Georgius Gemistus Pletho's Criticism of Plato and Aristotle

MASTER NE T^TVE NO 91 ^ 2-16 MICROFILMED 1991

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK

as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project"

Funded by the NAUON.AL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

.«A,. ..Jti. M. makin reproductions of copyrighted material...

Library reserves the right to r

', in its judgement, fulfflhnent on of the copyright law. AUTHOR mmmmm- R,JO LSON

M. i i i .-' »-^ • o

-satr GIU TUS

I PI ft r I— i HO'S SM.. PLACE: SHA

F :t 19 Master Negative #

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT

BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARCF.T

Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record

wmtmmmgK f 182 G284 Taylor, John Wilson .«• Georgius Gemiatus Pletho*s criticisn of Plato and Aristotle, A dissertation ... by John Wilson Taylor. Menasha, Wis.; Banta, l^fl. vii|100 p. 24 cm.

Thesis (Ph.D.), Chicago.

Restrictions on Use: '

"techT^icXl'mTcrofornTdaI^^

FILM SlZE:___y2. REDUCTION RATIO: [V^ IMAGE PLACEMENT: IN ^aF IB IID /7i/ DATE FILMED: ^ILLlKv INITIALS___^^[Sr_ HLMEDBY: RESEARCI^Pb?DLICATIONS. INC WOODDRlbGE. CT r

Association for Information and Image Management

1100 Wayne Avenue. Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202

Centimeter 14 15 mm 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 iliiiiliiiiliiii iiliiiiliiiilii uiluuiuuk iiliiiiliiiilii ''i"|'|"['|"h"|";'|

fH I I I m

Inches Z8 2.5 1.0 g" 12 1^ 2.2 la^ |7I

14.0 2.0

I.I

1.8

1.25 1.4 .6

MRNUFRCTURED TO OHM STRNDRRDS BY RPPLIED IMRGE, INC. 0} 'm- <-?*^

'nf^mM "ran-,*!* s.^ Uf^. W:^^ Jl. tttroWHt^t'

m •:pfi^.v ^if- t/^ S-i

tiii' i >:^^ w^- :h. my. vA

ni'i.ii ^'l

irmt''^

!'1 m1 im m yii m « i:m ',/.(

»1]1I

::!»;iii

'iii'l: ,i,i[i, ^^ f-iJ"^^ III «-^ ^^

^ ^ ^;-^.< ^hiy^^. :>^1VA

-&>- y i^«—^c S'.. *\,

«. ^\^^ - 4i I 1

THE ^ V » I 5 LIBRARIES ^

f'ry Of * GENERAL LIBRARY Univ. Ei^c *••'*'

JBi^e HnittrrBttg of CKitraso NOV 2S 1921

Georgius Gemistus Pletho's Criticism of Plato and Aristotle

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY LITERATURE OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK

BY JOHN WILSON TAYLOR

GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY MENASHA. WIS.

' * <""f-'.'i. , * ,1 \92\

Wilt Ittta^rfliltg nf Qlljirago

Georgius Gemistus Pletho's Criticism of Plato and Aristotle

A DISSERTATION 'I- SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF GREEK

^ BY JOHN WILSON TAYLOR ''A

GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY MENASHA, WIS.

1921 F

TABLE OF CONTENTS I Page Bibliographical abbreviations v

Preface vii

I. Biography 1

II. Downfall of the Byzantine Empire in Pletho's life- time 3

III. Pletho's place in the revival of Platonism 6

IV. Tracts from which Pletho's criticism of Plato and Aristotle is derived and his attitude toward the two philosophers 20

His attitude toward Plato 26

His attitude toward Aristotle 29

V Sources of Pletho's judgments regarding Plato and Aristotle 31 I I % VT Pletho's Criticism of Plato and Aristotle 38

Ontology 4u I" ihrry of Ideas 48 i Teleology 55

Determinism 58

Creation of the heavens 63

." I III mortality of the soul 72 )!.X It hies 76 logic and other subjects 80

Appendix 83

The purpose of Pletho's Laws 8 i

Interpretation of the system of deities described in the Laws 92

Sources from which the names of the deities were derived 96

Index of important names iUU m

i M

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

The following books and articles are quoted in this work in abbreviated form:

A. Alexandre, PUthon: Traits des Lois. Paris, 1858.

Aristotle. Berlin edition. Separate works abbreviated in the usual way. The commentators are also referred to by the Berlin editions.

Aristides. Teubner edition.

Bandinius. Bibliotheca Laurentiana. Florence, 1764.

Bessarion. Bessarionis Opera Varia. Aldine edition. Venice, 1516.

BoiviN. In Mimoires de litterature, HHs des registres de Vacadimie royale des L inscriptions et belles lettres. II, 712 ff. Paris, 1736. Burnet. Greek Philosophy, Part /, Thales to Plato. London, 1914.

Cl. p. Classical Philology.

Damascius. Duhitationes et Solutiones. Edited by Ruelle, Paris, 1889. i EuSEBlus. Praeparatio Evangelica. Teubner edition.

1804. " Fabricius. Bibliotheca Graeca. Edited by Harles. Hamburg,

Gaspary. Zur Chronologie des Streites der Griechen iiber Platon und Aristoteles im 15. Jahrhundert in the ArchivfUr Geschichte der Philosophie III, 50 5.

G., ltd. Lit. Gaspary, Geschichte der italienischen IJterafur. Vol. I. Berlin, 1885 and vol. II, Strassburg, 1888.

Gass. Gennadius und Pletho. Breslau, 1844.

Hacke. Dc Bessarione. Harlem, 1840.

Hettner Italienische Studien. Braunschweig, 1879.

HoDius. De Graecis Illustribus Linguae Graecae . . . Instauratoribus. London, 1742. Edited by S. Jebb.

J IT S. Journal of Hellenic Studies,

Legrand. BiUiographie hellenique des XV^ et XVP siecles. Paris, 1885.

M. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca. Paris. 1866, \olume 160. Other volumes are referred to by their numbers, as .M. 122.

Philoponus. De Aetemitate Mundi. Teubner edition. Other worl:=^ are referred to by the Berlin editions.

Plato. Works are abbreviated in the usual way.

Plutarch Moralia. Teubner edition. V Prantl. Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande. Leipzig, 1855. P&ocLUS. In Timaeum and In Rem Publicam. Teubner edition. '^ H VI BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATTONS

PSELLUS O. D. De Omnifaria Doctrina in M. 122, 688 A fif., in M. 122, 784 B flf. Sol. Quaed. SoluHones Quaedam Quaestionum Naturdium References in these two works are to sections. R E. G. Revue des itudes griques. U PREFACE 1908. Sandys. History of Classical Scholarship. Cambridge, to analyze and estimate Gemistus Pk tl 10 s 1874. This study is an attempt SCH., SCHiLTZF. Fnilosophie der Renaissance, I. Jena, criticism of Plato and Aristotle. Gass and Schvotze lia\"e already of Chicago Decennial Publi- Shore Y Tn^^ Vnilv / P/ if 'r Thought. University written on hi> philosophic tliought but they made no attempt to cation-, 1 *>().>. determine the -oiirces used in the tract- regarding Plato and Aris- Geschichte der SiLiN /).r Humaniii Gjza als Philosoph in the Archiv fUr totle and they dealt with the content of the tracts in such a summary FiiUi^iOphu:, II, 420 tl, fashion as to leave an impression which does an injustice to Pletho's Nc-.v York, Symonds. Rtnaissatu.': m ItJ). Part ii, The Revival of Learning. understanding of the ancient philosophers. It is hoped that suf- 188S. ficient reason has been adduced in this monograph for a revision of TiRABO^CHi, Storid dflla lett^ratura Ttdi:in,i. Florence, 1^05. this impression. 1^02. Siorid deiraicadanid pliunicadi Fifuz.'. Florence, ToRRK, Della. Pletho's quotations of, and references to, passages of Plato and I'^Ol. Ueberweg. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie .. Berlin, Aristotle have been, with few exceptions, referred by means of foot-

Vast. Le Cardinal Bessarion. Paris, 1H78. notes to the original passages. About one fifth of these had already 1870. although most of his references proved on Valentinelli. Bibliothecd manuscripta ad S. Marci Venclidrum. Venice, been identified by Gass, examination to be inapposite. The others have been transferred to VoiGHT. Die Wiederbelebungdes cldssischen AlteriHms. Berlin, IS9S. the pagination of Stephanus for Plato and to that of the Prussian Whittaker. The Neo-Pldtonists. Cambridge, 1918. (second edition.) Academy edition for Aristotle. Where possible, also, with a view to Porphyrins: De Philosophia ex ordculis haurienda. Berlin, 1856. Wolff. throwing light on Pletho's sources, passages have been cited from 1889. Zeller. Die Philosophie der Griechen. Leipzig, later philosophic writers to whom Pletho was indebted. The suggestion of the subject of this work is due to Professor Paul Shorey, to whom the author wishes to express his thanks also for the many valuable ideas and criticisms for which he is indebted to him. ,<>

I t

(I '

CHAPTER I Biography

Very few details are known of the life of Georgius Gemistus. His

birth is put conjecturally in the year 1355 by Schultze/ since, dying in 1450, he was said by Georgius Trapezuntius to have lived almost one hundred years.^ Gennadius stated that in his youth Gemistus fled from his native land, Byzantium, and lived at the Turkish court, where he became intimate with the Jew, Elissaios.^ Alexandre's conjecture, followed by Schultze, as to the chronology of his depar- (% ture and return remains a mere guess.^ It is certain, however, that he lived in the Peloponnese many years before 1427, when the Prince of the Peloponnese gave him a castle and land at Phanarion, of which the document of conveyance has been preserved.^ It was during these years that he was the teacher of Bessarion, who retained through-

out his life the deepest respect for him.^ Two letters from his hand written during this period on the defense and reformation of the Peloponnese have come down to us, one to Theodore and the other to the Emperor Emanuel.^ In two panegyrics delivered at his i death he is said to have been a judge. ^ In 1728 the emperor, John VI, consulted Gemistus, during a visit to the Peloponnese, as to his opinion regarding the union of the Eastern and Western Churches, and

1 P. 24. » Comparatio inter Platonem et Aristotelem (Venice, 1523), next to last I ^. chapter. ' M. 639 B. * Schultze, pp. 30, 31. ' Schultze, p. 61. is be put in Syropou- • Vast (p. 35) has demonstrated how little credence to in the Peloponnese. los's statement that Bessarion studied for twenty one years the year ' Schultze, pp. 39, 41. Delia Torre (p. 429) refers the latter epistle to 1412 on the ground that a time when peace had at last been concluded with the Otto- mans would seem to Pletho an especially suitable time for carrying out his re- objection forms. 1413 might perhaps better be suggested (Cf. p. 5). There is no Cf. Draseke: to supposing Gemistus to have been in the Peloponnese so early. 105. Plethons und Bessarions Denkschriften usw. in Neue Jahrhucher, XXVII, In Georgios Gemistos Plethon, Zeitschriftfur Kirchengeschichie, XIX, 273, Draseke gives 1415 as their date. 8 M. 808 C, 817 A, B. PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

eastern and western the advice he gave, to insist that the votes of the II selection CHAPTER delegations should have equal weight, probably led to his Eastern Church at the Life-time ten years later to be a representative from the Downfall of the Byzantine Empire in Pletho's the union and his Council of Ferrara. His hostile attitude toward spanned the last century of the independence the Council are Pletho's life almost association with scholars in Italy while attending While marauding bands of Turks began the name of the Byzantine Empire. discussed at length by Schultze.^ There too he adopted the coast as early as 1326 and better organized meaning, like to make raids on Pletho in addition to Georgius Gemistus, Pletho their way inland to plunder and carry off slaves, Plato. Return- bodies soon made Gemistus, 'full' and being reminiscent of his master, a decade before Pletho's birth that the first after a short yet it was only about ing to the Peloponnese in 1440, he resided there until, regular army under the orders of the Turkish ruler set foot in Europe, ^^^ Fifteen years later a Venetian general, illness, he died in 1450. the Otto- and, in 1356, approximately the year of Pletho's nativity, transferred his remains from Sparta Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta, conquest mans seized Tzympe near Gallipoli, thereby beginning the Franciscus at Rimini. ^^ to the church of St. before the cap- of the country. Pletho lived until 1450, three years knowledge of Pletho's life finds some com- The meagerness of our wit- of Constantinople by the sultan Mohammed II. He thus our information about his thought. ture pensation in the greater fullness of the nessed throughout his life the slow but irresistible advance of and political reformer,!'^ and for For historians he was a daring social Empire.^ Osman power as it crushed and supplanted the Greek philosophers he stood as the first figure in the revival of Platonism in The Mohammedan conquest was rendered much easier of ac- mediaeval Europe. ^^ A proper understanding of his thought and complishment by the civil wars within the Byzantine state and by survey of the political and intel- writings, therefore, requires a brief forbade an the fidelity of the Greeks to their religious creed which lectual conditions of his age. effective alliance with the Roman Church. came on the invi- The first regular Turkish army to enter Europe » Pp. 59 ff. with the disease was Cantacuzene, who disputed the imperial throne '0 Battagia, quoted by Vast (p. 27, n. 2) reports that the fatal tation of Paleologus. Anna, brought on by an excessive devotion to the study of mathematics. Schultze Empress Anna, acting for her young son, John the date of his death. Driiseke in called in the Ser- (pp. 106, 107) has the credit for determining having failed to enlist the support of the Turks, rejection of Kirchengeschichte XIX, 290, n. 1 gives no reason for his daughter to the ZeitschriJtfUr bians, while Cantacuzene, by the betrothal of his the evidence adduced by Schultze. gained an en- Sultan, gained the aid of the Ottomans. Having once '' Schultze, pp. 108, 109; Symonds, p. 210, n. 1. the Turks plundered Serb and Greek alike and re- '2 Opinions of Fallmerayer and of Finlay are quoted by Schultze, p. 47, n. 3; trance, however, in H. S. and numerous slaves. This Cf. Gibbon (ed. Smith) VIII, 115 and Tozer, A Byzantine Reformer, J. turned home with enormous booty in following which the VII, 353 ff. regrettable invitation became a precedent '3 Prantl, IV, 155; Stein, on Pletho as a social philosopher con- Ueberweg, III, 13; Turks, championing one side or the other in the numerous civil in Archiv fur Gesch. der Phil. X, 171. of Byzantium flicts of the Greeks, shortly reduced the independence to a mere shadow. » The unprovoked attack on and capture of Tzympe in 1356 was cities of Thrace. In 1361 the first step in the conquest of the coast

des follows is based on Zinkeisen, Geschichte » The historical sketch which Gibbon's Decline and Fall of osmanischen Retches in Europa (Hamburg, 1840) and the Roman Empire. PLETHO S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 4 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE the country under him. In the next year he negotiated a treaty of

it with the Greek Empire and handed over to it the ambitious and energetic Murad I took Adrianople and made friendship Thessaly, the Peloponnese and the fortified places on the Black Sea the seat of his court in Europe, whither the young p:mperor John and the PaleoU)gus often resorted as a mark of his homage to the Sultan. Propontis. The Greeks improved this period of peace by making some preparation for the inevitable renewal of hostilities. wall The ruler of Serbia in 1371 acknowledged the Turkish overlordship, A the of Corinth to protect which was given the seal of permanency in 13S0. In that year the was built across Isthmus the Peloponnese, the advice of Gemistus Pletho. But the hopeless Scrliians, aided by the Bulgarians, revolted an.--ova from which they nex'er recovered until moflern times. such defenses as were prepared became evident when, in 1423, successor, II, laid seige to Aiihouiih Murad was killed in the battle, he liad m the sultan Bajazet Mohammed's Murad Byzantium and broke through the wall at Corinth to plunder once again the Pelo- a -accessor even more eneriiftir than he had been. ponnesian Peninsula. Greek Emperor was able to rid Bajazet deman arrival, he held a- a \-irtiial ho-taê to ensure the de- Throughout the following year the last desperate attempt was struction of certain defen-e> whiih were in |u-ocess of construction made to secure aid from the West. The Emperor obtained a dele- abuul Constantinople. Manuel, in 1.3'U, heariim of tlie sieatli of his gation of prominent Greeks who were willing to go with him to father which occurred in tiiat vear, ocape*! and ha«i himself made negotiate a doctrinal compromise with Rome in order to obtain help emperor. Thi^ so angered the Sultan that he proceeded to lay waste against the Turk. The delegation, of which Pletho was a member, the empire from Idirace to the wall> of Constantinople. An obsequi- sitting in conference with the Roman representatives at Ferrara and ous (,,reek bishop led tlie Turki.di troops in IMX) through Thermopyle Florence in 1438 and 1439, arrived at a basis of union for the Eastern bv '.va\- t)f vvhich they [)oured int..) central Greece and ravaged the and Western Churches. But as the Eastern Church refused to rat- Peloponnese the following year. Mi)re disastrous than the fall of ify such a heretical proceeding, the help which should have come from Triermopyle was the xactury won b\- the Turk> in the >ame year at Rome was withheld. Constantinople could do nothing but await Nicopolis. Sigismund, the king of Hungary, finding trie arm- of the its doom. The Turks spread over the empire in conquest and in 1453 Turk already at his border, collecte.l an armv. and, with the helj) of the warlike Mohammed 11 undertook to reduce the city. After a the French, marched again-l Bajazet. The Sultan met the l-Airopean brave defense it fell and bowed to the voke of the Ottoman in a ser- arniic- at Nicopolis and, in a de-[:>erate pitched lâttle, intlicted on vitude which was to last for many centuries. triem a crushing defeat. The victorirai> Iûrks proceeded to reduce the I cit\- !)Ut the emperor defieri them and. hy \artue of tlie timely aid of

a Genoese tleet, succeeded for a time in balking their etTorts. But

in 14U2 Bajazet was on the |)oint of -ucce>< wlien he found his i)wn territorv beset by a still more l^arbarous chieftain. Tamour, the

leader e)f the Moguls. The Sultan hastened to meet liim l)Ut was defeated and captured in the l.Kitile ui Angora. Idiiis the Moguls

ma\' lie said to have pre-erved the life uf the Byzantme Empire for

an o tiler half century. Fijrtunately for Europe, Tamour, ha\-ing established himself in Smyrna, conceived and forthwith proceeded to execute tlie daring project of conquerinu China. Tin> left dTirke\- unmolested from without but within she wa.s te)rn by ci\al wars between tiie sons of Bajazet, until, in 1412, the |)acihc monarch Ab^hammed 1 united )

PLETHO'S criticism OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 7

cal iiieur\- oi Aristotle. His pupil Arethas wrote annotations on Plato. Tn li)18 Pseilus wa> borUj wdio later became iiead of a newdy CilAPTER III founded Academy of Constantinople. Unlike Photius he favored^ Pletho's Place in the Revival of Platonism Plato rather than Aristotle and so is said to have made himself liable to a charge of heresy. His compendia of learning and work on The scholastic philosophv, takin- its rise in the West from Boeth- the soul contain many comparisons of the doctrines of the two philos- in iu-'- tranMaiir»n of Porphyry^ Isagoge, found its best exponent ophers. John Italus succeeded him as head of the Academy. He TlinnKi- Aquinas, who so far succeeded in reconciling the doctrines as wxll as two other pupils of Pseilus, Michael of Ephesus and for two oi trie ciiurch witii ihc phii.>ûpliic Liiuuirlit •! Ari'^totle that, Eustratius of Nicea, wrote commentaries on various works of Aris- ca-nturif^ altur he wrote, an attack on Ari^lulic was con^^lrucd as totle, an example followed wdth indifferent merit by Theodore tM/iilcncf of ho>tiUt\- to t!u/ ciiurcii, Hv ihi> rt'Cfniciliation Chri-tian- Ptuchoprodrumus and Leo Magentinus. John Mauropus was pro- itv ::ai!u*'i tlu' |)owaT that ti^nir- fr*-ni the possession of a self-con-rious fessor of philosophy at Constantinople for a short time but left no philosopln- and a -y>tcriian(; ornanon of formal logic. Xf\-ertheless, philosophical writings. Tzetzes and Anna Comnena are said to have awc;iknf>- wa- iiivoha-d m liu- laci uuit liic pagan philosopher, not know^n something of Platonism and Aristotelianism. In the first wt'aj)on^, br'HiL! -aiTo->anct, wa- Ua!m,.' ?.> a>-ault- h\- riis own dialectical half of the thirteenth century Nicephorus Blemmydes wTOte a man- *.f (diri-t ianily. a---a.Uit> tlicsuccc>> of wliadi in\-t)!\a'd aparlial di-cnolit ual L)i logic and physics, which is a well organized summiary of Aris- wiu-t her such it anmuntc-d totlu'samt- ihirm.in theeyesoi t lieorthodox, totle's opinion on a large number of subjects that fall under these rclinatn Arn^totle's a^âui' )i k thi' form nf an indriicndtnt a,ri general heads. i,ncnni|)ati!)ilit \" with Chri-tian- doctrines or a drnmri-^traiion î^^-\\nv an cxai t knowledge of his tlnon/lit for a regarding Aristotle and the church, in a work, Trept dv ApiaTOTeXrjs irpos (.1iri-t ianity,. 01 ilie prtwauin^ \at'W;^ reizardnm it> agrt'enirna, waili TWcLTocva otav4p€Tat,^ written in Florence in 1439 while the author was Of iirmuer inifHirtanee wa- tlie pnwailing ignorance eajncernmg an\" attending the Council of Ferrara, he pointed out that Aristotle, as thinker of eijua! [)ower and orii:inaiit\- witli wlnjni Ari-totlc miiihl compared with Plato, was so far from agreeing with the church that i'f to knowri !)e eontra-ted. But when tfie w-ork- A.'|uinas h-eiran. be some of his doctrines might lay him open to the charge of inclining tile KaM. 1,)V tran-kiii familiar with the writings of Platn. to the untrammelled investigation which characterized the European The periiid wdien Greek culture and philo-npliy may be said to Enlightenment .' He occupies a unique place between the modern and ha\-e lieen extinguished in the H\-zantine Kmpire is at most about the ancient world. He looked back to ancient Greece and hoped to tiiree ceiiturie>. Dama-ciu- liail trie melanclnM\' Imn^-r of being the make Plato a living force in his nation and by his attempt he stirred ih'-ed by la-t liead etf the p!iilo>op!ucal -ciioui al Athen-.. whieh wa- up a debate which in turn aroused an interest in Platonism that bore edict of Ju-tinian in 51^^ a. in hut a1read\- in ^J^^ IMiouu- wa,- iirow- ol learning. in^.^ UD and wa^ to he the principal mrure in a revavai 1 The tract i> printed in M. 889 A li. It vviii be referred to under the abbre- in --art dealt with the Ingi- He wrote a work, liie Amphiloihia, whim viated Latin title. De Dijfercntia. * Ueberweg, lii, 5. AND ARISTOTLE pletho's criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 9 8 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO

dealing in detail with Teccpylov rod SxoXaptou dvTtX#cts/^ made public abundant fruit after his death.' Before vTT^p *ApL(TTOTe\ovs give a brief outline ^jij \^q discussed fully below. Pletho's criticism of Plato and Aristotle we shall about 1448/3 as the result of his tract debate was taken up by other scholars and carried on lor of the course of the debate which arose The existence of twenty additional tracts written in Florence. more than twenty years. The works of Geormii- SLliulanu, a^ the translator of some of the in the controversy can be established.^*

