealogy for the sake of argument and rhetoric, his

argument collapses. And at any rate, the question arises: What genus of religion are these authors

apt to defend?

Now, there is no evidence that Ficino ever read the full Nomoi, except for its part, De fato,

nevertheless a look at Plethon's philosophy of religion is revealing. There, Gemistos discussed the

basic tenets of what he suggested to be a theology that may have political and moral

meaning.[11] In a move that tastes of humanism, the book starts with stating that a variety of

opinions haunts humanity as to what are the most important issues in life. No doubt, beatitude

is what all men are seeking, but the means and meaning of it seem to be controversial: pleasure,

wealth, glory, and virtue are the favorites. Of course we recognize a plethora of ethical treatises

which are repeated with this assessment, and once for all, I will take no pride in mentioning

Gemistos' sources. The consequence Gemistos draws from this diversity is notable: we need to

know the nature of man, and in order to do this, we need to study the nature of things, which

leads directly to the nature of the Divine.[12] After this initial chapter follows a chapter on the

major authorities in theological matters, which are a key to Plethon's lasting influence and,

perhaps, his intentions and shall be discussed more extensively later. After a refusal of skepticism

the main treatment of the subject initiates with a prayer:

Come to us, O gods of learning, whoever and however many ye be; ye who are guardians of

scientific knowledge and true belief; ye who distribute them to whomsoever you wish, in

accordance with the dictates of the great father of all things, Zeus the King. For without you we

should not be able to complete so great a task. But do you be our leader in our reasonings, and

grant that this book may have all success, to be set as a possession for ever before those of

mankind who wish to pass their lives, both in private and in public, established in the best noble

fashion.[13]

This is quite remarkable a confession of a philosopher: his gods are the gods of learning, theoi

logioi. Logios can have the meaning of: logical, reason-guided, erudite and eloquent, or oracular.

The choice is ours. However, 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, which is, by

its title, a syggraphe, a covenant of general Law.

Chapter I 5 informs the reader about the general dogmas (dogmata, nomoi) of Plethon's theology:

- The Gods are more blessed than men.

- They provide (pronoein) for any good and no evil.

- There is a plurality of Gods that admits for degrees.

- Zeus is the highest and mightiest of the Gods.

- He is unbegotten (agenetos) and self-engendered (autopatros).

- Poseidon is his first son and head of all other Gods.

- There is a hierarchy among the lower gods, manifest in the importance of their actions.

- There is even bisection among the Gods, those who stem from Zeus, and illegitimate ones; the

former living on Olympus, the latter dwelling as Titans in Tartarus.

- The Gods of Olympus and of Tartarus form a grand and holy One.

- On the lowest level there are demons that operate on earth.

- Nevertheless all of the Gods are outside of time and space.

- They are begotten (genetoi) from the one cause of all, and in duration without beginning and

end.

- In Zeus, essence and existence (ousia, praxis) are identical.

If this system were found in some middle Platonic fragment, we would be tempted to relate it to

Plato, Plotinus, Proklos and similar sources, together with ancient Greek theogonies. But Plethon

wrote this around the year 1400 or in the first half of the 15th century. We also recognize

Peripatetic, if not scholastic, rationality, such as the identification of essence and existence, 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.

As is well known, Plethon's Nomoi was in part destroyed posthumously by his friend and former

student, Georgios Gennadios Scholarios, now Patriarch of Byzantium, who believed the whole

theology to be a reinstating of ancient polytheism. 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.[14] As Arnold Toynbee convincingly argued, Plethon's work

marks an interesting option within the tribulations of the Byzantine Church, which was about to

dissipate between the millstones of the pressing Ottoman empire and the Roman Church. It

seems Plethon suggested to save Greek identity by restoring the ancient, unique Greek culture.

