Giovanni Pico della Mirandola

egi, Patres colendissimi, in Arabum monumentis, interrogatum Abdalam sarracenum, quid in hac quasi mundana scena admirandum maxime spectaretur, nihil spectari homine admirabilius respondisse. Cui sententiæ illud Mercurii adstipulatur: „Magnum, o Asclepi, miraculum est homo“.🞯Asclepius vi: „Propter hoc, o Asclepi, magnum miraculum est homo. O animal adorandum atque honorandum! Hoc enim in naturam Dei transit, quasi ipse sit Deus, hoc dæmonum genus novit, utpote qui cum iisdem ortum se esse cognoscat. Hoc humanæ naturæ partem in se ipso despicit, alterius partis divinitate confisus.“

[2]Horum dictorum rationem cogitanti mihi non satis illa faciebant, quæ multa de humanæ naturæ præstantia afferuntur a multis: esse hominem creaturarum internuntium, superis familiarem, regem inferiorum; sensuum perspicacia, rationis indagine, intelligentiæ lumine, naturæ interpretem; stabilis evi et fluxi temporis interstitium, et (quod Persæ dicunt) mundi copulam, immo hymeneum, ab angelis, teste Davide, paulo deminutum.

[3]Magna hæc quidem, sed non principalia, idest quæ summæ admirationis privilegium sibi iure vendicent. Cur enim non ipsos angelos et beatissimos cæli choros magis admiremur? Tandem intellexisse mihi sum visus, cur felicissimum proindeque dignum omni admiratione animal sit homo, et quæ sit demum illa conditio quam in universi serie sortitus sit, non brutis modo, sed astris, sed ultramundanis mentibus invidiosam. Res supra fidem et mira. Quidni? Nam et propterea magnum miraculum et admirandum profecto animal iure homo et dicitur et existimatur. Sed quæ nam ea sit audite, Patres, et benignis auribus pro vestra humanitate hanc mihi operam condonate.

[4]Iam summus Pater architectus Deus hanc quam videmus mundanam domum, divinitatis templum augustissimum, archanæ legibus sapientiæ fabrefecerat. Supercelestem regionem mentibus decorarat; ethereos globos æternis animis vegetarat; excrementarias ac feculentas inferioris mundi partes omnigena animalium turba complerat. Sed, opere consumato, desiderabat artifex esse aliquem qui tanti operis rationem perpenderet, pulchritudinem amaret, magnitudinem admiraretur. Idcirco iam rebus omnibus (ut Moses Timeusque testantur) absolutis, de producendo homine postremo cogitavit. Verum nec erat in archetipis unde novam sobolem effingeret, nec in thesauris quod novo filio hereditarium largiretur, nec in subselliis totius orbis, ubi universi contemplator iste sederet. Iam plena omnia; omnia summis, mediis infimisque ordinibus fuerant distributa. Sed non erat paternæ potestatis in extrema fætura quasi effeta defecisse; non erat sapientiæ, consilii inopia in re necessaria fluctuasse; non erat benefici amoris, ut qui in aliis esset divinam liberalitatem laudaturus in se illam damnare cogeretur.

[5]Statuit tandem optimus opifex, ut cui dari nihil proprium poterat commune esset quicquid privatum singulis fuerat. Igitur hominem accepit indiscretæ opus imaginis atque in mundi positum meditullio sic est alloquutus: „Nec certam sedem, nec propriam faciem, nec munus ullum peculiare tibi dedimus, o Adam, ut quam sedem, quam faciem, quæ munera tute optaveris, ea, pro voto, pro tua sententia, habeas et possideas. Definita cæteris natura intra præscriptas a nobis leges cohercetur. Tu, nullis angustiis cohercitus, pro tuo arbitrio, in cuius manu te posui, tibi illam prefinies. Medium te mundi posui, ut circumspiceres inde comodius quicquid est in mundo. Nec te celestem neque terrenum, neque mortalem neque immortalem fecimus, ut tui ipsius quasi arbitrarius honorariusque plastes et fictor, in quam malueris tute formam effingas. Poteris in inferiora quæ sunt bruta degenerare; poteris in superiora quæ sunt divina ex tui animi sententia regenerari“.

[6]O summam Dei patris liberalitatem, summam et admirandam hominis foelicitatem! Cui datum id habere quod optat, id esse quod velit. Bruta simul atque nascuntur id secum afferunt (ut ait Lucilius) e bulga matris quod possessura sunt. Supremi spiritus aut ab initio aut paulo mox id fuerunt, quod sunt futuri in perpetuas æternitates. Nascenti homini omnifaria semina et omnigenæ vitæ germina indidit Pater. Quæ quisque excoluerit illa adolescent, et fructus suos ferent in illo. Si vegetalia planta fiet, si sensualia obrutescet, si rationalia cæleste evadet animal, si intellectualia angelus erit et Dei filius.🞯Jamblichos: Protreptikos: Αἰσϑήσεως μὲν οὖν ϰαὶ νοῡ ἀφαιϱεϑεὶς ἄνϑϱωπος φυτῷ γίγνεται παϱαπλήσιος, νοῦ δὲ πόνον ἀφῃϱημένος, ἐϰϑηϱιοῦται, ἀλογίας δε ἀφαιϱεϑεὶς μένων δ᾽ἐν τῷ νῷ ὁμοιοῦται ϑεῷ.
A man deprived of sense and intellect together is reduced to the condition of a plant; deprived of intellect alone he becomes a brute; deprived of immortality but yet remaining in the possession of intellect, he becomes similar to God. — Translated by T. Johnson, 1907. Et si nulla creaturarum sorte contentus in unitatis centrum suæ se receperit, unus cum Deo spiritus factus, in solitaria Patris caligine qui est super omnia constitutus omnibus antestabit.

[7]Quis hunc nostrum chamæleonta non admiretur? Aut omnino quis aliud quicquam admiretur magis? Quem non immerito Asclepius Atheniensis versipellis huius et se ipsam transformantis naturæ argumento per Protheum in mysteriis significari dixit. Hinc illæ apud Hebræos et Pythagoricos methamorphoses celebratæ.

[8]Nam et Hebræorum theologia secretior nunc Enoch sanctum in angelum divinitatis, quem vocant mālākh hashĕkhīnāh nunc in alia alios numina reformant. Et Pythagorici scelestos homines in bruta deformant et, si Empedocli creditur, etiam in plantas.🞯Cf. Empedokles, 117: ἤδη γάϱ ποτ’ ἐγὼ γενόμην ϰοῦϱός τε ϰόϱη τε, ϑάμνος τ᾿ οἰωνός τέ ϰαὶ ἔξαλος ἔλλοπος ἰχϑύς.
Ich war bereits einmal Knabe, Mädchen, Pflanze, Vogel und flutenttauchender, stummer Fisch. — Diels/Kranz I, p. 208. Quos imitatus Maumeth illud frequens habebat in ore, qui a divina lege recesserit brutum evadere, et merito quidem. Neque enim plantam cortex, sed stupida et nihil sentiens natura; neque iumenta corium, sed bruta anima et sensualis; nec cælum orbiculatum corpus, sed recta ratio; nec sequestratio corporis, sed spiritalis intelligentia angelum facit. Si quem enim videris deditum ventri, humi serpentem hominem, frutex est, non homo, quem vides; si quem in fantasiæ quasi Calipsus vanis præstigiis cecucientem et subscalpenti delinitum illecebra sensibus mancipatum, brutum est, non homo, quem vides. Si recta philosophum ratione omnia discernentem, hunc venereris; cæleste est animal, non terrenum. Si purum contemplatorem corporis nescium, in penetralia mentis relegatum, hic non terrenum, non cæleste animal: hic augustius est numen humana carne circumvestitum.

[9]Ecquis hominem non admiretur? Qui non immerito in sacris litteris Mosaicis et Christianis, nunc omnis carnis, nunc omnis creaturæ appellatione designatur, quando se ipsum ipse in omnis carnis faciem, in omnis creaturæ ingenium effingit, fabricat et tansformat. Idcirco scribit Evantes Persa, ubi Chaldaicam theologiam enarrat, non esse homini suam ullam et nativam imaginem, extrarias multas et adventitias. Hinc illud Chaldæorum „Enōsh hu shınnūim vekammah těbhāoth baal haj idest“ homo variæ ac multiformis et desultoriæ naturæ animal.

[10]Sed quorsum hæc? Ut intelligamus, postquam hac nati sumus conditione, ut id simus quod esse volumus, curare hoc potissimum debere nos, ut illud quidem in nos non dicatur, cum in honore essemus non cognovisse similes factos brutis et iumentis insipientibus. Sed illud potius Asaph prophetæ: „Dii estis et filii Excelsi omnes“, ne, abutentes indulgentissima Patris liberalitate, quam dedit ille liberam optionem, e salutari noxiam faciamus nobis. Invadat animum sacra quædam ambitio ut mediocribus non contenti anhelemus ad summa, adque illa (quando possumus si volumus) consequenda totis viribus enitamur. Dedignemur terrestria, cælestia contemnamus, et quicquid mundi est denique posthabentes, ultramundanam curiam eminentissimæ divinitati proximam advolemus. Ibi, ut sacra tradunt mysteria, Seraphin, Cherubin et Throni primas possident;🞯Cf. Dionysius Areopagita: De caelesti hierarchia, III, VI et VII. horum nos iam cedere nescii et secundarum impatientes et dignitatem et gloriam emulemur. Erimus illis, cum voluerimus, nihilo inferiores.

[11]Sed qua ratione, aut quid tandem agentes? Videamus quid illi agant, quam vivant vitam. Eam si et nos vixerimus (possumus enim) illorum sortem iam equaverimus. Ardet Saraph charitatis igne; fulget Cherub intelligentiæ splendore; stat Thronus iudicii firmitate. Igitur si actuosæ addicti vitæ inferiorum curam recto examine susceperimus, Thronorum stata soliditate firmabimur. Si ab actionibus feriati, in opificio opificem, in opifice opificium meditantes, in contemplandi ocio negociabimur, luce Cherubica undique corruscabimus. Si charitate ipsum opificem solum ardebimus, illius igne, qui edax est, in Saraphicam effigiem repente flammabimur. Super Throno, idest iusto iudice, sedet Deus iudex seculorum. Super Cherub, idest contemplatore, volat atque eum quasi incubando fovet. Spiritus enim Domini fertur super aquas, has, inquam quæ super cælos sunt, quæ apud Iob Dominum laudant antelucanis hymnis. Qui Saraph, idest amator est, in Deo est, et Deus in eo, immo et Deus et ipse unum sunt. Magna Thronorum potestas, quam iudicando; summa Saraphinorum sublimitas, quam amando assequimur.

[12]Sed quonam pacto vel iudicare quisquam vel amare potest incognita? Amavit Moses Deum quem vidit, et administravit iudex in populo quæ vidit prius contemplator in monte. Ergo medius Cherub sua luce et Saraphico igni nos præparat et ad Thronorum iudicium pariter illuminat. Hic est nodus primarum mentium, ordo palladicus,🞯Cicero: Somnium Scipionis 5: qui numerus rerum omnium fere nodus est.
Macrobius: Commentaria in somnium Scipionis 1,6,11: huic autem numero id est septenario adeo opinio virginitatis inolevit, ut Pallas quoque vocitetur. philosophiæ contemplativæ preses; hic nobis et emulandus primo et ambiendus, atque adeo comprehendendus est, unde et ad amoris rapiamur fastigia et ad munera actionum bene instructi paratique descendamus. At vero operæ precium, si ad exemplar vitæ Cherubicæ vita nostra formanda est, quæ illa et qualis sit, quæ actiones, quæ illorum opera, pre oculis et in numerato habere. Quod cum nobis per nos, qui caro sumus et quæ humi sunt sapimus, consequi non liceat, adeamus antiquos patres, qui de his rebus utpote sibi domesticis et cognatis locupletissimam nobis et certam fidem facere possunt. Consulamus Paulum apostolum vas electionis, quid ipse cum ad tertium sublimatus est cælum, agentes Cherubinorum exercitus viderit. Respondebit utique Dyonisio interprete: purgari illos, tum illuminari, postremo perfici.🞯Dionysius Areopagita: ϰαϑαίϱεσϑαι, φωτίζεσϑαι, τελεῖσϑαι. Πεϱὶ τῆς Οὐϱανίας Ἱεϱαϱχίας III, 165; VII, 208 sq.; VIII, 240.

[13]Ergo et nos Cherubicam in terris vitam emulantes, per moralem scientiam affectuum impetus cohercentes, per dialecticam rationis caliginem discutientes, quasi ignorantiæ et vitiorum eluentes sordes animam purgemus, ne aut affectus temere debacchentur aut ratio imprudens quandoque deliret. Tum bene compositam ac expiatam animam naturalis philosophiæ lumine perfundamus, ut postremo divinarum rerum eam cognitione perficiamus.

[14]Et ne nobis nostri sufficiant consulamus Iacob patriarcham cuius imago in sede gloriæ sculpta corruscat. Admonebit nos pater sapientissimus in inferno dormiens, mundo in superno vigilans. Sed admonebit per figuram (ita eis omnia contingebant) esse scalas ab imo solo ad cæli summa protensas multorum graduum serie distinctas; fastigio Dominum insidere, contemplatores angelos per eas vicibus alternantes ascendere et descendere.

[15]Quod si hoc idem nobis angelicam affectantibus vitam factitandum est, queso, quis Domini scalas vel sordidato pede, vel male mundis manibus attinget? Impuro, ut habent mysteria, purum attingere nephas. Sed qui hi pedes? Quæ manus? Profecto pes animæ illa est portio despicatissima, qua ipsa materiæ tanquam terræ solo innititur, altrix inquam potestas et cibaria, fomes libidinis et voluptariæ mollitudinis magistra.🞯Philo of Alexandria: Πεϱι του ϑεοπεμπτους ειναι τους ονειϱους (De somniis) I, 146: ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐν ϰόσμῳ λεγομένη συμβολιϰῶς ϰλῖμαξ τοιαύτη ἐστί, τὴν δ´ ἐν ἀνϑϱώποις σϰοποῦντες εὑϱήσομεν τὴν ψυχήν, ἧς βάσις μὲν τὸ ὡσανεὶ γεῶδές ἐστιν, αἴσϑησις, ϰεφαλὴ δ´ ὡς ἂν τὸ οὐϱάνιον, ὁ ϰαϑαϱώτατος νοῦς.
The ladder therefore in the world which is here spoken of in this symbolical manner, was something of this sort. But if we carefully investigate the soul which exists in men, the foundation of which is something corporeal, and as it were earth-like, we shall find that the foundation to be the outward sense; and the head to be something heavenly, as it were the most pure mind. Manus animæ cur irascentiam non dixerimus, quæ appetentiæ propugnatrix pro ea decertat et sub pulvere ac sole predatrix rapit, quæ illa sub umbra dormitans helluetur? Has manus, hos pedes, idest totam sensualem partem in qua sedet corporis illecebra quæ animam obtorto (ut aiunt) detinet collo,🞯Asclepius xii: Res enim dulcis est in hac corporali vita, qui capitur de possessionibus fructus. Quare animam obtorto ut aiunt detinet collo, ut in parte sui, qua mortalis est, inhaereat, nec sinit partem divinitatis agnoscere, invidens immortalitati malignitas.
For in this life in body, it is a pleasant thing — the pleasure that one gets from one’s possessions. ’Tis for this cause that spite, in envy of its [hope of] immortality, doth clap the soul in prison, as they say, and keep it down, so that it stays in that part of itself in which it’s mortal, nor suffers it to know the part of its divinity. ne a scalis tamquam prophani pollutique reiciamur, morali philosophia quasi vivo flumine abluamus. At nec satis hoc erit, si per Iacob scalam discursantibus angelis comites esse volumus, nisi et a gradu in gradum rite promoveri, et a scalarum tramite deorbitare nusquam, et reciprocos obire excursus bene apti prius instructique fuerimus. Quod cum per artem sermocinalem sive rationariam erimus consequuti, iam Cherubico spiritu animati, per scalarum, idest naturæ gradus philosophantes, a centro ad centrum omnia pervadentes, nunc unum quasi Osyrim in multitudinem vi titanica discerpentes descendemus, nunc multitudinem quasi Osyridis membra in unum vi Phebea colligentes🞯Cf. Πλούταϱχος Πεϱί Ίσιδος ϰαι Οσίϱιδος (Moralia 23). ascendemus, donec in sinu Patris qui super scalas est tandem quiescentes, theologica foelicitate consumabimur.

