L'homme Et Son Univers Aumoyen Äge

PHILOSOPHES MEDIEVAUX ------TOME XXVII ----- _

L'HOMME ET SON UNIVERS AUMOYEN ÄGE

Actes du septieme congres international de philosophie medievale (30 aoüt - 4 septembre 1982)

edites par Christian WEN IN 11

LOUVAIN-LA-NEUVE

EDITIONS DE L'INSTITUT SUPERIEUR DE PHILOSOPHIE 1986 FREDERICK PURNELL, JR.

HENRY OF GHENT AS MEDIEVAL PLATONIST IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF JACOPO MAZZONI

The connections between Renaissance Platonism and medieval Scholasticism have been the object of ongoing scholarly interest for many years. Attention has focused, for example, upon the extent to which medieval Augustinianism provided a paradigm for the Christianized Neoplatonism expounded by Marsilio Ficino and his associates in the Florentine Academyt '). Less attention has been paid to the influence of medieval sources on later Renaissance Platonists, many of whom developed philosophical positions which differed quite notably from those of Ficino and his circle. The present paper will examine the way in which Jacopo Mazzoni of Cesena (1548-98), a philosopher who sought to combine elements of both Platonism and Aristotelianism in his own system, relied for his interpretation of several important Platonic doctrines on the writings of the thirteenth-century secular master of arts and theology at Paris, Henry of Ghent. Jacopo Mazzoni has largely escaped the attentions of modern historians of philosophy, although he was an important figure in his own day. His facility in philosophy, first demonstrated in his student days at the University of Padua under the celebrated Aristotelians Federigo Pendasio and Jacopo Zabarella, was augmented by an insatiable appetite for independent study and a capacious memory. At the height of his powers during the last decade of his life Mazzoni held chairs in philosophy successively at the Universities of Macerata, Pisa and Rome, commanding an unprecedented salary at the latter institution as the successor to Francesco Patrizi. Like Patrizi, Mazzoni enjoys the distinc- tion of having been one of the very few philosophers during the Renaissance to depart from the thoroughgoing Aristotelianism which dominated the curriculum in Italian universities by developing lecture

(1) Cf. P. o. KRISTELLER, The Scholastic Background of Marsi/io Ficino, in Traditio, 11 (1944), pp. 257-318, reprinted in his Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, Rome, 1956, pp. 35-97; IDEM, Floremine Platonism and Its Relations with Humanism and Scholasticism, in Church History, VIII (1939), pp. 201-211; IDEM, 11pensiero filosofico di Marsilio Ficino, Florence, 1953; R. KLlBANSKY, The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages, London, 1938. 566 FREDERICK PURNEll. JR. courses on Plato in addition to incorporating Platonic doctrines into his own philosophical works. In spite of this his writings have never aroused interest equal to those of Patrizi or his more notorious platonizing contemporary, Giordano Bruno. Indeed he has only been fortunate enough to receive some slight illumination from the spotlight which historians of science have focused on his young admirer and colleague at Pisa, Galileo Galilei. This is unfortunate, for his extant philosophical works reveal a thinker of broad interests, wide reading, and often acute critical insight e). .Mazzoni's employment of Henry of Ghent as a Platonic authority is of course not unique among Renaissance philosophers. Ficino himself had noted that Henry's philosophical teachings were redolent of Platonism, although he does not seem to have used him extensively as a sourcet '). Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, on the other hand, cited Henry frequently in his writings together with a great many other scholastic sources, while his nephew, Gianfrancesco Pico, was influenced by the skeptical implications of Henry's theory of illumination (4). To Mazzoni, however, the Doctor Solemnis came to occupy a level of particular importance as «the only one among all the Scholastics who merits the name of a true Platonistxt"). Mazzoni's heaviest dependence on Henry of Ghent is revealed in his principal philosophical work, In universam Platonis et Aristotelis philosophiam praeludia (1597). Intended as a general introduction to philosophy. the Praeludia takes the form of a comparison of the views of Plato