Scholarios' solution was, as actually happened, to preserve the Eastern Orthodox Church at the

mercy of the Turks, and, indeed, he had been appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, after 1453,

by Mehmet the Conquerer. Kardinal Bessarion, another student of Plethon's, opted for the

Roman Church, in which he made his career as a Cardinal.[15]

But this scenario leaves open the question of whether or not Gemistos Plethon actually believed

what he was teaching. This question had been raised by Scholarios himself. Bessarion, in a letter

of condolence, 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.[16] If we take Bessarion's witness as an indication that Gemistos' Nomoi were to be

taken metaphorically we may absolve him easily of heresy, against Scholarios' rage. Still, one has

to ask: what is the purpose of such metaphors? From the perspective of Greek national identity,

Bessarion would take sides with the sage of Mistra, and conveniently so, since his letter was

addressed to the defunct's sons. On the other hand, if we believe that in the eyes of the Roman

Cardinal there was nothing wrong with Olympic gods, then he must have reconciled such

parlance with Roman Christian dogmatics. The humanist Janus Pannonius, for example, had no

qualms to see Plato reincarnated in Marsilio Ficino, as confirmed by Pythagoras.[17] 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.

I am not giving into the temptation to compare Plethon's or Bessarion's words with Marsilio

Ficino, who also never hesitated to refer to Greek mythology in order to promote his Platonizing

theology, because Ficino might have depended on Gemistos' inspiration, and referring to Ficino

would be begging the question. Rather, I hope that a clearer understanding of Plethon might

afford a key to understanding Ficino and other Renaissance Platonists of the West.

Three things should be addressed, here. First, Plethon's theogony, in drawing upon Greek gods, is

only remotely in concordance with ancient mythology as known from Homer and the other

sources. Second, it appears to be a treatise that can be labeled as systematic, not much different

from Christian scholasticism. And third, it is presented not as a quaestio, nor as an apology or as

an exhortation, but clearly as a work of instruction, as an outline of social, political, and moral

order, as Laws.

If Gemistos had intended to spread belief in the Ancient Olympic deities, he might have set to

work like a 19th or 20th century classicist by harmonizing and ordering the ancient upper- and

underworld, and he would have tried to make his readers believe that Zeus had quite a powerful

command over the affairs of this world, etc. Let us just recall the legend that Wolfgang

Schadewaldt used to pray to the Greek Gods, or the fact that Werner Jaeger sincerely hoped to

restore ancient "Paideia" in Weimar Germany. The Byzantine sage also probably should have

established a system of virtues, identified with any of these deities, like Giordano Bruno would

do in his Spaccio de la bestia trionfante. Plethon's work would have been to some extent a

restoration and Renaissance of Ancient creed, 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, he effectively closed the door to the historical past

by pretending to reopen it. 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, but

that he – at the same time – created the awareness that they were really past, 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, contrived from the

spoils of the Greeks. The question is: what kind of religion? This becomes clear by a subordinate

question to the puzzlement over his mythology, namely the authorities he evokes for his work.

As already mentioned, the variety of understanding of the meaning of life was the initial question

that opened the Nomoi. This lead to the question: which were the best possible guides in the

quest for the divine? In chapter 2 of book 1, Plethon dismisses the poets and the sophists: the

poets aim at pleasing their readers, while the sophists don't care about truth but strive to elevate

themselves above the humans. "Both drag the divine down to the more human level and elevate

the human to the more divine level according to the human measure." Better than any man, the

legislators (nomothetoi) and philosophers are able to pronounce soundly (pythoit' an tis ti hygies) on

these matters, because they deal with the common good and with truth as basis of well-

being.[18] Therefore, Plethon adduces as his authorities Zoroaster in the first place, followed by

Eumolpos[19], because he had introduced the Eleusinian mysteries to Athens, which taught the

immortality of the soul. To this follow the legislators Minos, Lycurgus, the Argonaut Iphitus, and

Numa. Then Plethon refers summarily to the Brahmans of India, the Mages of Medians, i.e.,