^ orthodox wrote a letter to Pletho in Aquina- into Greek wa? the natural defender of the 1. i'rubably iii 1440 or 1441 Bessarion

l-|i)(i ,\. D. at Byzantium. Fur the opinions of commentators un Plato who did position. Sciiolariii- 'v\'a> :;nrri ;ii.K,ai' which he adduced was regarding determin- ails I in 1438 hisinliuence iK)i the views as Pletho had expressed some \-t"ar> he acted as Inirn/na lu.i; hold same nuMiiber-hip the delegation from tiie ism, the creation of the heavens and the nature of being. He also > Iuti: m ( i j :airi fur ^ uUi 1 [•darara. There he worked for the passage from the Republic to show that Plato was com- Eastern Kiiunre to the (daiiM, i; .a quoted a of the church of the freedom of the will. This letter was consumniaii'-.'ri ot tb.e uni-,sn between Liic Lwu branches niiiled to the doctrine the doctrinal com- specific answer to Pletho's tract, De DiJJerentia. It contained and was ent 'U •d vvilh the la4; o f drawing ud not a In 1448 questions at issue in a more tech- promise on the basis of which the union should be effected.'"^ no reference to it and treated the took the name Gennadius, by which nical way. It discussed also the terms, 'subsistence' (t'Troo-radts) and he entered a na n i lere and year after the fall of Constanti- 'participation' (/xe^ejts), which were not mentioned in Pletho's work. he is generally knuwin Within a years later in the Peloponnese until 1433 after which nople he was made patriarch of the city, but retired two Siiice Bessarion was a student doctrinal subjects^ and occupied with negotiations leading up to the to a monastery. He wrote voluminously on until 1438 he was until 1440 in Italy, literature,^ having 1 iin- of Ferrara and was with Pletho again was acquainted witli (rf. t k philosophical Council Plotinus in the realm of letter was probably written shortly after Plethos return to self written a wurk reconcilii- Aristotle and the based on discussions which took place between them ethics.^ Greece and was ^ „ , , ^^ Gennadius's reply to Pletho, entitled Kara tu)p ll\rido)vos airopiO^v ctt in Florence. establishing that in a letter which gives evidence of the greatest 'Apt

» Pldhon, in Zeitschrifl fur KirchengeschichU Ci. lirj>eke, Geof^m^ Gemistos stated conjecturally as 1440. selbsf^tiindige Neuplatoniker und fur das Abend- XiX, 268: riithon), dtr Ictzte Bessarion wrote to Pletho a second time, asking for the authority der gefturtc i:rru'urer des Platonismus. land the statements contained in his reply, and Pletho Ente ei Essentia and on which he made * TransUations from the L.iliii of Thomas Aquinas's De accompanied by a few remarks libros De Ani>-.i are attributed to Scholar- obliged him with the information, hi^ txpo.iuo L\ 7 / m; in Aristotelis ius by Fabricius, XI. >')i. collected. Aristotelis, » Schultze, 92, 2 and the authorities there " M. 979 1) il. To be cited as In Scholarii Defensionem

•SchJt/c, p. 69. " Schultze, p. 104 7 of. Fabric. XT, 369 and M. 285 C fif. I .,r a list of his writings, Schultze, and ^* For the bibliography on the history of the debate cf. p. 90 •M. 63^^ C. Bandinius, De Vita etc., in M. Stein, p. 427, n. 2. To these lists should be added • C. Fabric. XI, 392 and M. 310 i.; Pranti, IV, 155 f., Gas^ 161, xli u.; Hacke, pp. 57 flf.; Symonds, pp. 208, 247 Aristotelis Defensio or the »c «)70 ;T. ^'his traa, '.viU m: n ferred to as :m {) II, f. pary, pp. SO ff.; Legrand, I, xxxvi f, and Sandys, 74 whit h it is described in the title of ^ on ihi Aor(i^ by /), /J ,, Aristotle, based ^ Printed with a very imperfect text in }vL 101. 71,^ 1.) il. :t are quoted by Pletho. M-au mentions an pitth. - reply. 1 r^int nts of !blri^. whose promised publica- i«M. 161. 717 B fif. edition oi the'ur-^t i)art bv Minoidt> Myna> 1858) his death (bf, Mb 1213, n. (1). »^ tion oi th.'he -e.,:v)rib,^f..a)Md iKinpart wa.\s a^ preventedi.rcvented by Pp. 60-62.

il). XaXVI I.

I i .

10 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 11 /

on the interpretation of Plato.^^ Since these two letters are not in the ^ A manuscript of a tract of Gaza is found in several libraries,^* Migne^^ gave this as the nature of polemics, they have not been counted in the debate. bearing the title 6tl ij had maiicaously abcribed to Gaza.^^ a Platonist while Gaza was note on it: 'Iheodori dazai- 1 1 nmiai Ina: de anima, de voluntario probable by the fact that Bessarion was to argue a position appar- et involuntario. dfiinitiniu.'.-^ ei fick'n-n •[;!'- iDiiira FMiihonem/^^ It is a defender of Aristotle and hence unlikely noting the difficulty probable from ihis iKac ihat ihc work i- an answer rjiher to the letter ently in eontradiction wiili Arislotle.^-"^ Migne, giving reasons, that the ui I'kliuj mcntituifii ahu\-e '.r to i'iuiriu"^ oriirinal irav't, Dc Dijjeren- raised l)y Hodius, surmised, Irat without ^ioeXtetrat. difficulty and sugges- tiaP The IctttT, to whicli the tract wa- pr^shalilx- a reply, discussed title should t)e dn i] ifvats oi The ;'''' and Stein, who has determinism niaiiih- in it- iitanaif ^n tht ^'nedom ui the will and the tinii were igni>red, however, l)y Gaspary of it, gave the title as possibiUty of independtnt moral choice iii the soul. It should be evid(iitlv seen the nKtnuscripi or a copy ^ovXeveTai.^^ There is reason, placed It' if iiiiii lie--arion's first letter, -iiici it contains the following i-abrieiiis originally had, on i) -arion'^ letter a defense oi idaio, since, while arguing pression employed for the same idea a few 'consultatio' as the operation of the for tile frrodoni tij rhe wild ti;e \iew vdiich wa- in general favor, Bes- sidtat.' Gaza had defined and unknown end, • : of that position; in reirarri to the attainment i*f an uncertain sarioi i ted Plato'- A't/'/d/a (17 e^Mn support ninel also uncertain. Now this is precisely the in other a. rd, he showed tr it Piato held the correct view, thus de- the means to which were Gennadius in his Anstoiclis fending hm. aoifainst his false micipreters. inter[)retatie.fi given to iSovXeveadai by to es- Defensio and opposed L-y Pietho in liis reply.^^ Gaza tried »« Cf. p. 63. Pletho's letter is printed in M. 161, 721 C ff., but Bessarion's consultat' taldi^^h in a very similar manner the proposition diat ura non appear - in nave been lost. Like the former or, in tlie Greek form, on i] y-eoas oi fioeXeuerat. was tr\ing to reconcile Aristotle's statement '- fkibricius X, 395. defender of Aristotle he

-' case of nature, he ,M^ loi, a:i. with the orthodox Christian doctrine. In the

« Stein, p. 45 ^ n ().\ at end suggests that this may be the tract by Aeneas Gaza, entitled De A Kim^i mi noted by Fabricius I, 690 as a work on the immor- " is correct, Stein, {). 450, n. 54. tality of the soul an 1 th.e re urr oun a he body. If his suggestion "M, led. 971. trii no'..r of the ireit x tiuutcd at u . c can scarcely have been derived from a perusal " Fabricius does not list it with the works of Gaza. oi ttic manuscript, '1 PP. 78 ff. '' :-a!.-in, 45.,^, n. Ol. « Cf. p. 15, n. 62 below. "Phys. 199!);-« ** Ga->[Mr\" ?\.. n 2. II. 1>9. 2« **Ital. Lit. t ,t nnadius's tract, in which he tried to show that AristoUe agreed with his ^ IV 450. n. 5-L -, Aristotle. ectlco : a vic^^ was called by Pletnu a Jcfense of ^^ * el, p. 57 below. .' i' ' ^v 1 . 1 J i o V a 1 ,

12 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND AEISTOTLE pletho's criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 13

treatise called held, both the end and the means are defined and known, hence 6. Probably in the same year Bessarion wrote a fore-knowl- kpidTOTtKr] irepl ovcrlas*^ (In reply to Pletho's nature acts not with ' consultatio^ but with ^prudentia' or irpbs TO. U\r]dQ)vos irpbs Consistently with his atti- edge. Now the circumstance that, on the one hand, Bessarion criticism of Aristotle's theory of being.) he gives this as the opening tract in this phase of the debate and on the tude of mediation between the partisans of Plato and Aristotle, other that Stein asserts the content of the extant Greek tract to in- concluded that the two philosophers had the same meaning but dicate that it was the first polemic in the dispute^^ points strongly to expressed it in different words.'*® tract on Aristotle's the conclusion that Bessarion was giving the substance of this extant 7. About the same time Gaza also wrote a vwep 'KpiarortKovi}'^ tract of Gaza*s. If this is so and Bessarion did not entirely miss the theory of being, bearing the title irpos UXrjduiva This tract does not seem >> meaning of Gaza's words, the title which the manuscript evidently {A defense of Aristotle in reply to Pletho.) it may iiave been, in bears is not a correct index to its content. to have been an answer to Bessarion, althougli opposed to Pletho. 4 This work of Gaza, quoted by Bessarion, was written as a reply some respects, a corrective to it. Both tract? were the conclusion to a section of Pletho's Pf Diferentia.^^ As indicated above, it fol- Gaza represented himself in a hardly lowed the argument o! 1 nnadius so closely as to be virtually a ui the debate, as given by believe that the assumption tition of it.^^ The iciLcr ended with a request that Bessarion give reached by Bessarion. There is reason to that Gaza was an his opinion on the matter in dispute. made throughout the recent liistory of the debate, Stein adduced good reason for believing that this letter could not opponent of Bessarion, should be somewhat modified.'*^ either tract is antedate 1458.'*° Bessarion, writing in 1468, said that it was written Since we have as yet no published evuience"^^ that uncertam. nuiriy years before.'*^ Since Bessarion, to whom it was addressed, an answer to the oiher,, the order of their appearance is but Gaspary^^ was in Germany during the latter part of 1459 and throughout 1460,*2 Stein^^^ assigned Gaza's tract to the year 1463 or 1464, already answered by a it follows that the letter must be put in 1458-9 or a short time after proxed this incorrect by showing thai ii was letter from 1400. tract of Apostolius, which in turn had called forth a ^ Bessarion replied to Gaza in a short tract synopsized in the 1469 Bessarion, dated May 1'^. \-\t^l, virlp KpLGrorekov-. edition of his works."^ He defined the terms of the debate and held 8. The tract of Apostolius was entitled Trpos rds avTL\l^^ptLs{?)^^ The char- that, rightly understood, Plato and Aristotle were not so far apart TTtpl ov(Tios Kara ll\r]do)vos GeoSwpou rod Ta^rj in their opinions as they seemed. His conclusion was that nature *5 Stein, p. 45vi, n. 62. plans or i irposes, not by her own mind, but by the universal « Ibid. mind which stands over her and directs her.'*^ It must be referred *' Ibid. the part, is to a time at most a few months after Gaza's letter. *8 Gaza concluded that Aristotle, in regard to the whole and This brings Gaza liaio . really in agreement with Pletho, (who was arguing for criticized Pletho " P. 450, n. 54. into virtual agreement with Bessarion. Bessarion opposed and " Gaza. If the latter, as a Bessarion, |>. 108 v. on several occasions (cf. pp. 14 and 01 iI.) just as did 3* this must be under- If the reasoning in the text is correct, there would seem to be insufficient defender of Aristotle, called Bessarion a parti^un of Idato, strictures on Pletho, ground for Stein's warm praise of Gaza (p. 429). stood as due to the comparative mildness of Bessarion in his *o 44' rather a corrective Stein the Platonist. Bessarion's tract, moreover, (no. 5 above) is below, ' - - It as no. 17 > . I described ) 18 i t r H n r. to Gaza's than an answer to it. Finally, Gaza's tract, *^ Fkindinius. ,M. 1 (il. \xxii. was written by the request of Bessarion and m his defense. cites 4;. i ..,, ,r s, but Lir iii i xxxvi Stein, imply that this tract was the De Natura *» occasioned Gaza 1, and p. 450, Stein (p. 453, n. 62) says that Bessarion's tract

1. that the title page of Bessarion's 1 r/ 1 his is disj)rov however, by the fact no evidence. 14()^; edition, as reprodiu t

! that v» ' 'rk wa^ in answer tvj rapezuntius, not Gaza. 61 P. 51. »• 15'^. Ci. b. I^'M. Li^. II, " Legrand I, Ixvi. PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 15 14 PLETHO*S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

monk Hesaias (Esaias) wrote to Trapezuntius, probably it elicited from 12. The of it may be known from the rebuke which actcr him how he would defend Taking up after reading his attack on Plato, and asked Besârion," of whom Apostolius was a young protege. coniradicting himself. The evidence for the spoke of the Aristotle when found the gauntlet for Pletho, the author vilified Gaza and Trapezuntius's reply to it. quoted l)y Bes- in routent iA this letter is ignorance shown by Aristotle, yet without advancing arguments r. (pagination sarion in Book VI of his Opera Varia,^ lid v. and 111 contenri(>ri- li wa> f^robably written in 1460 or 1461, siir:port of his sent for the 1516 edition). Probably along with this letter Hesaias aut-r it- l\" from in> ^jwn pen. the titU' m tract. The dating of the letter will be discussed in Muhdfium A fu-:ti'inimd^ to Bessarion's IS gi\'(ai a^ Defenuo Theodori Gazac advfrsu^^ connection with that of the reply of Trapezuntius. Be^sari!*n wrote a cunirnendainry leiter m reply. '"^ whieii i.au.ain<'(i, pretended to believe that the tract of Bessarion a-idia-^êd 13. Trapezuntius hi)we\"tr, niucli !e^^ extrax-airant pâiê than a -iniihir ieiler of Gaza. his was to which lie now rephed came from the pen 1 bv NichoIali^ Secundus.^' to AndronicLi- patron/'^ doubtless to avoid giving oitence to his distinguished 10. Bes-an^'n wrote a leiier of rtd,.iike to Apostolius which was not noted bv Migne, 161, 757, number 28 as of Unless the manuscript, so much a reasoned treatiM/ar-a U-cture oî rht; arrogant impudence tract by Trapezuntius not elsewhere nut Contra Theodorum Gazam, is a \'eejnu man wlm would u>e of Ari-ioik; kinstuaeê that did a Trapezuntius, otherwise de- mentioned, it refers to this reply of become even (,emi-tu> Pietho to enudov. ddu-. ei'fei i u,au.v ;îienced number 37,^^ as a letter to the monk Hesaias liim-rlf. scribed by Migne, loc, c//,, uncompromi-in«j ûpportrr ...i idaio. (w«-e|a Idelho the (ad\- Agat). The tract entitled tl y-vat^ ôvXevei at [Uinsm Xaiiira Consilio Ti;e h-;ier wa^ dated Mav 1'), M^>2.^8 was mentioned by Boivm/^ Bandinius^^^ and Hacke,«« all of whom a[)|H-ared in Latin a w.ad: ]>v Georpiu- TraprzuntillS, 11. In 146I''* more recent accounts placed it before the tract of Apostolius, while ' nitfr PLilontm ft Ari.ioifin>i ' It was a bitter entithoi C'lmpardtio Hesaias which of the debate have omitted it as well as the letter of invewiv./ atramî hHcii Plato and, Pkahr.. airanwi ihe former as a later than 1464, since it was its occasion.^^ It must, however, be put ai:ain>: \hv h,ittrr a.- an infidel. Some corruiaor of >ocieiv and latine contains a reference to ilie author's 'Comparatio philosophorum that it kn^,ovifdê lef Pietho'- I.ai.^^ tiad ky this tirn«/ tra,nspired so Aristotle was fully scripta,' in which, he said, his opinion of Plato and prejudice against the author and even against war. the eii-oer to exi He Bessarion's developed.^* Being included in the 1469 edition of Pkito, hi. acknowledged maM,ea, Idii:: iS attested by the fact that written before that year. not say a works, it must have fjeen Be^ârion, when eoniHiir laier t< ) the defense of Piaio, did

in \\i^'\\'^ a.*,ion of hi- eieceased teacher.*^ word, «2 Bessarion, 110 v. to the same " This supposition, to be sure, raakes numbers 28 and 37 refer WM. L.l, 058 A It which each is described work unfier two ditterenl title but since the words in ^" I\o.r!C!u?. XL L'U. and Hociu-v, p, 75, refer to the tract of Apostolius, valuable book of Bessarion, the assumption seems II, n. fit the work described in this whu h h.o.. u,-ojr'i;rur to baivi}.:^ Ilisiory of Classical Scholarship 75, 1), less arbitrary than its alternative. Ijecii [ainic:! in A p-'d-^Iius. xoirqfMaTa rpLa (Smyrna, 1876). «^ II, 719. "' liuonicr. (lui.aeh \)v Miejne 16L 1015. «^ Quoted in M. 161, xliii, section 72. 6*5 i'nntt'h in M. icL ft^>J C il. •• P. 69. ' rrintt„-a m .M. IcL ecp note (1). to it ^vithout "7 With the exception of Gaspary, IlaL Lit. II. 150, who referred ^^ i'nrai'ci ai M, lap f.s> ,\ iL naming it, but placed it in the forties (1440-49). 6* CC Mc;n, p. 44*^. n ^2, is that described as number 11 e« Bessarion, p. 111 v, The work referred to 8 sec. 20. It is printed in an edition I il FKiio Xlh o^ ml M lol, 755 £., above. bearifO! rh- leia.aek Vera. e. 1523.

« Jlii- wa-^ ii..„aev! by iioivin, II, 726. PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 17 16 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

(number 18 above) of Bessarion's stricture (number 15) on Georgius Trapezuntius insisted on the definition of ôvKeveadai first given by Trapezuntius's failure to speak of the nature of Ideas in his Compara- Gennadius, which appeared in Bessarion's translation as 'consilium tio (number 11). As it was concerned with the question of being and est dubitantis.'^^ In the conclusion of the letter he gave several appeared to Stein to have been quoted by Apostolius, he surmised reasons for eschewing the study of Plato. that it was the occasion of Apostolius's polemic.^^ His slight linguistic 14. Bessarion, having obtained the letter of Trapezuntius to evidence, however, can not stand against the fact, pointed out by Hesaias, wrote a reply, which was published in the 1469 edition Gaspary,^^ that Bessarion's letter asking Gaza to undertake the of his works. ^° It is this tract to which the title De Natura et Arte work showed the writer to be already Patriarch of Constantinople, a belongs, rather than that discussed as number 5 above. dignity to which he was advanced in 1463, while Apostolius wrote in 15. A much more ambitious work in reply to the Comparatio 1462. Sandys said of the work: ''Simply ior approving this answer uit':r ['îônem et Aristotelem was written by Bessarion in 1468'^ under (Adversus Calumniatorem Platonis) Argyropoulos was denounced by the title, Adver.H: l Li///>^M/ //f r »: I'l adonis J"^ According to Boivin it Theodorus Gaza."^** Oddly enough, however, he did not give any completely reinstated I'laio in the good opinion of scholars of Italy. reason for doubting the following evidence to which he referred, 16. In the sarrr \ rar Giannandria, bishop of Alrria. published an being extracts from the letter of Bessarion to Argyropoulos quoted edition of Apukiu- an i Aicinous in the introduction to which he by Bandinius in order to give the setting of the avrippTjriKov. praised Bessarion an i Pletho. aveyvofiev a irpos ra ev Trpoot/itots ttjs virkp Y\\aro:vos (nroXcrjia^ h'taTaiie-

17 1: 1 prri ut \va- answered by Andreas, son of Trapezuntius, ifCKoaoiffTiVy vos yeypaifas . . . avTol fxev jjLrjdepiLav, cbs opas, axo^^W ayovres in a trad whicli /auararKi -aw in the library of Mantua and of which (pivyovres apia hal to kplêiv kal parriv kTribeUvvadai. BeodC^pov kêraaaL he published tlu' iirtfaic and conclusion. ^^ For lack of available to Ke\€idh Tovs \6yovSj oaov Sujârat, irpoaerptxpapLev . . . tKelvos ixev ovv 4f'>9. evidence as to its dair it is referred to the same year, 1 kiroirjaev. 18. Argyropoulos objected in a letter to Bessarion to some things Plainly Gaza's denunciation was for criticizing and not for ap- in the introduiti s- to tin; latur's defense of I'lato, that is, the Adver- proving Bessarion's answer. (' ' i:;i^y:fn...itorem Flatonis. Bessari^.-n replied in a letter quoted by The date of the work is probably about 1470. liaiicimius'^ to the vUvvi tliat he had not the leisure to answer the 20. Another answer to the Comparatio of Trapezuntius (number i>'bjt;ction> him-elf. la'ini: di-inrlined in any case to disputation and a \\) was written by a native Italian, Nkhulaus Perottus, under the u- it :i-pla\ of learning lie had, therefore, asked Theodorus title Refutatio Deliramentorum Georgii Trapezuntii Cretensis?'^ It U iza 10 reply for him. is also to be dated about 1470. iv. By way of compliance with his request Gaza wrote the so- Its author was one of a number of Italian scholars to write letters called avTLpprjTiKov.'^^ It wa- a reply to Argyropoulos's criticism of congx-ai iilaiion to Bessarion on his Adversus Calumniatorem Plato- the hands of Omnibonui Lconicenus, •» Ibid. nis.^^ The other letters are from ''Ubid. Fabric XT 4^2 7«P. 451, n. 58. '^ Stein, p. 440 n, ,^'J. " P. 52. "Fabric. XI A^l ui i AT 161, cli, no. 18. Printed in Venice 1469, 1503 and 78 I'K) as the fir-: iDur books oi Bessarionis Opera Varia, II, 75. " Cf. Tir.il-t^-ilii \'I. ^60 Tho tract is mentioned also by Hodius, pp. 82, '• Valentinelli, Bibliotheca manuscripta ad S. Marci Venetiarum, iV, 8.