(') Still essential for Mazzoni's life and works is P. SERASSI,La vit~ di Jacopo Ma:zoni: patrizio cesenate, Rome, 1790. See also my Jacopo Mazzoni as a Student of Philosophy at Padua, in Quaderni per la storia dell'Universitä di Padova, VII (1974), pp. 17-26, with fuller biographical references. On his philosophical influence, see G. ROSSI,Jacopo Mazzoni e l'eclettismo filosofico nel Rinascimento, in Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei, classe di scienze morali, s. V, 11 (1893), pp. 163-183; F. PuRNEll, Jr., Jacopo Mazzoni and Galileo, in Physis, XIV (1972), pp. 273-294; P. ~AlLUZZI, 11«platonismo» del tardo Cinquecento e la filosofia di Galileo, in P. ZAMBElll, ed., Ricerche sulla cultura dell'Italia moderna, Bari, 1973, pp. 39-79. I am preparing a monograph on Mazzoni's philosophical works. e) « ... Henrici Gandavensis, Avicennae Scotique multa Platonem redolent». M. FICINO,Opera omnia, Basle, 1576, I, p. 899. Cf. P.O. KRISTEllER, Scholastic Background, in his Studies ... (op. Cil.), 40n. (4) On Giovanni Pico, cf. ibid.; also P. O. KRISTEllER, Giovanni Pico del/a Mirando/~ and His Sources, in L'opera e if pensiero di Giovanni Pico del/a Mirandola nella storia dell'umanesimo, Florence, 1965, I, pp. 35-133. On Gianfrancesco Pico, cf. C. B. SCHMITT" Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus and Gianfrancesco Pico on Illumination. in Mediaeval Studies. XXV (1963), pp. 231-258.. , . ('). «Henricus ergo Gandavensis, qui inter omnes Scholasticos solus veri Platonici nomen meretur ... ». J. MAZZONI, In universam Platonis et Aristotelis philosophiam praeludia, sive de comparatione Platonis et Aristotelis liber primus, Venice, 1597, p.73. HENRY OF GHENT AND JACOPO MAZZONI 567 and Aristotle on a wide range of philosophical issues. It thus represents a contribution to a well-defined genre of philosophical writing with roots traceable .to classical antiquity, a genre which enjoyed a renewed popularity during the Renaissance. The problem of establishing the extent of agreement between the systems of the two greatest Greek thinkers exercised a fascination for Mazzoni throughout his career. His first major philosophical work, De trip/id hominum vita ... methodi tres, was a massive compilation of 5197 theses covering a host of philosophical, scientific and theological issues and drawing upon his extensive readings in ancient, medieval and early modern sourcesi"). Clearly patterned after the famous Conclusiones of Giovanni Pico, the work served as the basis for a public disputation at Bologna in 1577. And like Pico, Mazzoni in De trip/ici hominum vita strove to demonstrate that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were in fundamental agreement. In the course of discussing the active and contemplative «methods» of life, Mazzoni singled out 221 issues on which the views of Plato and Aristotle can be rendered concordant. ' The two decades which separate De triplici hominum vita from the Praeludia saw Mazzoni develop a more critical awareness of the irre- duceable differences between the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. When he returned to the topic in the later work, he expressed regret at the reconciling excesses of his youth. The outlook which dominates his approach in the Praeludia is that although there be not many issues concerning which the chiefs of the philosophers dissent, ... nonetheless they do disagree in some matters, and their disagreement is such that from it, as from an Empedoclean strife, there arises practically the entire universe of philosophic trutht").

(6) J. MAZZONI, De trip/ici hominum vita, activa nempe, contemp/ativa et religiosa methodi tres, quaestionibus quinque mil/ibus centum et nonaginta septem distinctae, in quibus omnes Platonis et Aristotelis, multae vera aliorum Graecorum, Arabum et Latinorum in universo scientiarum orbe discordiae componuntur. Quae omnia publice disputanda Romae proposuit anno salutis M DLXXVI, Cesena, 1576. Some copies were issued with a different title-page the following year, noting the change from Rome to Bologna for the public defense. (') «Et nos etiam in nostro aetatis flore, calore quodam iuvenili audaciores ac par esset, in nostris thesibus utriusque philosophi concordiam disputandum [read: disputandam] proposuimus. Sed nunc cum iam iIIe calor deferbuerit, quam cuperemus siluisse! Nam etsi non multa sint in quibus philosophorum coriphaei dissentiant .... discrepant tarnen in aliquibus, atque iIIorum dissidium est tale, ut ex eo, quasi ex discordia quad am Empedoclea, universus pene philosophicae veritatis orbis oriatur», MAZZONI, Praeludia, f.2. 568 FREDERICK PURI'ELL. JR.