[16]Percontemur et iustum Iob, qui fedus iniit cum Deo vitæ prius quam ipse ederetur in vitam quid summus Deus in decem illis centenis millibus qui assistunt ei, potissimum desideret: pacem utique respondebit, iuxta id quod apud eum legitur: „Qui facit pacem in excelsis“. Et quoniam supremi ordinis monita medius ordo inferioribus interpretatur,🞯Cf. Dionysius Areopagita: Πεϱὶ τῆς οὐϱανίου ἱεϱαϱχίας VII, 209: Τοῦτο γοῦν οἱ ϑεολόγοι σαφῶς δηλοῦσι τὸ τὰς μὲν ὑφειμ ένας τῶν οὐϱανίων οὐσιῶν διαϰοσμήσεις πϱὸς τῶν ὑπεϱβεβηϰυιῶν εὐϰόσμως ἐϰδιδάσϰεσϑαι τὰς ϑεουϱγιϰὰς ἐπιστήμας, τὰς δὲ πασῶν ὑψηλοτέϱας ὑπ’ αὐτῆς ϑεαϱχίας ὡς ϑεμιτὸν τὰς μυήσεις ἐλλάμπεσϑαι.
This, then, the theologians distinctly shew that the subordinate Orders of the Heavenly Beings are taught by the superior, in due order, the deifying sciences; and that those who are higher than all are illuminated from Godhead itself, as far as permissible, in revelations of the Divine mysteries.
& IV, 181; VII, 240. interpretetur nobis Iob theologi verba Empedocles philosophus. Hic duplicem naturam in nostris animis sitam, quarum altera sursum tollimur ad celestia, altera deorsum trudimur ad inferna, per litem et amicitiam, sive bellum et pacem, ut sua testantur carmina,🞯Cf. Empedokles, fragmenta 17. 35. 115. nobis significat. In quibus se lite et discordia actum, furenti similem profugum a diis, in altum iactari conqueritur.🞯Cf. Empedokles, fragmentum 115: … τῶν ϰαὶ ἐγὼ νῦν εἰμὶ φυγὰς ϑεόϑεν ϰαὶ ἀλήτης, Νείϰει μαινομενῷ πίσυνος.
Zu diesen [Bestraften] gehöre jetzt auch ich, ein von Gott Gebannter und Irrender, da ich rasendem Streite vertraute. — Diels/Kranz I, p. 207.

[17]Multiplex profecto, Patres, in nobis discordia; gravia et intestina domi habemus et plusquam civilia bella. Quæ si noluerimus, si illam affectaverimus pacem, quæ in sublime ita nos tollat ut inter excelsos Domini statuamur, sola in nobis compescet prorsus et sedabit philosophia: moralis primum, si noster homo ab hostibus indutias tantum quesierit, multiplicis bruti effrenes excursiones et leonis iurgia, iras animosque contundet. Tum si rectius consulentes nobis perpetuæ pacis securitatem desideraverimus, aderit illa et vota nostra liberaliter implebit, quippe quæ cesa utraque bestia, quasi icta porca, inviolabile inter carnem et spiritum foedus sanctissimæ pacis sanciet. Sedabit dyalectica rationis turbas inter orationum pugnantias et sillogismo captiones anxie tumultuantis. Sedabit naturalis philosophia opinionis lites et dissidia, quæ inquietam hinc inde animam vexant, distrahunt et lacerant. Sed ita sedabit, ut meminisse nos iubeat esse naturam iuxta Heraclytum ex bello genitam,🞯Cf. Heraklit fragmenta 10. 53. 80 (Diels/Kranz I, p. 63 sqq.). ob id ab Homero contentionem vocitatam. Idcirco in ea veram quietem et solidam pacem se nobis prestare non posse, esse hoc dominæ suæ, idest sanctissimæ theologiæ, munus et privilegium. Ad illam ipsa et viam monstrabit et comes ducet, quæ procul nos videns properantes: „Venite, inclamabit, ad me qui laborastis; venite et ego reficiam vos; venite ad me et dabo vobis pacem quam mundus et natura vobis dare non possunt“.

[18]Tam blande vocati, tam benigniter invitati, alatis pedibus quasi terrestres Mercurii, in beatissimæ amplexus matris evolantes, optata pace perfruemur: pace sanctissima, individua copula, unianimi amicitia, qua omnes animi in una mente, quæ est super omnem mentem, non concordent adeo, sed ineffabili quodammodo unum penitus evadant. Hæc est illa amicitia quam totius philosophiæ finem esse Pythagorici dicunt,🞯Iamblichos, Ἰάμβλιχος: De vita Pythagorica, Πεϱὶ τοῦ Πυϑαγοϱιϰοῦ βίου 33 (240): οὐϰοῡν εἰς ϑεοϰϱασίαν τινὰ ϰαὶ τὴν πϱὸς τὸν ϑεὸν ἕνωσιν ϰαὶ τὴν τοῡ νοῦ ϰοινωνίαν ϰαὶ τὴς τῆς ϑείας ψυχῆς ἀπέβλεπεν αὐτοῖς ἡ πᾶσα τῆς φιλίας σπουδὴ δι᾿ ἔϱγων τε ϰαὶ λόγων
For them, all zeal for friendship in words and deeds was aimed at a kind of mingling with God, at a union with God, at a communion of the spirit with the divine soul. hæc illa pax quam facit Deus in excelsis suis, quam angeli in terram descendentes annuntiarunt hominibus bonæ voluntatis, ut per eam ipsi homines ascendentes in cælum angeli fierent. Hanc pacem amicis, hanc nostro optemus seculo, optemus unicuique domui quam ingredimur, optemus animæ nostræ, ut per eam ipsa Dei domus fiat; ut, postquam per moralem et dyalecticam suas sordes excusserit, multiplici philosophia quasi aulico apparatu se exornarit, portarum fastigia theologicis sertis coronarit, descendat Rex gloriæ et cum Patre veniens mansionem faciat apud eam. Quo tanto hospite si se dignam præstiterit, qua est illius immensa clementia, deaurato vestitu quasi toga nuptiali multiplici scientiarum circumdata varietate, speciosum hospitem, non ut hospitem iam, sed ut sponsum excipiet, a quo ne unquam dissolvatur dissolvi cupiet a populo suo et domum patris sui, immo se ipsam oblita, in se ipsa cupiet mori ut vivat in sponso, in cuius conspectu preciosa profecto mors sanctorum eius, mors, inquam, illa, si dici mors debet plenitudo vitæ cuius meditationem esse studium philosophiæ dixerunt sapientes.

[19]Citemus et Mosem ipsum a sacrosanctæ et ineffabilis intelligentiæ fontana plenitudine, unde angeli suo nectare inebriantur, paulo deminutum. Audiemus venerandum iudicem nobis in deserta huius corporis solitudine habitantibus leges sic edicentem: „Qui polluti adhuc morali indigent, cum plebe habitent extra tabernaculum sub divo, quasi Thessali sacerdotes interim se expiantes. Qui mores iam composuerunt, in sanctuarium recepti, nondum quidem sacra attractent, sed prius dyaletico famulatu seduli levitæ philosophiæ sacris ministrent. Tum ad ea et ipsi admissi, nunc superioris Dei regiæ multicolorem, idest sydereum aulicum ornatum, nunc cæleste candelabrum septem luminibus distinctum, nunc pellicea elementa, in philosophiæ sacerdotio contemplentur, ut postremo per theologicæ sublimitatis merita in templi adita recepti, nullo imaginis intercedente velo, divinitatis gloria perfruantur“. Hæc nobis profecto Moses et imperat et imperando admonet, excitat, inhortatur, ut per philosophiam ad futuram cælestem gloriam, dum possumus iter paremus nobis.

[20]Verum enimvero, nec Mosayca tantum aut Christiana mysteria, sed priscorum quoque theologia harum, de quibus disputaturus accessi, liberalium artium et emolumenta nobis et dignitatem ostendit. Quid enim aliud sibi volunt in Græcorum archanis observati initiatorum gradus, quibus primo per illas quas diximus quasi februales artes, moralem et dialeticam, purificatis, contingebat mysteriorum susceptio? Quæ quid aliud esse potest quam secretioris per philosophiam naturæ interpretatio? Tum demum ita dispositis illa adveniebat ἐποπτεία, idest rerum divinarum per theologiæ lumen inspectio. Quis talibus sacris initiari non appetat? Quis humana omnia posthabens, fortunæ contemnens bona, corporis negligens, deorum conviva adhuc degens in terris fieri non cupiat, et æternitatis nectare madidus mortale animal immortalitatis munere donari? Quis non Socraticis illis furoribus, a Platone in Fedro🞯Φαῖδϱος, Phaídros 244 sq. decantatis, sic afflari non velit ut alarum pedumque remigio hinc, idest ex mundo, qui est positus in maligno, propere aufugiens, ad cælestem Hierusalem concitatissimo cursu feratur? Agemur, Patres, agemur Socraticis furoribus, qui extra mentem ita nos ponant, ut mentem nostram et nos ponant in Deo. Agemur ab illis utique, si quid est in nobis ipsi prius egerimus; nam si et per moralem affectuum vires ita per debitas competentias ad modulos fuerint intentæ, ut immota invicem consonent concinentia, et per dyalecticam ratio ad numerum se progrediendo moverit, Musarum perciti furore celestem armoniam intimis auribus combibemus. Tum Musarum dux Bacchus in suis mysteriis, idest visibilius naturæ signis invisibilia Dei philosophantibus nobis ostendens, inebriabit nos ab ubertate domus Dei, in qua tota si uti Moses erimus fideles, accedens sacratissima theologia duplici furore nos animabit. Nam in illius eminentissimam sublimati speculam, inde et quæ sunt, quæ erunt quæque fuerint insectili metientes evo, et primevam pulchritudinem suspicientes, illorum Phebei vates, huius alati erimus amatores et ineffabili demum charitate, quasi æstro perciti, quasi Saraphini ardentes extra nos positi, numine pleni, iam non ipsi nos, sed ille erimus ipse qui fecit nos.

[21]Sacra Apollinis nomina, si quis eorum significantias et latitantia perscrutetur misteria, satis ostendunt esse Deum illum non minus philosophum quam vatem. Quod cum Ammonius satis sit exequutus,🞯Πλούταϱχος, Plutarch: Πεϱὶ τοῦ εἶ τοῦ έν Δελφοῖς, De E apud Delphos, (Moralia 24), cap. 2: ὅτι μὲν γὰϱ οὐχ ἧττον ὁ ϑεὸς φιλόσοφος ἢ μάντις, ἐδόϰει 1 πᾶσιν ὀϱϑῶς πϱὸς τοῦτο τῶν ὀνομάτων ἕϰαστον Ἀμμώνιος τίϑεσϑαι ϰαὶ διδάσϰειν, ὡς Πύϑιος μέν ἐστι τοῖς ἀϱχομένοις μανϑάνειν ϰαὶ διαπυνϑάνεσϑαι: Δήλιος δὲ ϰαὶ Φαναῖος οἷς ἤδη τι δηλοῦται ϰαὶ ὑποφαίνεται τῆς ἀληϑείας
That the god is no less a philosopher than a prophet Ammonius seemed to all to postulate and prove correctly, with reference to this or to that one of his several titles1; that he is the ‘Pythian’ (Inquirer） for those that are beginning to learn and inquire ; the ‘Delian’ (Clear) and the ‘Phanaean’ (Disclosing) for those to whom some part of the truth is becoming clear and is being disclosed — Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt, 1936. non est cur ego nunc aliter pertractem; sed subeant animum, Patres, tria Delphica precepta oppido his necessaria, qui non ficti sed veri Apollinis, qui illuminat omnem animam venientem in hunc mundum, sacrosanctum et augustissimum templum ingressuri sunt; videbitis nihil aliud illa nos admonere, quam ut tripartitam hanc, de qua est presens disputatio, philosophiam totis viribus amplectamur. Illud enim μηδὲν ἄγαν, idest nequid nimis, virtutum omnium normam et regulam per mediocritatis rationem, de qua moralis agit, recte præscribit. Tum illud γνῶϑι σεαυτόν, idest cognosce te ipsum, ad totius naturæ nos cognitionem, cuius et interstitium et quasi cynnus natura est hominis, excitat et inhortatur. Qui enim se cognoscit, in se omnia cognoscit, ut Zoroaster prius, deinde Plato in Alcibiade scripserunt.🞯Ἀλϰιβιάδης αʹ, Alkibiades, 132d:
Σωϰϱάτης σϰόπει ϰαὶ σύ. εἰ ἡμῶν τῷ ὄμματι ὥσπεϱ ἀνϑϱώπῳ συμβουλεῦον εἶπεν ‘ἰδὲ σαυτόν,’ πῶς ἂν ὑπελάβομεν τί παϱαινεῖν; ἆϱα οὐχὶ εἰς τοῦτο βλέπειν, εἰς ὃ βλέπων ὁ ὀφϑαλμὸς ἔμελλεν αὑτὸν ἰδεῖν;
Socrates Consider in your turn: suppose that, instead of speaking to a man, it said to the eye of one of us, as a piece of advice “See thyself,” how should we apprehend the meaning of the admonition? Would it not be, that the eye should look at that by looking at which it would see itself?
133b: Σωϰϱάτης ἆϱ᾽ οὖν, ὦ φίλε Ἀλϰιβιάδη, ϰαὶ ψυχὴ εἰ μέλλει γνώσεσϑαι αὑτήν, εἰς ψυχὴν αὐτῇ βλεπτέον, ϰαὶ μάλιστ᾽ εἰς τοῦτον αὐτῆς τὸν τόπον ἐν ᾧ ἐγγίγνεται ἡ ψυχῆς ἀϱετή, σοφία, ϰαὶ εἰς ἄλλο ᾧ τοῦτο τυγχάνει ὅμοιον ὄν;
Socrates And if the soul too, my dear Alcibiades, is to know herself, she must surely look at a soul, and especially at that region of it in which occurs the virtue of a soul — wisdom, and at any other part of a soul which resembles this? Postremo hac cognitione per naturalem philosophiam illuminati iam Deo proximi, EI, idest es dicentes, theologica salutatione verum Apollinem familiariter proindeque foeliciter appellabimus.

[22]Consulamus et Pythagoram sapientissimum, ob id præcipue sapientem, quod sapientis se dignum nomine nunquam existimavit. Precipiet primo ne super modium sedeamus,🞯Iamblichos: Protreptikos 117: Ἐπὶ χοίνιϰι μὴ ϰαϑέζου Πυϑαγοϱιϰώτεϱον ἐϰδέξαιτ’ ἄν τις ἐϰ τῶν αὐτῶν τοῖς ἄνωϑεν ὁϱμώμενος. — ἐπεὶ γὰϱ σωματότητι ϰαὶ ζῳωδίᾳ ϰαὶ οὐ χοίνιϰι μετϱητή ἐστιν ἡ τϱοφή, μὴ ἠϱέμει μηδ’ ἀμύητος φιλοσοφίας διατέλει, ἀλλ’ εἰς ταύτην σαυτὸν δοὺς ἐϰείνου μᾶλλον πϱονοοῦ τοῦ ἐν σοὶ ϑεοειδεστέϱου, ὅ ἐστι ψυχή, ϰαὶ πολὺ πϱότεϱον τοῦ ἐν ταύτῃ νοῦ, ὧν τϱοφὴ οὐ χοίνιϰι ἀλλὰ ϑεωϱίᾳ ϰαὶ μαϑήσει μετϱεῖται.
Cf. Ficino: Commentariolus in symbola Pythagorae II: modium animae eam vim significare arbitre, qua metimur iiudicamusque universa. idest rationalem partem, qua anima omnia metitur, iudicat et examinat, ociosa desidia ne remitentes amittamus, sed dyaletica exercitatione ac regula et dirigamus assidue et excitemus. Tum cavenda in primis duo nobis significabit ne, aut adversus solem emingamus, aut inter sacrificandum ungues resecemus. Sed postquam per moralem et superfluentium voluptatum fluxas eminxerimus appetentias, et unguium presegmina, quasi acutas iræ prominentias et animorum aculeos resecuerimus, tum demum sacris, idest de quibus mentionem fecimus Bacchi mysteriis, interesse, et cuius pater ac dux merito sol dicitur nostræ contemplationi vacare incipiamus. Postremo ut gallum nutriamus nos admonebit, idest ut divinam animæ nostræ partem divinarum rerum cognitione quasi solido cibo et cælesti ambrosia pascamus. Hic est gallus cuius aspectum leo, idest omnis terrena potestas formidat et reveretur. Hic ille gallus, cui datam esse intelligentiam apud Iob legimus. Hoc gallo canente aberrans homo resipiscit. Hic gallus in matutino crepusculo, matutinis astris Deum laudantibus, quotidie commodulatur. Hunc gallum moriens Socrates, cum divinitatem animi sui divinitati maioris mundi copulaturum se speraret, Sculapio, idest animarum medico, iam extra omne morbi discrimen positus, debere se dixit.🞯Platon: Φαίδων, Phaidon 118a: Ὃ δὴ τελευταῖον ἐφϑέγξατο — ‘ὦ Κϱίτων, ἔφη, τῷ Ἀσϰληπιῷ ὀφείλομεν ἀλεϰτϱυόνα: ἀλλὰ ἀπόδοτε ϰαὶ μὴ ἀμελήσητε.’.
And these were his last words — “Crito, we owe a cock to Aesculapius. Pay it and do not neglect it.” — Translated by Harold North Fowler.

