PLATONISMO

PLATONISM. — For the ancient Greek Plato, see the entry ACCADEMIA (I. The Greek Academy). Here we shall treat: I. Platonism among the Fathers; II. Platonism in the Middle Ages; III. Platonism in the Renaissance.

I. PLATONISM AMONG THE FATHERS

Among not a few writers of the patristic era, especially the Greek Fathers, Platonism enjoyed exceptional favor. While Aristotle is the “physicist” or even “the atheist,” Plato is the philosopher: in the sense precisely in which the Fathers understand “philosophy,” not as pure theoretical speculation nor as research into the structure of the universe, but as the science that discovers the norms of life, shows man the path to happiness, frees him from the slavery of sensible goods, and elevates him to the contemplation of higher realities. According to Socrates’ reply to Glaucon in the Republic (V, 475 e), “true philosophers... are lovers of truth, who strive to contemplate it.” Plato, precisely because he is a philosopher (in this sense), is “the most theological of the Greeks” and in a certain sense a precursor of Christianity.

1. The Meaning of Platonism among the Fathers

The imprecision and mythical form in which Plato had clothed not a few of his doctrines lent themselves to diverse interpretations; and already among his first disciples, beginning with Xenocrates, opposing doctrines appealed to Plato. The doubt raised by the New Academy regarding the existence of immaterial beings is attributed outright to the founder of the school (Cicero, *De oratore*, III, 18, 67). Such skepticism, on account of the moral consequences it entailed, provoked lively opposition (see the invective of Numenius against Arcesilaus and his successors, in Eusebius, *Praep. Evang.*, I. XIV, ch. 6 ff.: PG 21, 1200 B ff.). At the beginning of the 2nd century A.D., on the contrary, because of the obscurities that remained, the syncretism known as Middle Platonism regarded the founder of the Academy above all as the theorist of the existence of God and the immortality of the soul, the master who teaches how to live well and to become like God through contemplation and union with Him. This point of view could certainly draw support from Plato, especially from the Plato of his later period, in the *Sophist*, *Philebus*, *Timaeus*, and *Laws*. But it is only in Middle Platonism that an assertion like that of St. Augustine can find meaning: “He (Plato) does not doubt that this is what it means to philosophize: to love God” (*De civit. Dei*, VIII, ch. 8: PL 41, 233). The Platonism found in the Fathers is that of Plato, but above all that of Middle Platonism, and later, Neoplatonism as represented by Plotinus, Porphyry, and Proclus.

It must also be noted that this Platonism did not exclude the influence of other philosophical systems. Just as Middle Platonism, so too Neoplatonism drew elements from diverse sources: Socrates, Heraclitus, the Ionians, the Pythagoreans, Aristotle (see); for moral doctrines, largely from Stoicism (see), sometimes transmitted to the Fathers through Philo or Plotinus.

2. Principal Representatives

The Fathers and ecclesiastical writers of the early centuries who were most influenced by Platonism are: a) the 2nd-century apologists. Justin and Athenagoras cite the Dialogues, but it seems they knew them only through anthologies (J. M. Pfättisch, *Der Einfluss Platos auf die Theologie Justins des Märtyrers*, Paderborn 1910). The influence of the “Platonists” is much more noticeable among the Alexandrians: Clement (S. Meifort, *Der Platonismus bei Clemens Alexandrinus*, Tübingen 1928) and Origen (cf. the Index of the Koetschau edition); and in the 4th century, Eusebius, Methodius of Olympus, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius; it is not entirely absent in St. Athanasius and St. Basil. b) Among the Latins, Plato was almost unknown. Nevertheless, the statement of St. Jerome should not be taken literally: “How many have known or even heard the name of Plato? Scarcely idle old men in corners recall his books” (*Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians*, I. III, ch. 5; PL 26, 401 B). St. Augustine is certainly among the Fathers who made the most use of Neoplatonism (cf. L. Grandgeorge, *St Augustin et le néoplatonisme*, Paris 1896; Ch. Boyer, *Christianisme et néoplatonisme dans la formation de St Augustin*, 1920). c) In the 5th century, Theodorus of Cyrrhus, Nemesius, Claudianus Mamertus, Synesius (cf. H. Eibl, *Augustin und die Patristik*, VIII: *Christliche Neoplatoniker des V. Jahrhunderts*, Munich 1923); and above all, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.