It is thus incumbent upon the philosopher to examine the teachings of Plato and Aristotle on different questions, and to compare, contrast and adjudicate between their positions when they disagree. It was in elucidat- ing the true teachings of Plato that Mazzoni found in Henry of Ghent a particularly valuable source. Let us examine briefly two important instances in the Praeludia in which Henry's influence is brought to bear. Mazzoni's initial employment of Henry in the Praeludia is as a source for skeptical arguments against the possibility of knowledge. In an attempt to simplify his presentation of the skeptical position, Mazzoni notes that Henry reduced skeptical arguments to three general headings (capita), those based on the nature of objects, on that of the soul, and on that of the species or notion (species sive notio) in the soult"), The reference, of course, is to the famous opening of Henry's Summa quaestionum ordinariarum in which he discusses the possibility of man's acquiring certain knowledge by natural means, presenting as he does so many of the traditional skeptical arguments of antiquity, drawing heavily upon Augustine's Contra Academicos and the Academica of Cicero. Mazzoni refers to the same passage again a few pages later, when he praises Henry's treatment of the error which arises from mistaking appearances (visa) for objects, a traditional skeptical examplet"). Skepticism was an issue which Mazzoni took 'seriously throughout his career. The early De triplici hominum vita contains a discussion of the views of the ancient skeptics, and Mazzoni also included an extensive digression on skepticism in his famous vernacular treatise Difesa della Comedia di Dante, the first volume of which appeared in print in 1587eO). Although Henry is not mentioned as a source for skepticism in

(8) Ibid., p. 73. Compare HENRYOF GHENT.Summa quaestionum ordinariarum, Paris, 1520; reprint. St. Bonaventure, N.Y., 1953. art. I. quo 2. f. 5": «Sed quod per tale exemplar acquisitum in nobis habeatur certa omnino et infallibilis notitia veritatis, hoc omnino est impossibile triplici ratione, quarum prima sumitur ex parte rei de qua exemplar huiusmodi abstractum est. secunda ex parte animae in qua huiusmodi exemplar susceptum est, tertia ex parte ipsius exemplaris quod a re in anima susceptum est». Mazzoni adds two further categories of his own: the authority of «nearly ail» the ancient philosophers, whom the skeptics thought agreed with their own position. and the obvious disagreement among the different groups of dogmatists. (9) «Praeterea alio etiam modo visa fallere possunt, quando nempe se ut obiectum offerunt, quod somniantibus, furiosis, ebriis, interdum etiam sapientibus et sanis accidere solet. Quam rem egregie tractarunt Henricus eodem in loco et Cic. in secundo Academico, multis poetarum auctoritatibus instructus». MAZZONI,Praeludia, p. 78. The reference is to Summa, art. I, quo 2. (10). See especially De trip/ici hominum vita, ff. ("-3"; 137-144"; 239-239"; J. MAZZONI. Della difesä della Comedia di Dante, Cesena, IS87, pp.202-206. I intend to discuss these passages fully in an article on Mazzoni's treatment of skepticism. HENRY Of GHENT AND JACOPO MAZZONI 569