[23]Recenseamus et Chaldæorum monumenta, videbimus (si illis creditur) per easdem artes patere viam mortalibus ad felicitatem. Scribunt interpretes Chaldæi verbum fuisse Zoroastris alatam esse animam, cumque alæ exciderent ferri illam præceps in corpus, tum illis subcrescentibus ad superos revolare.🞯Cf. Platon: Φαῖδϱος, Phaidros 246c: ... μὲν οὖν οὖσα ϰαὶ ἐπτεϱωμένη μετεωϱοποϱεῖ τε ϰαὶ πάντα τὸν ϰόσμον διοιϰεῖ, ἡ δὲ πτεϱοϱϱυήσασα φέϱεται ἕως ἂν στεϱεοῦ τινος ἀντιλάβηται, οὗ ϰατοιϰισϑεῖσα, σῶμα γήϊνον λαβοῦσα, αὐτὸ αὑτὸ δοϰοῦν ϰινεῖν διὰ τὴν ἐϰείνης δύναμιν, ζῷον τὸ σύμπαν ἐϰλήϑη, ψυχὴ ϰαὶ σῶμα παγέν, ϑνητόν τ᾽ ἔσχεν ἐπωνυμίαν
... and fully winged, it mounts upward and governs the whole world; but the soul which has lost its wings is borne along until it gets hold of something solid, when it settles down, taking upon itself an earthly body, which seems to be self-moving, because of the power of the soul within it; and the whole, compounded of soul and body, is called a living being, and is further designated as mortal. — Translated by Harold N. Fowler, 1925. Percunctantibus eum discipulis quo pacto alis bene plumantibus volucres animos sortirentur: „Irrigetis, dixit, alas aquis vitæ“. Iterum sciscitantibus unde has aquas peterent, sic per parabolam (qui erat hominis mos) illis respondit: „Quatuor amnibus paradisus Dei abluitur et irrigatur. Indidem vobis salutares aquas hauriatis. Nomen ei qui ab aquilone Pischon, quod rectum denotat, ei qui ab occasu Gichon, quod expiationem significat, ei qui ab ortu Chiddekel, quod lumen sonat, ei qui a meridie Perath, quod nos pietatem interpretari possumus“. Advertite animum et diligenter considerate, Patres, quid hæc sibi velint Zoroastris dogmata: profecto nihil aliud nisi ut morali scientia, quasi undis Hibericis, oculorum sordes expiemus; dialetica, quasi boreali amussi, illorum aciem lineemus ad rectum. Tum in naturali contemplatione debile adhuc veritatis lumen, quasi nascentis solis incunabula, pati assuescamus, ut tandem per theologicam pietatem et sacratissimum Dei cultum, quasi cælestes aquilæ, meridiantis solis fulgidissimum iubar fortiter perferamus. Hæ illæ forsan et a Davide decantatæ primum, et ab Augustino explicatæ latius, matutinæ, meridianæ et vespertinæ cognitiones. Hæc est illa lux meridialis, quæ Saraphinos ad lineam inflammat et Cherubinos pariter illuminat. Hæc illa regio, quam versus semper antiquus pater Abraam proficiscebatur. Hic ille locus, ubi immundis spiritibus locum non esse et Cabalistarum et Maurorum dogmata tradiderunt. Et si secretiorum aliquid misteriorum fas est vel sub enigmate in publicum proferre, postquam et repens e cælo casus nostri hominis caput vertigine damnavit et iuxta Hieremiam, ingressa per fenestras mors iecur pectusque male affecit, Raphælem coelestem medicum advocemus, qui nos morali et dialetica uti pharmacis salutaribus liberet. Tum ad valitudinem bonam restitutos, iam Dei robur Gabriel inhabitabit, qui nos per naturæ ducens miracula, ubique Dei virtutem potestatemque indicans, tandem sacerdoti summo Michæli nos tradet qui, sub stipendiis philosophiæ emeritos, theologiæ sacerdotio quasi corona preciosi lapidis insignet.

[24]Hæc sunt, Patres colendissimi, quæ me ad philosophiæ studium non animarunt modo sed compulerunt. Quæ dicturus certe non eram, nisi his responderem qui philosophiæ studium in pricipibus præsertim viris, aut his omnino qui mediocri fortuna vivunt, damnare solent. Est enim iam hoc totum philosophari (quæ est nostræ etatis infoelicitas) in contemptum potius et contumeliam, quam in honorem et gloriam. Ita invasit fere omnium mentes exitialis hæc et monstrosa persuasio, aut nihil aut paucis philosophandum. Quasi rerum causas, naturæ vias, universi rationem, Dei consilia, cælorum, terræque mysteria, pre oculis, pre manibus exploratissima habere nihil sit prorsus, nisi vel gratiam inde aucupari aliquam, vel lucrum sibi quis comparare possit. Quin eo deventum est ut iam (proh dolor!) non existimentur sapientes nisi qui mercennarium faciunt studium sapientiæ, ut sit videre pudicam Palladem, deorum munere inter homines diversantem, eiici, explodi, exsibilari, non habere qui amet, qui faveat, nisi ipsa, quasi prostans et præfloratæ virginitatis accepta mercedula, male paratum æs in amatoris arculam referat.

[25]Quæ omnia ego non sine summo dolore et indignatione in huius temporis, non principes, sed philosophos dico, qui ideo non esse philosophandum et credunt et prædicant, quod philosophis nulla merces, nulla sint præmia constituta, quasi non ostendant ipsi, hoc uno nomine, se non esse philosophos. Quod cum tota eorum vita sit vel in questu, vel in ambitione posita, ipsam per se veritatis cognitionem non amplectuntur. Dabo hoc mihi, et me ipsum hac ex parte laudare nihil erubescam, me numquam alia de causa philosophatum nisi ut philosopharer, nec ex studiis meis, ex meis lucubrationibus, mercedem ullam aut fructum vel sperasse alium vel quesiisse, quam animi cultum et a me semper plurimum desideratæ veritatis cognitionem. Cuius ita cupidus semper et amantissimus fui ut, relicta omni privatarum et publicarum rerum cura, contemplandi ocio totum me tradiderim; a quo nullæ invidiorum obtrectationes, nulla hostium sapientiæ maledicta, vel potuerunt ante hac, vel in posterum me deterrere poterunt. Docuit me ipsa philosophia a propria potius conscientia quam ab externis pendere iuditiis, cogitareque semper, non tam ne male audiam, quam ne quid male vel dicam ipse vel agam.

[26]Equidem non eram nescius, Patres colendissimi, futuram hanc ipsam meam disputationem quam vobis omnibus qui bonis artibus favetis et augustissima vestra præsentia illam honestare voluistis, gratam atque iocundam, tam multis aliis gravem atque molestam; et scio non deesse qui inceptum meum et damnarint ante hac et in præsentia multis nominibus damnent. Ita consueverunt non pauciores, ne dicam plures, habere oblatratores quæ bene sancteque aguntur ad virtutem, quam quæ inique et perperam ad vitium. Sunt autem qui totum hoc disputandi genus et hanc de litteris publice disceptandi institutionem non approbent, ad pompam potius ingenii et doctrinæ, ostentationem quam ad comparandam eruditionem esse illam asseverantes. Sunt qui hoc quidem exercitationis genus non improbent, sed in me nullo modo probent, quod ego hac ætate, quartum scilicet et vigesimum modo natus annum, de sublimibus Christianæ theologiæ mysteriis, de altissimis philosophiæ locis, de incognitis disciplinis, in celebratissima urbe, in amplissimo doctissimorum hominum consessu, in apostolico senatu, disputationem proponere sim ausus. Alii, hoc mihi dantes quod disputem, id dare nolunt quod de nongentis disputem questionibus, tam superfluo et ambitiose quam supra vires id factum calumniantes. Horum ego obiectamentis et manus illico dedissem, si ita quam profiteor philosophia me edocuisset et nunc, illa ita me docente, non responderem, si rixandi iurgandique proposito constitutam hanc inter nos disceptationem crederem. Quare, obtrectandi omne lacessendique propositum, et quem scribit Plato a divino semper abesse choro,🞯Cf. Platon: Φαῖδϱος, Phaidros 247a: φϑόνος γὰϱ ἔξω ϑείου χοϱοῦ ἵσταται.
for jealousy is excluded from the celestial band. — Translated by Harold N. Fowler, 1925. a nostris quoque mentibus facessat livor, et an disputandum a me, an de tot etiam questionibus, amice incognoscamus.

[27]Primum quidem ad eos, qui hunc publice disputandi morem calumniantur, multa non sum dicturus, quando hæc culpa, si culpa censetur, non solum vobis omnibus, doctores excellentissimi, qui sepius hoc munere, non sine summa et laude et gloria, functi estis, sed Platoni, sed Aristoteli, sed probatissimis omnium etatum philosophis mecum est communis. Quibus erat certissimum nihil ad consequendam quam querebant veritatis cognitionem sibi esse, potius quam ut essent in disputandi exercitatione frequentissimi. Sicut enim per gymnasticam corporis vires firmiores fiunt, ita dubio procul, in hac quasi litteraria palestra, animi vires et fortiores longe et vegetiores evadunt. Nec crediderim ego aut poetas aliud per decantata Palladis arma, aut Hebræos, cum barzel, ferrum, sapientum symbolum esse dicunt, significasse nobis quam honestissima hoc genus certamina, adipiscendæ sapientiæ oppido quam necessaria. Quo forte fit ut et Caldei in eius genesi qui philosophus sit futurus, illud desiderent, ut Mars et Mercurium triquetro aspectu conspiciat, quasi, si hos congressus, hæc bella substuleris, somniculosa et dormitans futura sit omnis philosophia.

[28]At vero cum his qui me huic provintiæ imparem dicunt, difficilior est mihi ratio defensionis: nam si parem me dixero, forsitan inmodesti et de se nimia sentientis, si imparem fatebor, temerarii et inconsulti notam videor subiturus. Videte quas incidi angustias, quo loco sim constitutus, dum non possum sine culpa de me promittere quod non possum mox sine culpa non præstare. Forte et illud Iob afferre possem spiritum esse, spiritum esse in omnibus, et cum Timotheo audire: „Nemo contemnat adolescientiam tuam“. Sed ex mea verius hoc conscientia dixero, nihil esse in nobis magnum vel singulare; studiosum me forte et cupidum bonarum artium non inficiatus, docti tamen nomen mihi nec sumo nec arrogo. Quare et quod tam grande humeris onus imposuerim, non fuit propterea quod mihi conscius nostræ infirmitatis non essem, sed quod sciebam hoc genus pugnis, idest litterariis, esse peculiare quod in eis lucrum est vinci. Quo fit ut imbecillissimus quisque non detrectare modo, sed appetere ultro eas iure possit et debeat. Quandoquidem qui succumbit beneficium a victore accipit, non iniuriam, quippe qui per eum et locupletior domum, idest doctior et ad futuras pugnas redit instructior. Hac spe animatus, ego infirmus miles cum fortissimis omnium strenuisssimisque tam gravem pugnam decernere nihil sum veritus. Quod tamen temere sit factum nec ne, rectius utique de eventu pugnæ quam de nostra ætate potest quis iudicare.

[29]Restat ut tertio loco his respondeam, qui numerosa propositarum rerum multitudine offenduntur, quasi hoc eorum humeris sederet onus, et non potius hic mihi soli quantuscumque est labor, esset exanclandus. Indecens profecto hoc et morosum nimis, velle alienæ industriæ modum ponere, et, ut inquit Cicero in ea re quæ eo melior quo maior, mediocritatem desiderare. Omnino tam grandibus ausis erat necesse me vel succumbere vel satisfacere; si satisfacerem, non video cur quod in decem præstare questionibus est laudabile, in nongentis etiam præstitisse culpabile existimetur. Si succumberem, habebunt ipsi, si me oderunt, unde accusarent, si amant unde excusent. Quoniam in re tam gravi, tam magna, tenui ingenio, exiguaque doctrina, adolescentem hominem defecisse, venia potius dignum erit quam accusatione. Quin et iuxta poetam:
 „si deficiant vires, audacia certe
 laus erit: in magnis et voluisse sat est“.🞯Sextus Propertius: Elegiarum liber secundus, x
Quod si nostra ætate multi, Gorgiam Leontinum🞯Γοϱγίας ο Λεοντίνος, 483–375 BC, with Protagoras the first generation of Sophists. Diels/Kranz: Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed., vol. 2, Berlin: Weidmann, 1952. imitati, non modo de nongentis sed de omnibus etiam omnium artium questionibus soliti sunt, non sine laude, proponere disputationem, cur mihi non liceat, vel sine culpa, de multis quidem, sed tamen certis et determinatis disputare?

[30]At superfluum inquiunt hoc et ambitiosum. Ego vero non superfluo modo, sed necessario factum hoc a me contendo, quod et si ipsi mecum philosophandi rationem considerarent, inviti etiam fateantur plane necesse est. Qui enim se cuipiam ex philosophorum familiis addixerunt, Thomæ videlicet aut Scoto, qui nunc plurimum in manibus, faventes, possunt illi quidem vel in paucarum questionum discussione suæ doctrinæ periculum facere. At ego ita me institui, ut in nullius verba iuratus,🞯Quintus Horatius Flaccus: Epistulae I, i, 14: nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri me per omnes philosophiæ magistros funderem, omnes scedas excuterem, omnes familias agnoscerem. Quare, cum mihi de illis omnibus esset dicendum, ne, si privati dogmatis defensor reliqua posthabuissem, illi viderer obstrictus, non potuerunt, etiam si pauca de singulis proponerentur, non esse plurima quæ simul de omnibus afferebantur. Nec id in me quisquam damnet, quod me quocumque ferat tempestas deferar hospes.🞯Quintus Horatius Flaccus: Epistulae I, i, 15: quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes Fuit enim cum ab antiquis omnibus hoc observatum, ut omne scriptorum genus evolventes, nullas quas possent commentationes illectas preterirent, tum maxime ab Aristotele, qui eam ob causam ἀναγνώστης, idest lector, a Platone nuncupabatur, et profecto angustæ est mentis intra unam se Porticum aut Achademiam continuisse. Nec potest ex omnibus sibi recte propriam selegisse, qui omnes prius familiariter non agnoverit. Adde quod in una quaque familia est aliquid insigne, quod non sit ei commune cum cæteris.