Persians, and the Curetes, who distinguished themselves for having taught some of the major

tenets listed above, namely the ranking of second and third order deities and the immortality of

the creation and offspring of Zeus. Plethon mentions further sources, among others the priests of

Dodone as interpreters of the oracles, one prophet Polyeidos, then Teiresias, who taught

metempsychosis, Chiron, and the Seven Sages: Chilon, Solon, Bias, Thales, Cleobulus, Pittacus,

and Myson. This list is rounded up by some more familiar authorities, namely, Pythagoras, Plato,

Parmenides, Timaeus, Plutarchus, Plotinus, Porphyry, and Jamblichus.[20]

How should one read this list? Gemistos hastens to affirm that he is not at all intending to say

anything new (oud' …neoterioumen), as the sophists do,[21] a claim that will be one of the points of

criticism for Scholarios who insistently reproached Plethon's inventive innovations. What

distinguishes these sages from the sophists, according to Plethon, is their universal concordance

to the effect that "never their truth was newer than what has wrongly been

stated".[22]Innovation, indeed, is the ambition of the Sophists, and ambition leads to innovation.

A brief look at Plethon's more famous writing, his dissection of Aristotle's dissent from Plato,

reveals who the sophists might have been: the Aristotelians, because vanity was the major cause

responsible for Aristotle's apostasy from Platonism.

Plethon's authorities also exclude the poets, as has been said. He does not dwell upon them in

this place, but the very title page of his Nomoigives an important clue. He announces:

This work comprises: Theology according to Zoroaster and Plato, using for the gods recognized

by philosophy the traditional names of the gods known to the Hellenes, but restoring them from

the sense given them by the distortions of poets, which do not precisely conform with

philosophy, to a sense which does […] conform to the greatest possible degree [with

philosophy]…[23]

This is a clear rejection of the mythological theology of these ancients. From this point of view,

the prayer quoted above is even more revealing. It is not addressed to the Muses, as any

classicizing writer would have emulated, but to the philosophical gods. Ancient Greek mythology

is restored to rational philosophy. And this restoration is remarkable by some blatant absences:

not only the Muses, but also Apollo, Athena, Aphrodite, and many other gods that inhabited

the Olympus seem to have moved out.

Nevertheless, some Hellenic gods – namely Zeus, Poseidon, and Hera – are reinstated, and

Plethon justifies his claim with the list of authorities just mentioned. Not surprisingly, antiquity

is the measure of truth. Unfortunately, some of these ancient authorities are legendary at best.

Therefore, Scholarios had an easy time mockingly suspecting that Plethon certainly never read all

of them. Also, this lack of authenticity necessarily jeopardized their teachings. Every scholar as

learned as Scholarios could detect this. Plethon, however, put enormous effort in affirming the

harmony of the ancient teachers and their status. The capstone of his construction of ancient

wisdom was certainly Zoroaster, the most ancient of all sages, who – in Plethon's narrative –

revealed the truth about the gods to the Persians and other Asian peoples.[24]

In order to boost Zoroaster's authority, Plethon even edited the Chaldaean Oracles from Michael

Psellos and published them as Zoroaster's oracles. And again, every scholar of his time could

easily verify this maneuver.

Therefore, the past was for Plethon a means to an end. He appears to have been dependent on

construing a strong claim of antiquity for a philosophical theology, which exactly did not

originate among the Ancients. This brings us to the second question, which I will treat only

briefly.