1 n 108. Valentincil!, I\ lists an ai.>)nymous manuscript, in which, he says, 8° These letters are to be found in the manuscript containing the tract of Aristotle is mLuii prrfrrred and IM it lUparaged after the manner of George of Perottus. They, with the exception of the letter of Naldius, were published at Thi'-. nut\' hv re basilica Trehizond. the tract Andrei, Rome in 1665 in Bonaventur Malvasia's Compendia historico delta veral. ^* R:iR(..!inia^, Hndiotheca Ldur'-nli.in i , il. J75f. de' ss. dodici apostoli. Cf. Valentinelli, IV, 7. "f^ .^Q.^ ibid. I'ahnc. X. and .M . 1^1. ^7 1. Ilodius, p. 80. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE Ift 18 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND AIQSTOTLE PLETHO'S CHITICrSM 01

Aristotelians of Fifteenth Diagram of Debate Between Platonists and Naldus Naldius, Marsilius Ficinus, Antonius Panormata and Fran- Century ciscus Philelphus. Among them is found a letter from Johannes Pletho! De Differentia (1439) (G) This is not inconsistent with the fact that he had Ari;} opoulos. 1. Bessarion, ; letter la 0f]l]IM]|its: Defense oj written to Bessaiiuii a communication containing a minor criticism Pktho (i440?i (G) AristoUe (1443) of his wnrk.®^ (G) 4 I 2. Plelho: reply *^ Cf. number 1^ above. An echo of this controversy may be discovered in (i440>) (G) PlctliO! In Sfhdarii certain books printed in the next century and described by Fabricius III, 146 ff. Dcfensionim Ari^ioiehs I and Boivin 11, 7 J 9. Gaza: Dc Fato (G) (1448) (G)

4 Gaza: De Consultatione Naturae (1459)j(G)

6. Bcssarion. l>e 5. Bcjsarion: Letter ^» iUS^^') iO) of reply to Gaza Essentia (1459) (G) \ 7. Gaza: Confra PIcthonem pro Aristotele. (1459),(G)

8. Apostolius: letter (1461) (G)\

9. Andronicus: letter to Bessarion (146!) Legend (0) C^W'ritten in Greek reply to L—Written in Latin 10. Bessarion: Arrows indicate that ilic Andronicus (146 later tract is a reply to the 11. Trebizond: Compdfaii, earlier (L) I (1464) 12. Hesaias: letter to

I Trebizond (L?)

?3. Trebizond: letter to Hesaias (L?)

14, Bessarion: De Naiura d Arte (L)

15. Bessarion: Adversus Calum* t6, Giannandria; In'lro, to niaiorcm Plalonis (1468) .td. of Apuleius and /Ucinous (L) (1468) (L) y

\9i. Argyropouios: letter to Bessarion 17. Andreas; reply (L?) (1469) (G) I 19. Gaza: &rrippi|Tt«(Sr (1470?) (G)

20. Feroltus: Rij'uiatk etc. (L) 21 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

and carried out his promise' totle differed from Plato. He agreed while confined to his house during a short illness.** IV of specific doctrines CHAPTER The treatise took the form of brief statements on the basis of presuppositions of Tracts from Which Pletho's Criticism of Plato and Aristotle of Aristotle. These were criticized or disparaged on various grounds in com- Is Derived and His Attitude Toward the Two the Aristotelian system, Plato or the Platonists. Philosophers parison with the corresponding doctrines of Aristotle, so that the Pletho did not profess to appraise the work of Pletho's criticism of Plato and Aristotle is to be found principally of his estimate of him. He tone of the tract is not an accurate index in two tracts, De Platonicae ei Aristotelicae Philosophiae Diferentia that he was merely pro- was careful to state this, and to make clear and Contra Scholarii Defensionem Aristoklis, supplemented by two which scholars, and especially testing against the excessive favor with letters written to Bessarion answering questions regarding the Pla- comparison with Plato.^ those of the West, esteemed Aristotle in tonic and Aristotelian, philosophies. of a work on com- We must judge Pletho, therefore, not as an author The De Differentia was written at Florence in 1439. Pletho, by understanding which parative philosophy, but l)y reference to the his lectures on Plato/ had stimulated among his learned friends philosophies, by his he showed nf the Platonic and Aristotelian an interest in the thinker who had previously been known to them insight with which freedom from Neo-Platonic confusions and by the only as the object nf Aristotle's captious criticism.^ They accordingly in Aristotle's point of he laid bare the fundamental contradictions requested that he should put into writing the points in which Aris- view. against Aristotle are not to be judged * Ficino {Plotini Optra, ed. Creuzer, p. xlii) represented Pletho, whom he of Ail Pletho's arguments the clever logician using course could not have known, being six years of age in 1439, as giving eloquent from the same standpoint. In some we see lectures on Plato before Cosimo Di Medici and inspiring him by his lively style Aristotle, in others we see Aristotle's dialectical weapons to refute to conceive the thought of forming an academy. There is no reason to suppose even his own skill m the serious thinker, impatient at the futility of that Cosimo understood Greek. Did Pletho speak Latin, then? It is very language and appealmg sophistry, demanding honesty in the use of dubious whetiicr he even understood it. It is true that Gregorius (M. 813 D) praised Pletho s persuasiveness before his Italian audience and Hieronymus (M. to the first principles of thought.^ Aristotelis was Pletho s reply 8U7 l) hiu i' I his power of speech exhibited there, but both these references were The Contra Scholarii Defensionem - DijferentiaJ^ in pantL) ru rlelivere ! at Pletho's death by men who had not been with him in on the De written in answer to Gennadius's attack It tl lit knew of the lot trine'; of Averroes only through the oral explanations been a work of some length,^ The tract of Gennadius appears to have of h trn ! t Italians an Je.vs. ;M. y82 D). The value of the Latin commentators Miiioides Mynas, who and written in a boasting^ and abusive tone. on Ar miotic he ecu! 1 e timate only on the authority of Peter of Calabria, who Pletho was represented, not as knt-'A first part of it, tells us that Moth Greek :in i L-ttm and of Hugo Bencius. (M. 982 B). The De Dijffer- T'^ edited the h dialectical trickster (avKo^rdvrrjs) and a cniid, wrilten f- iu neiit if his friends in Florence (who included native Ital- being mistaken, but as a liar, Exarch i lo liie ians) was .vTittcn in ir ;t k ilis recognition of a statement of Gennadius (M. 1011 mad-man.io Gennadius himself informs us in a letter R"* as com PL'; from i honias Aquinas does not imply a knowledge of Latin, for an abstract interest m Joseph^i that the work was inspired, not by Gennadius had translated some of the works of Aquinas into Greek. Peter of Calabria wa-^ identified with Pomponius Laetus by Joecher {Gelehr- »M. 999 B. tenf 'xikon)y Gass (11, 5o, n, a), and Schultze (p. 75), followed by Hettner *M 1017 C. (It tl; nische Stiidien, 175V If this is correct, he was but ten years of age at the ' M 929 A, B; 1006 B, C; 1017 B, C. time, being burn m 1425 viiraboschi \T, 647). Yet Pletho said of him that he « M. 896 A, 900 B, 1017 A.

Wis skilled in I) th distinction in languages (Greek and Latin) and did not lack ' Cf. p. 7 above. fu iK'inu' «H the value of eighty commentators on Aristotle. Pletho was about 8 M 9S4 D, 999 B, 1019 A.

\ e ir i 1 it rl i Sch. 101. the tnne \et nothing about the precocity of a ten year old boy » M 9^4 D. Cf. Gass, I, 6 and p. who VIS amtmir the I let ^ lahhe among scholars to judge of philosophical writers '° M. 97^, note (a). in (jft-ek and Latin, " M. 633 B. * M. 9^1 C. 20 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 23 22 PLETHO*S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

they would be compelled to admit if the Christians held this doctrine Aristotle or Plato, but by anger at the real aim of Pletho and either as their logical that the Son and Holy Spirit, having the Father to defend the faith. scarcely needed the confession of the zeal We out this obvious cause, were created by Him in time. Pletho pointed author. Of the thirty-one extracts quoted by Pletho, twenty are Arians who held application, and informed Gennadius that it was the arguments on the thought of Aristotle, and of these fifteen are con- it cuuid not detract this doctrine and at whom he was hinting. Yet cerned with proving that Aristotle did not deny the creation of the that much from Gennadius's reputation, lie said, that, while arguing world, while the remaining five are devoted to a defense of Aristotle he here Aristotle and the church were in agreenutit on i\\\> i>^.int, against the charge of impiety in his treatment of ethics and the ques- denied it to attributed the doctrine to the churcli and rlêwhere ;>p is brought the tion of divim \idence. That to say, Gennadius desperate attempts Aristotle.^7 Other misinterpretations due to the debate down from a discussion of the fundamental presuppositions of will be dealt with below. to reconcile Aristotle with the church the philosophies of 11 it a:i i Aristotle to a dispute as to whether mistakes made by 1' A. A few other examples of palpable Aristotle was in arr r i \vi: ii luc urLiiudux religious opinion of the day. M. 986 D, 987 (iennadius follow. 1 iu' ciKinicter of the arLûnicnts which he emplnved will be discussed i t ^ .u that Aristode taught that the In one of his numerous attempts to show is sufficient to here that, he showed later It point out although to Dc Caelo 270b« ff. In it all heavens were created by God, Gennadius appealed considerable familiarity vviih. the text of Aristotle, his thesis led him inhabits the eternal heavens, basing men are said to suppose that the eternal God eternal is connected with the eternal. into many misinterf)rLtations of Aristotle's meaning. The following their supposition on uic idea that the word avuaprvadaL, which Gennadius inter- two cases will ser\ c as illustrations. ''Connected with" is expressed by the and cause and misquoted in support to denote the relation of simultaneity He quoted Aristotle's Maa physics 1074 a^^ ff. to show that the preted where râprijadac occurs in the sense of "be of his contention De Caelo 219a.,'' author believed in divine n xtlaiion. Aristotle had arrived at the suppression ot the prefix e^ caused by " His misquotation consisted m the conclusion ihat then- \\a*ra lor! \'-seven spheres in the heavens. It together two passages which illustrated Pletho pointed out his folly in bringing crvyapTâdac and kâpr^ but out ihaL tlif veori!> in question mii-i mean those more expert in of the words was

^^ textual reference ) astronomy. that Aristotle made God the creator In quoting FInsics 252a» as evidence of the One of the bt-t instances of the inability of Gennadius to see the to have utterly missed the meaning of the heavens, Gennadius seems that he held it unnecessary to seeli im[)lication of a ucucTal -tatrniciu i> lound, in lii- criticism of a passage passage Aristotle there said of Democritus op.n.on was things. Aristotle objected that this in tiie Dc Dijtrentia. riciliu had baid^' thai Aristotle, like some for any cause dpxv) of eternity ,n properties did things, hut that the eternity of geometrical others, perhaps, tln-inr'hi a logical raii^e wa^ inevitably a temporal right in regard to some however, which '"^'"ded the have some cause beyond itself. Eternal essences, seize

K w .

criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 25 24 PLETHO*S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE pletho's

advanced objections to, and criti- Gennadius recognized with what sort of man he had to do, if we aim, but, as in the De Differentia, point of view of an admirer of Plato. may judge from the reluctance with which he allowed Pletho to see cisms of, Aristotle from the an examina- he the polemic is that of heated debate, but the book.i^ Indeed, Pletho never did see the whole work but what The tone of it an conclu- that, comparison with the tract to wliich was did secure was sufficient to enable him to form a satisfactory tion of it shows m comparatnciy m.Hicratc. (k-nnadius was informed sion as to the quality of the whole. anj^wcr. it was tlie lanizuage" and thousht-^ of Aristotle. Pletho wrote a reply to Gennadius, which he sent to him by the that hv was ignorant of annotating Arisiotie"< works excited m \ I, Gennadius in a letter that reported imnuion uf hand of the Emperor J li informing His give up all treatise amusement, and called forth the advice to he had done so,^^ but the Emperor delayed the delivery of the Pletho great himself so ridiculous, or, if he had begun the out of regard for Pletho's reputation, according to Gennadius, but thought of making manuscript.^^ As a result of his mental blind- more likely to avoid mortifying Gennadius, with whom the Emperor worC to l)urn up his for the mastery of wilful sophistries taught by had recently been reconciled after a disagreement.^^ It was finally ness'^^' or his aptitii'lc taki' into account ilie context of the passages delivered, but not published until after the death of the Emperor in Aristotle^*^ he failed to and so wrested them from their true 1448.21 which be cited from Aristotle- his own fallacies in reasoning,'^ ^e inter- The treatise consists of thirty-one passages selected from the sense.2« Quite oblivious of himself,^^ these as lo make huii appear to contradict tract of Gennadius and answered in detail. The nature of preted Aristotle so He even wavs lie cut a sorry hgure ui the debate.^^ selected passages has already been indicated. In as far as they and in many other Pletho's first polemic which he had involved questions of Aristotle's thought, their aim was to show misunderstood the passages oi himself.^^ turned liis dialectical weapons on that he was in agreement with the church, and Pletho's task was to l.rv.posed to rtfate,32 ^nd his tliecu of Ideas in his reply was due to disprove this thesis. He did not, however, confine himself to this His failure to deal witli tlie y his arguments Pletho said utter inabiUly Lo understand il.^^^ Some of Gennadius, dissatistied he did not condescend to answer.^^ when (pavepots tQ)v Odiav to mean that understood ravra yap ai 677 6.Kiv7jTOL ovaLai, alria To2i doctrine of creation in the with Ids attempts to llnd the Christian Pletho saw that the full the unmoved essences were the causes of the heavens. that part of the works of Aristotle, resorted to the theory Kivrjaeojs roh ipavkpois and explained it accordingly.) They extant expression was ama tactics probablv been lost, Pletho compared his were not the causes of the essences, Pletho said, that is, of the spheres, but of a Metaphysus had struts off crowing before it has property of them, that is, of their motion. (M. 990 A, B.) 10 tho.e of the i-noble cock, which In another passage (M. 991 A), by assuming that rrpwrt; dpxi? rG>v bvroiv all that is," Gennadius showed his innocence of the double meant the "creator of H M. 989 B, 991 A, 1012 D. no- of as "beginning" and "first principle." At any rate, as he D, 1010 D, iUil A. meaning apxh S3 ^I, QQ5 Y> QSO \\, C, 998 A. 1UU3 C. suspecting the latter meaning, Pletho professed despair where gave evidence of 24 M. 1011 A to explain it to him. (M. 991 B.) at trv-nz U ^r. 081 D, v^nx \, 101.^ c. likewise charged Pletho with reluc- - 981 A It is true that Gennadius 2« M. M. <;^7 I). him the De Diferentia, a charge which Pletho denied, even tance in sending J7 M. 1006 C. special copy of the it is hard to see why Gennadius should have expected a though 2S Yi. 985 C, 987 C. 90^ A. directed to him. Pletho's charge, moreover, was more spe- work 'A'hirh was not 19 M. 1019 A. secured Gennadius'swork only through the sagacity of friends who cific. He iinaiiy SO M. 1008 B. prob:ihl> rn itic extract?^ and only part of it reached him even in that sa'.v It ^:xn<-\ SI xM, 991 A, 1012 1), 1020 A. treatise. \n -\nv: uf tfic author's statcmciiL that he had sent a copy of the way, 11 :m. 989 C. 991 C, 995 B, C. suggests good grounds for liu: nn t tin .-scholarship of the two men A ronii ir S3 B. M. 1015 . , shows1. hisu- total* ! --.«, '. i ri i is mentioned n iWwiii II f i I c n :ui u s uduch it u l< M. 1019 B. The one passage m ' 5'/'.> ,\. li. M failure to grasp it. Cf. p, 70, n. 189. '° Si:h., 'J 7. f>. ao M. 984 D, 101'> A, B. PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 27 26 PLETHO'S CHITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

expressed his meaning intelligible, while for those of less ability he the victory.^'' The whole work as it came to Pletho showed won of these myths was not in poetic myths.« The literal interpretation him the ignorance and intellectual mediocrity of its author,^^ with to express the writer's to be pressed, since it was their function exact thought counted for nothing.^^ Gennadius's arguments whom to the many.^ meaning in a form less exact, even if more intelligible beyond such ridicule of his ignorance,^^ an ignorance elicited no abuse did not purport His treatment of the different branches of philosophy \\ c then, that while proved by Pletho again and again. may say, yet exhaustive but merely outlined the principles involved,^^ sophistry and madness in a to be Gennadius accused Pletho of lying, unlike he followed the principles up to their ultimate implications,*^ devoted entirely to impersonal thought, Pletho attributed the work phenomena of nature Aristotle, who treated virtue in man and the opponent's leasoning to intellectual rather than moral faults of his ultimate nature of the as though they were independent of the replied with comparative moderation to the opprobrious defects, held, that Plato was universe.47 Yet it should not be inferred, he threats used against him, and accused Gennadius of lying u rms and application of their ignorant of the details of the sciences and the ma,LLcr ui atiion, wlirii he uii^cly (liclared he had sent to only in the with any such minute- i.rinciples. While he did not investigate logic Pletho a copy of his work.''^ On the whole, he did not depart from mastery in the use of ness as Aristotle, yet he showed an artistic the Platonic attitude approved by himself,^^ that error is involuntary than argument which wuuid :=uggest a practised faculty rather censured. He had no objection, however, to calling and not to be time.*« Pletho ignorance of a science undiscovered until Aristotle's it error and indicating without circumlocution the nature of the had said that he error. « Gennadius, while admitting that Aristotle was obscure, obscure as a poet or one of some In this tract Pletho stated much more fully than in the De Difer- was obscure as a philosopher, but Plato was explanation of Plato s Gemistus in reply (M. 985 A, B) gave the entia his own attitude towari Plato and Aristotle. worse calling. illegitimacy of all avoidable obscurity use of myths outlined above, and urged the syi: put ii> wii \\ those who saw in Plato mysterious doc- He had no of language, a desire to conceal Its principal causes were incomplete mastery he asserted, readers iriries darkly sha i<'Wi.l i .nli.^- On the contrary, Plato, delights in mystifying the haziness of thought or a malicious pride which For Pletho valued exactness aimed at making hi:, nicaning clear to every kind of reader. and having them come to the author for interpretation. other scholars by that canon. those capable of any depth of thought his words were perfectly and clarity of thought very highly and judged (M. 982 B, 1020 A.) „ . tt in?lu/, 3« 1011 l; (I Theaet. 164 c. his In Rem Fub. 11, M. 44 M. 161, 721 B. Proclus held the same view. Cf. "M. 981 A, ioiv A. 304. 26 ff . and Whittaker, " M. 1020 A. « M. 929 A, 983 D, 984 B. " It was not in criticism of his thought, but in reply to an attempt to arouse ** M. 993 BCD. against the "odium theologicum" by accusing him of disbelief in divine discussions incomplete, dealing with him 47 Or as Pletho put it, Aristotle left his inspiration that Pletho stamped the words of Gennadius as slander should study geometry without revelation and ethics and physics without theology, just as if one (M. 987 B, 984 D). His only retaliation for the attempt was the of commensurable magni- and blasphemy. arithmetic, the latter being necessary for a knowledge of pointing out that, as Aristotle inclined toward atheism in com- Theaetetus 147 dff. or, better, the legitimate one tudes. Pletho was probably thinking of Plato's who praised Aristotle, should be known by the disparage geometry parison with Plato, Gennadius, Epinomis (which he believed authentic) 990 d. Psellus did not he kept {M [''19 A), (icimadius's threats were met by ridicule. They 1056 A.) Cf. Burnett, 320 ff. company as compared with arithmetic. {De Anima, M. 122, frighten children, used by a man who boasted of boast that, while many were not gorgons but goblins to 48 M 929 A. This was in criticism of Aristotle's his advantage over a mere woman and a prostitute at that (M. 984 D), and they him, he had himself developed fields of thought had been investigated before more effect on him than the barking of a lap-dog. (M. 1020 B. words have been interpreted as would have no the whole science of logic. {Topics 184b'. His ^4 This is an adaptation of Plato's Laws 967 c, took them at their I r kind of cf. C. but Pletho the dog M referring to the investigation of the syllogism only, Lucian's Symposium, 432, 19. For threats cf. A. 324 M 634 A and 605 maintained also that Aristotle d mi face value as applying to logic as a whole.) Pletho a fruitless discussion of the identity of the woman referred to cf. Sch. who, he said, wrote works on I) md for owed a debt not only to Plato but also to Archytas, ot is a reference to the works logic used by his more illustrious successor. This lie *° IVI. '>S1 A. language is reminiscent of Plato's Apology 17 b. thought to be authentic The the pseudo-Archytas which Proclus among others <' ir in note 34. Simphcius ^:d i) Cf. 89 below, third j i^t ph from end Tun. 11, 34, 1). M p. said he had read a book by him on demonstration {hi ^ Cf. p. 87, n. 33 for rictiio^ attitude to divine revelation. PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 29 28 PLETHO S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