[31]Atque ut a nostris, ad quos postremo philosophia pervenit, nunc exordiar, est in Ioanne Scoto vegetum quiddam atque discussum, in Thoma solidum et equabile, in Egidio tersum et exactum, in Francisco acre et acutum, in Alberto priscum, amplum et grande, in Henrico, ut mihi visum est, semper sublime et venerandum.🞯Aegidius Romanus, ca. 1243 – 22 December 1316, Medieval philosopher and Scholastic theologian, famed as being a logician, producing a commentary on the Organon by Aristotle. Est apud Arabes, in Averroe firmum et inconcusum, in Avempace, in Alpharabio grave et meditatum, in Avicenna divinum atque Platonicum.🞯Averroes, Ibn Rushd, 14 April 1126 – 11 December 1198, a strong proponent of Aristotelianism. — Cf. J. L. Borges: La Busca de Averroes.
Alfarabi, Abu Nasr Muhammad Al-Farabi, ca. 872 – 950/951, wrote in the fields of political philosophy, metaphysics, ethics and logic.
Avicenna, Ibn Sina, 980-1037, one of the most significant physicians, astronomers, philosophers, and writers of the Islamic Golden Age. Est apud Græcos in universum quidem nitida, in primis et casta philosophia; apud Simplicium locuplex et copiosa, apud Themistium elegans et compendiaria, apud Alexandrum constans et docta, apud Theophrastum gravite elaborata, apud Ammonium enodis et gratiosa.🞯Simplicius of Cilicia, Σιμπλίϰιος ὁ Κίλιξ, ca. 490–560, a disciple of Ammonius Hermiae and Damascius, one of the last of the Neoplatonists.
Themistius, Θεμίστιος, 317–ca. 388, a statesman, rhetorician, and philosopher, orations, various commentaries and epitomes of the works of Aristotle.
Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ἀλέξανδϱος ὁ Ἀφϱοδισιεύς, fl. 200, a Peripatetic philosopher, the most celebrated of the ancient Greek commentators on the writings of Aristotle.
Theophrastus, Θεόφϱαστος, ca. 371 – ca. 287 BC, a Greek philosopher, the successor to Aristotle in the Peripatetic school.
Ammonius Hermiae, Ἀμμώνιος ὁ Ἑϱμείου, ca. 435 – 517/526, a pupil of Proclus in Roman Athens, taught at Alexandria. Et si ad Platonicos te converteris, ut paucos percenseam, in Porphirio rerum copia et multiiuga religione delectaberis, in Iamblico secretiorem philosophiam et barbarorum mysteria veneraberis, in Plotino privum quicquam non est quod admireris, qui se undique prebet admirandum, quem de divinis divine, de humanis longe supra hominem docta sermonis obliquitate loquentem, sudantes Platonici vix intelligunt. Pretereo magis novitios, Proculum Asiatica fertilitate luxuriantem et qui ab eo fluxerunt Hermiam, Damascum, Olympiodorum et complures alios,🞯Porphyry of Tyre, Ποϱφύϱιος, cc. 234–305, Neoplatonic philosopher, edited and published The Enneads, the only collection of the work of Plotinus, his teacher. His Isagoge, an introduction to logic and philosophy, was in its Latin translation the standard textbook on logic throughout the Middle Ages.
Proklos, Πϱόϰλος ὁ Διάδοχος, 412–485, Neoplatonist philosopher, wrote a commentary on the Enneads.
Hermias, Ἑϱμείας ἐϰ Φοινίϰης, ca. 410-450, Neoplatonist philosopher, born in Alexandria, wrote a commentary on the Phaedrus.
Damaskios, Δαμάσϰιος, ca. 458 – after 538, his surviving works consist of three commentaries on the Parmenides, Phaedo, Philebus,Timaeus, first Alcibiades, and a metaphysical text entitled Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles, ἀποϱίαι ϰαὶ λύσεις πεϱὶ τῶν πϱώτων ἀϱχῶν.
Olympiodoros, Ὀλυμπιόδωϱος ὁ Νεώτεϱος, ca. 495–570, a Neoplatonist philosopher, astrologer and teacher, works: Σχόλια εἰς τὸν Πλάτωνος Ἀλϰιβιάδην, Σχόλια σὺν ϑεῷ εἰς τὸν Γοϱγίαν, Σχόλια εἰς τὸν Πλάτωνος Φαίδωνα, Εἰς τὰ πϱολεγόμενα τῆς Λογιϰῆς, Εἰς τὸ πϱῶτον τῶν Μετεωϱολογιϰῶν Ἀϱιστοτέλους σχόλια, Σχόλια εἰς τὰς Ἀϱιστοτέλους Κατηγοϱίας, Σχόλια εἰς τὸ Ἀϱιστοτέλους Πεϱὶ Ἑϱμηνείας. in quibus omnibus illud τὸ ϑεῖον, idest divinum peculiare Platonicorum simbolum elucet semper.

[32]Accedit quod, si qua est secta quæ veriora incessat dogmata et bonas causas ingenii calumnia ludificetur, ea veritatem firmat, non infirmat, et, velut motu quassatam flammam, excitat, non extinguit. Hac ego ratione motus, non unius modo (ut quibusdam placebat), sed omnigenæ doctrinæ placita in medium afferre volui, ut hac complurium sectarum collatione ac multifariæ discussione philosophiæ, ille veritatis fulgor, cuius Plato meminit in Epistolis,🞯Ἐπιστολαί, VII,341ξ-δ: ῥητὸν γὰϱ οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ὡς ἄλλα μαϑήματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐϰ πολλῆς συνουσίας γιγνομένης πεϱὶ τὸ πϱᾶγμα αὐτὸ ϰαὶ τοῦ συζῆν ἐξαίφνης, οἷον ἀπὸ πυϱὸς πηδήσαντος ἐξαφϑὲν φῶς, ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γενόμενον αὐτὸ ἑαυτὸ ἤδη τϱέφει.
For it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but, as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith, it is brought to birth in the soul on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself. — Translated by R. G. Bury, 1966. animis nostris quasi sol oriens ex alto clarius illucesceret. Quid erat, si Latinorum tantum, Alberti scilicet, Thomæ, Scoti, Egidii, Francisci, Henricique philosophia, obmissis Græcorum Arabumque philosophis, tractabatur? Quando omnis sapientia a Barbaris ad Græcos, a Græcis ad nos manavit. Ita nostrates semper in philosophandi ratione peregrinis inventis stare, et aliena excoluisse sibi duxerunt satis. Quid erat cum Peripateticis egisse de naturalibus nisi et Platonicorum accersebatur Achademia, quorum doctrina et de divinis semper inter omnes philosophias, teste Augustino, habita est sancitissima et a me nunc primum, quod sciam, (verbo absit invidia) post multa secula sub disputandi examen est in publicum allata. Quid erat et aliorum quot quot erant tractasse opiniones, si quasi ad sapientum symposium asymboli accedentes, nihil nos quod esset nostrum, nostro partum et elaboratum ingenio, afferebamus? Profecto ingenerosum est, ut ait Seneca,🞯Seneca: Epistulae morales ad Lucilium IV,33,7: Ideo pueris et sententias ediscendas damus et has quas Graeci chrias vocant, quia complecti illas puerilis animus potest, qui plus adhuc non capit. Certi profectus viro captare flosculos turpe est et fulcire se notissimis ac paucissimis vocibus et memoria stare: sibi iam innitatur. Dicat ista, non teneat; turpe est enim seni aut prospicienti senectutem ex commentario sapere.
That is why we give to children a proverb, or that which the Greeks call Chreia, to be learned by heart; that sort of thing can be comprehended by the young mind, which cannot as yet hold more. For a man, however, whose progress is definite, to chase after choice extracts and to prop his weakness by the best known and the briefest sayings and to depend upon his memory, is disgraceful; it is time for him to lean on himself. He should make such maxims and not memorize them. For it is disgraceful even for an old man, or one who has sighted old age, to have a note-book knowledge. — Translated by Frank Justus Miller. sapere solum ex commentario et quasi maiorum inventa nostræ industriæ viam præcluserint, quasi in nobis effæta sit vis naturæ, nihil ex se parere, quod veritatem, si non demonstret, saltem innuat vel de longinquo. Quod si in agro colonus, in uxore maritus odit sterilitatem, certe tanto magis infecundam animam oderit illi complicita et associata divina mens, quanto inde nobilior longe proles desideratur.

[33]Propterea non contentus ego, præter comunes doctrinas multa de Mercurii Trismegisti prisca theologia,🞯Ἑϱμῆς ὁ Τϱισμέγιστος, Hermes the Thrice-Greatest, Mercurius ter Maximus. The Hermetica encompasses a broad variety of treatises dealing with astrology, medicine and pharmacology, alchemy, and magic. The Greek Corpus Hermeticum was translated by Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) and Lodovico Lazzarelli (1447–1500). Einiges unter Texte. multa de Caldeorum, de Pythagoræ disciplinis, multa de secretioribus Hebræorum addidisse mysteriis, plurima quoque per nos inventa et meditata, de naturalibus et divinis rebus disputanda proposuimus.

[34]Proposuimus primo Platonis Aristotelisque concordiam a multis ante hac creditam, a nemine satis probatam. Boetius, apud Latinos id se facturum pollicitus, non invenitur fecisse unquam quod semper facere voluit.🞯Boethius: Commentarii in librum Aristotelis Πεϱὶ ἑϱμηνείας, Leipzig, 1880, p. 80: His peractis non equidem contempserim Aristotelis Platonisque sententias in unam quodammodo revocare concordiam eosque non ut plerique dissentire in omnibus, sed in plerisque et his in philosophia maximis consentire demonstrem. Simplicius, apud Græcos idem professus, utinam id tam præstaret quam pollicetur.🞯Simplikios: Commentaria in Aristotelis librum de caelo, J. L. Heiberg: Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca VII, Berlin, 1894. 640, 27–31: ὅπεϱ δὲ πολλάϰις εἴωϑα, ϰαὶ νῦν εἰπεῖν ϰαιϱός, ὅτι οὐ πϱαγματιϰή τίς ἐστι τῶν φιλοσόφων ἡ διαφωνία, ἀλλὰ πϱὸς τὸ φαινόμενον τοῦ λόγου ϰαὶ δυνάμενον ϰαὶ χειϱόνως νοεῖσϑαι πολλάϰις ὑπαντῶν ὁ Ἀϱιστοτέλης φειδοῖ τῶν ἐπιπολαίως ἀϰουόντων τοῦ Πλάτωνος ἀντιλέγειν δοϰεῖ πϱὸς αὐτόν.
The disagreement between the [two] philosophers is in any way not substantial, but Aristotle frequently raises objections against the appearance of what Plato says, which can be also understood in a worse way, and he seems to be refuting Plato for the benefit of those who understand Plato superficially. — Translated by I. Mueller. Scribit et Augustinus in Achademicis🞯Augustinus: Contra Academicos, III,xix,42: non defuerunt acutissimi et sollertissimi viri, qui docerent disputationibus suis Aristotelem ac Platonem ita sibi concinere, ut imperitis minusque attentis dissentire videantur. non defuisse plures qui subtilissimis suis disputationibus idem probare conati sint, Platonis scilicet et Aristotelis eandem esse philosophiam. Ioannes item Grammaticus🞯Johannes de Garlandia, ca. 1190-1270, one of the first Masters of the new University of Toulouse, he describes the Albigensian Crusade in De Triumphis, grammatical works. cum dicat apud eos tantum dissidere Platonem ab Aristotele, qui Platonis dicta non intelligunt probandum tamen posteris hoc reliquit. Addidimus autem et plures locos in quibus Scoti et Thomæ, plures in quibus Averrois et Avicennæ sententias, quæ discordes existimantur, concordes esse nos asseveramus.

[35]Secundo loco quæ in philosophia cum Aristotelica tum Platonica excogitavimus nos, tum duo et septuaginta nova dogmata physica et methaphisica collocavimus, quæ si quis teneat, poterit, nisi fallor, quod mihi erit mox manifestum, quamcumque de rebus naturalibus divinisque propositam questionem longe alia dissolvere ratione quam per eam edoceamur quæ et legitur in scolis et ab huius evi doctoribus colitur philosophiam. Nec tam admirari quis debet, Patres, me in primis annis, in tenera etate, per quam vix licuit (ut iactant quidam) aliorum legere commentationes, novam afferre velle philosophiam, quam vel laudare illam, si defenditur, vel damnare, si reprobatur et denique, cum nostra inventa hæc nostrasque sint litteras iudicaturi, non auctoris annos, sed illorum merita potius vel demerita numerare.

[36]Est autem, et præter illam, alia, quam nos attulimus, nova per numeros philosophandi institutio antiqua, illa quidem et a priscis theologis, a Pythagora presertim, ab Aglaopheno,🞯
Aglaophamos, Αγλαόφαμος, “‘of brilliant reputation’ is attested only twice in all of Greek literature, as an epiclesis, said once of the Curetes [31.4] and again of the Muses [76.2] in the Orphic Hymns. 29 It can thus be assumed that the character of Aglaophamus is a pure invention: perhaps we even owe it to Iamblichus, who was anxious to prove the existence of an objective link between Orpheus and Pythagoras. Alternatively, Iamblichus may have been quoting a Neopythagorean pseudepigraphon, or perhaps he himself was responsible for the composition of that pseudepigraphon.” — Luc Brisson: The Making of Pythagoreanism: Orpheus, Aglaophamus, Pythagoras, Plato, in: Pythagorean Knowledge from the Ancient to the Modern World: Askesis, Religion, Science. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2016. p. 51. a Philolao,🞯Philolaos, Φιλόλαος, ca. 470-385, Pythagorean and pre-Socratic philosopher.
πεϱὶ δὲ φύσιος ϰαὶ ἁϱμονίας ὧδε ἔχει· ἁ μὲν ἐστὼ τῶν πϱαγμάτων ἀίδιος ἔσσα ϰαὶ αὐτὰ μὰν ἁ φύσις ϑείαν τε ϰαὶ οὐϰ ἀνϑϱωπίνην ἐνδέχεται γνῶσιν πλάν γα ἢ ὅτι οὐχ οἷόν τ’ ἦν οὐϑενὶ τῶν ἐόντων ϰαὶ γιγνωσϰομένων ὑφ’ ἁμῶν γα γεγενῆσϑαι μὴ ὑπαϱχούσας τᾶς ἐστοῦς τῶν πϱαγμάτων, ἐξ ὧν συνέστα ὁ ϰόσμος, ϰαὶ τῶν πεϱαινόντων ϰαὶ τῶν ἀπείϱων. ἐπεὶ δὲ ταὶ ἀϱχαὶ ὑπᾶϱχον οὐχ ὁμοῖαι οὐδ’ ὁμόφυλοι ἔσσαι, ἤδη ἀδύνατον ἦς ϰα αὐταῖς ϰοσμηϑῆναι, εἰ μὴ ἁϱμονία ἐπεγένετο ᾡτινιῶν ἂν τϱόπῳ ἐγένετο. τὰ μὲν ὦν ὁμοῖα ϰαὶ ὁμόφυλα ἁϱμονίας οὐδὲν ἐπεδέοντο, τὰ δὲ ἀνόμοια μηδὲ ὁμόφυλα μηδὲ ἰσοταχῆ, ἀνάγϰα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἁϱμονίᾳ συγϰεϰλεῖσϑαι, εἰ μέλλοντι ἐν ϰόσμῳ ϰατέχεσϑαι.
Mit Natur und Harmonie verhält es sich so : das Wesen der Dinge, das ewig ist, und die Natur gar selbst erfordert göttliche und nicht menschliche Einsicht, nur daß ja natürlich nichts von den vor handenen Dingen auch nur von uns erkannt werden könnte, wenn das Wesen der Dinge, aus denen die Weltordnung entstand, sowohl der begrenzten wie der unbegrenzten, nicht zugrunde läge. Da aber diese beiden Prinzipien (1 und 2) als ungleiche und unverwandte zugrunde lagen, so wäre es offenbar unmöglich gewesen mit ihnen eine Welt ordnung zu begründen, wenn nicht die Harmonie dazu gekommen wäre, wie diese auch immer zustande kam. Das Gleiche und Verwandte bedurfte ja doch nimmer der Harmonie, dagegen muß das Ungleiche und Unverwandte und ungleich Geordnete durch eine solche Harmonie zusammengeschlossen werden, durch die sie imstande sind in der Welt ordnung zusammengehalten zu werden. — Diels/Kranz I,pp. 310-311, 6a. a Platone prioribusque Platonicis observata.🞯Marsilio Ficino: Theologia Platonica xvii,1:
In rebus his quæ ad theologiam pertinent, sex olim summi theologi consenserunt: quorum primus fuisse traditur Zoroaster Magorum caput: sedes Mercurius trismegistus, princeps sacerdotum Ægyptiorum. Mercurio successit Orpheus. Orphei sacris initiatus fuit Aglaophemus. Aglaophemo successit in theologia Pythagoras: Pythagoræ Plato, qui uniuersam eorum sapientiam suis literis comprehendit, auxit, illustrauit. Quoniam verò ij omnes sacra diuinorum mysteria, ne prophanis communia fiereat; poëticis vmbraculis obtegebant: factum est vt successores eorum alij aliter theologiam interpretarentur. Hinc turba Platonicorum interpretum in sex Academias se diuisit quarum tres Atticæ fuerunt, reliquæ peregrinæ. Atticarum vetus sub Xenocrate floruit, media sub Archesila, sub Carneade noua, peregrinarum Ægyptia sub Ammonio, Romana sub Plotino, sub Proculo Lycia. Verum cum sex fuerint scholæ Platonicorum; tres illæ Atticæ simul atque Ægyptia, quæcunque de animarum circuitu scripta sunt à Platone, aliter quàm verba sonarent accipiebant: duæ veró sequentes ipsam verborum faciem curiosius obseruarunt. Quo autem modo hæ duæ Platonica exponant mysteria, diligenter recenseamus. Sed quæ hac tempestate, ut preclara alia, posteriorum incuria sic exolevit, ut vix vestigia ipsius ulla reperiantur. Scribit Plato in Epinomide,🞯Platon: Epinomis, Ἐπινομίς 976ε sq. inter omnes liberales artes et scientias contemplatrices præcipuam maximeque divinam esse scientiam numerandi. Querens item, cur homo animal sapientissimum? Respondet: „Quia numerare novit“. Cuius sententiæ et Aristoteles meminit in Problematis.🞯Aristoteles: Problemata, Πϱοβλήματα, xxx,6 (956a): Διὰ τί ἀνϑϱώπῳ πειστέον μᾶλλον ἢ ἄλλῳ ζῴῳ; πότεϱον ὥσπεϱ Πλάτων Νεοϰλεῖ ἀπεϰϱίνατο, ὅτι ἀϱιϑμεῖν μόνον ἐπίσταται τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων;
Cur homini potius quam cuiquam ex celeris animanlibus credendum est? Utrum, ut Plato Neocli respondit, quia solus inter reliquas animantes novit numerare? Scribit Abumasar🞯Abumasar, Abu Ma’shar al-Balkhi, 787–886, an early Persian Muslim astrologer. verbum fuisse Avenzoar Babilonii, eum omnia nosse qui noverat numerare. Quæ vera esse nullo modo possunt, si per numerandi artem eam artem intellexerunt cuius nunc mercatores in primis sunt peritissimi, quod et Plato testatur,🞯Platon: Politeia, Πολιτεία, VII,525c: ...ἐπὶ λογιστιϰὴν ἰέναι ϰαὶ ἀνϑάπτεσϑαι αὐτῆς μὴ ἰδιωτιϰῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἕως ἂν ἐπὶ ϑέαν τῆς τῶν ἀϱιϑμῶν φύσεως ἀφίϰωνται τῇ νοήσει αὐτῇ, οὐϰ ὠνῆς οὐδὲ πϱάσεως χάϱιν ὡς ἐμπόϱους ἢ ϰαπήλους μελετῶντας, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνεϰα πολέμου τε ϰαὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ψυχῆς ῥᾳστώνης μεταστϱοφῆς ἀπὸ γενέσεως ἐπ᾽ ἀλήϑειάν τε ϰαὶ οὐσίαν.
...to enter upon that study of calculation and take hold of it, not as amateurs, but to follow it up until they attain to the contemplation of the nature of number,1 by pure thought, not for the purpose of buying and selling, as if they were preparing to be merchants or hucksters, but for the uses of war and for facilitating the conversion of the soul itself from the world of generation to essence and truth. — Translated by James Adam, 1902. exerta nos admonens voce ne divinam hanc arithmeticam mercatoriam esse arithmeticam intelligamus. Illam ergo arithmeticam, quæ ita extollitur, cum mihi videar post multas lucubrationes exploratam habere, huiusce rei periculum facturus, ad quator et LXX questiones, quæ inter physicas et divinas principales existimantur, responsurum per numeros publice me sum pollicitus.