As we already observed in the initial prayer, Plethon's gods are ambiguous: they are connected

with logos, and as such they are both reasonable and oracular, and they guide knowledge based on

science and opinion. This becomes even more evident in a summary of his doctrines. 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…"[25] The startling word, here,

is phronimos. The most common usage of this word refers to practical knowledge, right-

mindedness in this world, nothing close to wisdom and sanctity.[26] In Plato's book Nomoi there

is only one passage that suggests some sapiential meaning of this word,[27] but even there this

property is dependent on logos, and on the whole, the context belongs to ethics more than to

theology. It should also be noted that in Plethon's system of virtues, phronesis exercises reason in

humans, in as much as they are gifted with reason (logikon ti zoon).[28] This virtue, then, is

divided into piety, natural knowledge, and soundness of judgment (theosebeia, physike,

euboulia).[29] This piety can do well without revelation. The absence of the muses and the

poetical deities indicates that there is no room for mystical inspiration from the Gods, and

certainly no grace familiar to Christians. Plethon's mythology is Greek or Hellenic only in

appearance. Most probably he endeavors to meet the expectations of an audience filled with

humanist classicism, but in point of fact he brings this phase of emulation to an end. Plethon's

Zoroaster, then, has less likeness with the legendary founder of a still existing religion of

venerable age than with Nietzsche's Zarathustra.

II.

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, to which the latter does not belong in the

first place? Argumentative "misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows".[30]Pico quotes

Plethon, indeed, one time, but in a context that makes their association by Ficino's pen even

more surprising, because it is in Pico's "Commentary on a Song of Love", which is known to be a

harsh criticism of Ficino's appropriation of ancient mythology. Specifically Pico refers to the

technique of the ancients to hide truth behind metaphors, so dear to his Florentine colleague.

Here Pico betrays that he is familiar with Gemistos' work and offers his own hermeneutics of

mythology: Oceanus, "father of gods and of men", he claims, is an image to signify the Angelic

Mind, "the cause and source of every other creature which comes after it."[31] His authority is

Georgios Gemistos, "a much approved Platonist" – approved by whom? So Pico hastens to add:

"These are the waters, this is the living fountain, from which he who drinks never thirsts

anymore: these are the waters or the seas upon which, as David says, God founded the whole

world." Pico's artifice, here, is to channel ancient and Gemistian mythology back into clear waters

of Christianity. This does not mean that Plethon is Christian, but that Pico at best has learned

from him how to translate pagan wisdom philosophically, while he does not advocate this very

paganism, but turns it into biblical correctness. If there is any canopy that covers Plethon and

Pico, they stick their heads out at opposite ends.[32]

We may conclude from this that the Aristotelianism allegedly represented by Plethon and Pico is

actually anti-Aristotelianism, and the defense of religion is of dubitable Christianity. With this

collapses the first claim proffered in the quoted statement. The association of Pico and Plethon is

even more questionable because Plethon had endeavored to prove that Aristotle is at variance

with Plato, and with Christianity, whereas Pico just recently had wielded an attack on the

distinction between Platonic and Peripatetic conceptions of the One and of Being. Already in

1484, 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.[33] The De ente et uno was to become a sample of this project. This is justified,

according to Pico, 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, one month

after Lorenzo's death (8th April), but it had already been solemnly presented to him on

12th November 1490, to whom it is dedicated.[34] Whenever Ficino wrote his preface, he did not

withdraw his references to Pico in it, even though De ente et unowas written in 1491 by

this complatonicus.[35] Furthermore, 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,

presented above, before being so cocksure as to assail his teacher and so headstrong as to

publish views that run counter to those of all Platonists …!"[36]

The controversy is well known among Ficinisti; 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, which, consequently, must have been

in the making while Pico published hisDe ente et uno and Ficino introduced Plotinus.[37]

At this point, while reading the preface to Plotinus, 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, inspired by Cosimo de'Medici, as Ficino describes it. Looking back in the text,

we may state that Ficino actually needs Pico in order to justify his own work; and that means

that in the passage quoted, two rhetorical strains merge: the Pico strain with the Plethon strain.