the former work, the Difesa makes reference to the same passage in the Summa for the same reasons and in much the same language as we find employed later on in the Praeludia. The Difesa citation is important, however, because it reveals clearly that Mazzoni viewed Henry as accepting the skeptical arguments put forward in the Summa, that he felt those arguments had not been successfully refuted by later thinkers, including Scotus, and that he believed the position of the Academic skeptics may well have been close to that of Plato himself( 11). Given the central importance accorded to the problem of knowledge in Henry's Summa, it is not surprizing that a Renaissance thinker like Mazzoni who took skepticism seriously should find him an important source. Indeed, his use of Henry in this context reminds one of 2 Gianfrancesco Picoe ). But Mazzoni's dependence upon Henry as a guide to understanding Plato's theory of knowledge was not limited to his elucidation of the skeptics' claims. It had a positive side as well. Henry's account of divine illumination forms a major element in Mazzoni's treatment of Plato's epistemology. The discussion of Plato's theory of knowledge in the Praeludia emphasizes the points of agreement and disagreement with the views of Aristotle. A principal concern is to demonstrate that both philosophies provide a suitable basis for avoiding the snares of the skeptics. Accordingly, after treating Aristotle's account of how the soul acquires intelligible knowledge Mazzoni turns his attention to Plato's view. At the very outset he notes that he will follow St. Augustine in his explication of Plato and utilize the analogy of the Sun which Plato and Aristotle employed in Republic, VI and De anima, Ill. The analysis of the role of divine illumination which then follows is largely a pastiche of excerpts from and paraphrases of Henry of Ghent's Summa, I, quo 3, with few significant departures from Henry's text when he is working from it. . '

(") «Diro di piu, ehe forse Platone istesso non fu lontano dal parere di quest a Academia [seil. dubbiosa], E fra li Theologi Scholastici ve n'ha uno di molto grido, ehe e Arrigo di Gante, iI quale prova l'opinione di questi Philosophi, e per la potenza dell' intelletto nostro, atto a ricevere in se tanto iI vero quanto il falso, e per gli oggetti materiali di sua natura corruttibili emutabili e per la incertezza delle specie, c'hora sono oggetti, come ne' sogni, hora stromenti de gli oggetti, come nella vigilia. Ed in questo proposito forma le sue ragioni di tanta efficacia, e di tanto spirito, eh' anchora non ha trovato dottore ehe le habbia solute a pieno, con tutto ehe il sottilissimo Scoto si sia faticato assai per riprovarle. Ma di questo ragionaremo a pieno ne' Prolegomeni de' Commentari di Platone». MAZZONI,Della difesa, p. 205. The commentaries on Plato were never published and are apparently lost. (Il) See the article by SCHMITI cited above, as well as his Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola (1469-1533) and his Critique of Aristotle, The Hague, 1967. 570 FREDERICK PURNElL, JR.

Following Henry closely, Mazzoni notes that three things are required for seeing, and each has its parallel in intellection. First, light (lux) must illumine the eye to arouse it. Unless light activates the power of sight lying dormant in the eye no color can be seen. Light must enter the eye not directly, but obliquely, having first encountered color, in order to exhibit color to the percipient. By entering the eye directly it would only show itself. Second, the species of color is required so as to alter the eye for seeing. It enters the eye directly, not obliquely. Lastly, the figuration or character of the colored body is required to enable the eye to discern the differences between colored objectsf+'). Corresponding to these, there are three things required from intelligible, separate substance, that is, God Himself, if there is to be intellectual vision. First, spiritual light must illumine the mind's eye to arouse its sight. Like corporeal light, spiritual light must operate not directly but obliquely, first diffusing itself above the species of things and then reflecting from there into the mind so as to arouse the intellect. In so doing it reveals other things to us, not itself. Just as Aristotle stated that color moves sight according to the act of light, so any intelligible thing moves the mind's sight by means of its species according to the act of spiritual light. And just as corporeal light entering the eye dispels the darkness therein, so divine light «ejects the clouds of depraved affections and purges the blemish of phantasmsnt-"). Second, intelligible light constitutes the ratio of knowing (ratio eo- gnitionis) as the form or species altering the intellect for contemplating.