“It is one and the same evolution that, in the first five centuries, advances pagan thought from the practical problem of inner conversion in a Seneca or an Epictetus to the refined theology of Plotinus and Proclus, and Christian thought from the spiritual and inner Christianity of St. Paul to the dogmatic theology of Origen and the Cappadocians: it is difficult not to discern the same factors in this transformation” (*Histoire de la philosophie*, I, p. 491). This is an error. Even when they make extensive use of Plato, the Fathers do not derive the rule of their faith from him. In Plato they found a type of speculation, an impulse of thought, affinities—sometimes indeed exaggerated—in the way of understanding man’s destiny and his relationship with God. But the substance of their doctrine and the conceptual determinations of dogma are sought elsewhere. Clear confirmation of this is found in their explicit declarations. St. Augustine affirms: “Among the Platonists I trust that I shall find, in the meantime, what does not conflict with our sacred writings” (*De civit. Dei*, VIII, ch. 4, 9–10: PL 41, 231–235). Even when he speaks as a Platonist, he is first and foremost a Christian: “This is quite clear: I shall never depart from the authority of Christ” (*Contra Academicos*, III, ch. 20, 43: PL 32, 957). Similarly, already St. Justin: what he preaches are “the teachings received from Christ and the prophets who preceded Him. They contain the whole truth, whereas in the philosophers it is only partial and participated” (*Apology*, I, 23: PG 6, 364 A). Origen himself, in *De principiis*, a work largely speculative, affirms that “only the truth which in no way disagrees with the tradition of the Catholic and Apostolic Church is to be believed” (I, 1: PG 11, 116 B). He always intended to have no other masters than Jesus Christ and the Apostles (*Contra Celsum*, I, 42; III, 47: PG 11, 776 A, 981 A, 1017 A). At the school of Origen, as reported by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, his disciple at Caesarea, the teaching consisted above all in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture (*Panegyric Oration*, 15: PG 10, 1093 ff.). If, in ethics and metaphysics, Origen advised recourse to the philosophy of the Greeks, it was to draw from it “what can serve as a propaedeutic to Christianity” (*Epistle to Gregory*, I: PG 11, 88 A). Pascal would say: “Plato to dispose [the soul] for Christianity” (*Pensées*, ed. Brunschvicg, Paris 1897, no. 219). This “preparation of the soul,” which Platonism can provide (“it aids true religion,” says St. Augustine), derives above all from the fact that it believes in metaphysics. For the great current of thought that appeals to Plato, sensible things, however beautiful, are but the lower rungs of a ladder whose summit is lost in the luminous mystery of God. And the soul truly tends to be united with God, whose height always transcends II. In reality, the final conclusion of the Platonic journey should be the recognition of the inadequacy of human thought in the face of the Mystery and the hope for a revelation of the supreme truth.

II. PLATONISM IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Platonism in the Middle Ages found diverse expressions in Byzantine, Arabic, and Latin Western culture.

3. Byzantine East

The fact that no translation was required to read the writings of Plato and the Platonists explains why the tradition of Platonic thought remained alive in the Byzantine East throughout the Middle Ages, until the fall of Constantinople. However, when the speculative fervor of an Origen (v.), of the great Basil (v.), and of the two Gregories, Nazianzen (v.) and Nyssen (v.), gave way to the theological systematization of John of Damascus (v.), enthusiasm for Platonism gradually waned, while Aristotelianism gained ground, so much so that it is necessary to reach Arethas, a disciple of Photius, to see the revival of the cult of Plato, whom George Hamartolus, their contemporary, considered—like Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius—a precursor of Christ. But it was especially through the work of Michael Psellus (v.) that Plato once again became the greatest philosopher and the one most akin to Christianity. Alongside the writings of Plato, those of Porphyry (v.), Proclus (v.), and other Neoplatonists were held in high esteem, and Byzantium became the center from which Platonism radiated toward the East, into Armenia and Georgia, and into the Byzantine provinces of Italy. The school of Psellus had a wide following: John Italus, Michael of Ephesus, Eustathius of Nicaea, and Michael Italicus, known as the second Plato, continued his spirit, links in a chain that extends to Gemistus Pletho (v.) and Cardinal Bessarion (v.).