Pletho regarded Aristotle with a tinge of the contempt of the true Stated that much of the detail of his learning Plato transmitted to his / sharp-sighted philosopher depicted in Theaetetus 173 c ff. for the pupils by word of mouth.*^ While Plato was for him the world's problems.^^ practical man who feels dizzy at a glimpse of abstract supri;rr;i; |)hilos('|)litr, \-fi lit- \\ii> nui an isolated thinker. Among the devotion to the truth that So lar was Aristotle from a single-nnanded dO'Ctnii!;- lie t'X[)re?scd wcrv -onie which camr down from the followers school of through pride and the de^^nc to be the leader of a new 01 Zor<'a-iiT ihrui]^*^fi tiu' I'Miiagoreaii trathlinn u> liim.^° It should the character thought^^ he was betrayed into statements ill Ijccoming be iie'r:;, h(!Wc\a.T, that IMato's ^uperi(>rlt y }ia«i nothing to do with his debt to his prede- of a philosopher. He refused lo acknowledge superriaiural re\a;hui"n. hut C(ni>i-teii in lii> ireaiment of ethics, Plato he employed cessors,^^ and especially to Plato. In criticizing p:>\'chuh.)^\' and pln'^ic^''* a- ealcuhited to lead one's mind to the mistakes in syllogistic many sophistical arguments, made palpable ceinteniplation f>f nobU/r thine-', and iri }ii< desire to attain a unified readily be turned against reasoning^^ and urged objections which could \dew oi exi-tenee and trace tlie c.ui-<- of an things back to one trick, particular, he employed the fourteenth sophistical principh;/''- him/^"^ In thoughtless by the multi- as described by himself,^^ confounding the keenness of vision in tude of his words.^9 He showed marvellous (In Cd!. 1"7. IS) attrii)utt.'(l the doctrine of the ten categories to Archytas. In a bat has sharp things, such as oysters and embryoes,^^ just as 0[)positiun !>) these an 1 t.> himblichus we find Themistius suspecting the works small great value on being able attribiitfd tw Arclix'ta- a- bt-inc; rather tin- '.vritinfrs of a later Peripatetic philoso- eyes for objects in the dark,«i ^nd placed

Prantl I, f»1,^ \^^^ {^ dealing with the pher. Ll. to put questions so as to refute an opponent^^ ^^ Pletho interpreted /V;j /r:( 215^ J 76a, not unreasonably (cf. Aristotle's problems of implications of his statements and with more ultimate words in Fhy^. 2091)^5 ), a m kctpmLr ;\iih Plato's own practice. It is better, and showed philosophy he wavered in mind,^^ contradicted himself^^ Pletho held, thar iai, t- -.huui'i exi>t î- krii.wlt'iige in the mind than as written as might well be compared to the indistmct words in books, for, alth.oui^!) b-ook^ arc u-ffi;i ni bridging the inevitable periods such mental blindness which he employed of inteiUxtual stagnatem, tiic>~ emouraê pt-opk: to be careless of the cultivation vision of a bat in the daylight. The logical method and ael'vity of their nnnd^. [M. 9bSDj. calculated to enable one to largely, that is, induction, was not ^ M .>>4 A. U. (.ennadiu'^ ridiculed this theory of the ancient origin of the as that which Plato distinguish, organize, and so unify, facts as well rLit)ni teaihirm M. 039 B ^ Pletho's sources for the similarity between Zor<»a-tr..iri'>rn and i'latonism were l*sellus {Expositio Oraculorum Chaldaicorum " Theaet. 175 c, d. in M. III. 1124 r: -, fron) wh(...se statement of the relation (M. 122, 1153 B) " M. 984 B. Piethf) dnTiTcd r»>- omitting menti (A. 2^1 and M. ')^4\. fr-.m .\[or,iii,i if. 51M. 12 n and A. 280 from ^« ov Treparm.. Schultze, p. 84, translates: where the word evidently MordUd II, 52 \ 3-5h The theorx- of a truth iiraduaily uniflfied to mankind by a wahren Sachverhalt nicht." But cf. M. 986 B, and B-C the conclusion in a syllogism. succession oi wiê men, some of whom imparted their wisdom to oracles, was, of mean, "to reason," or, more specifically, to draw course, a Neo--idatonic tradition, taking it- ri^c [)roi,)ai)b^' from idatc',. Alcibiadesl, £>' M. 916 B, 928 D. 122 a, m -.vhich Plato spoke of the magie of Zoroaster a- the r-cr\acc of Cod. ^8 Soph. El. 174a'^ fT. Cf. Prot. 335 b, c. Plutarch, i'orpdiyry (Cf. W'oltT, Porphyrin ;: D'- Philosophic^ ex Oracui:< /I'jurt- 984 C. enda, Berlin, 1856), lambliehus, iVodu-and Pseliu:; were tiie f)nindpal tran-miiters "M. »o Vitarum Auctio, ch. 26. of the tradition to Pletho. The theor\' uf Idea^ wa> asenbed tu i\o onv earlier M. 892 B. Cf. Lucjan, De Anima, M. 122, 1056 B, than I*ythagora5, however, Pleth<>. fuliowang frotdur-, su[)fio>fd the Dt Anima «^ M. 990 C. Cf. Afcfa. 993a3o, which Psellus, the plight of most people Mundi whevh taught the doctrine, to be genuinely the work of Timacus, the quoted The 'îmile was there used to characterize Aristotle's own under- Pythagorean. (Cf. Whittaker. 265 and n, ^l. when dealing with metaphysics. Pletho transferred it to Thi.3 tradition was p)ut to a detinite use h>- Pieth.). le >er\-ed to add a halo standing of some problems. of antiquity to the doctrines out of which he h«>j;)edi to conr.tr'o t a theology to « M. 990 C. rejuvenate his beloved (ireece and which -hould give her tiic vuaiity to throw 65 M. 992 D. back the inwiding Turk. i'i. pp. 90, 91. 993 A. ^- ^ M. 897 B, 901 D, 924 C, M. ')m C, 1,), 10 IS B It.

« M. 92^ D, 990 B. C, 993 B, C, 1015 i). 30 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

Some minor used to a greater extent, the method of logical division.^^ CHAPTER V criticisms Pletho advanced, such as Aristotle's inferiority to Plato lack Regarding Plato and Aristotle in the mastery of language** and his occasional obscurity*^ and Sources of Pletho's Judgments as his of precision*^ in the use of it, his vanity over what he regarded repre- The question of how far the philosophical tracts of Pletho and the futility of some of his distinctions.^^ Such cen- cleverness*^ independent judgment and criticism of Plato and Aristotle Gennadius sent his sure was called forth largely in answer to praise which accepted by and how far they represent the judgment of authorities bestowed on him. Pletho's serious criticism of Aristotle is confined to Pletho can not be answered completely until all flu- works of earlier Aris- the first tract, except in so far as it is repeated in the second. Byzantine writers from Photius on have been made accessible. It is totle inclined toward impiety and atheism,"^! j^g held, that is to say, possible, however, lo gi\ c a partial solution to the problem. that Aristotle toward materialism. Pletho did not imagine, however, to Byzan- The form of the De Diferentia, m the lirsl phu-(\ i> due Way, \>u.{ in fairness to him^^ allowed that merely wtiiL ilic whoU The Platonii and Aristotelian philosophers before But tine intliunce. some passages in his work admitted of such an interpretation. Christianity wrote the extinction of Grctk learning by the rise of concession involve-i the criticism that his thought was not a this voluminous commentaries on the text of their masters but at the unity, but that he continually expressed opposite points of view. which same lime a second form of philosophical writing grew up to criticize Aristotle on the basis of his fundamen- Pu th . professing terms. consisted of succinct statements of doctrine ui txi)lanations of tal presuppositions," repeatedly pointed out these irreconcilable of Ptrhaps the earliest and certainly the most influential exampk inconsistencies. a very clear and concise explanation this 1 v[)c V. as Porphyry's Isagoge,^ species, difference, of the Aristotelian teaching regarding genus, «M. 1018 D. By the term ''logical division" Pletho refers to the dichot- prupnuin and accident as terms in logic. Still more concise were the omies, as in the Sophist. author. Proclus wrote a somewhat similar « M. 988 A. Sententiae^ by the same paragraphs he •7 M. 985 C. work, the Institutio Theological in which in separate metaphysical doctrine. gave ' definite an

that tiie scholars of the day, following Aquinas, had virtually reconciled Aristotle says With the church, h .rmc to have misled Schultze, who on p. 89 "Ueber- 1 AristoteUan Commentators, Berlin ed. bestatigt biickt man diese Knnk (.i'letho' criticism of Aristotle) so wird man 2 Teubner ed. fmden dass sie \ri>Lutt4es hauptsachlich in religioser Hinsicht angreift." 3 Didot ed. of Plotinus. "~ C'f [vp, 47. 73. * Ruelle ed., Paris, 1889. '•* M„ innti A 6 Didot edition of Plotinus, 553 ff. «Cf. p. 32, n 12. 31 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 33 32 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE Hermeias, Damascius, logic. that he was familiar with the works of Proclus, paragraphs were spared for answering questions in Aristotelian Olympiodorus, Simplicius and literature moulded Porphyry, lamblichus, Syrianus, Psellus, having been educated in a philosophical in addition to these Pha- familiar with Ammonius.i3 Pletho mentioned by name by the thought and method of Aristotle, was naturally Timaeus (whom Ph>tho, following Procius, supposed hr personally inclined to the system tinus, Cyrillus/^ the Stagirite's philosophy but Although author of the De Aiiinui Mundi'^) and Plutarchd^ When he undertook, ilurefore, to compile a digest of to be'iiie of Plato. not the slightest he did not speak of an\ iiyzantine Platonist biiere is :! the Km{ urur Uiinx^, he not only gave the opinions of i= ong for the workb ui Psellus. Not only did at times, Neo- doubt that he was familiar with Aristotle on variwu-^ points but, wlu n Plato and, Pseliusi' p^t he obtained from him more P.ellus placed in juxta> he write scholia on a work of phto nil or Stoic thinkers differc.i ir.)m him. respects in which the philosophies of Plato and invj^ht be regarded a,5 suggestions as to the |)MMn>*n the dissentinu ju-li^munts. I'hi:-^ adopted ditTered than from any other writer. He often fiui ii aro^c indvyH-wU-nlW Aristotle a TcwTînn i(> thesLyh' ni the doxoo^rapher- he often differed pointedly from them. c.,*ni].ariôn of Platu and, Psellus's interpretations and of thcni ano \va^ Ciuihru-d mainlv d a the only Byzantine philosopher whom our !\-[>r arn-iur P-^rnu>'s Apart from Psellus, Ari-tntlt^ The hf^t c-xampK;- of ihir^ literary to have intluenced Pletho {hamlam^ and present evidence will justify u^ in asserting work- arc tiif I)e (hunr'ana Doilrui.i: the Solutiones iû: hi-l mentioned is Photius. limCis tU T-qv "AporroreXcHS Xo^t^ni' €iTL'jT^]uyiv.' interpretation of the theory of Ideas followed that of ni i'ciru::) liiipanus, Pletho's work wa'- u>ed a- the !>a.:-i- f^-r tlie iaitiii work of individuals 51, n. 54), of manu- into Greek by Proclus. He did not admitldeas (p. entitled Summulae}" whicli in turn wa„- tranr-iaaed n. 58). The doc- facttired objects (p. 5-4, n. 69), evils, or negations {p. 52, Hteraiure uf sumnnirieo uiehike- in Greek a h/nizth}' (,enr>a(liusd' Tiii- described at length the oxr?Mci for man ami the universe was Niceiihorus Bleniniydes and in the West it may trine of EpUi'mt Loiin:d- ^f through others. byProclus(p.71,n. 194), although Pletho knew it also -iinmiit nt it- development m the Spcm- be paid to have reaehed, tiie passage on the He was indebted to Proclus also for some hints in a Tln-'UOi^îcum of \dncent tie In-auAuiiS. lum ff.) and the })rayer, {M. 877 D and Proclus, In Tim. I, 208, 3 liiat we must consider value of It 1-^ anainst sueri a liaeki^round as thi- matter in living bodies was famihar to tlieory of the influx and efilux of Pletho's Dt Ditjerentia. Wdieti lii- irien^l:- iti I-lorence asked him seems also to have been Pletho's source , Proclus Plato and to him (\). 71 n. 191). point our tlie' ditTerenee^- betwei-n the philosophies of n. ()2) and he may have for the conception of chains of causes (p. 5^^ probaki\- had in nimd roich âjrninaries as Psellus wrote. Ari>totue ihev used in support suggested to Pletho Aristotle's quotatiem from Homer Pleiho wa> demonst ra.blv !anuha.r with them a,iid with At an\' rate, The belief in a theo- of the theorv of metaphysical unity (pp. 47, 48). iT extant m n •lav. ( a)hico-uni manes iier phii(0( expressed by Proclus logical truth communicated by oracles was often aai exanunaiion of PK^thr^'c, tracts on Plato 1 1 !:^ evident troni and was adopted bv Pletho (p. 28, n. 50).^» did not deri\-e all in- inaterni! td"om the reading and An-tîtie liiat he Pletho showed with Points of possible and probable contact which nor did lie ui"-se by this means of Pkitonic and Ari-iotelian Wi,!rk>- n. Plutarch 28, n. 50; 64, n. 146; 71, n. 194; 98, their doctrines. the works of (pp. tiK' point- in re-r)ecl to whieli lie ^nnihi compare n. Ammonius (pp. 45; on 86b Alexander Aphrodisias (pp. 45, 64, 146), He uthized man\- M.atenient:> and -uirê^lion- frrnn other writer- riatu and Ari-lutle. We nui\' infer from a U;t:er of Bessanon to him •3 M. lop 713 D ff. '* M. ^)8l B, C. T^P 122. 688 ff. '6 Cf. p. 50 and n. 42. ^ XP 122, 7S4 !h 56 28. n. 50. Cf. p. . * iroo ciosible to the author. Pruite'i in Augsburg. 15'>7, ^^ rnfortun.iteb'- Amsterdam, 1689j, Appen- 17 Published in Oracul.j SibyUtna êd. Gallaeus, J= Psellus und Fetrus His- Cl., F'rantl I, o5b diid by the -a me author Mi. had m dix, 80 fl. • pp. i A f panuj. Leir>zig, 18()7. his system ot deities ci. 58 For Pletho's debt to i'rocliis in connectioa with >i r^rantl IV, 248. pp. % ff. - M. 142, (j66 if. ARISTOTLE 35 PLATO AND ARISTOTLE pletho's criticism of PLATO AND 34 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF

doctrines of Plato and Aristotle but, being 44; 45), Simplicius (p. 27, n. not inconsistent with the 80 n. 256; 82, n. 264), Asclepius (pp. Plato's name only 28, n. n. 194; 72, n. less favorable to Aristotle, mentioned (p. 4- ' 64, n. 146; 71, 40, n. 8; 70, n. 188), Philoponus (pp. are probable that Pletho thought to point out the 47; 61, n. 124; 62, n. 127) 50). It is highly 203) and Damascius (pp. 46, n. 27; the stars to have souls and yet to cited in parentheses. absurdity of Aristotle's supposing indicated in footnotes to the pages had read brief paragraphs in a principal source for his philo- be fixed m iliiir spheres because he Psellus was apparently Pletho's used slating each of these beliefs of Aristotle. The prob- i» that he very frequently work of Psellus sophic tracts The evidence is conclusive that Pletho also supposed the stars to De Au'ma. The more signifi- ability is increased by the fart Psellus's De Omnifaria Doctrina and unlikely of himself to select these writings and those of his Platonic have souls and so would have been cant agreements between Pletho's it was more natural rebuked Gennadius for stateniini^ with which to.reproach Aristotle, while predecessor mav thus be catalogued: Pletho that the stars had a psychic motion avroy^hrov by drawing concisely the in Psellus, who did not hold his confusion of ixary^v and dTr' i Psellus 23, n. 17). Pletho s 82, n. 262). distinction between the terms given by (p. (p. opinions of Psellus. question as to when the Pletho differed in many respect > from the seemingly unmotivated introduction of the hence believed the world to be created the two suggested answers become Psellus was a Christian and soul is united with the body and did not hold a theory of citing the authorities who and of iinite duration (p. (A. n. 147). He significant in view of Psellus's paragraph A, B). He folknved Aristotle, strange argument for the im- absolute determinism (Cf. M. 122, 736 held the two views (p. 75, n. 218). The series admitting a before suicide is found with whom Pletho differed, in saying tiiat a of the soul based on the ability to commit mortality followed Aristotle like Pletho, could not form a genus {p. 43, n. 20). He (c)). Not only did Psellus, and after in both writers (p. 74, n. 215, was unmoved opinion of the holding virtues to be means (p. 76, n. 224), that mind works left enough doubt as to his in state that Aristotle's rather to deny and that the sun produced heat by its motion give occasion for Alexander Aphrodisias (p. 75, n. 221) soul's immortality to himself n. 200). Unlike Pletho, he committed adduced as evidence that t ban hv 11. nature (p. 72, \rlt tie's belief in the doctrine but he also ilie mind of God 51, n. 53). passage to which Pletho 10 the theorv that the Ideas were m (p. Aristotle really thought the soul immortal a others, that there are evil demons, which it was cited His belief, based .*n Plutarch and merely referred by the name of the book from repeatedly denied by Pletho fp. 95, n. 08) and that the soul is the real self reads was explicitly and 73, n. 215). Pletho's statement (p. that the stars exercised power over in the De Anima of where Psellus stated dogmatically strikingly like the '^ame expression of opinion position 62, n. 131). the real reason for human souls Pletho adopted the sceptical (p. 21 1;. Pletho frequently stated that Pselius''(p. 73, n. over being he provide for the Gennadius argued that the One has the primacy assumption of the fifth element was to When Aristotle's Pletho opposed thing his statement on that of Psellus but heavens. Psellus several times said the same might have based tirrnity of the like 4c. n. 27). Finally. Psellus did not, that his theory of a sun heatless it uncompromisingly (p. n. 180) and indicated like Pletho (p. ov, arithmetic on the ground consistency with his Pleiho, disparage geometry as compared to bv nature was motivated in turn by a desire for n. 47). Pletho compared its being less fundamental (p. 27. the aether p 72, n. 199). But when of tlHory of undoubtedly suggested one questions of philosophy Photius's work, the Amphilochia, Aristotle's inconsistency in more ultimate a passage of Aristot- he did not directly topic to Pletho. Photius quoted with approval blind movements of a bat in the sun light tn the concrete object over to Aristotle a Categories setting forth the primacy of the upiiiioii about Aristotle. He applied le's qnnu- Psellus's and attacked the where it unixersal. Pletho summarized this passage 4ihU which Psellus quoted from Aristotle's Metaphysics, the Photius, favorable as he was person to expressed m it (p. 40, n. 8). But 1 "Per pfitercn Cf. 29). ' Zweifel vorgearbeitet." (p. 1 1 -i i. cil us ohne Gemistiui^ PlethiTi u. a. hervurtr.it. "

PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO 36 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE AND ARISTOTLE 37

his acquaintance vuth the Nicepliorus Blemmydes in his works on logic and physics touched text of Plato is not so much in his quotations, which were frequent!}- (djtained on a few topics dealt with by Pletho but there is no evidence that through commentators on the Plato, as in his reminiscences of Plato's language,- his use of Pletho used thi ^ handbooks as a source. Blemmydes repeated Platonic similes,^^ such statements regarding Plato as that he statement that nuui can n>U. be the gcnu:- of individual men (M. kept saying everywhere that the soul makes its choices by necessity--*' 142, 7.^7 B, Cf, p. 44', iiutt the class ditTrrcnce of man is rationality and, per-

'^"^^ (". ('^- aether haps, his judgment on Plato's style.^s There is a bare possibility 1>. -^^ ' ^i'"'"i'' ^^-'' '-^e heavens consist of (M. I -12. ['• of the consis- that as further material comes to light it may be found that such (M, Hi, 11^1 A, Ct. {'. f)*^^ iii> ih;Kiiii;d discussion statements were mere quotations of others' opinions but until tency ih the ahirnia,u\'e a.ncrieini, wenig wcri rauler war aU mit denen des Wi'rken, Fcp. 487 a.