(13) «Dico itaque quod ad perfectam visionem tria requiruntur. Primum est lux iIIuminans oculum ad acuendum, secundum species coloris immutans eum ad intuendum, tertium figuratio determinans eum ad discernendum». Praeludia, p. 117. The lengthy analysis which follows is borrowed from Henry's Summa, art. I. qu. 3; ed. cit., ff. 9-10. ' (14) (His tribus secundum Platonem respondent tria in visione intellectuali ex parte substantiae intelligibilis et abiunctae vel, ut planius dicam, ipsius Dei. Primum enim est lux spiritualis oculum mentis iIIuminans ad visum eius acuendum. Est tarnen advertendum quod ista lux intelligibilis ex Platonis opinione pro syncera rerum veritate illuminat men tern non directo aspectu - tunc enim se ipsam manifestaret - sed quasi obliquo ... Hoc autem modo illuminat secundum communem huius vitae statum ad cognoscendam sinceram veritatem, primo difTundendo se super species rerum et ab iIIis reflexe in men tern ad acuendum intellect urn. Atque ita, sicut color est motivum visus secundum actum lucis corporalis, sic res quaelibet intelligibilis per suam speciem est motivum visus mentis ad sincerae veritatis cognitionem secundum actum lucidi spiritualis. Et sicut lux primo ingrediens oculum tenebras et nebulas in eo insitasexpellit, sic divina lux in mente nebulas pravarum affectionum eiicit et labern phantasmaturn purgat», Praeludia, p. 117. Compare Henry, Summa, f. 9. The references to Plato do not occur in Henry. It is noteworthy that in this and the passages which follow Mazzoni consistently modifies Henry's explicit references to God as the source of illumination. Thus Mazzoni's equivocating phrase (ex parte substantiae intelligibilis et abiunctae vel, ut planius dicam, ipsius Dei» replaces Henry's straightforward «ex parte dei, ,qui est ratio operans actum intelligendi».: HENRY OF GHENT AND JACOPO MAZZONI 571

By itself such a form or species provides only indistinct knowledge, just as a species of color impresses upon sight a form lacking the determi- nation of figure. According to the Platonists, Mazzoni contends, such awareness (notitia) does not contribute distinct knowledge, but merely orders and forms indistinct mental concepts (conceptus) for knowing the truths of thinga('"). Finally, intelligible light acts as «an exemplar and character transfiguring the mind for understanding distinctly». Borrowing from Henry, this is accomplished «by reason of the eternal rules (regulae) contained in the divine art, which so to speak exemplify (exemplanr) all the conditions and circumstances of things, like certain exemplary figures indicating all their angles and curves». The truth of anything consists in its having whatever its exemplar represents it as having, and a thing is false insofar as it falls short of the image of its exemplar( 16). Still following Henry, Mazzoni concludes:

And therefore the nearest and perfect basis (ratio) for knowing the sincere truth of anything with a perfect, distinct and determinate knowledge, according to Plato, is intelligible light itself insofar as it communicates to us the art of God Omnipotent, which art is filled with all living reasons (rationes), as St. Augustine also says in the last chapter of De Trinitate, VI(17) . .The explicit identification of the above doctrine as Plato's view is Mazzoni's, not Henry's. What Mazzoni has done, therefore, is to have taken over in wholesale fashion important elements of Henry of Ghent's

(15) «Secundo modo lux intelligibilis est ratio cognitionis ut for~a et species mentem immutans ad intuendum, quae tarnen forma imprimit ad modum indistinctae cognitionis eo modo quo species coloris actu visibilis a luee reddita in visum imprimit formam sine figurae determinatione. Unde sic nullam tribuit distinctam cognitionem rei quia talis notitia, secundum Platonicos, est ut ratio disponens et formans indistinctos conceptus mentis ad cognoseendas rerum veritates». Praeludia, p. 117. Comp. Summa, f. 10. Mazzoni has substituted

Queens Collegeand the Graduate Center,' City University of New York.

eS) I plan to discuss Mazzoni's account of rationes or mathemata in my monograph and to examine his main Platonic sources in a separate article. For Henry's illumination doctrine, see especially J. V. BROWN,Divine Illumination in Henry of Ghent, in Recherehes de theologie ancienne et medievale, XLI (1974), pp. 177-199; IDEM, Intellect and Kno .....ing in Henry ofGhent, in Tijdschrift voor filosofie, XXXVII (1975), pp. 490-512, 692-710. (19) Cf. SCHMITT, Henry of Ghent, Duns Scotus and Gianfrancesco Pico. p.256. eO) Two further passages deserve mention. On p. 216 Mazzoni cites Henry together with Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Giles of Rome and Durand of Saint-Pourcain as holding with the Platonists that the operations of participated intellects are measured by discrete time. The passage cited is Henry's Quodlibeta, I, quo 23.0n pp. 224-225 several lengthy quotations from Quodlibeta, IV concerning the community of goods are adduced in an attempt to explain Plato's advocacy of the community of women in the Republic.