4. Muslim World

The Arabs received the influence of Greek culture not directly from the Byzantines but from the Syrians after the conquest of their lands and Persia (642-640). Thirsty for knowledge, they eagerly seized upon the rich Greek encyclopedia preserved in the schools of Nisibis, Gundishapur, and Edessa. Under the caliphate of al-Ma'mun or shortly thereafter, they obtained a double translation of the Timaeus and were able to read in Arabic the Republic, the Laws, and the Sophist with Olympiodorus’ commentary, the Apology, the Crito, and the Phaedo. In addition, a synopsis that Galen had made of several Platonic dialogues—such as the Cratylus, the Sophist, the Statesman, the Parmenides, the Euthydemus, the Republic, the Timaeus, and the Laws—and various Neoplatonic writings were translated into Arabic, which Muslim philosophers made extensive use of. Among the latter, works of particular importance for their influence on Islamic thought include the Book of the Five Substances attributed to Pseudo-Empedocles, the so-called Theology of Aristotle, an excerpt from Enneads IV-VI of Plotinus, which P. Henry considers to be Plotinus’ own work, and the Book of Pure Goodness, an excerpt from Proclus’ Elements of Theology, later translated into Latin under the title Liber de causis. A distinctly Neoplatonic tendency is evident in all Muslim philosophers from Persia to Spain before Averroes (v.). ALFARANO, TIBERIO (v.), who composed a paraphrase of Plato’s Laws and also wrote—recently discovered (Klibansky, op. cit. in bibl., p. 39)—on the tendencies of Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophies. Averroes himself, who in his great commentary sought to free Aristotle’s thought from all foreign elements, not only left a paraphrase of Plato’s Republic but was also, like Themistius (v.), seduced by distinctly Platonic motifs in formulating both the thesis of the unity of the possible intellect (De anima, III, comm. 5; Destr. destruct., I, dub. 8) and that of the union with the agent intellect (De anima, III, comm. 36).

Closely related to Arabic Neoplatonism is Jewish Neoplatonism, which derives from II. Avicebron (i.e., Solomon Ibn Gabirol, 11th cent.) in his Fons vitae, which exerted a great influence on Christian scholastic thought, refers to Plato (though it may be an error instead of Plotinus) where he speaks of a spiritual matter as the subject of all created forms. But this doctrine was already disseminated by the Book of the Five Substances attributed to Pseudo-Empedocles and by Ibn Masarrah, who lived more than a century earlier in Spain. From al-Farabi also derives the Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle’s thought in Maimonides’ (v.) *Moreh Nevukhim*. Neoplatonic elements are equally evident in the Kabbalistic speculation to which Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (v.) sought initiation.

5. Latin West

At the time of the Carolingian Renaissance, among the Latins only the fragment of the Timaeus translated by Calcidius (Cicero’s translation was now almost unknown) and accompanied by his commentary was known. However, the indirect influence of Platonic, or rather Neoplatonic, thought never ceased, transmitted through the patristic heritage of Augustine and Ambrose and through translations of certain writings by the Greek Fathers. To these must be added the translations of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius (v.) by John Scotus Eriugena (v.), who also translated Gregory of Nyssa’s *De hominis opificio* and Maximus the Confessor’s (v.) *Ambigua*. The great work of Eriugena, *De divisione naturae*, is a bold and powerful synthesis of Christian thought with Neoplatonic speculation. Alongside these channels of transmission, the *De consolatione philosophiae* of Boethius (especially the meters of Book III) should not be forgotten, nor Macrobius’ commentary on the *Somnium Scipionis*, nor Apuleius’ *De deo Socratis* and *De dogmate Platonis*, nor Aulus Gellius’ *Noctes Atticae*, nor Virgil’s sixth book of the *Aeneid* with Servius’ gloss—works that continued to be read in the Christian schools of the West. It was particularly at the school associated with the Abbey of Chartres in the 12th century that the *Timaeus* was glossed several times by William of Conches (v.), who also sought to commend Macrobius. From the reading of these works and the benefit that some writers of this period derived from them in their commentaries on the first chapters of Genesis, there arose certain characteristic theories, such as that of the world soul identified with the “Spirit of God” that “moved upon the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2, according to the Hebrew text and ancient versions prior to the Vulgate). Chartres (v.), the younger brother of Bernard, whom John of Salisbury (Met., IV, 35) declares “the most perfect of Platonists,” incorporates this doctrine into a bold theory that seeks to establish a perfect correspondence, indeed, one might say identity, between the Christian Trinity and the Neoplatonic triad (the Good, Nous, and Soul or Entelechy).