- s. Zw fs .a 1 ers oiler I'y lii a, ir- ^a ll -' P]>. 26, n. 36 and 39; 91, n. 43; etc. discover, In [Met ho':, writ in ir-. he never, a- f:ir a- we are able to ^^^M. 161, 721 IP ^ Pp. and n. Draseke, in the professed to quote iroin t!u' pre-iinui!)le -acanir- ^f Zoroaster^^ and 27, 4o Archiv fiir Geschichtc dcr Philoso- phiCf XXVII, 288 ti. show^s how minutely Pletho's own activities and ambitions to Pviha^i)ra- he aetrihuted the iju-orv ot Ideas, as was natural to l)e a saviour of society were based on Plato's similar attempt at Syracuse. in one who accepted a> aiiihenlic the pM-uho-Timaean /):' Annna The manner also in which he named the virtues in his tract on the subject shows doctrine oi the Mundi 'hr 2.^. n. 5th), To !)oth lie attributed the the most detailed knowledge of the words of Plato's works. The author hopes inunorniiity oi the mv,A anh -uch others as were to be found ascribed shorth^' to publish a demonstration of this.

to tiie (7'haihean^ m the works ol r'-eihi-. nr to the Kiiv;uians in the doctrines work- of Plutarch i). 2n. m 50). As teachers of these Zorvia,>ter and i'vthair< >ra- wauo' both said to be in tiie succession of exp)reb^iori f wir--.e men wdies pas-e*! nn ilie truth tiiat found il> com|,)lele^i in the oral and written teaclting o[ IMalo. to If i> true that manv it nt)t all trie j)oint^ in re^^pect which Pkuh^. represented Plato a> ditlerinu from Aristotle were suggested to Pletiio directlv !)\' later writer^ and ihe l)>: IhyertnUia contains

manv rvi-^at^e- from which it i^ possible to show that Pletho did not evt-n consult the passages of Plato and Ari-totle upon, which the criticisms were based. Thi> was natural in \dew of t!ie fact tliat this work was written in Florence wiiere the author did not ha\-e access to hi- librarv. But his answer to (,iennadiu^7> tract indicate^- a care- works.^^ The evidence for ful perusal of various parts td Ari-totie's I ^''' Pletho frequently, of course, altributcsJ f'Litonic d.xUrinc- to both F>ah:ig- oras and Zoroaster, This was not quolatiuiv however, but the dciiberdte adop- tion of a tradition. Cf, p, 1^. n. 50.

»^ P. 2.,\ n. 17. pletho's criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 39

These concepts, from an ontological point of view, are qualities' which, being present in concrete objects, qualify them and make them CHAPTER VI what they are. But Plato was not satisfied to leave the question Pletho's Criticism of Plato and Aristotle here. Qualities have no perfect manifestation in tlie objects of sense, yet the mind has perfect concepts. While the concepts, then, or than half of the De Diferentia is occupied, directly More seem to be gained by reflection, they are in reality regained, being with the discussion of the relation of the universal to the in iir ctly, recollections of the perfect qualities which exist in the super-celestial polemic against as set forth by Plato and Aristotle. In the [) iriicular region inhabited by the soul before it receives a body. Qualities the intellec- is barely mentioned, because, being beyond (n nnadius it present in objects are sufficiently clear to enable the soul to recognize interest of the churchman, Pletho's treatment of it was tual range or the objects as copies of the 'objective concept,' form or Idea directly fundamental challenged by him. Pletho regarded it as the not perceived by it before birth. The mind's gradual formation of between the two philosophers. Before considering Pletho's difference concepts, then, is really a recovery by recollection of what has once brief statement of the it, we shall endeavor to give a discussion of been clearly perceived.

> Aristotle on the subject. attitude of PI i and of 1 1 is important to distinguish here the scientific explanation passionately intent on finding some authorative princi- Plato was knowledge as the formation of concepts by the comparison of particu- morality by which the unity of society might be preserved, and ple in lar objects, from the metaphysical explanation superimposed upon might be devel- logical necessity in thought by which opinion some this statement of the process or fact. The former or logical explana- the univer- into knowledge. He therefore tended to emphasize oped tion is in many passages adopted and elaborated by Aristotle; the Aristotle, on the other hand, ( x: nse of the particular. sal at the latter or metaphysical explanation is made the object of numerous imperturbable calm of one above the battle. It is preserved the attacks. arbitrator of him to say that the thinker must be an characteristic It must be further pointed out that the universal was often advocate.^ Irritated by some of the extravagancies of the and not an spoken of by Plato as the cause of the particular/ The Idea of objects Plato and perhaps also by some of the more emotional followers of was nothing else than the universal, existing not only as a concept to attack of the master himself, he never lost a chance utterances but, in some sense, as an objective reality. This reality, this quality of an hypostasization of the universal. In politics he was more the by virtue of which individual iliing^ were what they were, was said and in logic he laid emphasis on the particular. individualist, to be their cause. Aristotle made it his fourth or 'formal' cause. is the same problem The relation oi the universal to the particular distin- This is a sense of the word 'cause' which must be carefully the theorv of Ideas. It is quite plain that Plato as that involved in guished from the more usual sense on pain of endless confusion of theory as an explanation of that relation. We know developed the thought. As opposed to the efficient cause, that is, to the stage of a of what li.idual objects. But wc could have no such knowledge in process of change in nature immediately preceding the next stage, to which they more or less liu) w, r. unless w, iui i certain concepts known a^ the result, it may be described as a cause only in thought, conform. Whence come these concepts? By reflection, accurately or a logical cause, much like the reasons in Euclidian geometry. objects as perceived.* Plato held; that is, by comparison of particular indeterminate matter, so to speak, might be said to edition of Aristotle » Just as in chemistry 1 De Cado 279b". The index of the Prussian Academy become such and such a substance by being qualified by certain properties, so under dtatTijrrjs wrongly gives this reference as 279a'^ qualified '*man-ness" or "tree-ness" seems to be performed matter, in Plato and Aristotle, being by « This process of thought is seldom self-conscious and is so quaHfied that it takes on the formation of the more becomes a man or a tree. That by which matter even by the lower animals for the simpler concepts. The is the sense in which ''quality" is as accomplished by form and properties of some knowable object complex ones, such a> the concept of justice, Plato regarded and often consciously performed, here used. the :=-iinc 111. ntal process. It is more difficult < Phaedo 100 d ff., Soph. 247 d, e. as in Theaet. 1> o a, Mtno 98 a. 38 ^

PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 41 40 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

corresponds to the whole; and existing less, it is plainly not the Plato understood that he was attributing a special meaning to the first and most sovereign essence.^^ but did so in order to stress the importance of the universal word,* This argument assumes the analogy, first expressed by Plato and philosophy, it was a dangerous habit, nevertheless, since his less in adopted by Aristotle, of the universal and particular to the whole gifted successor^ often failed to mark the distinction and so fell into and the part. The analogy is, for purposes of logic, perfectly valid. interminable sophistries. ii anything is predicated of all men, the whole, we may infer that it nf Flat attributed to him the meaning Ar! ! n- in his criticism may be predicated of all tiie individual men, the parts of the whole. dial :::v iaca ur universal wa,- not mtTi'l\- ihv logical cause -f par- Again, that the whole is more than the part will be seen to be axio- ticular >aMrct- hut was the eihritTit caii-c. and a,irain-t t his conce|)ti<.m matic if examined from the point of view of knowledge rather than ot fhr th,i;v!rv (A Meas he ainich hi> -auits. Haxaiig being. The hand, for example, a part of the body, can be known reiected the Ideas on tlie a>-uni|tlin!i uiat -urli \va- ilieir -iLrnihcance, only m relation to the body, the whole of which it forms a part. he triid to build up a system of [)hilosophy on trie supposition that Platonists and Aristoieiians would admit without question that if the not the quality but thte concrete qiialihed object is the i)riniarv essence the knowledge of A were more ultimate than the knowledge of B, terms of whieii all el>e ^liuuhl \>v under-tnoii and expiainod.' in then A would be more real or existent than B. This follows from the Hi= attempt. h,nwe\'er. wa- not con^i>tent 1\- tonowni up and, sooaier correlation of knowledge and being. The body, therefore, is more tiian ai ct'[)t tlie maieriah^ni !<• whieli iii- [>renii-e dro\a- him. he fre- than the hand. Pietho's argument amounts to a reduction of Aris-

• * :ju--ii' rv shifted his u)u: \View ioiek O' that of Plato. \ totle's position to a dilemma: eiilier the analogy of the whole and (nuiii-iu- PKuiio, in iii- eritiei-m i-t flauo and Aristotle, must be part for the universal and particular does not hold or the particular judged by tin- cUinty witii wdiieli. in deaiiiu: 'vvith Plato, he alike object is not the primary essence. For Aristotle to accept the first distineuished the .^cientihc and meiapipw-aeal ex|)laualiun o! kuuwl- horn would be to surrender the whole basis of his logic. This is eitieieiiL edi:e and saw the dillermee Ik. I ween the logical and causes precisely the strait to which Aristotle would have been driven, had of phenomena, and hy the aecurac\- with wddeh in reference to Aris- he carried out his premise consistently. To accept the second horn totle lie pi an led out the mam eoni radiet iv.in of his system. I would be to contradict his own statement that essence is what most idothu indieated, in ttie iirî place, tluil Ari>ouk' rnzarded sen- exists. Indeed, with characteristic indifference to what he had al- sible olijcctb a> tiie jirimar}- Cb-ences. summarizin,i( Caicgories 2a" ff., ready said, he did accept this alternative, as Pletho showed,^^ by ad- ''Particular ol,)ject5 are the hrst and mo>t -oxa-rei^tn cs-enrcs wliile nut ting that the knowledge of the whole was better than the ^pecie., and genera are less than they.'''* knowledge of the part.^^ Replying to tins statement <.f Aristotle's he retorted that the In order to leave no ground even for a captious reply, Pletho went idiil()>opher liimêli admitted that e^ênce is that which most exists.* on to admit that Aristotle would have been right if by his statement ii Ije le:>> in the scale of then, I lie part is less than the whole, wul If, he had meant that some particular individual in a class may be ds-ne-s' or exi^tence. The particular, ttierefi^re. widch corrr-[)onds better than any other member of it, for example, that the man I to tile part, is esr exists les> than the ireneral 'universal;, wiueli (meaning Socrates) is beiLci than any other mand^ But to say that

all taken as individuals are more , » Phdedo 97 b, 100 c, d. any individual man or even men

^ Meld. lUOia", 1025a^h Cdlig. 2b". 10 M. 8Q6 D. 7 Meia. 9Slb». 102Sa='2, 1032bS l 'In (. at. (M. 101, 777 C.) 24) but he did not, like F'hotius ut, r).41, n, 11 .. note Aristotle's iru on>i-teni-y. 75, ''Anal. Post. 86a»^ rather than bimpiicius, is to be regarded a.-, Pietho's source. Pholius, therefore, I'M. 897 A. » i/fij. 1045b". CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 43 ARISTOTLE PLETHO'S 42 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND

be applied, the quality, corresponding to the predicate, as 'man-ness,' is to cate may important than the class man, that is, the quality of whiteness in white objects, is present, though in varying degrees. tt -ur into disparate and transgress the law of unity and divide exi which the rommon term is applied sake There are not different qualities to incommimirable element-.. In-HviHual men are rather for the a mere coincidence. Numbers, even though some are naturally -akr id the mr.re comprehensive |jy of ^man-ale^--; which in turn i- mr the before others,^^ are all alike numbers by virtue of their common i-r particular i^ for oualiun rationaUtv, and, in al.^"* related by the fact that some include others, such as compounds Aristotle for making each are In ihe-e words Pletho i- criticizini^ and their elementsp^^ have nevertheless in common the ultimate right, inrîead ct !,y grace of a iridix iduaJ nl)jt'ct a ûb>tance m il:^ own that they are. In respect of being, therefore, they all conini(»n quahiy of qualification nuah*\-. i>eing; In other words for denving the substance.-^ mdixaduai and independent have a common bfinL! anri holding thai eaeii object i^ an Pletho went on to elaborate and refute twô arguments by which it calb^ atleniion to the e>M;nie. lii^ objection is >ound in that tried to prove that being is not the class of all things." of experience Aristotle ini-M.:-^d)idiy oi >y-temalizing the maniiohl fduaiomena The most noteworthy fact about these arguments is that they are lek'ohigical languaire in wliicli he f)n An-^t. 'tie's 'ûi>[)n>ition. The not in Aristotle's works, although their points of departure are found the parlieuiar lAduw:. \-ery deM,.rd)e^ trie rrkition rd tlie univer:âl and in the Metaphysics. tiie Neo-rdaionn-i:^ and coninirntators closelv tilt- words of Phu>.d^'' The hrst contention, as given by rietho,^^ rested on the considera- generaiiv. tion that a class mav have besides its definition a'proprium'or invari- 1 account for concepts How. then, it may i)e adkiib di Aristotle ablv concomitant characteristic shared by nothing else. In the case and genera wrnch correspond to them? It and tlie natural -pecies no more it would be "risible," so that men would be men accorchrig to ilethu, oi man was b\ a logical device, a piece cd cuwerness, by virtue of the quality of "man-ness," indicated by the true ret: to anvoru- !)efore.^^ The which lie imagineed liad ne\"cr occur definition, a living behig gifted with reason, than they would by of wool and to snow (o,nino,*n |)reddcate "white' a< applied to a piece In the same way, since "the one" was a an accident of the quality of risibility. does not êpêênt anvtliin merelv term with 'djcing'" and so its proprium. being would the color of the wool convertible lantjiKiLre that the -anie word i> u>ed to describe be distinctively the class of all things. asks Arr-tmlc, '-can we not not and liie color (d the sn.»w. "Whvd' >harpe^t. the pen, the wme ox the vinegar? It inquire winch ir- the !• Aristotle stated that those things which admitted of a before and after a,re c-n]|:c,ira!)ie l..ut they are called would, therefore, not be a class of i> becauM,- their ~diarf)ne^-ê^. nm could not be one essence or form a class. There ff.), of numbers {Meta. 999a^ ff.) nor of compounds and sharp b\- a mere coincidence cii Umguaire. white things (Cata. 3b'3 being' wa> elements {Meta. lOTOb^, which implies rather than states the conclusion). pp.1 ho crranieti that thi,> -o-called 'etiuu-ucalion of could ddu- fuiaht>- 20 Psellus {Dc Anima, M. 122, 1060 B) said that Aristotle denied there as th,eciry Ijut maintained tliat it wa- not true, clever a vegetative and class of a series containing a before and after (such as the to be and are m tlie >ame be a by \arlue of whicli tilings are thought include soul) or in which one member was included by others but did not cpiahty rational element in things, inasmuch a^^ the percipient soul). class IS a real common them (such as the rational as compared to the vegetative and id ilie thIng^.^^ Ditterent tilings can Psellus, had his eye on the text of is, lu some ênê, the >ource Pletho's examples show that he, rather than existence, standing mcie- nut, therefore, be the causes ui their own Aristotle's works. whicli a c-miniuii predi- 2' pendentlv oi ad cImo In ênîble object:, to M. 893 B, C. 22 "Chiss" as used in this discussion means natural genus or species, rendered in each individual. The term 1* M. 897 B. natural by the fact that a certain quality is present so comes to mean the formal or •^ [.iiis. t.H).^ c, d. is sometimes applied to ihc quality itself, and '* M. S9,^ A. logical cause. ^^ Priys. 24sb^ « M. 893, C, D. '* M^ >'-H) B and UA- Vi D. 44 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE pletho's criticism OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 45

The basis for this interpretation of Aristotle's position is his proceeded to make the denial and, as the weapon forged for the assault statement, quoted exactly by Pletho, that man is not the genus of on the genus of being was thus rendered innocuous, the assault individual men.^^ Aristotle's purpose was to call attention to the collapsed of itself. difference between genus and species as such and this in turn was a In his second attack Aristotle, changing his ground, as Pletho step in proving that genera and species were not first principles of said, argued that being was not the class of all things because it being. Species only could have concrete individuals as members could not be treated as other classes could. The genus animal might whereas a genus could have only species. For this reason man could be divided into species by the application of the class difference, not be a genus of individual men but only a species. It will be seen rationality, but the genus could not be predicated of the difference. that the train ui iliuughi pursued by Aristotle was not that attributed We could not say that rationality was animate. But if we divided to him by Pletho. being into species by the application of an appropriate class dilf erence, The cliu to Pletho's argument is probably to be found in the we should be met by no such impossibility. We could predicate the M^laphysics 1039a2^fT., whi rr Aristotle argued against the hypostas- (alleged) genus, being, of the difference, since being might be predi- ization of the Ideas. If man and horse are species of the genus cated of everything. aiumal, then the aiuiiial in inaii and the animal in horse are distinct 998b22, This argument is to be found in Aristotle's Metaphysics, and the genus is no longer indivisible and hence no longer a genus. the in a state of extraordinary condensation. It is there stated that Now Asclepius, commenting on this passage, added the example species can not be predicated of its difference (This seems to be of the animal in the risible.^^ This is, of course, man. The sug- irrelevant to the argument.) nor ilie genus of the difference apart gestion was inept but it possesses some significance for our purpose. from the species to which the difference gives rise. (That is, the Into an argument of Aristotle against the assumption that a real genus can not be predicated of the difference in itself, but only of that genus or Idea can be a concrete object it introduced the example to difference as embodied in the species.) The specific application of man's propriiim. the risible. of being as the alleged class of all things is not made. No example Pletho's answir to the argument as he represented it showed particularly a class difference is given ai all. This is to be noted an understanding of Aristotle's meaning in stating that man is of as Pletho stated that Aristotle's argument lunged on his coinage not the genus of part u alar men but it imputed to him a subtle piece the Greek word corresponding to rationality and on his use of it in of sophistry. Alan i=, not the genus of all men because the class man the place of rational. has a proprium convertible with it. If an opponent should deny the text of It is plain that Pletho's source was not in this instance this statement, saying that man, in spite of this objection, is the genus ques- the Metaphysics. What, then, was it? We may answer this of particular men, la would find himself stating an obvious untruth Aristotle's tion provisionally by pointing out that this elaboration of in saying thai any class of concrete individuals could be a genus. Tn Meiaphysica, argument is to be found in Alexander Aphrodisias's riiiho in his aubwcr coninvcd lo avoid this snare by transferring itself is 205, where rationality as an example of the difference in Ari-totle'^ example from the rla^=^ man to the frenii^ of plant-animal. argument suggested. Asclepius {In Meta. 178, 3 ff.) repeated the Thir. ^eiiu- \)\' I lie application of the o a genu in relation to its own species. One might predicated predicated of the class difference rational and can not be so (len\- I Fiat animal laii- I'l heing a genus juc>l because it ha=i a proprium Not even of rationality only because rat!e)nality is non-existent. witiiou" u-ar of ialiirn.! niio tiie trap set by Aristotle. Pletho then followed this being could be predicated of it. Pletho's reply in part lead. it was If Aristotle's argument proved aayihing, Pletho held, ^ In 3/ -;.>. 4.^^'. 21 the same way merely that tlie highest class could not be treated in 47 pletho's criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

least in part, to his Pletho aiirdAiied Aristotle's position, at it really proved nothing. Aristotle gratui- a:= die lower ones. But anomalv of the genus and species desire to explain the apparent that it did not admit tously invtiucd Liu urin rationalitv and found d.ing. even thougii the one beloncrincT cm the same level as regard, ihis impossibility would not have of the predication of aniniai. But anonud)-, he hehl. only oecause included the other. It seemed an '. corresponding term, animality. resuh ii i< r animal he had coined a species oi a genus are only Aristotle did not retlect that the different rationality. Such was lit; r:,.-K: ha\'r predicated aninialiiv oi genus ânimate' are on the same level. If the species of the quibble on the verbally l>P;;n*— a;i-wt„;r to vviiat he regarded as an iniuk-rable appears to be equally a 'rationar and drrational/ each species j)art o! :\ri:3lulic.-'' to participate equally in subdivision of the genus 'animate/ that is, 'equivocation (.a' hcin^ti' wa- toiu lied on a^âin Tfii^ iiiicntion of the the 'irrational' is an imperfect the quality of animateness. But really that in an-wer to Gcnnaiiiu-'- Dfjcnse of in IMeitKi's second iraia. so shares less in 'ammateness. 'rationaV'a copy of it, so to speak, and There Gennadius, an>\\erin':i on ttehalt of Ari-lotle Pletho's they Aristijt'e. differing by the degree in which If therefore, the two species, bcincj is the class of all things, objected that no such content iâi thai a class, are nevertheless unified share in the quality which makes them prtHiuciion of unit}' \\\ tilings, class \va> neefii'd. Its funeiion, tiu- reason why the genus and the the common quality, there is no itself a by mif^ht tie anipK' perfonried Jfv the tir-t eaii-r. wine'h. heini: which they share in being, can not species, differing by the degree in unity, Wi.uhi 1)\- rei)roduein^ it- likeiit--^ in lliinu-., briruz them to a be unified by the common quality of being.^^ unity.^^ theory of being has the Pletho objected, finally, that Aristotle's Pletho ar»-wtrt(i Ccnnadius tlr-t on his own grounds as a logician things are, it. When we say that common usage of language against li liie nr>t cause, he said, brought ratiuT tlian a nietaplu-Meiam significance in each case, that is, we mean 'are' to have the same iti tiietn a likeness to itself, it would thin^- to a unitv- h\- riroducing even if the most general, we attribute to each thing 'being,' a definite, l)i.a,ng. position would be product,' in things \)oîtitai which he and predicated of different and denying a common substance to qualities tn avôid. lie nngisi luu'e got (.jennaiiia- in hi> l,)idialf wen: trvanir really was guilty of mtroducmg objects by means of the same term, he two rc-uhs to itn; hr-t cause ^ ria, t)i the ditiieuhw kA attniiutinn by forbidding it to remain one. anarchy into the realm of being and argumo th;it it [)rodiiei;d ihhI)' in the a! )-t ract quality of being before passage used by Aristotle Pleiho here quotes against Aristotle a |.)iimnL{ r)eing into the WijrM. Bin a- a iiiaLLcr ui ian, lletho con- and implies that it commits himself when arguing for monotheism the alj-tract tjuaiitv .a htanir is imparted by God, unity s reasoning tinued, when being is one. If Aristotle the author to the theory that ! 30 protiuei'd., tiunirs to have IS tnt-relA' m for his argument, he seems was made l)V Pletho the basis ta)ok 26 s*)() more likely that he HI), A. admitted an'element ui captiousness. It is 2' {Dub, M let] 5 H. pêllus also, folluwing Damasdu^ Dub et Sol. /, 37, 21) held Tim. L H^l^ 16) or Damascius the argument from Proclus Jn Lliat iJ.r iir-*. r)rini'a)lc v\a> tlic One .ind after it came being (O. D. 38.)