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. Now as is well known

according to Ficino’s narrative, this idea that had been associated with the founding of the so

called Platonic Academy, i.e. making these key texts available in Latin, came to Cosimo from

Gemistos Plethon. Giovanni Pico, then, serves as a stepping stone between the remote event of

the Council of Florence, when in 1439 Cosimo encountered Plethon, and the new translation of

Plotinus, to be dedicated to Cosimo's grandson Lorenzo. The divine inspiration – instilled by

Plethon and forwarded from Cosimo via Pico to Ficino – allegedly Christianizes the project, but

this would have sounded dubitable if related only to Plethon. Consequently we may sum up the

narrative as follows:

Plethon convinced Cosimo that Hermetism and Platonism contain "mysteria", hitherto unknown.

Plotinus, in Ficino's view, must be the completion of the Medici project, which is now presented

as an attempt to save religion. Ficino, well aware of the pagan implications of Plethon's doctrine,

made Pico his accomplice, 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).

Thus, Pico was to help saving Ficino's reputation as a religious philosopher. For this purpose,

Ficino had to parallel Plethon with the unsuspected Pico, to the effect that Plethon became so to

say christened. This achieved, Ficino may now present Plotinus' works to Lorenzo as the source

that discloses the "philosophiae mysteria" which had inspired Cosimo.

Finally, in order to tie up the whole narrative, Ficino makes reference to Angelo Poliziano, the

professor of Aristotelian philosophy, close friend of Pico's, and certainly a competitor in the

attention from Lorenzo. Ficino mentions that Porphyry's Life of Plotinus, that opens the whole

work, was particularly dear to Poliziano, "alumnus tuus".

So, 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. So Ficino eulogizes Lorenzo and his

Grandfather and their friends. As it happens, he has to applaud them for intentions he does not

share, or at least not in the same way. And, even worse, the addressee of the preface died before

the book came out. Appropriately, in his new brief dedication to Pietro de'Medici, Ficino muses

about being unfortunate. Ficino perceives the passing of times against which he pursues his

Platonic project, and he craves recognition by those he praises.

[1] Marsilio Ficino, Opera (Basel: Henricpetri, 1576; Reprint Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1983) II,p. 1537:

"cuius mentem hodie pauci, praeter sublimem Picum complatonicum nostrum ea pietate, qua Theophrastus

olim et Themistius, Porphyrius, Symplicius, Avicenna, et nuper Plethon interpretantur". About this preface

see Sebastiano Gentile in Marsilio Ficino, Lettere, I (Florence: Olschki, 1990), pp. XIII-XLII; Sebastiano

Gentile: "Giorgio Gemisto Pletone e la sua influenza sull'umanesimo fiorentino", in Paolo Viti

(ed.): Firenze e il Concilio del 1439 (Florence: Olschki, 1994), I, pp. 813-832. Michael

Stausberg: Faszination Zarathushtra. Zoroaster und die Europäische Religionsgeschichte der Frühen

Neuzeit (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1998) I, p. 82, called this preface a "geschickt inszenierte Legende"

(a cunningly contrived legend). Cf. Cesare Vasoli, Quasi sit deus. Studi su Marsilio Ficino (Lecce: Conte,

1999), pp. 23-50. James Hankins: "Cosimo de' Medici and the 'Platonic Academy'", in Journal of the

Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 53 (1990), 144-162. Paul Richard Blum: Philosophieren in der

Renaissance (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), pp. 167-175; Idem: "Die Graue Eminenz des Renaissance-

Platonismus: Georgios Gemistos Plethon", Tumult. Schriften zur Verkehrswissenschaft 29 (2005), 119-129

(this issue is dedicated to "Georgios Gemistos Plethon (1355-1452), Reformpolitiker, Philosoph, Verehrer

der alten Götter").

[2] The name refers to (Nagy-)Várad, Hungary, today Oradea in Romenia. Klára Pajorin: "Ioannes

Pannonius e la sua lettera a Ficino,Verbum – Analecta Neolatina 1 (1999) 59-68.

[3] Ficino: Opera, pp. 871 sq. and 1537; translation from Michael J. B. Allen: "Golden Wits, Zoroaster and

the Rivival of Plato", in idem.:Synoptic Art. Marsilio Ficino on the History of Platonic Interpretation (Florence:

Olschki, 1998), p. 15.