Shortly after the middle of the 12th century, and precisely in 1156, two of the most important Platonic dialogues, the Meno and the Phaedo, were translated from Greek by Henry Aristippus, archdeacon of Catania. At first, however, this translation did not achieve the circulation it began to enjoy toward the end of the 13th century. Far wider diffusion was enjoyed instead by the two translations of the De natura hominis by Nemesius, made by Alfanus, bishop of Salerno, and Burgundio of Pisa, both of which were slightly later than the translation of the Phaedo. The writing of Nemesius exerted a strong Platonic influence on the scholastics of the first half of the 13th century, which was soon arrested by the predominant Aristotelianism (cf.). Certain quotations that were thought to derive directly from Plato actually originate instead from Nemesius.

Another indirect source of the scholastics’ knowledge of Plato consists in the Aristotelian writings, in which the polemic against Plato is incessant. Although St. Augustine had preserved Plato’s “ideal world” of Plato and Plotinus by locating it in God, Plato was definitively defeated in the question of the relationship between soul and body. While patristic thought had rejected Gnostic and Manichaean dualism, it nevertheless did not conceal a certain propensity for Platonic dualism, which opposed the substance of the body to the substance of the soul. In general, the Fathers seemed to recoil from the Aristotelian concept that makes the soul the act or entelechy of the body, fearing, as some declared with Plotinus, that such a doctrine implied the immortality of the soul. But the profound meaning contained in the dogma of the resurrection of the flesh prevailed, and the concept of the indissoluble unity of the human individual ultimately triumphed over the Platonic concept that makes the soul the guest or prisoner of the body. To define dogmatically Christian thought regarding the relationship between body and soul, the Aristotelian formula was adopted, which makes the soul the immediate and substantial form of the human body, against any residual dualism (cf.).

Despite this defeat of Plato, other Platonic motifs, inherited from the Augustinian tradition and from the Neoplatonizing Aristotelianism of al-Fārābī and Avicenna (cf.), continued to exercise their seduction over the minds of certain scholastics, such as the author of the Summa philosophiae, published by L. Baur (Beitr. zur Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalt. 9 [1912], pp. 275-643), St. Bonaventure, whose theory of knowledge consciously incorporates Platonic elements, and even St. Thomas Aquinas, who commented on the De divinis nominibus of the Pseudo-Dionysius and the Liber de causis, whose source he discovered in Proclus’s Elementatio theologica. Above all, however, it was St. Albert the Great, who declared (Metaph., I, tr. 5, cap. 15): “And know that man is not perfected in philosophy except through the knowledge of the two philosophies of Aristotle and Plato.” Besides many direct quotations from the Timaeus and the commentary of Calcidius, he also cites the Phaedo, the Meno, the Phaedrus, the Gorgias, the Laches, the Republic, and the Laws; but these are indirect quotations from Macrobius, Nemesius, Eustathius, or Aristotle. Nevertheless, in the De causis et processu universitatis, in his unpublished commentary on the De divinis nominibus, and in his commentaries on Aristotle, he shows that he has assimilated the entire thought of the “orange Peripateticism,” that is, the doctrines of the Neoplatonizing commentators on Aristotle, which he opposes to the interpretation of the “Latins.” A contemporary of Albert’s was his Flemish confrere William of Moerbeke (cf.), who translated part of Proclus’s commentary on the Parmenides and the Timaeus, Proclus’s Elementatio theologica (of which the Liber de causis is considered a free excerpt or abridgment), as well as the three short treatises by Proclus, also on De providentia et fato et eo quod in nobis, De decem dubitationibus circa providentiam, and De malorum subsistentia; and further, the paraphrase of Themistius on the De anima, the commentary of Simplicius on the De caelo, and an important fragment of Philoponus on the third book of the De anima.