[37]Proposuimus et magica theoremata, in quibus duplicem esse magiam significavimus, quarum altera demonum tota opere et auctoritate constat, res medius fidius execranda et portentosa. Altera nihil est aliud, cum bene exploratur, quam naturalis philosophiæ absoluta consumatio. Utriusque cum meminerint Greci, illam magiæ nullo modo nomine dignantes γοητείαν nuncupant, hanc propria peculiarique appellatione μαγείαν, quasi perfectam summamque sapientiam vocant. Idem enim, ut ait Porphyrius,🞯Porphyrios, Ποϱφύϱιος: De abstinentia, Πεϱὶ ἀποχῆς ἐμψύχων IV,16: παϱά γε μὴν τοῖς Πέϱσαις οἱ πεϱὶ τὸ ϑεῖον σοφοὶ ϰαὶ τούτου ϑεϱάποντες μάγοι μὲν πϱοσαγοϱεύονται
Among the Persians, indeed, those who are wise in divine concerns, and worship divinity, are called Magi. — Translated by Thomas Taylor, 1823.
Cf. Apuleius: Apologia XXV,9-10: Nam si, quod ego apud plurimos lego, Persarum lingua magus est qui nostra sacerdos, quod tandem est crimen, sacerdotem esse et rite nosse atque scire atque callere leges cerimoniarum, fas sacrorum, ius religionum? Si quidem magia id est quod Plato interpretatur, cum commemorat, quibusnam disciplinis puerum regno adulescentem Persæ imbuant — uerba ipsa diuini uiri memini, quæ tu mecum, Maxime, recognosce
For if, as I read in so many authors, the magician in the language of the Persians is what the priest is in ours, what crime is there then in being a priest with solemn knowledge, skill and practice of the laws of the religious ceremonies, the dictates of the rites, and the order of the divine services, especially if magic is as Plato interprets it, when he recalls the education that the Persians provide for the youth among them destined to rule. I remember the exact words of the divine man; consider them, Maximus, along with me. Persarum lingua magus sonat quod apud nos divinorum interpres et cultor. Magna autem, immo maxima, Patres, inter has artes disparilitas et dissimilitudo. Illam non modo Christiana religio, sed omnes leges, omnis bene instituta respublica damnat et execratur. Hanc omnes sapientes, omnes cælestium et divinarum rerum studiosæ nationes, approbant et amplectuntur. Illa artium fraudulentissima, hæc altior sanctiorque philosophia, illa irrita et vana, hæc firma fidelis et solida. Illam quisquis coluit semper dissimulavit, quod in auctoris esset ignominiam et contumeliam, ex hac summa litterarum claritas gloriaque antiquitus et pene semper petita. Illius nemo unquam studiosus fuit vir philosophus et cupidus discendi bonas artes; ad hanc Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Plato, discendam navigavere, hanc predicarunt reversi, et in archanis precipuam habuerunt.🞯Plinius: Naturalis historia XXX,9: Certe Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Plato ad hanc discendam navigavere exiliis verius quam peregrinationibus susceptis, hanc reversi praedicavere, hanc in arcanis habuere.
Certainly Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus and Plato went overseas to learn it, going into exile rather than on a journey, taught it openly on their return, and considered it one of their most treasured secrets. — Translated by H. Rackham et al. Illa, ut nullis rationibus, ita nec certis probatur auctoribus; hæc, clarissimis quasi parentibus honestata, duos precipue habet auctores: Xamolsidem, quem imitatus est Abbaris Hyperboreus, et Zoroastrem, non quem forte creditis, sed illum Oromasi filium.🞯Cf. Apuleius: Apologia XXVI,1-2: Auditisne magiam, qui eam temere accusatis, artem esse dis immortalibus acceptam, colendi eos ac uenerandi pergnaram, piam scilicet et diuini scientem, iam inde a Zoroastre et Oromaze auctoribus suis nobilem, cælitum antistitam
Do you hear, you who so rashly accuse the art of magic? It is an art acceptable to the immortal gods, full of all knowledge of worship and of prayer, full of piety and wisdom in things divine, full of honour and glory since the day when Zoroaster and Oromazes established it, high-priestess of the powers of heaven. — Translated by H. E. Butler, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. Utriusque magia quid sit, Platonem si percontemur, respondebit in Alcibiade: Zoroastris magiam non esse aliud quam divinorum scientiam, qua filios Persarum reges erudiebant, ut ad exemplar mundanæ reipublicæ suam ipsi regere rempublicam edocerentur.🞯 Platon: Alkibiades, Ἀλϰιβιάδης 121e-122a: Δὶς ἑπτὰ δὲ γενόμενον ἐτῶν τὸν παῖδα παϱαλαμβάνουσιν οὓς ἐϰεῖνοι βασιλείους παιδαγωγοὺς ὀνομάζουσιν: εἰσὶ δὲ ἐξειλεγμένοι Πεϱσῶν οἱ ἄϱιστοι δόξαντες ἐν ἡλιϰίᾳ τέτταϱες, ὅ τε σοφώτατος ϰαὶ ὁ διϰαιότατος ϰαὶ ὁ σωφϱονέστατος ϰαὶ ὁ ἀνδϱειότατος. ὧν ὁ μὲν μαγείαν τε διδάσϰει τὴν Ζωϱοάστϱου τοῦ Ὡϱομάζου — ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο ϑεῶν ϑεϱαπεία — διδάσϰει δὲ ϰαὶ τὰ βασιλιϰά.
And when the boy reaches fourteen years he is taken over by the royal tutors, as they call them there: these are four men chosen as the most highly esteemed among the Persians of mature age, namely, the wisest one, the justest one, the most temperate one, and the bravest one. The first of these teaches him the magian lore of Zoroaster, son of Horomazes; and that is the worship of the gods: he teaches him also what pertains to a king. — Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. Respondebit in Carmide, magiam Xalmosidis esse animi medicinam, per quam scilicet animo temperantia, ut per illam corpori sanitas comparatur.🞯Platon: Charmides, Χαϱμίδης 156d–157a: ἔλεγεν δὲ ὁ Θϱᾲξ οὗτος ὅτι ταῦτα μὲν ἰατϱοὶ οἱ Ἕλληνες, ἃ νυνδὴ ἐγὼ ἔλεγον, ϰαλῶς λέγοιεν: ἀλλὰ Ζάλμοξις, ἔφη, λέγει ὁ ἡμέτεϱος βασιλεύς, ϑεὸς ὤν, ὅτι ὥσπεϱ ὀφϑαλμοὺς ἄνευ ϰεφαλῆς οὐ δεῖ ἐπιχειϱεῖν ἰᾶσϑαι οὐδὲ ϰεφαλὴν ἄνευ σώματος, οὕτως οὐδὲ σῶμα ἄνευ ψυχῆς, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ϰαὶ αἴτιον εἴη τοῦ διαφεύγειν τοὺς παϱὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἰατϱοὺς τὰ πολλὰ νοσήματα, ὅτι τοῦ ὅλου ἀμελοῖεν οὗ δέοι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ποιεῖσϑαι, οὗ μὴ ϰαλῶς ἔχοντος ἀδύνατον εἴη τὸ μέϱος εὖ ἔχειν. πάντα γὰϱ ἔφη ἐϰ τῆς ψυχῆς ὡϱμῆσϑαι ϰαὶ τὰ ϰαϰὰ ϰαὶ τὰ ἀγαϑὰ τῷ σώματι ϰαὶ παντὶ τῷ ἀνϑϱώπῳ, ϰαὶ ἐϰεῖϑεν ἐπιϱϱεῖν ὥσπεϱ ἐϰ τῆς ϰεφαλῆς ἐπὶ τὰ ὄμματα: δεῖν οὖν ἐϰεῖνο ϰαὶ πϱῶτον ϰαὶ μάλιστα ϑεϱαπεύειν, εἰ μέλλει ϰαὶ τὰ τῆς ϰεφαλῆς ϰαὶ τὰ τοῦ ἄλλου σώματος ϰαλῶς ἔχειν. ϑεϱαπεύεσϑαι δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ἔφη, ὦ μαϰάϱιε, ἐπῳδαῖς τισιν, τὰς δ᾽ ἐπῳδὰς ταύτας τοὺς λόγους εἶναι τοὺς ϰαλούς: ἐϰ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων λόγων ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς σωφϱοσύνην ἐγγίγνεσϑαι.
This Thracian said that the Greeks were right in advising as I told you just now: “but Zalmoxis,” he said, “our king, who is a god, says that as you ought not to attempt to cure eyes without head, or head without body, so you should not treat body without soul”; and this was the reason why most maladies evaded the physicians of Greece—that they neglected the whole, on which they ought to spend their pains, for if this were out of order it was impossible for the part to be in order. For all that was good and evil, he said, in the body and in man altogether was sprung from the soul, and flowed along from thence as it did from the head into the eyes. Wherefore that part was to be treated first and foremost, if all was to be well with the head and the rest of the body. And the treatment of the soul, so he said, my wonderful friend, is by means of certain charms, and these charms are words of the right sort: by the use of such words is temperance engendered in our souls. — Translated by W. R. M. Lamb.