^-^ I [Mtn vvliit III Aristotle does Pletho base this opinion? It may be a general- must be The ascent from species to genus 3^ 1016 A ff., 161, 719 D, vi-*^ u is assumcil r each of M. izaCion ( «i .l/f'M. 107 th. hi-re d - >{')ht*ri' What i- true hrre uf efficient causes I'ictho may understood used by Pletho may well have been and the particular argument here have i^eneraH/ed to im iu.it: torrnai cau-c- or. fu;rha|)-; more Hkely, this is merely ^pIuus of a class mention is made of the division by Soph. 226 d, where specific a vvav ui >nitinK Aristotle's tiiet,)r\- that tricrr arr no Idea- which as universals suggested better and worse sub-class. art: tlic i.)k'!ivil cau>e> ut all tlic |Kirticular> included in their respective classes. into a Each tiling exi>ts indu-iduaJl)- without the iu-ip of Ideas. ^''Meta. 1076a^ M. m> B. 2'^ a.diuse" in this pas-r^age |ddinlv rcicr:> to the formal or logical cause.

3-' M. WIS i), 10 10 A. 48 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 49

the et Sol. I, 98, 22 ff.), both of whom employed it and repeated 'creation* of the universe he was careful to point out the difference Homeric quotation, the former verbatim and the latter in substance. between the logical and the temporal or efficient function of the Pletho took exception to an isolated statement of Aristotle creator.^^ But when he gave an account of the theory of Ideas allied to this general subject. He could not grant to the ancient according to the Platonists,^^ as he called the Neo-Platonic philoso- philosopher that the general (uniyersal) is analogous to matter and phers, he was almost driven to this confusion. The word 'cause' the particular to form. If, said Pletho,33 the universal and particular as logical cause was subject in the history of Platonism to two cor- are related as the whole to the part, and form is everywhere found in rupting influences. 'Being' was, in the proper sense of the word, the whole rather than the part (for example, the form or quality by the cause of all else, the first cause, which might be spoken of as God. virtue of which certain matter is actually a wagon is to be found in Bui Hi the Republic and Timaeiis God was the creator of the universe the whole wagon rather than in one wheel), Aristotle is wrong. and the Ideas. Thus the term 'God' nughi he used equi\ocally of Moreover, since Aristotle admits that form is opposed to niattcr as being, which imparted to all things that by which they were, or of the actual to the potential and since the universal, that is, the the creative, efficient agent which produced the world. Secondly, quality of things, is both actual itself and actually embraces all its ilic words aiTLov and apxi] might apply to the logical and also the particulars, while the particular embraces only its share of the univer- efficient cause; but, since the conception of an efficient cause was difficult sal, that part, that is, of the quality which makes it among others a easier and more familiar, k drove out, so to speak, the more member of its class, therefore the universal is more actual, and so conception. Hence the Idea as an ainov or apxi) came to be thought analogous to form rather than to matter. The universal, too, being of as a principle of motion^^ or the efficient cause of particular objects. that the whole, is more complete than the particular, just as form is more This was an inevitable development when it was once granted complete than matter.^* sensible objects had to be fashioned after the likeness of Ideas and

The theory of Ideas is the metapiiysical explanation of the rela- yet no especially suitable instrument was provided for making them in 928 B tion of iir universal to the particular. The essential characteristic so. The Ideas thcm'^clve? a^^unied the function. Thus M. of a class, by its presence in each individual, makes it a member of Pletho, speaking for the Platonists, said that the Ideas actively tin 'lass, and so comes to be thought of as the cause of the particulars, produce natural objects with the help of the sun, which supplies the

*d" is, in his system of trull is, their inmiai ^ ause. .Bcnig, ihe highest of the universals, matter. In his account the Ideal world, that Ideas i- in this sense the cause of all else. Pletho does not seem in his deities, he made the demiurge an Idea, with whom other siricii\ philosophical writinu^> lo have confused cause in this sense actively cooperated to produce still other Ideas. They were con- in their totality produced all the with the efficient iau-( . in a letttr to Bessarion he devoted some ceived of a< active minds and ^^ b-iace to distinguiiiiiig the two kiiids^^ and in dealing with the phenomena of the \ isible world. Pletho defended tlie theory of Ideas against Aristotle's attacks in «M. 897 C. a lon<: chapter oi the I)e Difrrentia. Before the defense proper, J^ M. 897 C. however, he paused to reply to Aristotle's attribution of the theory • 1 M 161, 7 15 1), 718 ' i'letho was distinguishing two kinds of "participa- to Plato.-'*' This would be to make Plato an innovator, a term with ti »n i Itas or separ.ilui ni ri i> were said to participate in things of sense when 71.^ Gemistus, as with Plato himself, generally used as a reproach.^^ th-:> merely caused their cxi-tiTiv, t\ -Kaoa-.tL'^ . Ct. M, ir-l. H where the

mtwTwnc -t Tapa-,ta is given by the scnMice of Bessarion quoted from Proclus « Xt-^x- >a,j av'h'jTO'jrarov 6 av tavTo j^apa-, 17.) Souls, too, were Said to participate m Cf. p. 64.

beMjie^ uheii the\- took the bo tu ihemselves, dispose*! arni moved thern. and " M. 928 B flf. 71*^ »8 c, et 335b». &(j were tiie eau-e of tiieir aetivit\- Kiveiv). Here and \n M. I^'l, I>. (7 l/it/'tho a.. M. 928 B. Also Phaedo 100 d and Gen. Cor. 39 !)elow. elearlv ihê-d Tapavtti' t7..)r the fanct!'.)n of the h,„)t:icdl eau--e a,nd Kivtlu for the function Cf. p. 93 of the eiheient Lauê. The two nii^ht be comprehended under the term alriov or *0M. 'n.() B. ^- .M. 908 A, 909 C, 1002 C, etc. Cf. Plato, R(p. 424 c, Laws 657 b, 708 d. re -.iutn nu-r. .iuran-.-.. exist^^ It remains pre triangle sense, whuh is found in the Idea of the iheir cupie., ihe ..bjects of other source. This source cvi r.^t Ik- compared uisr, some likened relation of the Ideas to God Tb.eir disînuiarily nuîu be number, or object generally. The ar- liable to ei.arme a.v! deea;.-^ or ditk-rent explained as follows: statue, liu-. ..iai.!;. b. i-ug lo the sensible world is briefly u. that of Lvsander and his and maii- good God did not directly charaeleristu '•! l.vâiider, his transcendental and perfectly !.^r It uc take the ehi- The classes [povs) th.e -iUe-tion Mind or Intelligence he e,r the statue, the workL^^ A second nature, ness- and a-k which, i^ more num. create the statue, intelligible world or hierarchy of the -.Man-ness,' therefore, i^ nut pre-ent in coming from God formed the ha^ r... meanne.e ' the sensible or, rather, degree Ideas as models,^^ this Being made ,.1 - but abo of thin,-i> world are; and there ^ properties and relations of objects. The which will make men be what they various kinds of be an Idea of man the tiling;, be the transcendental God and whicli will make all other Ideas is intermediate between will alM, be an Idea ot not-man, of properties can be predicated be Mea- ot negations, .'\mong of sense, because being and noi-m.-n ' In other word- there mu-t phenomena can not (for the Ideas are will be some corresponding Ideas but potentiality and actuality the Idea, of thin.- that cliange, ihere of the

990b'^ Hekker-, ehvion u: ri,.to ..Loudon, "M. 917 A, Meta. ,, pf „ 1^ „ ;n This work i- publish^,! la <9M. 917 A, Dff. n. . i. 47 1S26 60 e. 917 A. Cf. Phaedo 75 • M. . . r. . .i, „ *' an / '/! 1096b'. . , of what is than is rather a confused conception the concrete objects a and a 61 Error, Pletho explains, 14 ar^^ument i^ as follows: if M Mif, C The 193 b, c in this. necessitate is not. He foUows Theaet. on tlic .ame principle a and A idea of what nece.^duar the postulate of the Idea A, still other, will « 92. 93. ' ,\' and in the .ame way Cf. pp. . A ( r^A further po^lulation of an ullcrinr Mea the mind of God. the " Pletho, supposed that the Ideas were m .a a>.urdun. Cf. bhorey s I nUy Psellus, unUke uuienniteiy. Th,. amoanl. to a r.durn. arise Anima, M. 122, 1061 C.) (0 I) 60; De ^, , r ,, a FUi:o's Though!, p. .>6, n. 244. individual objects Pletho followed oj " In denying that there were Ideas for *^ B. Cf. |). 4.^ and n, 19. opinion was M. 916 1), 924 Plotmus (Enn. V, 7), whose Proclus Un Farm. 824) as against *« M. 916 I), Metd 99Ub'h adopted by Psellus (O. D. 116). *' 'i'Hny\ ,M. 916 D, <'17 C. A/.'/J. ^ M. 920 B, C. PLETHO's CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 53 52 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE (d) If there are Ideas of relations there will be Ideas of every considered chance relation. Pletho explained Aristotle's meaning by the unchangeable) ; while, on the one hand, God can not be under any of these categories^* and, on the other, objects of sense example of an eclipse of the sun occurring at the time of the Olym- can be considered under them all.^^ pian games. Neither occurrence is the cause of the other, so that This outline of the theory meets Aristotle's three objections. their simultaneity may be taken as an example of a purely casual ^2 if relation. By postulating out I i i lor each class of things, even the members of the class are arranged in a series, as are numbers, Pletho obviated Pletho replied that there will not be one but many Ideas to lo till necessity of havinu an Idea for each object and mathematical represent this relation, each one corresponding a type of real concept; by showinL^ iiiat objects in a class have an Idea as cause of cause in the two chains of event=^ which lead, on the one hand, to an eclipse of the sun at a certain lime and, on the other, to the cele- their laiiig in iliat i hiss he indicated that negations are due to a lack of cause, not to a -pet ial cause of their own;^^ and by making the bration of the games at the same time. These two chains cross at a Idea': rational, unchanging and always actual he explained away any certain point, but beyond that have nothing to do with each other. an maiy that mi'iht be thought to attend the idea of a phenomenon There will be Ideas of the types of causal relations in the chains uiiich, existing only potentially, has not yet come into actual exis- but not of the casual relation involved in the crossing of the chains. tence or has ceased to exist actually. The coincidence can be said to have a cause only if by 'cause' we (c) The dyad of greai aiii -mall was held by Plato, as interpreted understand that divine harmony in the universe in accordance witli by the commentators generally, to beget all other numbers.^^ It which the two chains of events meet at the time they do. This is was, therefore, their cause. But those who make number the Idea neither direct causation in the ordinary sense, nor yet chance, as of all numbers will give the primacy to it and not to the dyad.*° Aristotle implied.^^ Pletho replied that this might be so among the ideal numbers (e) Ideas and their copies are either of the same class or they are and yet in liK exuii U*l numbers here the dyad would still retain not. If they are, they have a common nature, and the Ideas, as mere it- prinacy. as in Plato, and beget the otiicr numbers.*^ doublesof the sensible objects, lead to the argument of 'the third man.' If they are not of the same class, their connection is a mere matter ^« Psellus (O 1> 22) expressed the same idea, saying that mind, being un- of language which corresponds to no real identity of essence. ^^ moved, can not be measured by time, essence or actuality. The statement that The dilemma is not real, Pletho retorted. The Ideas and copies mind i- unmoved may be traced back to Aristotle {De Anima, 430a'0, where, as in i'sellus's work, we must suppose mind to be synonomous with God. Pletho need not be of the same class in order to have some common element. pointed this out in the case of Aristotle (Cf. p. 75 and n. 221). According to Psellus Lysander and his statue are not in the same class yet they have in fluctuations of thought belong not to the mind but to the soul. the human common the shape of the man.®^ '7 M. 920 C, D. (f) Ideas are of no benefit to things of sense, because they are 68 So in his letter to Bessarion iM 161, 720 A) Pletho says that "being" is not the cause of motion or change.^^ Many things exist, indeed, used in the same sense when predicated of everything except negations (aTepi7

is is " Phileh. Ih b, ( iiut cf. Shorey, p. 64 and n. 501. as the generalized causation by which harmony in the universe procured

•o.M. 'ill C. Met I. 'J')Ob'». probably taken from Proclus, In Tim. II I, 272, 22 ff.

•' Aristotle's critic !>m is based on the supposition that in Plato's philosophy «M. 921 D, 924 A. numLer> jre Lieas. Pletho holds that tlurt is merely an Idea for all numbers «^ M. 924 A, Meta. 991a». ju>t a- for .in> other ilass of relations. \ umbers produced by the dyad are of tlie " Cd\ p. 50 above.

«« worhi .)f >en-.e, Pletho'^ a>iun lo An-ttjtle that number holds the primacy M. 924 B, Meta. 991a», 1079b« in the Ideal world i.> to l>e ex[.)eeted from one '.vho holds that number only and not •'M.925B. the dyad or any other individual number is to be found in it. PLETHO*S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 55 54 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

the Idea of man is in turn an man is a species of the genus animal, Pletho pointed out that such a criticism implies that the eflScient imitation of the Idea of animal.^^ cause is the only cause and, more particularly, that it is a denial of -trange— Pletho replied that, while >iic}i a result does sound inconsistent, for he ad- the formal caii'ê Tn this Aristotle was greater and less than itself— /^ a- if 'jne proved that a thing were mitted among his tour causes the formal cause.^^ He did not need thing being an image of yet there is nothing impossible in the same for they were it, of course, to t xr liin the genesis of the heavens, statue might be the image of e)iie thing and imitated by amîher. A the genesis eternal and had none; but without it he could not explain reflection in water.^^ Such a man ami have an imitation of itself by 'f finger of natural lAwm: 110:11.1. Even in the tm-c the house and signifying arguments of Aristotle, he said are ''full of sound, ra-i; iL i:. of the there mur^t 1 >v nioflel. In ihe fornuT in the mind nothing."'' artisan.^* He and rii- tools li'uM nut hi tiie eflScient cause of the Ideas Pletho attributed Aristotle's hostility toward the theory of the house unles> he had tlie plan in hi: niiinh X* more could sun causes of their motion to his desire to show that things eternal had be the efficient cause of the finger, as An i th would have it, without he divided only and not of their beingJ^ For this reason, although an Idea. Yei thi- -ûn 1- not even the efficient cause. When an yet he never causes into the material ef^rient. hnal and formal, anisiin h:'a\-e- hi- ta-k hi- work ceases, but w-fum 1 he sun is absent accounting for employed the formal cause, that is, the Ideas, in at ni-j'i: ,::r.-wiii iiikv- \Aiu:v muir the less, and, lurt herm,ore, the sun phenomena.''® iai k- t!u_' iiecessar\- ix'îion and form for fashioning objects as the reaction We have seen that in metaphysics Aristotle represented a artisan does. Natural Dhenonn na have not their efficient cause that his against Plato's idealism h.iu a reactiun :=o far incomplete that they, in liu-' -un. nt)r \a't in t hrni-t An-inih: confessed view. Similarly, thought failed of unity and confused twô points of

1 r •vvriih- rxi^tmg onlv piitcntiallv. cr.u!.i n^t |,.t'cumc atlual wiiliuul ilie Aristotle with a like incom- in dealing with the world of phenomena, in-trunifnta1it\- <>f -.(»me othrr aciuahtv, d^he requisite actualities nre forth in the poetico- pleteness'' rejected Plato's teleology as set In hf fraind in the Ideas. ldie\- dirrciK' pruducw tdu- hvawns^^ but explained the order in the scientitic work, tlic Timaeus. Plato had tn |)n.tduci- natural [)henunu'na they rv^rdu'v tiie help of the sun ;«o Aristotle world as due to the purpose of some external intelligence vviiich sup|.hie- tht- niafter.'^ but at the same time by denied to God any intercut in the world^^ Ideas arr .! in:* vninv tr.r kn..wiedge, since they are not the intelligence directing (g) personifying nature he implicitly admitted an ei;;enre of thiniz- and dn niU in\]crc m them.''^ was a cause. As a ship change in the world. Nature willi him i'ird:.. rf['!ied linit. ihuutrii ideas do not inhere in things, yet so a tree takes form takes form under the hand of a shipd3Uilder,, they do cau>e theni to he and SO are of alvnntage in knowledge. nature and as under no hand that we can see but m obedience to trie the will be better able For he who kn<.*\v- Ijoth (aiijinal and <'*'f^>' change is comparable to a directed bv a purpose in naiurc.^^ The to judge of the ci)[iv irnin he who know- the ei){)V only.^ (h) Twv>tl\n Ari-ii>tie nt)jected that Ideas wiH not be the models ^* M. 925 A, Meta. 991a." },)i:i al-o id other Ideas. For example, merely ei [)erce])til)ie object- 76 Cf. Rep. 523 c IT, which probably suggested this example. the Lhwi (d man i^ the niexhd, uniiaied hy i)erceytible man; but, since w Cf Rep. 516 a for a passage here the word of reproach " m' 925 B. Pletho employed against Aristotle Ideas in Anal. Post. SSa^', Aristode himself used of Plato's theory of 6~' M '-^2^ H, C. vhich «* rtptT(.afia. i in- i-. un toeisive aiJ mission o^ .Xristotle's statement. Pletho here follows ^'. 78 M. 924 C. Cf. pp. 84, Proclus's interprctition Jn Iim. i, 344, 7 ff.) of Plato's Republic^ 596 b. B. 928 . , -9M. , , '«Cf. pp. 93, .quiiitet (c); 95. ,,, But for Plato's sober opinion ci. l haeao M. 'J15 A. PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 57 56 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO's CRITICISM OF

mind in art, nor does it therefore physician's healing himself. ^^ His theory might be described as an does not prove that there is no purpose is in the artisan's mind immanent teleology^ as contrasted with Plato's transcendental in nature. In the arts the conscious Plato,^^ it is in the mind of God.^-' When teleology. By making nature a sort of art and describing art as a and in nature, according to reaches out toward a support and, upon finding it, cause of change, abstracting it from the artisan, Aristotle skilfully the tendril of a vine of its reaching out exists before the avoided having to state what corresponded in nature to the artisan grasps it, the purpose or end goal. But the purpose or end could not precede f" in art. Nevertheless, to say that there is purpose in nature does attainment of the 111, some mind. The mind which imply a conscious intelligence. the action unless it were conceived m remains that the purpose must Pletho was quick to seize upon this weakness. The possible conceives it is not in the tendril. It

' Pletho stated that this view was shared alternatives are, he maintained, the Platonic view, according to be in the mind of God.^' the supreme artisan. ^^ which things in themselves irrational are directed by an intelligence also by Pindar, who called God defend Aristotle against Pletho by taking oiit^îde of them, and the atheistical, thai i^, mechanistic, theory of the Gennadius tried to ^^ of [SovXeveadai., which means not atonn-t-, who den\' all purpose in iiic happenings of nature. Aris- advantage of the double meaning but also 'to deliberate.' He interpreted totle, he said, wishiiiLi to ittuiid a school of his own, tried to takr a only 'to plan' or ^purpose' how to SLii^m'{ayvoe2i>^h^r]Te2pdey^ middle position bei w.cn these views. ^^ His position may be stated it to mean 'aim at without knowing ^âs replying to those who held Lhub; nature acts for an end but withioui a conscious purpose. But Aristotle, according to Gennadius,^^ over nature but that, groping about in ignorance, the very e xa.niple he used, objected Pletho, shows the inconsistency that a mind presided ol)jects to their appropriate ends. Aristotle of his viewpoint. Aristotle meant the example of the physician it did not direct natural to the effect that it was strange curing himself to be an analogy of nature acting with no director but answered these supposed opponents were not directed to some end merely htTM-li, a^ Plciho pointed out in M. l'>ome mind irnLi>i conceive and, will the end. It is so in art, XoylêadaL:'' Had he to a patient being cured by a physician in -piti: nf Aristotle's a'unnpi to abstract art fr«im the artisan, and, should have compared nature

if ini* lire is essentially like the art-, it nni>t he -n in nature too. We 88 Soph. 265 e. do not -ee ilie tuol.. in art in-piri.i 1>}- a conscious purpose, just 89 M. 909 D, 912 .\, B. we (in not -ee 'lie nn-)\inir cause in nature so actuated, but that a> 90 M. 1005 A, B. »' Pindar, frag 29 moekbV ^^ M. 912 B. Cf. Pnys. I92b^. Trapezuntius when « This was the interpretation adopted also by Gaza and '' Cf. Afeta. 1070ah defending Aristotle. Cf. pp. H. 12 above. '>> in Fhilebus 1^ n, 29 a, Soph. 265 c. 93 1003 C, D. ''" M. 1004 A, B. M. ^ took t6 kivovv, here translated "cause," to mean the *' Gennadius evidently M. 1004 eh I). Gass, 1. 47. note a, remarks on this argument, "Der i .liiei mind which operates on phenomena. ties Fletiu) i>t iKz-chrdriKl una mi-ver-landiich." Gass seems to think th.L* I'lctho ^ Phys. 199b«. Ari:,t.uU''5 analogy, but Pletho is surely right in pointing demands too much from although •« 1004 A. Pletho probably bases this statement on Eth. 1 139a'n out that this anahjgy brings into strong rciici the inherent contradiction in M. he does not sav he has Aristotle's authority. Aristotle's thought. OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 59 58 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO's CRITICISM

is moved without some efficient cause,^^^ he came and not to a physician curing himself. Neither would he have, in stated that nothing near asserting that nothing comes from nothing. For when all probability, failed to state his belief explicitly somewhere in his perilously is, changed, the final state of it is due to works. ^^ a thing is moved, that admitted that this genesis can not come from Aristotle, while allowing that the processes of nature have a a sort of genesis, and he statenuius he granted by implication that purpose, yet asserted that they accomplish much which is without nothing.^^^ In such inexorably bound together by cause and effect, a result a purpose. When ilie eye is produced it accomplishes an end, everything is h his express admission of chance. namely, sight, but the blueness of the eye has no purpose.^^ Results in direct contradiction to the practical influence of Aristotle's theory is bad. thin that occur in k -ponse to no purpose he called dx' auro/udrou.^® Furthermore, happens without any apparent cause, such as phenom- Unpurposed rt'-uiu ui humdJi iii lion, as a subdivision of these, were When a thing 100 a Platonist, believing that everything has some dfilsUed hx arro Tvxrj<; vet un term is often used loosely to cover ena m the heavens, ^^^ it to God;!^^ for he regards things over which ociu'Tcnces in Hdlurt- whirh arc without a purpose. The cause cause, will attribute control as subject to divine providence, that harmony 01 all [)ur[)oseless rv-ults he spokr >A n^ uncietmed, because they do m.en have no whicli. while ordering all individuals in the world for not produce truir rc-uli- .villi any fixed bond of necessity but might in the universe, highest good, yet prefers the good of the whole in accordance act difTerentlv.i*'^ ifcrt , then, is room for spontaneity in nature, their justice.ii^ For an Aristotelian such an event Aristotle held, ju-t a- anu.n. lM:f.'\ Mctd. 1032a^ ". more unfortunate

"> Elk. lUia'h io'P/05. 2Al\r\ 25 la^'. ^^ Phys. 106b2«. 108 M. 912 D, 913 A. loj De Inl'^rpr, \''>.i\ 1. 1^- f, 54, riutt b, rightly remarks regarding this passage io»M. 913 A. of Anstutie. •Dic'-e Mclle bictft nur hir Theilung dcr C\'iiisalitat, nicht fiir vollige "0 M. 1006 A, B. Ci. Plato, Laws 903 b, c. Aufhebung de^ ihiluni> cincn Ik-le^."' Bui it wa^ not necessary for Aristotle to "1 M. 913 A.

deny all causation in onler t'.> introuuce t!ie element of indeterminateness against ^^^ Hist. Animal. 539a.»^ will correspond, of course, whtih i'lctho \va> ar£,^uing. it was precibci}' liic "liieilung der Causalitat" to ^'^Hist. Anim. 541a2«. "Seed" in this passage formal cause of generation, while the whicii he ol)jec!e(h to sperm cell which, with Aristotle, was the •"' was the material cause. M. 'ni C, inor B, C, loi. 72U A. germ cell or the female part in reproduction, ^" Ca. Prod. In Tim. 1, 2o2, 6 li. ii< M. 1007 D, 1008 A.

u,s ^"^ j'^^,^_ 260b^ and ff.