[4] C. M. Woodhouse: Gemistos Plethon. The Last of the Hellenes(Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), p. 193, § 5.

[5] Woodhouse, S. 203, § 32.

[6] Woodhouse, S. 213, § 55.

[7] Bernadette Lagarde: "Le 'De differentiis' de Pléthon d'apres l'autographe de la Marcienne", Byzantion 43

(1973) 312-343; p. 321:Oi men hmwn palaioteroi kai Ellhnwn kai Romaiwn Platwna Aristotelou" pollw

twi meswi proetimwn. I altered Woodhouse's translation, which – in accordance with the Latin – translates:

"Our ancestors, both Hellenes and Romans, …" (cf. "Tam Graeci quam Romani veteres, qui nostrum

saeculum antecesserunt …": Georgii Gemisti Plethonis De Platonicae atque Aristotelica philosophiae differentia

libellus, ed. Georgius Chariander, Basel 1574, fol. B 2 v; cf. Migne PG 160, col. 890).

[8] John Monfasani: "Marsilio Ficino and the Plato-AristotleControversy", in Michael J. B. Allen and Valery

Rees (eds.): Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 179-202; p.

199 edition of Ficino's marginal note on De fato from Cod. Riccardianus 76; pp. 196-199 Ficino's references

toPlethon. On that codex see S. Gentile, S. Piccoli and P. Viti (eds.):Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone.

Mostra di manoscritti, stampe e documenti, Firenze 1984, n. 43,pp. 55-57.

[9] Pléthon: Traité des lois, ed. C. Alexandre (Paris, 1858; reprint Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966), I 2, pp. 30-

32. In the following Nomoiwill refer to this work.

[10] Ibid. I 5, p. 44.

[11] Some hints at possible Neoplatonic backgrounds of Plethon'sNomoi in Dominic J.

O'Meara: Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon, 2003), pp. 203 sq.,

who also suggests parallels with a-Farabi's The Best State.

[12] Pléthon: Traité des lois, I 2.

[13] Woodhouse, p. 328 sq.; Traité, I 4, p. 45.

[14] Gennádiosz Szkholáriosz: Petrus Hispanus Mester Logikájából(Greek-Hungarian), ed. György Geréby

(Budapest: Jószöveg, 1999), p.214. Cf. George Karamanolis: "Plethon and Scholarios on Aristotle", in

Katerina Ierodiakonou (ed.): Byzantine Philosophy and its AncientSources (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002), pp. 253-

282.

[15] Arnold Toynbee: The Greeks and their Heritages (Oxford: University Press, 1981), p. 308.

[16] Toynbee, p. 308; Traité, Appendix XV, p. 404; Woodhouse, p. 13.

[17] Janus Pannonius: Poemata (Utrecht: Wild, 1784; reprint Budapest: Balassi, 2002), I, p. 561

(Epigrammatum lib. 1, nr. 236): "Nuper in Elysiis animam dum quaero Platonis, / Marsilio hanc Samius

dixit inesse senex."

[18] Traité, p. 28.

[19] A fabulous Thracian singer and priest of Ceres, who brought the Eleusinian mysteries and the culture

of the vine to Attica (Lewis and Short).

[20] Traité, pp. 30-32.

[21] Traité, p. 32.

[22] Traité, p. 34.

[23] Traité, p. 2, translation from Woodhouse, p. 322, with alterations.

[24] Traité, p. 30.

[25] Traité, p. 262; cf. Woodhouse, p. 319, who suggests "prudent" and "right-minded" for phronimos.

[26] See Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott: A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. – Scholarios

contraposed sophos and hieros to phronimos in his polemics agains Juvenalios, a pupil of Plethon's, by stating:

"Allà sophòs men ouk ên, oudè hierós, phrónimos dé." Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, ed. Louis

Petit, X. A. Sideridès and Martin Jugie, tome 4, Paris 1935, p. 482, 6-7 (letter to Manuel Raoul Oises).