[38]Horum vestigiis postea perstiterunt Carondas, Damigeron, Apollonius, Hostanes et Dardanus.🞯Carondas = Carmendas (Plinius: Naturalis historia XXX,5), Tarmoendas, Zarmocenidas
Apollonios of Tyana, Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Τυανεύς, ca. 3 BC – ca. 97, Greek Neopythagorean philosopher, cf. Philostratus, Φιλόστϱατος: Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Τὰ ἐς τὸν Τυανέα Ἀπολλώνιον.
Dardanus, Plinius: Naturalis historia XXX,9: certe Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Plato ad hanc discendam navigavere exiliis verius quam peregrinationibus susceptis, hanc reversi praedicavere, hanc in arcanis habuere. Democritus Apollobechen Coptiten et Dardanum e Phoenice inlustravit voluminibus Dardani in sepulchrum eius petitis, suis vero ex disciplina eorum editis. quae recepta ab ullis hominum atque transisse per memoriam aeque ac nihil in vita mirandum est
Certainly Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus and Plato went overseas to learn it, going into exile rather than on a journey, taught it openly on their return, and considered it one of their most treasured secrets. Democritus expounded Apollobex the Copt and Dardanus the Phoenician, entering the latter’s tomb to obtain his works and basing his own on their doctrines. That these were accepted by any human beings and transmitted by memory is the most extraordinary phenomenon in history. — Translated by H. Rackham et al. Perstitit Homerus, quem ut omnes alias sapientias, ita hanc quoque sub sui Ulixis erroribus dissimulasse in poetica nostra theologia aliquando probabimus.🞯Plinius: Naturalis historia XXX,5: Maxime tamen mirum est, in bello Troiano tantum de arte silentium fuisse Homero tantumque operis ex eadem in Ulixis erroribus, adeo ut vel totum opus non aliunde constet.
The most surprising thing, however, is the complete silence of Homer about magic in his poem on the Trojan War, and yet so much of his work in the wanderings of Ulysses is so occupied with it that it alone forms the backbone of the whole work. — Translated by H. Rackham et al. Perstiterunt Eudoxus et Hermippus.🞯Plinius: Naturalis historia XXX,3-4: Eudoxus, qui inter sapientiae sectas clarissimam utilissimamque eam intellegi voluit, Zoroastren hunc sex milibus annorum ante Platonis mortem fuisse prodidit; sic et Aristoteles. Hermippus, qui de tota ea arte diligentissime scripsit
Eudoxus, who wished magic to be acknowledged as the noblest and most useful of the schools of philosophy, declared that this Zoroaster lived six thousand years before Plato’s death, and Aristotle agrees with him. Hermippus, a most studious writer about every aspect of magic. — Translated by H. Rackham et al. Perstiterunt fere omnes qui Pythagorica Platonicaque mysteria sunt perscrutati. Ex iunioribus autem, qui eam olfecerint tres reperio, Alchindum Arabem, Rogerium Baconem🞯Alkindi, Abū Yaʿqūb ibn Ishāq al-Kindī, ca. 801–873, the father of Arab philosophy an Arab Muslim philosopher, polymath, mathematician, physician and music theorist.
Roger Bacon, ca. 1219/20–1292, Doctor Mirabilis, placed considerable emphasis on the study of nature through empiricism. et Guilielmum Parisiensem. Meminit et Plotinus,🞯Porphyrios, Ποϱφύϱιος: Vita Plotini, Πεϱί του Πλωτίνου βίου 10: ἦν γὰϱ ϰαὶ ϰατὰ γένεσιν πλέον τι ἔχων παϱὰ τοὺς ἄλλους ὁ Πλωτῖνος. Αἰγύπτιος γάϱ τις ἱεϱεὺς ἀνελϑὼν εἰς τὴν Ῥώμην ϰαὶ διά τινος φίλου αὐτῷ γνωϱισϑεὶς ϑέλων τε τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας ἀπόδειξιν δοῦναι ἠξίωσε τὸν Πλωτῖνον ἐπὶ ϑέαν ἀφιϰέσϑαι τοῦ συνόντος αὐτῷ οἰϰείου δαίμονος ϰαλουμένου. τοῦ δὲ ἑτοίμως ὑπαϰούσαντος γίνεται μὲν ἐν τῷ Ἰσίῳ ἡ ϰλῆσις· μόνον γὰϱ ἐϰεῖνον τὸν τόπον ϰαϑαϱὸν φῆσαι εὑϱεῖν ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ τὸν Αἰγύπτιον. ϰληϑέντα δὲ εἰς αὐτοψίαν τὸν δαίμονα ϑεὸν ἐλϑεῖν ϰαὶ μὴ τοῦ δαιμόνων εἶναι γένους· ὅϑεν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον εἰπεῖν· μαϰάϱιος εἶ ϑεὸν ἔχων τὸν δαίμονα ϰαὶ οὐ τοῦ ὑφειμένου γένους τὸν συνόντα. μήτε δὲ ἐϱέσϑαι τι ἐϰγενέσϑαι μήτε ἐπιπλέον ἰδεῖν παϱόντα τοῦ συνϑεωϱοῦντος φίλου τὰς ὄϱνεις, ἃς ϰατεῖχε φυλαϰῆς ἕνεϰα, πνίξαντος εἴτε διὰ φϑόνον εἴτε ϰαὶ διὰ φόβον τινά. τῶν οὖν ϑειοτέϱων δαιμόνων ἔχων τὸν συνόντα ϰαὶ αὐτὸς διετέλει ἀνάγων αὐτοῦ τὸ ϑεῖον ὄμμα πϱὸς ἐϰεῖνον. ἔστι γοῦν αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας ϰαὶ βιβλίον γϱαφὲν πεϱὶ τοῦ εἰληχότος ἡμᾶς δαίμονος, ὅπου πειϱᾶται αἰτίας φέϱειν πεϱὶ τῆς διαφοϱᾶς τῶν συνόντων.
In fact Plotinus possessed by birth something more than is accorded to other men. An Egyptian priest who had arrived in Rome and, through some friend, had been presented to the philosopher, became desirous of displaying his powers to him, and he offered to evoke a visible manifestation of Plotinus’ presiding spirit. Plotinus readily consented and the evocation was made in the Temple of Isis, the only place, they say, which the Egyptian could find pure in Rome. At the summons a Divinity appeared, not a being of the spirit-ranks, and the Egyptian exclaimed: “You are singularly graced; the guiding-spirit within you is not of the lower degree but a God.” It was not possible, however, to interrogate or even to contemplate this God any further, for the priest’s assistant, who had been holding the birds to prevent them flying away, strangled them, whether through jealousy or in terror. Thus Plotinus had for indwelling spirit a Being of the more divine degree, and he kept his own divine spirit unceasingly intent upon that inner presence. It was this preoccupation that led him to write his treatise upon Our Tutelary Spirit, an essay in the explanation of the differences among spirit-guides. — Translated by Stephen MacKenna. ubi naturæ ministrum esse et non artificiem magum demonstrat: hanc magiam probat asseveratque vir sapientissimus, alteram ita abhorrens ut, cum ad malorum demonum sacra vocaretur, rectius esse, dixerit, ad se illos quam se ad illos accedere, et merito quidem. Ut enim illa obnoxium mancipatumque improbis potestantibus hominem reddit, ita hæc illarum principem et dominum. Illa denique nec artis nec scientiæ sibi potest nomen vendicare; hæc altissimis plena misteriis, profundissimam rerum secretissimarum contemplationem, et demum totius naturæ cognitionem complectitur. Hæc, inter sparsas Dei beneficio et inter seminatas mundo virtutes, quasi de latebris evocans in lucem, non tam facit miranda quam facienti naturæ sedula famulatur. Hæc universi consensum, quem significantius Græci συμπάϑειαν dicunt,🞯Plinius: Naturalis historia XX,1: Quod Graeci sympathiam et antipathiam appellavere, quibus cuncta constant, ignes aquis restinguentibus, aquas sole devorante, luna pariente, altero alterius iniuria deficiente sidere atque.
The Greeks have applied the terms 'sympathy' and 'antipathy' to this basic principle of all things: water putting out fire; the sun absorbing water while the moon gives it birth; each of these heavenly bodies suffering eclipse through the injustice of the other. — Translated by H. Rackham et al. introrsum perscrutatius rimata et mutuam naturarum cognitionem habens perspectatam, nativas adibens unicuique rei et suas illecebras, quæ magorum ἴυγγες nominantur,🞯Χαλδαϊϰὸν λόγιον.
Αἳ ἴυγγες νοούμεναι πατϱόϑεν νοέουσι ϰαὶ αὐταί,
βουλαῖς ἀφϑέγϰτοις ϰινούμεναι, ὥστε νοῆσαι.
Chaldaic Oracle
The Jynxes are thought by the Father and also think in their own right,
moved by unutterable wills to think. in mundi recessibus, in naturæ gremio, in promptuariis arcanisque Dei latitantia miracula, quasi ipsa sit artifex, promit in publicum, et sicut agricola ulmos vitibus, ita magus terram cælo, idest inferiora superiorum dotibus virtutibusque maritat. Quo fit ut quam illa prodigiosa et noxia, tam hæc divina et salutaris appareat. Ob hoc præcipue quod illa hominem, Dei hostibus mancipans, avocat a Deo, hæc in eam operum Dei admirationem excitat, quam propensa charitas, fides ac spes, certissime consequuntur. Neque enim ad religionem, ad Dei cultum quicquam promovet magis quam assidua contemplatio mirabilium Dei, quæ ut per hanc de qua agimus naturalem magiam bene exploraverimus, in opificis cultum amoremque ardentius animati illud canere compellemur: „Pleni sunt cæli, plena est omnis terra maiestate gloriæ tuæ“. Et hæc satis de magia, de qua hæc diximus, quod scio esse plures qui, sicut canes ignotos semper adlatrant, ita et ipsi sæpe damnant oderuntque quæ non intelligunt.

[39]Venio nunc ad ea quæ ex antiquis Hebræorum mysteriis eruta, ad sacrosantam et catholicam fidem confirmandam attuli, quæ ne forte ab his, quibus sunt ignota, commentitiæ nugæ aut fabulæ circumlatorum existimentur, volo intelligant omnes quæ et qualia sint, unde petita, quibus et quam claris auctoribus confirmata et quam reposita, quam divina, quam nostris hominibus ad propugnandam religionem contra Hebræorum importunas calumnias sint necessaria.

[40]Scribunt non modo celebres Hebræorum doctores, sed ex nostris quoque Hesdras, Hilarius et Origenes, Mosen non legem modo, quam quinque exaratam libris posteris reliquit, sed secretionem quoque et veram legis enarrationem in monte divinitius accepisse; preceptum autem ei a Deo ut legem quidem populo publicaret, legis interpretationem nec traderet litteris, nec invulgaret, sed ipse Iesu Nave tantum, tum ille aliis deinceps succedentibus sacerdotum primoribus, magna silentii religione, revelaret. Satis erat per simplicem historiam nunc Dei potentiam, nunc in improbos iram, in bonos clementiam, in omnes iustitiam agnoscere, et per divina salutariaque precepta ad bene beateque vivendum et cultum veræ religionis institui. At mysteria secretiora et sub cortice legis rudique verborum pretestu latitantia, altissimæ divinitatis archana, plebi palam facere, quid erat aliud quam dare sanctum canibus et inter porcos spargere margaritas?

[41]Ergo hæc clam vulgo habere, perfectis communicanda, inter quos tantum sapientiam loqui se ait Paulus, non humani consilii sed divini precepti fuit. Quem morem antiqui philosophi sanctissime observarunt. Pythagoras nihil scripsit nisi paucula quædam, quæ Damæ filiæ moriens commendavit.🞯Iamblichus, Ἰάμβλιχος: De vita Pythagorica, Πεϱί του Πυϑαγοϱιϰού βίου 146-147: Nor is it to be doubted, that Pythagoras receiving auxiliaries from Orpheus, composed his treatise Concerning the Gods, which on this account also he inscribed the Sacred Discourse, because it contains the flower of the most mystical place in Orpheus; whether this work was in reality written by Pythagoras, as by most authors it is said to have been, or as some of the Pythagoric school who are both learned and worthy of belief assert, was composed by Telauges; being taken by him from the commentaries which were left by Pythagoras himself to his daughter Damo, the sister of Telauges, and which it is said after her death were given to Bitale the daughter of Damo, and to Telauges the son of Pythagoras, and the husband of Bitale, when he was of a mature age. For when Pythagoras died, he was left very young with his mother Theano. In this Sacred Discourse also, or treatise concerning the Gods (for it has both these inscriptions), who it was that delivered to Pythagoras what is there said concerning the Gods, is rendered manifest. For it says: “that Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus was instructed in what pertains to the Gods, when he celebrated orgies in the Thracian Libethra, being initiated in them by Aglaophemus; and that Orpheus the son of Calliope, having learnt wisdom from his mother in the mountain Pangæus, said, that the eternal essence of number is the most providential principle of the universe, of heaven and earth, and the intermediate nature; and farther still, that it is the root of the permanency of divine natures, of Gods and dæmons.” From these things, therefore, it is evident that he learnt from the Orphic writers that the essence of the Gods is defined by number. Through the same numbers also, he produced an admirable fore-knowledge and worship of the Gods, both which are especially most allied to numbers. — Translated by Thomas Taylor, London: Valpy, 1818. Egiptiorum templis insculptæ Sphinges, hoc admonebant ut mistica dogmata per enigmatum nodos a prophana multitudine inviolata custodirentur. Plato Dionisio quædam de supremis scribens substantiis: „Per enigmata, inquit, dicendum est, ne si epistola forte ad aliorum pervenerit manus, quæ tibi scribimus ab aliis intelligantur“.🞯Πλάτων Διονυσίῳ εὖ πϱάττειν Epistulae (II),3, 312d-e: Φϱαστέον δή σοι δι' αἰνιγμῶν, ἵν' ἄν τι ἡ δέλτος ἢ πόντου ἢ γῆς ἐν πτυχαῖς πάϑῃ, ὁ ἀναγνοὺς μὴ γνῷ.
Now I must expound it to you in a riddling way in order that, should the tablet come to any harm ‘in folds of ocean or of earth,’ he that readeth may not understand. — Translated by Yehuda Liebes. Aristoteles libros Methaphisicæ in quibus agit de divinis editos esse et non editos dicebat. Quid plura? Iesum Christum vitæ magistrum asserit Origenes multa revelasse discipulis, quæ illi, ne vulgo fierent comunia, scribere noluerunt. Quod maxime confirmat Dyonisius Areopagita, qui secretiora mysteria a nostræ religionis auctoribus ἐϰ νοῦ εἰς νοῦν διὰ μέσον λόγον, idest ex animo in animum, sine litteris, medio intercedente verbo, ait fuisse transfusa.🞯Πεϱί Έϰϰλησιαστιϰής ἹεϱαϱχίαςI,4: Σεπτότατα δὲ λόγια ταῦτά φαμεν, ὅσα πϱὸς τῶν ἐνϑέων ἡμῶν ἱεϱοτελεστῶν ἐν ἁγιογϱάφοις ἡμῖν ϰαὶ ϑεολογιϰαῖς δεδώϱηται δέλτοις ϰαὶ μὴν ὅσα πϱὸς τῶν αὐτῶν ἱεϱῶν ἀνδϱῶν ἀϋλοτέϱᾳ μυήσει ϰαὶ γείτονί πως ἤδη τῆς οὐϱανίας ἱεϱαϱχίας ἐϰ νοὸς εἰς νοῦν διὰ μέσου λόγου σωματιϰοῦ μὲν ἀϋλοτέϱου δὲ ὅμως, γϱαφῆς ἐϰτὸς οἱ ϰαϑηγεμόνες ἡμῶν ἐμυήϑησαν, οὐδὲ ταῦτα τῶν ἐνϑέων ἱεϱαϱχῶν εἰς τὸ τῆς ἱεϱουϱγίας ϰοινὸν ἀπαϱαϰαλύπτοις νοήσεσιν ἀλλ' ἐν συμβόλοις ἱεϱοῖς παϱαδεδωϰότων.
Und auf gleiche Stufe stellen wir die Geheimnisse, in welche von denselben heiligen Männern unsere geistlichen Führer eingeweiht wurden und zwar in einer weniger stofflichen, der himmlischen Hierarchie schon näher verwandten Unterweisung, nämlich von Geist zu Geist, durch das Mittel des mündlichen Wortes, das zwar noch etwas Materielles an sich hat, aber gleichwohl schon unstofflicher ist, ohne den Dienst der Buchstabenschrift. — Übersetzt von Josef Stiglmayr BKV. Hoc eodem penitus modo cum ex Dei præcepto vera illa legis interpretatio Moisi deitus tradita revelaretur, dicta est Cabala, quod idem est apud Hebræos quod apud nos „receptio“; ob id scilicet quod illam doctrinam, non per litterarum monumenta, sed ordinariis revelationum successionibus alter ab altero quasi Hereditario iure reciperet.

[42]Verum postquam Hebræi a Babilonica captivitate restituti per Cyrum et sub Zorobabel instaurato templo ad reparandam legem animum appulerunt, Esdras, tunc ecclesiæ præfectus, post emendatum Moseos librum, cum plane cognosceret per exilia, cedes, fugas, captivitatem gentis Isræliticæ institutum a maioribus morem tradendæ per manus doctrinæ servari non posse, futurumque ut sibi divinitus indulta celestis doctrinæ arcana perirent, quorum commentariis non intercedentibus durare diu memoria non poterat, constituit ut, convocatis qui tunc supererant sapientibus, afferret unusquisque in medium quæ de mysteriis legis memoriter tenebat, adhibitisque notariis in LXX volumina (tot enim fere in sinedrio sapientes) redigerentur. Qua de re ne mihi soli credatis, Patres, audite Esdram ipsum sic loquentem: „Exactis XL diebus loquutus est Altissimus dicens. Priora quæ scripsisti in palam pone, legant digni et indigni, novissimos autem LXX libros conservabis ut tradas eos sapientibus de populo tuo. In his enim est vena intellectus et sapientiæ fons et scientiæ flumen. Atque ita feci“. Hæc Esdras ad verbum. Hi sunt libri scientiæ Cabalæ, in his libris merito Esdras venam intellectus, idest ineffabilem de supersubstantiali deitate theologiam, sapientiæ fontem, idest de intelligibilibus angelicisque formis exactam methaphisicam, et scientiæ flumen, idest de rebus naturalibus firmissimam philosophiam esse, clara in primis voce pronuntiavit.

[43]Hi libri Sixtus quartus Pontifex Maximus, qui hunc sub quo vivimus foeliciter Innocentium VIII proxime antecessit, maxima cura studioque curavit ut in publicam fidei nostræ utilitatem Latinis litteris mandarentur. Iamque cum ille decessit, tres ex illis pervenerant ad Latinos. Hi libri apud Hebræos hac tempestate tanta religione coluntur, ut neminem liceat nisi annos XL natum illos attingere. Hos ego libros non mediocri impensa mihi cum comparassem, summa diligentia indefessis laboribus cum perlegissem, vidi in illis (testis est Deus) religionem non tam Mosaicam quam Christianam. Ibi Trinitatis mysterium, ibi Verbi incarnatio, ibi Messiæ divinitas, ibi de peccato originali, de illius per Christum expiatione, de cælesti Hyerusalem de casu demonum, de ordinibus angelorum, de purgatoriis, de inferorum pænis, eadem legi quæ apud Paulum et Dyonisium apud Hieronymum et Augustinum quotidie legimus. In his vero quæ spectant ad philosophiam, Pythagoram prorsus audias et Platonem, quorum decreta ita sunt fidei Christianæ affinia, ut Augustinus noster immensas Deo gratias agat quod ad eius manus pervenerint libri Platonicorum.🞯Aurelius Augustinus: Confessiones VII,9: Et primo volens ostendere mihi, quam resistas superbis, humilibus autem des gratiam, et quanta misericordia tua demonstrata sit hominibus via humilitatis, quod verbum caro factum est et habitavit inter homines: procurasti mihi per quendam hominem, inmanissimo typho turgidum, quosdam Platonicorum libros ex graeca lingua in latinum versos; et ibi legi non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus suaderi rationibus, quod in principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud deum et deus erat verbum.
And Thou, willing first to show me how Thou resistest the proud, but givest grace unto the humble, and by how great an act of Thy mercy Thou hadst traced out to men the way of humility, in that Thy Word was made flesh, and dwelt among men:- Thou procuredst for me, by means of one puffed up with most unnatural pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin. And therein I read, not indeed in the very words, but to the very same purpose, enforced by many and divers reasons, that In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. — Translated by Edward Bouverie Pusey.