All this new literature, strictly Neoplatonic, was utilized by the group of German Dominicans who may be said to have continued the work of Albert the Great, namely Ulrich Engelbert of Strasbourg (cf.), Theodoric of Freiberg (cf.), Berthold of Moosburg (cf.), and Meister Eckhart (cf.). Theodoric in particular made extensive use of Proclus’s Elementatio, of which Berthold left a lengthy commentary preserved in a Vatican manuscript and in a codex of Balliol College, Oxford. In Eckhart, Plato reaches the dizzying heights of Parmenidean thought. The influence of these thinkers profoundly affected later German thought: Johannes Tauler and Heinrich Seuse clearly bear the imprint of Eckhart’s teaching; Denis the Carthusian, also called Denis Ryckel, who as a young man professed Thomism, increasingly oriented himself toward the Platonic current of Albertism; and Nicholas of Cusa had likewise read Berthold of Moosburg’s commentary on Proclus’s Elementatio.

Another thinker who utilized the new Neoplatonic literature in the translations of William of Moerbeke was his compatriot and friend Henry Bate of Mechelen, author of the Speculum divinorum et quorundam naturalium, divided into 23 parts, of which only two have thus far been published. Bate’s purpose is to demonstrate the agreement between Aristotle and Plato; and he does this in the 4th, 8th, and 12th parts of his great work, which in many respects anticipates by a century and a half Ficino’s Theologia platonica. Around the middle of the 15th century, Bate’s Speculum, transcribed for Pope Nicholas V, entered the Vatican Library, where it is still to be found, and from there Pico della Mirandola borrowed it, having a copy made that figured in his own library.

C. Baeumker, Der Platonismus im MA. etc., ibid., XXV, 1-2, ibid. 1928, pp. 139-93; M. Grabmann, Die Proclusübersetzungen d. W. V. Moerbeke u. ihre Wertung in d. latein. Litt., in Mittellat. Geistesleben, II, Munich 1936, pp. 413-23; R. Klibansky, The continuity of the platonic tradition during the middle ages, London [1950]; T. Gregory, L’« anima mundi» nella filosofia dell’arte, XII, in Giorn. crit. della filosofia it., 30 (1951), pp. 494-508; E. Garin, Contributi alla storia del p. medievale, in Ann. d. Scuola norm. sup. di Pisa, 20 (1951), pp. 58-97.

### III. THE PHILOSOPHY OF PLATO IN THE RENAISSANCE

What distinguishes the philosophy of Plato in the classical Renaissance from that of Henry Bate is the direct knowledge of all the dialogues of Plato, the *Enneads* of Plotinus, and numerous other Neoplatonic writings. Dante mentions the *Timaeus*, but it is highly doubtful that he had read it; and to explain the influence that certain great Platonic concepts undoubtedly exerted on his thought, the writings of Albert the Great, well known to him, would suffice. Petrarch (q.v.), on the other hand, not only knew the Latin *Timaeus* and Calcidius’s commentary but also possessed a copy of the *Phaedo* and perhaps also of the *Meno* translated by Henry Aristippus (the copy of the *Phaedo* owned by him, derived from the exemplar bequeathed to the Sorbonne by Gérard d’Abbeville [q.v.], is now part of ms. lat. 6567 A of the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, and bears his marginal annotations; it had previously belonged to Jacopo Finucci da Castel Fiorentino). But Petrarch attests to having procured also a considerable number of Greek manuscripts of Plato. The list of “seccimi” in the year 1359, f. 28a, certainly includes the dialogues “in latinum versos aliquot nunquam alibi visos”; but even excluding these, the number of Greek manuscripts was still substantial for the time. However, Petrarch, who had set out to study Greek in order to understand Plato, did not make much progress in the language. Nor did he possess an adequate philosophical preparation to penetrate Plato’s world. He was therefore limited to a rather general knowledge of it, derived largely from Cicero, Apuleius, and Augustine (q.v.), but sufficient for him, who never faced true speculative problems and was rather tormented by moral unease. Thus, even the shift in admiration from Aristotle to Plato in *The Triumph of Fame* does not carry the philosophical significance often attributed to it but is rather an expression of a dilettante’s sympathy.