[27] Plato: Nomoi, 12, 963 e: "aneu de au logou psuchê phronimos te kai noun echousa out' egeneto

pôpote".

[28] Plethon: Peri aretôn (De quatuor virtutum justa explicatio), PG 160, 865-882; 865.

[29] PG 160, 880. The virtues are explained as: Theosebeia regards the divine, physike the

natural, euboulia the human things.

[30] Shakespeare: The Tempest, Act II, sc. II.

[31] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Commentary on a Canzone of Benivieni, transl. Sears Jayne (New York:

Lang, 1984), II 19, p. 115.

[32] It should be noted at this point that Gianfrancesco Pico, who tended his uncle's legacy, seems to have

known only the De differentiis, which he adduced, together with Bessarion and Nicholas of Cusa, in

his Examen vanitatis doctrinae Gentilium, book 4, when criticizing Aristotle: Joannes Franciscus Picus

Mirandulanus: Opera omnia, (Basel: Henricpetri, 1573; reprint: Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo, 1972), vol. 2, pp.

1025, 1239 sq.

[33] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola: Opera omnia (Basel: Henricpetri, 1572; reprint Turin: Bottega

d'Erasmo, 1971), I p. 368 f.: „Diverti nuper ab Aristotele in Academiam, sed non transfuga, ut inquit ille

[Themistius], verum explorator. Videor tamen (dicam tibi, Hermolae, quod sentio) duo in Platone

agnoscere, et Homericam illam eloquendi facultatem supra prosam orationem sese attollentem, et sensuum,

si quis eos altius introspiciat, cum Aristotele omnino communionem, ita ut si verba spectes, nihil

pugnantius, si res nihil concordius." Cf. Eugenio Garin: "Introduzione", in Giovanni Pico della

Mirandola: De hominis dignitate, Heptaplus, De ente et uno e scritti vari, ed. Eugenio Garin (Florence: Vallecchi,

1942), p. 9.

[34] Paul Oskar Kristeller: Supplementum Ficinianum (Florence: Olschki, 1937; reprint 1999), I, pp. CXXVIII

and CLVIII. Raymond Marcel: Marsile Ficin (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1958), pp. 504, 507 f.On Lorenzo's

personal copy see: Marsilio Ficino e il ritorno di Platone. Mostra, n. 115, pp. 147-149.

[35] Eugenio Garin: Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. Vita e dottrina(Florence: Le Monnier, 1937), p. 42, says

the dedication of De ente et uno to Angelo Poliziano dates 1492, but there Pico speaks in present tense

about "Ethica hoc anno publice enarras", and Poliziano started teaching Aristotle's Ethics in 1490-91: Paul

F. Grendler: The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), p.

238. Cf. PaoloViti (ed.): Pico, Poliziano e l’Umanesimo de fine Quattrocento, Catalogo (Florence: Olschki, 1994),

p. 119.

[36] Ficino, In Parmenidem, cap. 47 (Opera II, 1164): "Utinam ille mirandus iuvenis disputationes,

discussionesque superiores diligenter consideravisset, antequam tam confidenter tangeret praeceptorem, ac

tam secure contra Platonicorum omnium sententiam divulgasset, et divinum Parmenidem simpliciter esse

logicum, et Platonem una cum Aristotele ipsum cum ente unum, et bonum adaequavisse." I partly used the

translation in Jill Kraye: "Ficino in the Firing Line: A Renaissance Platonist and His Critics", in: Allen/Rees,

pp. 377-397, p. 379.

[37] According to Kristeller, Supplementum, I p. CXX, the Parmenides commentary was begun after

November 1492; but Ficino complains that Pico should have read his "disputationes, discussionesque",

which in fact appear like independent quaestiones inserted into the commentary; these might have been

written beforehand.