[44]In plenum nulla est ferme de re nobis cum Hebræis controversia de qua ex libris Cabalistarum ita redargui convincique non possint, ut ne angulus quidem reliquus sit in quem se condant. Cuius rei testem gravissimum habeo Antonium Cronicum, virum eruditissimum, qui suis auribus cum apud eum essem in convivio, audivit Dactylum Hebræum peritum huius scientiæ in Christianorum prorsus de Trinitate sententiam pedibus manibusque descendere.

[45]Sed ut ad meæ redeam disputationis capita percensenda, attulimus et nostram de interpretandis Orphei Zoroastrisque carminibus sententiam. Orpheus apud Græcos ferme integer;🞯Ὀϱφεύς, legendary musician and prophet in the ancient Greek religion, founder and prophet of the Orphic mysteries.
Διονύσου:
Κιϰλήσϰω Διόνυσον ἐϱίβϱομον, εὐαστῆϱα,
πϱωτόγονον, διφυῆ, τϱίγονον, Βαϰχεῖον ἄναϰτα,
ἄγϱιον, ἄϱϱητον, ϰϱύφιον, διϰέϱωτα, δίμοϱφον,
ϰισσόβϱυον, ταυϱωπόν, ἀϱήϊον, εὔϊον, ἁγνόν,
ὠμάδιον, τϱιετῆ, βοτϱυοτϱὸφον, ἐϱνεσίπεπλον.
Εὐβουλεῦ, πολύβουλε, Διὸς ϰαὶ Πεϱσεφονείης
ἀϱϱήτοις λέϰτϱοισι τεϰνωϑείς, ἄμβϱοτε δαῖμον·
ϰλῦϑι μάϰαϱ φωνῆς, ἡδὺς δ’ ἐπίπνευσον ἐνηής,
εὐμενὲς ἦτοϱ ἔχων, σὺν ἐυζώνοισι τιϑήναις.
I call Diónysos the loud-roarer! Who wails in revel!
First-Born, two-natured, thrice-born, Vakkhic king,
Wild, inscrutable, cryptic, two-horned, two-shaped,
Bedecked in ivy, bull-faced, war-like, howling, holy,
Divine victim, feasted every other year,
Adorned with grapes, bedecked in foliage.
Evvouléfs, counselor, Zefs and Kóri bore you...
On a secret bed, immortal Daimôn;
Listen happy one to my voice, sweet and gentle divine inspiration,
Having a kindly heart, with the aid of your chaste nurses! Zoroaster apud eos mancus, apud Caldeos absolutior legitur: ambo priscæ sapientiæ crediti patres et auctores. Nam ut taceam de Zoroastre, cuius frequens apud Platonicos non sine summa semper veneratione est mentio, scribit Iamblicus Calcideus habuisse Pythagoram Orphycam theologiam tamquam exemplar ad quam ipse suam fingeret formaretque philosophiam.🞯Iamblichos, Ἰάμβλιχος: De vita Pythagorica, Πεϱὶ τοῦ Πυϑαγοϱιϰοῦ βίου XXVIII,145-146: Πόϑεν δὴ οὖν τὴν τοσαύτην εὐσέβειαν παϱέλαβον οὗτοι οἱ ἄνδϱες, εἴ τις βούλοιτο μαϑεῖν, ῥητέον ὡς τῆς Πυϑαγοϱιϰῆς ϰατ' ἀϱιϑμὸν ϑεολογίας παϱάδειγμα ἐναϱγὲς ἔϰειτο παϱὰ Ὀϱφεῖ. οὐϰέτι δὴ οὖν ἀμφίβολον γέγονε τὸ τὰς ἀφοϱμὰς παϱὰ Ὀϱφέως λαβόντα Πυϑαγόϱαν συντάξαι τὸν πεϱὶ ϑεῶν λόγον, ὃν ϰαὶ Ἱεϱὸν διὰ τοῦτο ἐπέγϱαψεν, ὡς ἂν ἐϰ τοῦ μυστιϰωτάτου ἀπηνϑισμένον παϱὰ Ὀϱφεῖ τόπου ̶ εἴτε ὄντως τοῦ ἀνδϱός, ὡς οἱ πλεῖστοι λέγουσι, σύγγϱαμμά ἐστιν, εἴτε Τηλαύγους, ὡς ἔνιοι τοῦ διδασϰαλείου ἐλλόγιμοι ϰαὶ ἀξιόπιστοι διαβεβαιοῦνται ἐϰ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων τῶν Δαμοῖ τῆι ϑυγατϱί, ἀδελφῆι δὲ Τηλαύγους, ἀπολειφϑέντων ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ Πυϑαγόϱου, ἅπεϱ μετὰ ϑάνατον ἱστοϱοῦσι δοϑῆναι Βιτάληι τε τῆι Δαμοῦς ϑυγατϱὶ ϰαὶ Τηλαύγει ‹ἐν› ἡλιϰίαι γενομένωι, υἱῶι μὲν Πυϑαγόϱου, ἀνδϱὶ δὲ τῆς Βιτάλης· ϰομιδῆι γὰϱ νέος ὑπὸ τὸν Πυϑαγόϱου ϑάνατον ἀπολελειμμένος ἦν παϱὰ Θεανοῖ τῆι μητϱί ̶ δηλοῦται δὴ διὰ τοῦ Ἱεϱοῦ λόγου τούτου ἢ πεϱὶ Θεῶν λόγου, ἐπιγϱάφεται γὰϱ ἀμφότεϱον, ϰαὶ τίς ἦν ὁ παϱαδεδωϰὼς Πυϑαγόϱαι τὸν πεϱὶ Θεῶν λόγον. λέγει γάϱ·‘‹λόγος› ὅδε πεϱὶ ϑεῶν Πυϑαγόϱα τῶ Μνημάϱχω, τὸν ἐξέμαϑον, ὀϱγιασϑεὶς ἐν Λιβήϑϱοις τοῖς Θϱαιϰίοις, Ἀγλαοφάμω τελεστᾶ μεταδόντος, ὡς ἄϱα Ὀϱφεὺς ὁ Καλλιόπας ϰατὰ τὸ Πάγγαιον ὄϱος ὑπὸ τᾶς ματϱὸς πινυσϑεὶς ἔφα, τὰν ἀϱιϑμῶ οὐσίαν ἀΐδιον εἶναι μὲν ἀϱχὰν πϱομαϑεστάταν τῶ παντὸς ὠϱανῶ ϰαὶ γᾶς ϰαὶ τᾶς μεταξὺ φύσιος, ἔτι δὲ ϰαὶ ϑείων ϰαὶ ϑεῶν ϰαὶ δαιμόνων διαμονᾶς ῥίζαν.’ ἐϰ δὴ τούτων φανεϱὸν γέγονεν ὅτι τὴν ἀϱιϑμῶι ὡϱισμένην οὐσίαν τῶν ϑεῶν παϱὰ τῶν Ὀϱφιϰῶν παϱέλαβεν. ἐποιεῖτο δὲ διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀϱιϑμῶν ϰαὶ ϑαυμαστὴν πϱόγνωσιν ϰαὶ ϑεϱαπείαν τῶν ϑεῶν ϰατὰ τοὺς ἀϱιϑμοὺς ὅτι μάλιστα συγγενεστάτην.
If, therefore, any one wishes to learn what were the sources whence these men derived so much piety, it must be said, that a perspicuous paradigm of the Pythagoric theology according to numbers, is in a certain respect to be found in the writings of Orpheus. Nor is it to be doubted, that Pythagoras receiving auxiliaries from Orpheus, composed his treatise Concerning the Gods, which on this account also he inscribed The Sacred Discourse, because it contains the flower of the most mystical place in Orpheus; whether this work was in reality written by Pythagoras, as by most authors it is said to have been, or as some of the Pythagoric school who are both learned and worthy of belief assert, was composed by Telauges; being taken by him from the commentaries which were left by Pythagoras himself to his daughter Damo, the sister of Telauges, and which it is said after her death were given to Bitale the daughter of Damo, and to Telauges the son of Pythagoras, and the husband of Bitale, when he was of a mature age. For when Pythagoras died, he was left very young with his mother Theano. In this Sacred Discourse also, or treatise Concerning the Gods (for it has both these inscriptions), who it was that delivered to Pythagoras what is there said concerning the Gods, is rendered manifest. For it says: ‘that Pythagoras the son of Mnesarchus was instructed in what pertains to the Gods, when he celebrated orgies in the Thracian Libethra, being initiated in them by Aglaophemus; and that Orpheus the son of Calliope, having learnt wisdom from his mother in the mountain Pangæus, said, that the eternal essence of number is the most providential principle of the universe, of heaven and earth, and the intermediate nature; and farther still, that it is the root of the permanency of divine natures, of Gods and dæmons.’ From these things, therefore, it is evident that he learnt from the Orphic writers that the essence of the Gods is defined by Number. Through the same numbers also, he produced an admirable fore-knowledge and worship of the Gods, both which are especially most allied to numbers. — Translated by Thomas Taylor, 1818. Quin idcirco tantum dicta Pythagoræ sacra nuncupari dicunt, quod ab Orphei fluxerint institutis; inde secreta de numeris doctrina et quicquid magnum sublimeque habuit Græca philosophia ut a primo fonte manavit. Sed (qui erat veterum mos theologorum) ita Orpheus suorum dogmatum mysteria fabularum intexit involucris et poetico velamento dissimulavit, ut si quis legat illius hymnos, nihil subesse credat præter fabellas nugasque meracissimas. Quod volui dixisse ut cognoscatur quis mihi labor quæ fuerit difficultas, ex affectatis enigmatum syrpis, ex fabularum latebris latitantes eruere secretæ philosophiæ sensus, nulla præsertim in re tam gravi tam abscondita inexplorataque adiuto aliorum interpretum opera et diligentia. Et tamen oblatrarunt canes mei minutula quædam et levia ad numeri ostentationem me accumulasse, quasi non omnes quæ ambiguæ maxime controversæque sunt questiones, in quibus principales digladiantur achademiæ, quasi non multa attulerim his ipsis, qui et mea carpunt et se credunt philosophorum principes, et incognita prorsus et intentata.

[46]Quin ego tantum absum ab ea culpa, ut curaverim in quam paucissima potui capita cogere disputationem. Quam si (ut consueverunt alii) partiri ipse in sua membra et lancinare voluissem, in innumerum profecto numerum excrevisset. Et, ut taceam de cæteris, quis est qui nesciat unum dogma ex nongentis, quod scilicet de concilianda est Platonis Aristotelisque philosophia, potuisse me citra omnem affectatæ numerositatis suspitionem in sexcenta ne dicam plura capita deduxisse, locos scilicet omnes in quibus dissidere alii, convenire ego illos existimo particulatim enumerantem? Sed certe (dicam enim quamquam neque modeste neque ex ingenio meo) dicam tamen, quia dicere me invidi cogunt, cogunt obtrectatores, volui hoc meo congressu fidem facere non tam quod multa scirem, quam quod scirem quæ multi nesciunt.

[47]Quod ut vobis re ipsa, Patres colendissimi, iam palam fiat, ut desiderium vestrum, doctores exce[l]lentissimi, quos paratos accintosque expectare pugnam non sine magna voluptate conspicio, mea longius oratio non remoretur, quod foelix faustumque sit quasi citante classico iam conseramus manus.
 

 

o account of the Renaissance can be complete without some notice of the attempt made by certain Italian scholars of the fifteenth century to reconcile Christianity with the religion of ancient Greece. To reconcile forms of sentiment which at first sight seem incompatible, to adjust the various products of the human mind to each other in one many-sided type of intellectual culture, to give humanity, for heart and imagination to feed upon, as much as it could possibly receive, belonged to the generous instincts of that age. An earlier and simpler generation had seen in the gods of Greece so many malignant spirits, the defeated but still living centres of the religion of darkness, struggling, not always in vain, against the kingdom of light. Little by little, as the natural charm of pagan story reasserted itself over minds emerging out of barbarism, the religious significance which had once belonged to it was lost sight of, and it came to be regarded as the subject of a purely artistic or poetical treatment. But it was inevitable that from time to time minds should arise, deeply enough impressed by its beauty and power to ask themselves whether the religion of Greece was indeed a rival of the religion of Christ; for the older gods had rehabilitated themselves, and men’s allegiance was divided. And the fifteenth century was an impassioned age, so ardent and serious in its pursuit of art that it consecrated everything with which art had to do as a religious object. The restored Greek literature had made it familiar, at least in Plato, with a style of expression concerning the earlier gods, which had about it much of the warmth and unction of a Christian hymn. It was too familiar with such language to regard mythology as a mere story; and it was too serious to play with a religion.

“Let me briefly remind the reader” — says Heine, in the Gods in Exile, an essay full of that strange blending of sentiment which is characteristic of the traditions of the middle age concerning the pagan religions — “how the gods of the older world, at the time of the definite triumph of Christianity, that is, in the third century, fell into painful embarrassments, which greatly resembled certain tragical situations of their earlier life. They now found themselves beset by the same troublesome necessities to which they had once before been exposed during the primitive ages, in that revolutionary epoch when the Titans broke out of the custody of Orcus, and, piling Pelion on Ossa, scaled Olympus. Unfortunate Gods! They had then to take flight ignominiously, and hide themselves among us here on earth, under all sorts of disguises. The larger number betook themselves to Egypt, where for greater security they assumed the forms of animals, as is generally known. Just in the same way, they had to take flight again, and seek entertainment in remote hiding-places, when those iconoclastic zealots, the black brood of monks, broke down all the temples, and pursued the gods with fire and curses. Many of these unfortunate emigrants, now entirely deprived of shelter and ambrosia, must needs take to vulgar handicrafts, as a means of earning their bread. Under these circumstances, many whose sacred groves had been confiscated, let themselves out for hire as wood-cutters in Germany, and were forced to drink beer instead of nectar. Apollo seems to have been content to take service under graziers, and as he had once kept the cows of Admetus, so he lived now as a shepherd in Lower Austria. Here, however, having become suspected on account of his beautiful singing, he was recognised by a learned monk as one of the old pagan gods, and handed over to the spiritual tribunal. On the rack he confessed that he was the god Apollo; and before his execution he begged that he might be suffered to play once more upon the lyre, and to sing a song. And he played so touchingly, and sang with such magic, and was withal so beautiful in form and feature, that all the women wept, and many of them were so deeply impressed that they shortly afterwards fell sick. And some time afterwards the people wished to drag him from the grave again, so that a stake might be driven through his body, in the belief that he had been a vampire, and that the sick women would by this means recover. But they found the grave empty.”

The Renaissance of the fifteenth century was, in many things, great rather by what it designed than by what it achieved. Much which it aspired to do, and did but imperfectly or mistakenly, was accomplished in what is called the eclaircissement of the eighteenth century, or in our own generation; and what really belongs to the rival of the fifteenth century is but the leading instinct, the curiosity, the initiatory idea. It is so with this very question of the reconciliation of the religion of antiquity with the religion of Christ. A modern scholar occupied by this problem might observe that all religions may be regarded as natural products; that, at least in their origin, their growth, and decay, they have common laws, and are not to be isolated from the other movements of the human mind in the periods in which they respectively prevailed; that they arise spontaneously out of the human mind, as expressions of the varying phases of its sentiment concerning the unseen world; that every intellectual product must be judged from the point of view of the age and the people in which it was produced. He might go on to observe that each has contributed something to the development of the religious sense, and ranging them as so many stages in the gradual education of the human mind, justify the existence of each. The basis of the reconciliation of the religions of the world would thus be the inexhaustible activity and creativeness of the human mind itself, in which all religions alike have their root, and in which all alike are reconciled; just as the fancies of childhood and the thoughts of old age meet and are laid to rest, in the experience of the individual. Far different was the method followed by the scholars of the fifteenth century. They lacked the very rudiments of the historic sense, which, by an imaginative act, throws itself back into a world unlike one’s own, and estimates every intellectual creation in its connexion with the age from which it proceeded; they had no idea of development, of the differences of ages, of the gradual education of the human race. In their attempts to reconcile the religions of the world, they were thus thrown back upon the quicksand of allegorical interpretation. The religions of the world were to be reconciled, not as successive stages, in a gradual development of the religious sense, but as subsisting side by side, and substantially in agreement with each other. And here the first necessity was to misrepresent the language, the conceptions, the sentiments, it was proposed to compare and reconcile. Plato and Homer must be made to speak agreeably to Moses. Set side by side, the mere surfaces could never unite in any harmony of design. Therefore one must go below the surface, and bring up the supposed secondary, or still more remote meaning, that diviner signification held in reserve, in recessu divinius aliquid, latent in some stray touch of Homer, or figure of speech in the books of Moses.

