Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T01:06:18.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Florentine Platonism and its Relations with Humanism and Scholasticism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Paul Oskar Kristeller
Paul Oskar Kristeller
Affiliation:
Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The early humanism in Italy from the second half of the fourteenth to the middle of the fifteenth century, characterized by the discovery and revival of classical antiquity, was at the same time the first expression of modern ideals and feelings. Although it was in several points closely connected with the preceding age, it produced a lively reaction against the medieval civilization and its form of philosophical and scientific thought, scholasticism. Petrarch, the father of humanism, began the polemics against scholasticism which have remained since then a commonplace in the writings of his followers: according to him the scholastics wasted their time in subtle and useless disputations without resolving the basic questions of human life; their unpolished Latin style was a consequence of their barbarous thought; they could not be compared with the great writers and thinkers of classical antiquity whom they were not able to read or imitate; and even their chief authority, Aristotle, in many respects must be considered inferior to his greater master, Plato.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1939 , pp. 201 - 211
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1939

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Voigt-Lehnerdt, , Die Wiederbelebung des Klassischen Altertums (Berlin 1893). II, 451 ff.Google Scholar

2 In the case of Ugo Benzi this statement will be confirmed by new researches of D. P. Lockwood.

3 Opera (Basileae, 1561), 944Google Scholar. Cf. my essay “La posizione storica di Marsilio Ficino,” Civilta Moderna (1933), 438–440.Google Scholar

4 Cf. Garin, Eugenio, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (Florence, 1937).Google Scholar

5 Dorez, L.-Thuasne, L., Pic de la Mirandole en France (Paris, 1897).Google Scholar

6 Pico's letter to Ermolao is found in his Opera (Venice, 1498)Google Scholar, VIIIv-VI. The same letter with Ermolao's preceding letter and answer is printed in Poliziano, 's Opera (Lugduni, 1550), I, 252 ff.Google Scholar

7 Op. cit., 252; cf. 268 ff.Google Scholar

8 Melanchthon, , Elementa Rhetorices (Vitebergae, 1561), 187 ff.Google Scholar

9 An edition of Ermolao's letters and of his tract de coelibatu is now prepared for the first time by Vittore Branca.

10 Saitta, G., La filosofia di Marsilio Ficino (Messina, 1923).Google Scholar

11 Toffanin, G., Storia dell'umanesimo (Naples, 1933), 216 ff.Google Scholar

12 Anagnine, E., Pico delle Mirandola (Bari, 1937)Google Scholar; Garin, op. cit.

13 Supplementum Ficinianum (Florentiae, 1937), II., 204.Google Scholar

14 Cf. my essay, “La teoria dell'appetito naturale in Marsilio Fieino,” in Giornale critico della filosofia italiana (1937), 234 ff.Google Scholar

15 Supplementum Ficinianum, II, 6.Google Scholar

16 Op. cit., II, 322.

17 f. 12v (hoc vero in novem predicamenta ut supra dictum est dividitur) refers to f. 2v.

18 For these catalogues, cf. Suppl. Fic., I, 1–4.Google Scholar

19 Caponsacchi and the anonymous biographer mention certain “dubbi intorno alla visione,” dedicated by young Ficino to his friend Antonio Serafleo; cf. Suppl. Fic., I., CLXII–CLXIII.Google Scholar

20 Torre, A. Della, Storia dell' Aceademia Plantonica di Firenze (Florence, 1902), 507ff.Google Scholar

21 Suppl. Fic., ibid.

22 Anima est actus substantialis 〈corporis〉 physici organici potentia vitam hdbentis, (f. 12). Cf. Aristotle, , de anima, II, 1, 412a19.Google Scholar

23 Metaphysics, XII, 2 ff.Google Scholar

24 ff. 34–34v.

25 f. 7v.

26 f. 22.

27 Quod est contra Aristotelem, f. 35v.

28 For instance, Dubitatur utrum lux in sole sit virtus activa necne et arguitur primo quod non, f. 23.Google Scholar

29 The Timaeus was translated by Chaleidius, Phaedo and Phaedrus by Leonardo Bruni; cf. Baron, Hans, Leonardo Brunt Aretino humanistisch-philosophische Schriften (Leipzig-Berlin, 1928)Google Scholar; a complete bibliography of humanistic translations of Plato before Fieino is prepared by Ludwig Bertalot.

30 Proculus in sua theologica declaratione, f. 39Google Scholar. For the translation, cf. Pelzer, A., in De Wulf, M., Histoire de la philosophie medievale (Louvain-Paris, 1936), II, ed. 6, 48.Google Scholar

31 Platonis auctoritas que quidem maxima est omnium, f. 16.Google Scholar

32 Plato et Aristoteles idem fere sentiunt, f. 12Google Scholar; Platonem seqwi nunyuam amplius formidantes ae eitam Aristoteli inherentes, f. 17.Google Scholar

33 ff. 12 ff.

34 ff. 14v–15.

35 ff. 9 ff.; cf. Opera (Basileae, 1561), 349.Google Scholar

36 Theol. Plat., II, 13; IV, 1; XIII, 3.Google Scholar

37 ff. 31–31v; cf. Opera, 324.Google Scholar

38 Bulletin Internationale de l'Académie Polonaise de sciences et lettres (1932), 18ff. (1933), 35ff.Google Scholar

39 Civilta Moderna (1938), 282 f.Google Scholar

40 Science and Thought in the Fifteenth Century (New York, 1929), 161 ff.; and 308 ff.Google Scholar

41 Mancini, A., in Bollettino storico pisano (1932), I, 33 ff.Google Scholar; Giov. Gard. Mercati, Codici latini Pico Grimani Pio (Studie e testi, 75, Città del Vaticano. 1938). 98 ff. and 274 ff.Google Scholar

42 Moeneh, Walter, Die italienische Platonrenaissance und ihre Bedeutung fuer Frankreichs Literatur und Geistesgeschichte (Berlin, 1936)Google Scholar; Robb, Nesca A., Neoplatonism of the Italian Renaissance (London, 1935).Google Scholar