\ «

ARISTOTLE OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 61 60 PLETHO'S C1?ITTCISM OF PLATO AND PLETHO'S CRITICISM

he meant 'cause* to be follows, yet is not an absolute beginning, that some ihinir- hdi^ynn without a cause, that it is a cause of what without w^-rd.^^^ conditioned, first, by the divine element from lakcri in Ur' na 'W ^cn-e of the for it is itself cause which Aristotle secondly, by the ideas and conceptions reicrrc i i) iln immediate' leads the soul and, ! which ( i t: n 1 1 'd lure water,ii« world of Ideasd^^ Thus ! the 5 aij-eiice uf he;u m tJU' c;ilIâtion of ice by from without, that is, from llnIlii-.rainl? bv the- obtained and etfectdî moon a-^ tVie caiiê of an edipse.i^^ art are a mere link in the chain of cause porîiiuii ...f thf earth ana the thought and ^^r'uic ^

a, special point occasioned by Bes- He inWYDTvivd Ari-totle to mean that in >r^mv pruce-e- -iicri We have a further elaboration of this ihere was room for chance commentators on Plato and Aristotle condition wa. not iictdcd, .u that alter ail sarion's quotation of various the opinions of rietho's position. Bessarion adduced in hi^ ?v-teni. ill rebuttal the dilemma |>assage which An-totie says thai he and Olyinpiodoru^ to reduce Pletlio to 1 a m f: e': ho (I LiOt e( in replv of Ammonius It the soul is not, as it. he tiic onlv cause pruperiy ir^ free or the soul is mortal. did not intend the dnmiediate' caiiê that either the will the other hand, taken, mio account by one who it can not be immortal. On so-calh-d. hut mere!}- that it niuâ In- Plato saidd^^ self-moved, uncaused from (hennadiu- was wrong, he ii mu^t be free and its operations woidd Riiow ah the caiiê^ of a ihanire. if it is self-moved, kind th caiiM' ironi ihe others. argued, HI making ihi-^ a different without d^^ unly tlie one meaning soul is self-moved, but that self-motion alnou eauww. unUke alna raiiê or bhuncj, ha:= Plelho replied that the since (ireek [rencrally. Yet not only was do not imply an entire absence of cause, in Xn-nalv'^ writing- and m and self-subsistence it would be intermediate between Gennadumd ohjeetion mi>iaken !)Ui, had it keen sound, even Proclus dehned the sell-moved to itselfd^^ God ii Aristotle liad meant is moved from without have made a-ainst hi- mam caiieniion. the unmoved and that which part of dmrnediaie' eau-ê-. he still allowed the causeless cause. The highest that rôrne ihinit> tiappen, without IS the unmoved mover, intelligence no way argued against j, a part of the divine. The that tlêv rer-ult from ordimirv cau^cb and in the soul, or the inte}ligence,^25 j ium appear to do and soul, which are thus moved by something ci,'tcrn:mi^.mi, a^ (iennadiu- ^M^hed to nuike moves the other pârt^ of the zeal to refute a unity, therefore, consists of the defended him m deami. Idim- Uennadius, in in- outside themselves. The soul as a counter to his own mam from without and lower parts which specilm Maiement or hh tho's, ar-ued divine unmoved element coming of these two i> that some things happen by the higher. As a union thesis.118 An^tutled real meaning are moved and governed cata- the eoiir>e of liu- a,rLrument. self-moved. The lower parts Pletho witlioiit a caime. Thm i> idear trom elements it is said to be states to admit causes which imi)ulse {opfii]), and the In trying to allow h)r chance he wa" ohliued logued as the will or wi^h (doiXvcns), from per- To :â>a liowexer. that some things on these, inner joy, not that coming do n()t act m a determined wa>a of the soul dependent 1,4 ^ t oMier and beyond them ) liii leave tiie courage, happen without an dnuiiediate' can>e w«,-' u ception, (xapa) anger, hope, fear, desire, as psychological reflex of the objective world cau>e- oficrating fre^ni necessity. the srarraauu, or the a^ccordmg of the soul is not due to Human action a^ well a. nature admitted -îionianeit y, perceived bv the senses.^^^ The immortality part, -aipported l^y the senlema' m but to the presence of its highest to An-4.,otle. Thi:> |>rop()>ition lie the fact that it is self-moved see a heginninir of the he âid that in planning and acting we which 120 720 D. aoM;- M. 161, C, thi> to he Ari>totle's sole example of a < fulureh'^ Pletho t(u)k 121 M. 913 B. :-v rutiny. âld, will m'-t in/ar 122 less phenomenon. \"et even it. he Phaedrus, 24S c.

I i? to be in the sense 123 1) il. act. wdiile a l)eginning ui what M. 161, 713 . T The thought and ^ I, I, 379, 1 iT. Also Damascius =24 M. 161, 718 C, I). Ci. iTocl. In Tun. i» M. 1006 C. 264, 20 Q. 12^ I). ii« M. 161, 720 C, AnaL Post. ^)5>i^K u } A A seems, in this account, to be excluaea i2« 161 720 1 ) the purely sensuous Ji- Mela. 1044b h M the sensuous pleasure of of the in tlie Rtpublic^'^^ icprc-ciiLed li\'i:' lla-lvlV FurlluTniori', either. But thereby they to the other kind of necessity ISO subject hum an "u! ireeh' i:h()()-in,i! tiieir own \i\-v< imagine that the soul can make 'the good' a weak inlluence, and really dependent I'K'tho replied tliat moral eh(UC(^ 'dvu \ I iu; will are anything that appears to it act in a desultory iashion,i-^^ choosing it, unce the on thr mtelliErence even wlicn the\' decide to disobc)- rather than what appears best.^^^

1 .n IV I hi- iMtelngence re-ohrdon to disol)ey i- ha>ed on a coinai'Jt 546 a ff. as a The explanation of the number in the Republic m.u!. case oi nuai who acted differently of a denrrdjle >tate of t hv The himself unable to give, although symbol of necessity Pletho professed loreloid, ii^r them hv idie hnro^cnpe does not ditliculties from tfu- character to elucidate the arithmetical h', made certain suggestions -pc wa- |u-ohaldv constitute a \-alid oigrction. he !:vld, -ance the h-r*-. in it.^" • in. ler- 4. A rt !i rred to and is always hard to Aris- read i!n.wrra"Cliv in 1 hi- ca-v out that according to In the Pe Difereniia Flethu pointed 131 pUeusible until one Idle ari^umeni iirawn ironi ilato seems universe. He had declared I)ret, n,th On

133 SUt)ni-Lt:nt. M 161 721 A, B. , where Pletho interprets erc^.^ia as the 134 This follows Plato, Cratylus 403 c, "»617 e. compulsion. good, which is stronger than psychological analogue of the apparent "0 M. Icl, 71^. I) ff. TTfiodcnrroi'Tts. ^^ T^ bi ypvxji idaraLOT-qTa ^»' ' readings given would not, probably, .M 1 f P 7 2 A I'letho added that the 136 A. out M. 161, 722 D-723 havf been convmarvt: to iurn fh- AorJs seem to convey not an out and 137 723B-724A. extant part of^his M. 161, rejcctiun but a guarde.i .keptin^.m regarding astrology. The 188 Dc Caclo 290a\ This is in marked Laws contain^ no hint ui a h. liei m a:-ira,l influence on souls. 139 Meta. 1091ai2, :>Laro exercised a compulsion over earthly contra>t t f-llu^, who .laicd thai the 140 M. 889 C.

affair^, ' T) U 7 7.) 141 Gen. el Cor. ^20a'». a genuine work, of Plato. - osj I,, f'kah.) assumed tl;e f'_p:K^.^rnis to be i« 245 c. h:ii.:=di with the same title. (^L Icp 722 e" „ He wrutc a work 65 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 64 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

of which things have Plato held that God, that is, that by virtue that the universe itself is uncreated and so without a it results sense.^^^ We have here, then being, was sovereign over things of In the Timaeus,^*' again, the universe was said to be beginning. between the two philosophers which according another form of the difference created. These passages are not contradictory, but imply, in the realm of metaphysics. 'create.* If, as in the we found to Pletho, two different senses of the word significance. To Gennadius, however, the debate had no such time came into existence with the universe, the universe Timaeus,^*^ that Aristotle did not believe He saw in Plctho's words only a charge created in time and hence always was. If, therefore, God was not so was not in a-rcemcni with the in tlic creation of tlic world, and creator, he wa> such, not in time, but only in thought. was spoken of as exercised him more to refute. churcli. None of Pletho's arguments of the iiin\ erse much as qualities That is to say, He i- merely the cau.-.e Gennadius's Dejense of While we have only short extracts from ci \îlat thev nualifv,^^-^ Crcaih.n in lorric or thought, are the cause the part of the speech Arisloilc and those, too, taken merely from thr -Irpt iiilnu-f of the imi- then, is merelv Linnt!u;r \v-i_v n[ di'-crihin.u should not likely which came into Pletho's possession, yet we uie |>rinciT)lt; ni bring \)y vlrlMc of •Aiiieii ail things are. \'ersr uii the greater part of the work was be far wrong if we conjectured that creation tliat the passage in llu- I'lniaeus referred, It is t.» the h)u:ical in God the Creator. spent on establishing that Aristotle believed tlie >ense tiiat it i> not created m linied'-^ and the ôul i^ uncreated in the subject and the the majority of the extracts deal with represented I'hito as ahirniing, Certainly Wdiiir, therefore, Pletho o>ten>il)ly or indirectly to Pletho's answer is devoted directly he wa- really greater part of and AriMolle a- den\-inir, a creation of llie iini\'er-e. Moreover, no subject exposing the fallacies of such an attempt. the material uni\erv: Aristinle hehl that that ii aiwavs had heen and alwa\'> \v('uld hut Gennadius's comprehension and interest. the inherent capacity lur cndlc-:; existence,^''^ while matter had Aristotle described God as His first piece of evidence was that that He created or first principle,^^^ thereby implying '« 32 c. the beginning ^^^ i« 38 b. the world. jUSt i« ^^^. clear to his opponent Cf. p. n. ^ above. Pletho, professing to despair of making '^^ M. 892 H. C, VtS7 C, U, '•'"^s A i.:e->>, I. 44. n. ,i. >.ays: "Diese Distinction himself with pointmg what Aristotle did mean by d.^x^, contented ht ohnt- Zwvli'A nne der vorrirhmstcn von rU-iho .uehraiichten Instanzen." This position the Stagirite employed to explain the onmu'iitators on idato, out the analogies which dibtiru Hon, ho\vceer, wa^ ;i comrnon[)lact; among thf as the beginning of the In Tiit. God was never spoken of Crann:r Proclu^, In Tim. !. 277, S ti.^. Alan. .us fXIW Cf. Hermann, of the deity. of a house but 2s*), adiilopoie I)> Art. said to be the beginning Dri!"^. \'l U)'Je Severus [Prod. ibid. I. 6 iTo Tauru- universe as a carpenter may be despot 1. .^'U, tT.) held on mu h an army or a Mund. 14c., s n., 1S6. 17 ff.) and Prochis {h: Tim. 4 He was rather compared to a general marshalling I. ibid. ; Pro. grounJr- tiiat Idato l)elie\'t'd the uni\-erse was eternal, while .\ttieii> empire's existence but rather managing his empire, not causing the l^f), ff.), in ed. lierrcird. \M . IS I, 2Sa, 27 I!./, Plutarch ^Df Anim. Procr. l!)l.-^ a, Aristotle never called its organization and arrangement.^^^ tl.) held that Plato be- effecting ; PH , 20 Alexander Aph^<)(ll^lenî^ Phihjp., Dc Ait Mund. clearly father,!^^ ^r cause of the universe, but \\ an- C 279b« and Zeller 2. (Ih n. 1 iieh! that tried to avoid any expression di>Linaiun [or the sake of cdearne^- onl>\ The twu pa^âKe^ from Plato whieh be found an'M. 122. 10S4 V>k Cf, Zeller, 2 (n,792,n. 1 and Aristotle's. (M. 988 D.) that is, less materialistic, than n. 2; Steiniieimcr, S 11; Roger Jones, Chdiiidius ^md 2ico-Flatonism ui CI. I'. '*' Meta. 983a8, Eth. {lASii"^. XII i P'M.Sa l'C5. 1^0 '* ui die eterrnt)' of the uni- M. 991 A. ICellus {O. L), 121 J refers to .Ari-totleC theory \m11 ne\a.-r 16' 398b*. verse and rejects it. He disagrees also wdh Idato's opinion that it be De Mundo

i -cri}»!ure> Folituus 273 a, b. destruya'ii, on ihe ground that this doctrine is contradicte.rv to iu- and i''2 As Plato did, for example, m show that even Platu thought tiie uni- he deprecated the attempt of i*roclus to i"M. 1012 C. verse was created in thought only and nut in time. AND ARISTOTLE 67 66 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO

not quite satisfied with the defense ' Gennadius himself was I nadius in a second argument pointed out that Aristotle had Aristotle. Apart from his resort to the supposi- described God as the beginning of motion in the soul and the uni- he was making for part of the Metaphysics which doubtless contained the verse. ^^^ Now motion, under which term Aristotle placed change tion of a lost required,!^^ j^g protested that it was hard to believe of all kinds, in the physical world, at least, is that by which one evidence he the heavenly bodies the cause not 01 thing becomes a second thing, hence that by which the second thing tinit while Aristoiie made motion only but also of existence^^^ in other things, he conceived comes to be. If a (. i rtain nature, namely God, is the cause of motion ^^* to be, in the heavenly bodies themselves, the cause of motion in the universe, it must be, on Aristotle's own showing, creative. God andi of existence. In any case, it is not fair, he said, to XuL necessaril)- -o. Pletho replied, iur 'motion' is used in iwo only not Aristotle of disbelief in the doctrine when he nowhere ex- sen^CN. The "îin l>v nir-tinn l)e2:ets p:ras'= frnni the earth where there accuse subject d^^'' pressly denied it but merely failed to commit himself on the \va- no grass iKtV.n . In i iuii case the motion is creative or productive Pletho tried to show in reply that Aristotle's failure to commit of wli l! ii 1 inn before exist. But the sun by motion might warm significant. It was dangerous in Aristotle's day to thr earth also, thereby oni\ (hanging its state but not begetting himself was express disbelief in the orthodox view, 'Âtos S'k Trd^'ra reruKrat," as aii . new eniiiy. The ox that moves the cart does not make it.^^ ^v Orpheus put iid^^ This is evident, he said, from the expressed hv I hi- same example it i- plain that the ranê nf motion in a thing the opinion of Aristides, the orator.^^^ Orators, being dependent on does r; intxlure the utHt\ of the thing, that is, cause it to be what it ^^^ public for success, must conform to the opinions of the many. Now, is, as Gennadius argued in another passage. although Aristides believed that the world was eternal, he yet Gcnn aiius aâin quoted Aristotle to the effect that if the first to reconcile with this view the doctrine that Zeus was the cause or a,o\rj did nui exiî Liiere would be no ordering of the universe managed were creator of all.^^^ The poets, to be sure, among the Greeks, and, in i he lark nf orHer and sequence, all that is subject to generation allowed to weave extravagant fancies about the gods, but if philoso- and corru[)non, that is, the realm of physical nature, ^^^ would not so they soon felt the weight of their countrymen's anger. exist. ^^^ Therefore God must be regarded in Aristotle's system as the phers did ran the risk ofân indictment for impiety because he cause of the existence of the world of physical nature, and so as its Anaxagoras that the sun was a stone. For merely associating with him creator.^^** taught himself in a like danger and was saved only by the Pletho's answer was that this very passage was evidence that Pericles found incident on the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. Ari-totle did not hold God to be the creator. If he had, we should excitement to death on a falê charge of atheism.^^^ There expect him to have said that the absence of God would result, not Socrates was put strong reasons, therefore, against Aristotle's stating positively in disorder of the world, but in its non-existence, so that there could were the world. On the other hand, if he held have been no ereauon. 5utii a hypothetical statement on the part that God did not create should not \ new, there was no special reason why he of Aristotle would have justified Gennadius's inference but certainly the traditional to a it, as might be the case were he confined rigorously the nu lie quoted did nol.^^^ express

i«2 to the statement Cf. p. 26, n. v^6 above. IHetho compared this argument ^^ ( f Phys. 198b^ f. for a possible justification for this statement. an excellent of the Jews that somewhere on the earth they have an empire and 1^-' M. 1008 B. kingdom. M. 101 1 B. '" H!N 1 H. which is a comm ntary on Gen. et Cor. 335b'' flF. i«3 M. 1009 C. Cf. p. 54 for the creative activity of the sun.