Nevertheless, Petrarch’s example provided an impetus for the study of Plato when Greek manuscripts of his works began to flow into Italy and humanists had learned Greek. A pupil of Chrysoloras (q.v.), Guarino followed his teacher to Constantinople, where he remained for five years. Among the manuscripts he brought back, five were of Plato. Manuscripts of Plato were also brought back from Constantinople by Giovanni Aurispa (q.v.) and Rinuccio da Castiglione in the third decade of the 15th century; Antonio Cassarino, around 1438, brought back a large volume that seems to have contained all the Platonic dialogues. Other manuscripts continued to arrive from the East even later, brought by Greek scholars fleeing before the advance of the Turks, and alongside Plato’s works, Neoplatonizing commentaries on Aristotle (Themistius, Philoponus, Simplicius, Priscian of Lydia, etc.) and the works of the major Neoplatonists (Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus [q.v.]) also flowed in. Translations followed the arrival of the manuscripts. Leonardo Bruni (q.v.) mentions a rough anonymous translation of the *Republic*; to this was added another in 1402 by Chrysoloras himself, too literal and inelegant in Latin. Umberto Decembrio, his pupil in Pavia, attempted to revise it, but only his son, Pier Candido, completed it after 1437. A few years later, Cassarino’s translation appeared. Meanwhile, Bruni translated the *Phaedo* (1405), the *Gorgias* (1409), the *Phaedrus*, the *Apology* (1424), the *Crito*, the *Letters* (1423–27), and part of the *Symposium* (1435). Later, Cencio de’ Rustici translated the *Axiochus*, Filelfo the *Euthyphro*, Pier Candido Decembrio the *Lysis*, Rinuccio Aretino the *Crito*, Lorenzo Lippi the *Ion*, Poliziano part of the *Lysis*, and George of Trebizond the *Laws*, dedicating the translation to Martin V, and the *Epinomis*. But the glory of having elegantly translated into Latin all of Plato and a great number of Neoplatonic writings belongs to Marsilio Ficino (q.v.).

The translations were followed by heated debates on the interpretation of Platonic thought and its relationship to dominant Aristotelianism and Christianity. These discussions were greatly enriched by some Byzantine Platonists who came to Italy. First among them was George Gemistos Plethon (q.v.). Before coming to Florence for the Council that was to address the cessation of the Greek schism, he had attempted in the Peloponnese, from which he came, a great social, philosophical, and religious reform that was to renew ancient Hellenic culture reconciled with Christianity through Platonism. Interpreting ancient myths in a philosophical sense, as Plato and even more the Neoplatonists had done, he believed that the gods of Homer and Hesiod could still find a place in a renewed Christianity as the religion of all humanity. In Florence, he did not find many who agreed with him; but the enthusiasm he kindled in the mind of Cosimo the Elder and many learned Florentines for the philosophy of the “divine Plato” spread from Florence throughout Europe.

In the bitter polemic that George of Trebizond waged against the “Gennist,” the cardinal Bessarion (q.v.), a former pupil of Plethon, intervened with a more measured spirit and, in his work *In calumniatorem Platonis*, outlined the main line of a moderate interpretation of Plato, generally followed by the greatest representative of Florentine Platonism, namely Ficino.

An excellent translator but a mediocre critic, Ficino nevertheless understood Plato as the “Atticizing Moses,” as he had appeared to Numenius (q.v.), and while through the *Corpus Hermeticum* he traced Platonic theology back to the wisdom of the Mosaic books, through St. Augustine he presented it as an anticipation of Christian theology. Far more original and daring than Ficino’s is the Platonism of G. Pico della Mirandola (q.v.), who attempted a reconciliation of Plato and Aristotle, and thus of Platonism with Christianity, from a higher standpoint, ascending to the One in which all differences of being are implicated and annulled. From Ficino’s school, along with others, is usually derived the Augustinian Giles of Viterbo (q.v.), who dared to undertake a commentary on the *Sentences* “ad mentem Platonis,” still largely unpublished, on which the author began work in the early 1500s, only to abandon it shortly after 1512. But while he starts from Ficino, he often ventures into the boldness of Pico, without, however, equaling him. Curious in this work is the use of pagan myths interpreted philosophically. The example, both in Giles and in Pico, came from Gemistos Plethon. In this regard, it should be noted that, largely under the impulse of this Greek Platonist, mythology was rehabilitated in the thought of the scholars of the classical Renaissance, and the old demonological and Euhemerist interpretations were replaced by the theory that the gods of Greco-Roman religion were seen as personifications of naturalistic and philosophical concepts. Thus, the ancient deities could find a place, if not precisely in Christian churches, as Plethon would have wished, at least in the poetic and literary world, remaining there peacefully until the age of Romanticism and beyond.