And yet as a curiosity of the human mind, a “madhouse-cell,” if you will, into which we peep for a moment, and see it at work weaving strange fancies, the allegorical interpretation of the fifteenth century has its interest. With its strange web of imagery, its quaint conceits, its unexpected combinations and subtle moralising, it is an element in the local colour of a great age. It illustrates also the faith of that age in all oracles, its desire to hear all voices, its generous belief that nothing which had ever interested the human mind could wholly lose its vitality. It is the counterpart, though certainly the feebler counterpart, of that practical truce and reconciliation of the gods of Greece with the Christian religion, which is seen in the art of the time; and it is for his share in this work, and because his own story is a sort of analogue or visible equivalent to the expression of this purpose in his writings, that something of a general interest still belongs to the name of Pico della Mirandola, whose life, written by his nephew Francis, seemed worthy, for some touch of sweetness in it, to be translated out of the original Latin by Sir Thomas More, that great lover of Italian culture, among whose works this life of Pico, Earl of Mirandola, and a great lord of Italy, as he calls him, may still be read, in its quaint, antiquated English.

Marsilio Ficino has told us how Pico came to Florence. It was the very day — some day probably in the year 1482 — on which Ficino had finished his famous translation of Plato into Latin, the work to which he had been dedicated from childhood by Cosmo de’ Medici, in furtherance of his desire to resuscitate the knowledge of Plato among his fellow-citizens. Florence indeed, as M. Renan has pointed out, had always had an affinity for the mystic and dreamy philosophy of Plato, while the colder and more practical philosophy of Aristotle had flourished in Padua, and other cities of the north; and the Florentines, though they knew perhaps very little about him, had had the name of the great idealist often on their lips. To increase this knowledge, Cosmo had founded the Platonic academy, with periodical discussions at the villa of Careggi. The fall of Constantinople in 1453, and the council in 1438 for the reconciliation of the Greek and Latin Churches, had brought to Florence many a needy Greek scholar. And now the work was completed, the door of the mystical temple lay open to all who could construe Latin, and the scholar rested from his labour; when there was introduced into his study, where a lamp burned continually before the bust of Plato, as other men burned lamps before their favourite saints, a young man fresh from a journey, “of feature and shape seemly and beauteous, of stature goodly and high, of flesh tender and soft, his visage lovely and fair, his colour white, intermingled with comely reds, his eyes grey, and quick of look, his teeth white and even, his hair yellow and abundant,” and trimmed with more than the usual artifice of the time. It is thus that Sir Thomas More translates the words of the biographer of Pico, who, even in outward form and appearance, seems an image of that inward harmony and completeness, of which he is so perfect an example. The word mystic has been usually derived from a Greek word which signifies to shut, as if one shut one’s lips, brooding on what cannot be uttered; but the Platonists themselves derive it rather from the act of shutting the eyes, that one may see the more, inwardly. Perhaps the eyes of the mystic Ficino, now long past the midway of life, had come to be thus half-closed; but when a young man, not unlike the archangel Raphael, as the Florentines of that age depicted him in his wonderful walk with Tobit, or Mercury, as he might have appeared in a painting by Sandro Botticelli or Piero di Cosimo, entered his chamber, he seems to have thought there was something not wholly earthly about him; at least, he ever afterwards believed that it was not without the co-operation of the stars that the stranger had arrived on that day. For it happened that they fell into a conversation, deeper and more intimate than men usually fall into at first sight. During this conversation Ficino formed the design of devoting his remaining years to the translation of Plotinus, that new Plato, in whom the mystical element in the Platonic philosophy had been worked out to the utmost limit of vision and ecstasy; and it is in dedicating this translation to Lorenzo de’ Medici that Ficino has recorded these incidents.

It was after many wanderings, wanderings of the intellect as well as physical journeys, that Pico came to rest at Florence. He was then about twenty years old, having been born in 1463. He was called Giovanni at baptism; Pico, like all his ancestors, from Picus, nephew of the Emperor Constantine, from whom they claimed to be descended; and Mirandola, from the place of his birth, a little town afterwards part of the duchy of Modena, of which small territory his family had long been the feudal lords. Pico was the youngest of the family, and his mother, delighting in his wonderful memory, sent him at the age of fourteen to the famous school of law at Bologna. From the first, indeed, she seems to have had some presentiment of his future fame, for, with a faith in omens characteristic of her time, she believed that a strange circumstance had happened at the time of Pico’s birth — the appearance of a circular flame which suddenly vanished away, on the wall of the chamber where she lay. He remained two years at Bologna; and then, with an inexhaustible, unrivalled thirst for knowledge, the strange, confused, uncritical learning of that age, passed through the principal schools of Italy and France, penetrating, as he thought, into the secrets of all ancient philosophies, and many eastern languages. And with this flood of erudition came the generous hope, so often disabused, of reconciling the philosophers with each other, and all alike with the Church. At last he came to Rome. There, like some knight-errant of philosophy, he offered to defend nine hundred bold paradoxes, drawn from the most opposite sources, against all comers. But the pontifical court was led to suspect the orthodoxy of some of these propositions, and even the reading of the book which contained them was forbidden by the Pope. It was not until 1493 that Pico was finally absolved, by a brief of Alexander the Sixth. Ten years before that date he had arrived at Florence; an early instance of those who, after following the vain hope of an impossible reconciliation from system to system, have at last fallen back unsatisfied on the simplicities of their childhood’s belief.

The oration which Pico composed for the opening of this philosophical tournament still remains; its subject is the dignity of human nature, the greatness of man. In common with nearly all medieval speculation, much of Pico’s writing has this for its drift; and in common also with it, Pico’s theory of that dignity is founded on a misconception of the place in nature both of the earth and of man. For Pico the earth is the centre of the universe: and around it, as a fixed and motionless point, the sun and moon and stars revolve, like diligent servants or ministers. And in the midst of all is placed man, nodus et vinculum mundi, the bond or copula of the world, and the “interpreter of nature”: that famous expression of Bacon’s really belongs to Pico. Tritum est in scholis, he says, esse hominem minorem mundum, in quo mixtum ex elementis corpus et spiritus coelestis et plantarum anima vegetalis et brutorum sensus et ratio et angelica mens et Dei similitudo conspicitur. — “It is a commonplace of the schools that man is a little world, in which we may discern a body mingled of earthy elements, and ethereal breath, and the vegetable life of plants, and the senses of the lower animals, and reason, and the intelligence of angels, and a likeness to God.” — A commonplace of the schools! But perhaps it had some new significance and authority, when men heard one like Pico reiterate it; and, false as its basis was, the theory had its use. For this high dignity of man, thus bringing the dust under his feet into sensible communion with the thoughts and affections of the angels, was supposed to belong to him, not as renewed by a religious system, but by his own natural right. The proclamation of it was a counterpoise to the increasing tendency of medieval religion to depreciate man’s nature, to sacrifice this or that element in it, to make it ashamed of itself, to keep the degrading or painful accidents of it always in view. It helped man onward to that reassertion of himself, that rehabilitation of human nature, the body, the senses, the heart, the intelligence, which the Renaissance fulfils. And yet to read a page of one of Pico’s forgotten books is like a glance into one of those ancient sepulchres, upon which the wanderer in classical lands has sometimes stumbled, with the old disused ornaments and furniture of a world wholly unlike ours still fresh in them. That whole conception of nature is so different from our own. For Pico the world is a limited place, bounded by actual crystal walls, and a material firmament; it is like a painted toy, like that map or system of the world, held, as a great target or shield, in the hands of the grey-headed father of all things, in one of the earlier frescoes of the Campo Santo at Pisa. How different from this childish dream is our own conception of nature, with its unlimited space, its innumerable suns, and the earth but a mote in the beam; how different the strange new awe, or superstition, with which it fills our minds! “The silence of those infinite spaces,” says Pascal, contemplating a starlight night, “the silence of those infinite spaces terrifies me” — Le silence eternel de ces espaces infinis m’effraie.

He was already almost wearied out when he came to Florence. He had loved much and been beloved by women, “wandering over the crooked hills of delicious pleasure”; but their reign over him was over, and long before Savonarola’s famous “bonfire of vanities,” he had destroyed those love-songs in the vulgar tongue, which would have been such a relief to us, after the scholastic prolixity of his Latin writings. It was in another spirit that he composed a Platonic commentary, the only work of his in Italian which has come down to us, on the “Song of Divine Love” — secondo la mente ed opinione dei Platonici — “according to the mind and opinion of the Platonists,” by his friend Hieronymo Beniveni, in which, with an ambitious array of every sort of learning, and a profusion of imagery borrowed indifferently from the astrologers, the Cabala, and Homer, and Scripture, and Dionysius the Areopagite, he attempts to define the stages by which the soul passes from the earthly to the unseen beauty. A change indeed had passed over him, as if the chilling touch of the abstract and disembodied beauty Platonists profess to long for was already upon him; and perhaps it was a sense of this, coupled with that over-brightness which in the popular imagination always betokens an early death, that made Camilla Rucellai, one of those prophetic women whom the preaching of Savonarola had raised up in Florence, declare, seeing him for the first time, that he would depart in the time of lilies — prematurely, that is, like the field-flowers which are withered by the scorching sun almost as soon as they are sprung up. It was now that he wrote down those thoughts on the religious life which Sir Thomas More turned into English, and which another English translator thought worthy to be added to the books of the Imitation. “It is not hard to know God, provided one will not force oneself to define Him”: — has been thought a great saying of Joubert’s. “Love God,” Pico writes to Angelo Politian, “we rather may, than either know Him, or by speech utter Him. And yet had men liefer by knowledge never find that which they seek, than by love possess that thing, which also without love were in vain found.”

Yet he who had this fine touch for spiritual things did not — and in this is the enduring interest of his story — even after his conversion, forget the old gods. He is one of the last who seriously and sincerely entertained the claims on men’s faith of the pagan religions; he is anxious to ascertain the true significance of the obscurest legend, the lightest tradition concerning them. With many thoughts and many influences which led him in that direction, he did not become a monk; only he became gentle and patient in disputation; retaining “somewhat of the old plenty, in dainty viand and silver vessel,” he gave over the greater part of his property to his friend, the mystical poet Beniveni, to be spent by him in works of charity, chiefly in the sweet charity of providing marriage-dowries for the peasant girls of Florence. His end came in 1494, when, amid the prayers and sacraments of Savonarola, he died of fever, on the very day on which Charles the Eighth entered Florence, the seventeenth of November, yet in the time of lilies — the lilies of the shield of France, as the people now said, remembering Camilla’s prophecy. He was buried in the cloister at Saint Mark’s, in the hood and white frock of the Dominican order.

It is because the life of Pico, thus lying down to rest in the Dominican habit, yet amid thoughts of the older gods, himself like one of those comely divinities, reconciled indeed to the new religion, but still with a tenderness for the earlier life, and desirous literally to “bind the ages each to each by natural piety” — it is because this life is so perfect a parallel to the attempt made in his writings to reconcile Christianity with the ideas of paganism, that Pico, in spite of the scholastic character of those writings, is really interesting. Thus, in the Heptaplus, or Discourse on the Seven Days of the Creation, he endeavours to reconcile the accounts which pagan philosophy had given of the origin of the world with the account given in the books of Moses — the Timaeus of Plato with the book of Genesis. The Heptaplus is dedicated to Lorenzo the Magnificent, whose interest, the preface tells us, in the secret wisdom of Moses is well known. If Moses seems in his writings simple and even popular, rather than either a philosopher or a theologian, that is because it was an institution with the ancient philosophers, either not to speak of divine things at all, or to speak of them dissemblingly: hence their doctrines were called mysteries. Taught by them, Pythagoras became so great a “master of silence,” and wrote almost nothing, thus hiding the words of God in his heart, and speaking wisdom only among the perfect. In explaining the harmony between Plato and Moses, Pico lays hold on every sort of figure and analogy, on the double meanings of words, the symbols of the Jewish ritual, the secondary meanings of obscure stories in the later Greek mythologists. Everywhere there is an unbroken system of correspondences. Every object in the terrestrial world is an analogue, a symbol or counterpart, of some higher reality in the starry heavens, and this again of some law of the angelic life in the world beyond the stars. There is the element of fire in the material world; the sun is the fire of heaven; and in the super-celestial world there is the fire of the seraphic intelligence. “But behold how they differ! The elementary fire burns, the heavenly fire vivifies, the super-celestial fire loves.” In this way, every natural object, every combination of natural forces, every accident in the lives of men, is filled with higher meanings. Omens, prophecies, supernatural coincidences, accompany Pico himself all through life. There are oracles in every tree and mountain-top, and a significance in every accidental combination of the events of life.

This constant tendency to symbolism and imagery gives Pico’s work a figured style, by which it has some real resemblance to Plato’s, and he differs from other mystical writers of his time by a real desire to know his authorities at first hand. He reads Plato in Greek, Moses in Hebræw, and by this his work really belongs to the higher culture. Above all, we have a constant sense in reading him, that his thoughts, however little their positive value may be, are connected with springs beneath them of deep and passionate emotion; and when he explains the grades or steps by which the soul passes from the love of a physical object to the love of unseen beauty, and unfolds the analogies between this process and other movements upward of human thought, there is a glow and vehemence in his words which remind one of the manner in which his own brief existence flamed itself away.

I said that the Renaissance of the fifteenth century was in many things great, rather by what it designed or aspired to do, than by what it actually achieved. It remained for a later age to conceive the true method of effecting a scientific reconciliation of Christian sentiment with the imagery, the legends, the theories about the world, of pagan poetry and philosophy. For that age the only possible reconciliation was an imaginative one, and resulted from the efforts of artists, trained in Christian schools, to handle pagan subjects; and of this artistic reconciliation work like Pico’s was but the feebler counterpart. Whatever philosophers had to say on one side or the other, whether they were successful or not in their attempts to reconcile the old to the new, and to justify the expenditure of so much care and thought on the dreams of a dead faith, the imagery of the Greek religion, the direct charm of its story, were by artists valued and cultivated for their own sake. Hence a new sort of mythology, with a tone and qualities of its own. When the ship-load of sacred earth from the soil of Jerusalem was mingled with the common clay in the Campo Santo at Pisa, a new flower grew up from it, unlike any flower men had seen before, the anemone with its concentric rings of strangely blended colour, still to be found by those who search long enough for it, in the long grass of the Maremma. Just such a strange flower was that mythology of the Italian Renaissance, which grew up from the mixture of two traditions, two sentiments, the sacred and the profane. Classical story was regarded as so much imaginative material to be received and assimilated. It did not come into men’s minds to ask curiously of science concerning its origin, its primary form and import, its meaning for those who projected it. It sank into their minds, to issue forth again with all the tangle about it of medieval sentiment and ideas. In the Doni Madonna in the Tribune of the Uffizii, Michelangelo actually brings the pagan religion, and with it the unveiled human form, the sleepy-looking fauns of a Dionysiac revel, into the presence of the Madonna, as simpler painters had introduced there other products of the earth, birds or flowers; and he has given to that Madonna herself much of the uncouth energy of the older and more primitive “Mighty Mother.”

It is because this picturesque union of contrasts, belonging properly to the art of the close of the fifteenth century, pervades, in Pico della Mirandola, an actual person, that the figure of Pico is so attractive. He will not let one go; he wins one on, in spite of oneself, to turn again to the pages of his forgotten books, although we know already that the actual solution proposed in them will satisfy us as little as perhaps it satisfied him. It is said that in his eagerness for mysterious learning he once paid a great sum for a collection of cabalistic manuscripts, which turned out to be forgeries; and the story might well stand as a parable of all he ever seemed to gain in the way of actual knowledge. He had sought knowledge, and passed from system to system, and hazarded much; but less for the sake of positive knowledge than because he believed there was a spirit of order and beauty in knowledge, which would come down and unite what men’s ignorance had divided, and renew what time had made dim. And so, while his actual work has passed away, yet his own qualities are still active, and he himself remains, as one alive in the grave, caesiis et vigilibus oculis, as his biographer describes him, and with that sanguine, clear skin, decenti rubore interspersa, as with the light of morning upon it; and he has a true place in that group of great Italians who fill the end of the fifteenth century with their names, he is a true Humanist. For the essence of humanism is that belief of which he seems never to have doubted, that nothing which has ever interested living men and women can wholly lose its vitality — no language they have spoken, nor oracle beside which they have hushed their voices, no dream which has once been entertained by actual human minds, nothing about which they have ever been passionate, or expended time and zeal.
— 1871. In: The Renaissance Studies in Art and Poetry.