From the *Symposium* of Plato, commented on by Ficino, sprang numerous dissertations and scholarly works on love that might be said to revive the poetic discussions of the poets of the *stil novo*; so much so that the canzone *Donna me prega* by Guido Cavalcanti was once again recalled, discussed, and interpreted. The ripest fruits on this subject are undoubtedly the discourse of Bembo (q.v.) at the end of *The Courtier* by Baldassare Castiglione (q.v.) and the *Dialoghi d’amore* of Judah Abarbanel, known as Leone Ebreo. The doctrine developed in this work is framed within a broad cosmic vision, whose unity is formed by love, which binds all things together and is the principle of their development and elevation to union with God.

Having entered Renaissance culture, even the most recalcitrant Aristotelians could not escape the influence of Platonism, which was immediately felt through the commentaries of Themistius, Philoponus, and Simplicius. Pomponazzi (v.), who among the Aristotelians was perhaps the furthest removed from the spirit of the new humanistic and Platonic culture, had read all of Plato—whether in good or bad translations—and once, in commenting in 1513 on Book 3 of the Physics (loc. cit., c. 31), he even went so far as to defend his criticism of Aristotle: “In hoc mentitur (Aristoteles) attribuendo haec Platoni; quoniam ego vidi Platonem; non est verbum quod dicat ea quae sibi imponit Aristoteles” (Arezzo, Fraternità dei Laici, cod. 389, f. 34r; cf. Bibliothèque nationale de Paris, cod. lat. 6533, f. 3r). The most notable aspect, however, was not so much the diatribes over the superiority of Plato and Aristotle as the attempts to reconcile them. On this point, PICCOLOMINI, FAMIGLIA (v.), a Paduan Aristotelian, is characteristic: in his Universa philosophia de moribus (Venice 1583, bk. 3, ch. 20, 23), he warns his contemporaries not to distort the true thought of the two philosophers with forced and hybrid interpretations, but rather to seek harmony in the way each complements the other. He was probably thinking of the depiction of the two philosophers in Raphael’s School of Athens. The rapprochement between Aristotelianism and Platonism in the Renaissance was greatly advanced by Simplicius’s commentary on the De anima, inspired by Iamblichus. Used by G. Pico NIO (v.) and others, it was adopted by Marcantonio Genua (v.), a Paduan Aristotelian, and his disciples. With Genua, the most rigid form of Aristotelianism, such as averroism (v.), began to be challenged and absorbed into Platonic philosophy. A characteristic example is that of M. A. Mocenigo. A disciple of Genua, in 1559 Mocenigo presented himself for a public disputation for the doctorate at Padua on a significant number of Paradoxa theoremataque, among which were notable ones in which the fundamental theses were conceived in the spirit of Simplicius’s commentary. Ten years later, in his De transitu hominis ad Deum (Venice 1569), his averroism had completely dissolved into Platonism.

Among the Platonists of the 16th century, PATRIARCHI (v.) of Cherso deserves mention. Having succeeded Antonio Montecatino at the University of Ferrara, who had planned a major work on the harmony of Aristotle and Plato and had expounded the Republic, Patrizi—who knew all Neoplatonic literature, from the Chaldean Oracles to Proclus’s Elements of Theology and the so-called Theologia Aristotelis—attempted in his Nova de universis philosophia (Ferrara 1591) to organize Platonic thought systematically in order to oppose the Aristotelian system, which was already in decline. However acute he was, he lacked the impetus of a G. Pico or a Leone Ebreo.

After him, the spirit of Platonism continued to permeate modern philosophy, from Bruno and Spinoza to Descartes and Berkeley (Locke’s empiricism is a tight coat against the innatism of Platonism renewed by the Cambridge school), from Malebranche and Schelling to Rosmini and Gioberti; but it was a spirit now freed from the letter, while philologists had to labor to disentangle Plato’s genuine thought from later accretions.