-' 1 i n- ! ). The logical and eflScient causes are here cleady distinguished. M »MM. 1011 C. '^ Lxcluding tin lit i\ inly bodies, of course, which were incorruptible and as Gass (II, '" Pletho may have quoted this from Pn). 1. In Tim. 1, 313, 20, uncriMtfii. in Ari-t^nle's system. 401a27 g^ 66, n. (b) ) suggested, or from Aristotle, Dt Mundo '^'* Ml! I in7,=; fr* rT. ^«^e B,,rn 117 A. D. i«0M, 1*-Ui' !^, C. ^«' Aristides, ed. Dindorf I, 2. '«' M. inin C, I) '^^ M. 1U12 n. PLETHO's CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 69 68 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

^^^ in a straight line(that is, not in a closed curve) was finite. Now restricted subject, like a lawyer pleading a case or an orator discussing even fire, which moves upwards, is seen to go in a straight line.^^^ the question of war or peace. The only possible explanation of his It must, therefore, be perishable, and it can not, a? the Phatonists silence is not that he, whose gaze took in the whole universe even to held, be the material of iIh eternal heavenly spheres. Of what, then, such minutiae as seeds, oysters and embryoes, overlooked this matter are the luaxens composed? The ansvv-er is that they are not matter but that he did not believe the world was created at all. in the sense of that wdiich 1- the >uh)Stratum of change^^^ but only in Yet as a matter of fact Aristotle did commit himself inferentially, the sense of that winch is capable of motion in spaced'^ This dlivine' Pletho held. He believed the universe to be eternal, without element Aristotle called aether but by later thinkers, including ^"^^ bcgiiminij or erni, iu uiai ii n-HUiri'd nu creator. The analt)git'S Pletho, it was often spoken of as the tifth element. Being an element, which lie t'ni|. loved to Tv\nv>i'n{ (iod's relation to it suggested a it was matter, and Aristotle was thus committed to the proposition coinnianskT rather iJian, a crcalor.^'*^ Furl, tu-rmore, bv makincr liie that some matter was eternal. This, Pletho argued, was a device gn(i:- .if the same nuniher a> the -phere-- of the hra/i-eii- aiel p>>-tii!ai- for dispensing with the |)resence of soul as the means of keeping the inf^ t:!eni nnl\- trial tliere mi^ht In' -nme [iiea!i> o; iiiniinj ihe spheres, heavens, in accordance with God's will, forever in existence. ^^<^ ,' lie ir!;|)Hi-d lha.t God'5 ta-k \va> iiiereK- tu iiirn the iui:he-i '^ certainly Pletho proceeded to show that the device was not only inconsistent not to rreate it, It 1^ ih.e lir-t prin-: ij >le of motion which Arislolic is with the rest of Aristotle's system but was unnecessary to account for concerned wih'i f)ro\in,Lr eterrial, n**! the llrst princirae of the heavens* the facts. existence, thai is, the ereainrd"'- Indei-d. with him the lieaven- were The function 01 the fifth element, idetho argued, could be fulfilled entireK- independetit of any ereainr, -mee the\- did not have t!ie bv fire. Idle observed upwaard motion of fire is in itself no proof puwtT Hut lo he \)VA, ratiicr, had uf LiiemDei\'e:5 liie iiiiiereiU cap»acity that the element does not move in a circle, for the fire which we see for endless exi>lenee.^''^ is out of its natural place, the heavens, and all its motion until it Ila\'in,o; gnami the h:ea\'ens thi< inherent raparitv, Ari-tntle returns should he regarded as foreign to its nature. When it reaches felt '^Khi^ed to mainiaiii li:a' the\- wiaa- made of imperishable material. its abode, as even Aristotle admittedd^^ it is carried in a circle by the Btit !!!e lour element- which seieiiee adndtted (earth, water, air and comets. ^^- If it revolves in a circle compelled by the comets its lire; were al! [)eri-hah!e iiiduadiianw''" V.wu ure wa~ 'en;a:.d)le, [ proper movement should be described as circular, though slower than as rna\' ha: ^een fr*)m tiie followinc e(>n-ideraa ions, in Ariilode's system the nature of maaier and it:- motion wera; closely connected. i7« Phys. 266b2s.

es jManer the motion of wliieh wa^ lialde t cease was subject to cliange "7 De Caelo 209b'2. an(i rt'iiirht [)a>> out of exi^!tai,ee; if. on the ealier hand, a, !H)d\' pa--e(i 178 Gen. et Cor. 320'd,\ on watli a regular and ne\a-r~ending nuaion, a- did the -pliere- (d the ^"^rMeta. 1042b^ 1050b"', inoob-*. heaxaai:-. we liad e\adence of >onie (iivine hiang that eaai-ed the »8o M. 908 D, Cf. Tim. 32 c. Psellus (O. D. 17, 88, 96 and 97^ gives an motion, and the niattta- on wliicli it o{)ertited wa- it-elt ett-mald'^ account of this debate, stating that Aristotle's purpose in assuming a fifth element Agaan, -mei- h{>a(a' wa- iindted hut litiie infinite, eternal mrard\' look place in a circle, while all nioti* >n which lo^jk place himself that they trine of the fifth element. (O. D. 59.) Such inconsistencies mark him as a dis- tinctly inferior philosopher in comparison with Pletho. ^«^ ia;,,. lQ2b'». Cf. p. 64. 18' Meteor. 341b23. '^o M, 1010 A. 182 of the fifth element begun in the De Difereniia ^- M. b')2 C, D, 965 I), iUlU A, 1)^ Ladu 29ib-% Mtia. i073a« M. 1000 C. The discussion in »'- <)sa A. C. is resumed in the Contra Scholarii Defensionem Aristotelis answer to Genna- a circle. 1000 A. His argument, ^'•' M. yS6 B, 1015 A, B. dius's statement that fire did not revolve in M.

i'« if is hinted at by Pletho. Presumably, he advanced none. M, 9()X 1), 100 1 n. any, not even

^'' Held, iOJid^ ^^, De Caelo 39ib-». 70 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 71

that of the comets.^^ If, then, it moves in a circle it may be the which did not so control it.^^° While suggesting this solution, component element of the heavens and the fifth element is unnecessary. Pletho proposed as a serious attempt to remove Gennadius's difficulty Furthermore, Pletho argued, if comets consist of aether, what quite a different explanation. The heavens are eternal because of explanation can be given of the fact that they pass out of existence^" the presence of soul.^^^ In all living beings an influx and efflux of and are more or less irregular in their motion?^^^ We should look matter takes place. When the influx is greater than the efflux, the

' liable to II for these characteristics in matter, which is refractory and organism grows; when the efflux is greater, decay takes place; when substance, aether. Now both are equal, the is in if dispersion, n >t in the divine and eternal organism a state which, perpetuated, will ^^^ substance, the 'raw it immortal. This is the of if the comets are composed of the combustible make condition the heavenly bodies. fire;i" material' of fire, as Aristotle said,i»« they are surrounded by The presence of soul causes the flow of matter and, in obedience to and, since the comets conform in general to the movements of the the will oi God,^^^ the inflow and outflow are equal throughout time. the stars, rising and netting with them, they move in a circle and Gennadius's objection that the human suul does not thus make the environing fire with them. Now as the comets and their environing human body immortal was not a happy argument, Pletho pointed have a to use the fire conform to the movements of the stars, they evidently out, against Platonists, who held that the divine did not common center of revolution,^^^ and, sharing the same motion, are consort with the mortal body directly but through the medium of a composed of the same kind of substance. It is impossible to suppose fiery spirit, a sort of immortal body, the immortality of which that the perishable comets are of aether, hence neither are the stars. was due to the presence of soul.^^^ Gennadius raised an objection to Pletho's theory that the heavenly The fifth element, according to Pletho, was thus unnecessary bodies, which are eternal, consisted of fire, which is liable to disper- to account for the eternity of the heavens. This being so, the eternity to stars composed of sion. Not even the Ideas would secure ^'° 1001 D. v\i]v . . ., vepu)valq.rr)% tCcv KaTccxrii<^6T03V €l60}vhvvaiieo:% K(x:'\voiJikvT)v, under the form of the stars and fire, for the fire, passing out from Cf. Porphyry, Sententiae 3, 4 ff. for the language. being unable to take the form with them, would leave nothing but J»i M. 1002 A. Cf. M. 909 A. This theory is referred to by Proclus In Rtm. the form. The stars would then disappear.^^^ Before answermg Pub. II, 161, 18. >»2 Cf. Proclus, In Tim. 1, iU5, 32. the objection Pletho paused to take notice of his opponent's reference ^'3 The presence of soul must be regarded as the means employed by the will the theory of Ideas. Had he known, Pletho wrote, of the dis- to of God, which, in the last analysis, was the cause of the eternity of the heavens. have used the tinction between actual and potential, he might (M. 1014 C, D. Cf. Tim. 32 c). theory of Ideas lo account for the eternity of the heavens without '9* M. 991 D, 1002 B, C; A. 277. The theory of the immortal body, the supposing them made nf anything more eternal than fire. The fire oxTfria, took its rise from the interpreters of Plato's Timaeus 41 d, e and 69 c and was discussed at length or familiarly referred to by practically all later Pla- composing the stars might potentially compose any body and yet tonic philosophers, including Psellus (M. 122, 1052 C etc.;. Cf. Jones, The Pla- never actually leave the star under whose form or Idea it found lonism of Plutarch, 47, n. 137. For the theory in relation to the universe cf. already < of the Idea which itself, becau-t f the greater holding power Proclus. In Tim. I, 5, 11 ff. controlled the matter as compared with the attraction of any Idea Pletho said that Plutarch and John attributed the doctrine, probably wrongly, to Aristotle. The basis of the statement, regarding Plutarch is doubtless >w 908 B, C, 1000 D, 1001 A, B. M. ff. the Moralia VII, 401, 17 "John" means Philoponus, as Gass (II, 88, n. (b) ) -^ lUUU IJ. M„ surmised on insufficient evidence. He cited Timotheus the Presbyter (M. 86, 44 »« Ibid. A), who said that Philoponus held the doctrine. The words of Philoponus, how- »8« Meteor. 341b'«, 344a»«. ever, {In De Anima 51, 12 ff.) leave little room for doubt that he is the John 18^ .[) Mundo 392b*. referred to. Psellus's repetition of the statement in his De Anima (M. 122, 1041 »88 1 )oi \. Cf. Simplicius 415, 21. M C) is almost certainly based on the words of Philoponus in this introduction to his 189 \[ Kini i;. i This is Gennadius's only mention of theory of Ideas. commentary on the De Anima of Aristotle, since it is the principal source from his inability to grasp the theory. attr:!)iitt 1 his silence on this subject to Pletho which he drew his material for his own book on the soul. The critical reservation D, iU05 A. Li. M. 1UU7 is original with ricthu. PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 73 72 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

physics^^ he implied that the soul continued to exist after death.^o^ distinction which Aristotle drew between the sun and the moon he spoke of it as a living being that, through inability regarding their manner of heating the earth was useless."* This In the Ethics^^^ perceive things in the world, was not affected by them.^^^ No- distinction was that the heat of the sun was due to its motion only,^** to heatless."^ where did he expressly say that it perished at death but many things since the sun was composed of aether, which was by nature nature. he did say pointed in that direction. In the Ethics, ^^^ where the The moon, on tht- other hand, being of fire,"^ is hot by its own docinnc was of the greatest importance because of its bearing on The distinction, according to Pletho, was introduced purely on explain conduct, he stated that death was the end and that nothing good account of tlic tluory of the aether,"^ since it did not help to to there is no reason, remained for the dead man after it.^^^ He ought surely have tii, Ku 1-. It ih^ -iin's heat is due to its motion,^^^ also. Tlit' mentioned the immortality of the >ou] as a corrective to the state- Picihc niaintairu-fi, wl]\- that („>i the iiioon should not be that death was the most terrible issue to face,^!^ yet he did not. hvil rcachintr the earth !rn!]i tlie twu budiui vane- iii\-er-el}- as the ment ^peed of the body gerierat- In spite of these conti-adictions^^^ into which Aristotle was lead by his distance it ha;^ to tra\-e] anii direct Iv as the blindness wh.en deaUng with fundamental problcms,^!^ it tiie nioiMi does go more slowly, it is customary inir it hv it> rnnii.,n, flenec. motiori. he nevertheless would seem to have held that the soul is immortal.^^^ enoiiirh nearer the eartli fe) ee>ni[)en-a! e for its slowness of

i-^ iiatiiralh- hot, there i- mo if a^'.un Hie niu(,ai <îVL-> lieat fjccause it «o« 1070a", Psellus {Dl Anima, M. 122, 1041 Dj did not mention the Meta- reason wliv the sun should not alô, uiilc the aether theory is disposed physics in this connection but quoted from the De Partihus Animalium. (641a"-ff. (dd"i M-re liiari thi^. tliere i- an actual abîirditv in attrihiitirig and 736b20. motion 207M. 901 C, D. li;e -un"- heat to its iniaii.n if it were made of aether. Mere 208 iiOOa'8. friction.^^'^ Yet it is hard does n 't iieiierate iieat ; there must also be 209 M. 994 B, C. friction to become tu :.cc huw tile suii eaii touch us and so produce 210 1115a26. hot.203 *" M. 901 D. In this passage SoKet is now usually interpreted as a reference opinion but Pletho understood it as a reference to Aristotle's opinion. In reirar*! to the immortalitv of the soul Pletho held that Aristotle to common His answer was as follows: If any part of man is immortal, it is not a shade with wa^ full of contradictions.2^^ In the De Anima^^^ and the Mda- weak senses but that which is most properly called man. It is "the man." (Cf. I a Alcih. 130 c.) By being rid of the mortal part it would be happier and hence i«M ô i !;. C, 1002 C ff. great good would remain to man after death. Psellus (O. D. 27) in like strain 19^" M'U:Qr. UW^ and ". stated that beyond the logical soul was the voipos aydpwiros, the avTatôitros, the

19^ /' \rundo 392a' and " ff. real "we," since "we" and the soul are one. 2^2 i»8 Mdeor. 340b*-'^ M. 994 A. 213 M. 993A. * Ihi^ repeats the statement of Psellus, 0. D. 96. 21* M. 990 C. - As Aristotle maintained. This also is found in Psellus, loc. cit. 215 M. 889 A. Schultze's statement (p. 88) contradicts Pletho's words: Wl (;(ig (\ iijui C. ^pvxrjv dvr]Tr]v elvai) doKovino^ ttjp auadiav "M, Kal radra o{'5' ' ApLarorkXovs raiiT-qv {riiv as saying: "Wenn nicht 2"- M, lii(i. B. Cf. Mf:f,r. >4ia«. atxadalPtiP. In spite of this Schultze represents Pletho die Seele sei sterblich." Equally 2w - alies trugt, so ist er aber der Meinung gewesen, \| idOn u. The ;n. f v Areiotle's theory, would not come into contact passage thus: "Mit incorrect it is to paraphrase Pletho's words from the same v.'hh tht; ch-TiKTits uf thi- wnrld extendinii ;i> far a^ the moon. ''Pletho's "us" Alexander Aphrodisiensis aus diesem Satz (Aristotle's words, mu-.i refer to our .v-«>rhie Be>'',)nh the rTioi.n wa^ heatless at-tlirr. Also, as Recht hat schon Aristoteles die Un- is good for men after death) geschlossen, dass Philoponus exphiine-i ^In -l/oe'er, 42, K) flV^ the ^uri i- >eparatcti ireni tfu- earth that there no left the geleugnet habe." (p. 88). Pletho really said that Aristotle by three sphere>. those of hferme-. Stilhon and the rncHai, Tht- inoon, ot course, sterblichkeit that Alexander, having already a bias toward materialism, being en the t>oundarv oi the perishable eh-ment-. wnaM annc inM contact with matter so indecisive, actually did deny the immortality of the soul. This state- the hre and so might generatr heat f)y triaion with it. claimed that AristoUe from Psellus, De Anima, M. 122, 1041 C. '^ ment is taken almost verbatim M. ^94 .\. With Pletho the immortality of the soul was axiomatic. It is interesting -'>* 4i3b-\ quoted by Pidlus, De AKim,:^ M 122^ 1044.1., before a to see what arguments he used in support of his belief when speaking PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 75 74 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

birth and later acquired what it once knew, surely such learning soul the at Plato sought to establish besides the immortality of the was reminiscence.^^^ Aristotle was com- doctrine of its preexistence. Pletho held that isolated statements made by Aristotle about the soul before the Two mitted to the same belief by the statement that the mind is were further selected by Pletho for criticism. Aristotle had said when he inveighed budy in time,^^*^ but showed an inconsistency llie perceptihdu comes before perception,^^^ meaning that the hypothesis was tliat against Plato's theorv of reminiscence, by which ihc perception of a concrete object can iu?i arise before the object comes if is older than body in supported.2i' Pleiho mam lain i tint mind inU) existence. Plellio objected that things mutually conditioned Tf it forgot such learning time, niu: krii'wn ari'i U' must arise simultaneously. While there could be no perception without an object, neither could there be an object unless it were the object of some intelligence. The potentially perceived and potential urged the following . he public audience. In two funeral r iiions which are extant perception are mutually conditioned, and both become actual at the for the belief: five grounds same timc.'^^^' Again, Aristotle said that mind was unmoved and it an-l it his ail races from tlu- most ancitnt times have held (a) Nearlv actual.2"^ This is true of the divine mind, Pletho replied, but, if seemed invariably to accompany a belief n thi- rxi-tence of God Himself. such was Aristotle's meaning, he should have so limited the term. kriuw causes and eternity and has a (b) Man is of such i riaiurc that hv can mind it is nid true. The human mind is unmoved to the eternal, which l. llie Of the human desire for immortality. IK- i^ in [)art, therefore, akin just by reason in ib.e sense that it is not moved in space but it is moved in the sense divine. That the divim; vlcmvnl ;n ium shouM long f.)r immurtalily liim constitute an UKv-nipicte- to actuality and from one kind of •_ wuuld of his divine nature and > t iiave it denied that it passes from putentialiiy universe. ness which can Ik; iouml nowhere else in the actuality to another. It potentially exists when it is unconscious or

it? own destruction, yet men Jeiibcralciy commit (c) No or<;ani-m will- ignorant; it is partially actual when it has incomplete knowledge; as it decide to de-^lro>- Hence, when a man de.. idc.- to kill himself, he does not suicide. passes from thought to thought, it changes from one realm of actu- it of the mortal the part of him-elf wlndi niakr the dcei-ion but re.-oivcb to rid Aninia, 122, 1U45 ii.; body. (Thir, argummt i- Suund a,Ko in h'^ellus's Dc M. als M. 901 B, C. Gennadius (M. 991 B, C) tried to show that Aristotle held in activities of - far a-^ he ^hare> the (d) Man i- akin to the lower animal m a> the Christian doctrine that the soul came into existence at birth and was immor- performs the nctivi- anirnal-, >U( h a> eating and reproriuction, i)Ut m d- far a> he tal. Pletho replied (M. 992 B) that, in the first place, Aristotle admitted that the contemplation of truth and ol the r>i the being- above men (demons), such as tit> mmd was older than the body in time and hence could not suppose it to be is without envy, He would Maker of tfie unua/r-^e, he is akin to them. Since God created by God either at the time of conception or when the individual attained Hke Himself, the demon^. I'he part n.,it denv inunortaliiv ti'i the creatures moM, to mature intelligence. The former, as shown by Psellus (O. D. 42), was the \- share ai>u m the immort.ility uf rnan'th.,it n- like them would in .dl {aoljabdit opinion of Gregorius Nyssenus and the philosopher Maximus; the latter, that of im[)arled lo them. authorities among the Greeks. Psellus mentioned none of these authorities by is the end of all produces a deterioration in the char- (e) The belief that death name but he might well have named Proclus (Cf. In Tim. Ill, 321, 25.) Secondly, for its ^tate> that embrace it lids fa,et in itself is presumption acter oi men and for him to suppose that a soul which had a genesis could have no death would be truth of the opposite doanne. idiaitv and the to ignore his own principle that only that which has no beginning can be without hr>t existed inconsistent, also, with his view of the universe. = "s Cennatiiu- ol^jeeted that .Xnste^tle did, nut mean that the soul an end. (M. 992 A.) It would be real beiiel coul>l !)e infinite, the souls coming into existence with the and wa:- later unite.! with the bod\-, but rn.untained th..a hi> Space being limited and time and the indefinitely numerous and could not inferred from the fact that he >aii! mmd wa^ the -'entelechy" of the body birth of each body would eventually become the principle developed by ••enteleehv" alwa\-> come- after the potentiaiitv in Unw. Ihuue mmd comes be contained in the finite universe, in accordance with :in>' spceihc reply 273a.i3 after the bodv' in time, M. '>'n B, C.s Pletho did ne)t make Aristotle in his De Caelo (M. 992 C.)

po^ition b>- .i reference to the Aristote- tu thi- argument but he refuted the general 2'9 Categorus 7b'*''; M. 897 D.

If the >oul is immcsrial it mu-t ha\-e exited lorever; lian doctrine of eternity. 220 M. 900 A. Pletho here, following Plato's Thfacietus 160 b, anticipates !)el!eved it tu In: imninrt.d, it followed that Gennadiu^ admitted that AnM,.,.a.le Berkeley against the "common sense" view of Aristotle. '>^^2 it to. h.ave existed forever. >,M. C.) Aristotle must al.:^o L'elieve literally 221 M. 901 A, 991 C; De Anima 430a''. Psellus followed Aristotle , 2-^ Meno bi d, „P/i,n,Je 72 e. <)1 d. adopting the opinion of Proclus {Instit. Theol. 168). Cf. 0. D. 80. CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 77 76 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND AMSTOTLE PLETHO'S

^'' \i„ Hyperboreans to avoid the thunderbolts.229 Moreover, it is ality to another and it never becomes wholly actual until it grasps the of the should be. to fear them, since God ordained that they whole of reality.^^^ impious have regarded them as formidable either, had Not only does Aristotle take from man one of the strongest Aristotle would not the the good depend too closely on the condition of incentives to virtue by casting doubt on the immortality of the soul he not made happy^^i suppose .230 say that an ulgy man can not be is to but, according to Pletho, the virtues themselves are not attractive body To happiness and evil of the body can corrupt the soul232 since in his system. They are defined as the means between two extreme that an This would contravene the prin- X irlue are the health of the soul. -tales of charaiur r moral activity.^^^ Courage, for example, e\ ih by which alone it can ci]>le that each thing has its appropriate having tu (1(? with L>hjci;i- ui fear and confidence, is the mean between principle, it must be 1. If he does not contravene the ra-hness and ci AvaTiiirt-,, IiiuiuriiiL! whc Aristotle had a qiianti- be destroyed.233 the same kind. The inferred that lie regards the body and soul a^ of ra?i\'t or a f jualiiai i\-r rmain hi \aru in las delinition, Pletho inferred the held, ought rather to be defined by its effect upon Irian his exarnpK -a a thuridcrlM/h and earthquake justifying fear good, Pletho the only good and vice soulr34 in which case virtue turns out to be t\cn in urh as the noble and the base. Pletho adduced quantitative means, they do differs in kind of the mean. Tf the virtues are merely i'iei ho IK Id that only vice is formidable and that it A good actions and therefore can not be virtues.^^^ from what is not to be feared. Like Plato in the Thaetetus,'^^^ he not result in noble ends and a bad man'? for base ends. held that virtue and vice are fundamentally opposed. All else he good man's desires are for respective ends are excessive, vice, regarded as indifferent, such as nobility of family, reputation, if the desires of both for their the definition, should result in each case. Thus life or according tu ilie ^ political hnner , \m dnU or poverty, health or sickness and included the company uf the evil. Agam, deatli.-' Suihi things by means of intelli^rence '>r its absence can be good man would be m in despis- in desiring what one ought to despise and made hern ricial or the opposite and so, in themselves, are not to be barhu-^ eeaisists He who does both of these in the mean ieared. Some can not be avoided, so that, as one has no effective ing what one ought to desire. man, although Aristotle's theory would place nu ans of dealing wiili ihem, it is irrational to fear them.^^s Such is none the less a bad the doctrine of the mean is also open to are earthquakes and thunderbolts. Virtue alone is the source of the him among the good. The that each thing can have only could not objection that it violates the principle htpfuness of a l:. i man. yet, if he feared such objects, he was the contrary contrary. Aristotle held that virtue, the mean, be ha| {>> in i country like Greece, where they are frequent, but one

iKi\ e lu u to escape the earthquakes and to the land wouli g Lg\pt «»M. 997 A, B. K2 "0 M. 996 D, 997 .\. M QOO D. 00 1 A,, "B. 231 Eth. 1099b3; M. 999 C. ^ fjn. 1 UH)\r'. 232 2-^ M. 995 A. M '^114 A tl. Psellus did not differ from Aristotle in regarding the virtues *» Cf. Rep. 608 d ff. a'" me.in>. ( >. l> 56.) 23^ M. 996 D. - /re; us 283 c flf., Phileb. 24 b-26 c. -^ M. 997 C. • 2"« 176 a. c cf. Rep. 402a, Laws 653b, 236 M. 904 C, D. For the definitions of badness and 6544. *-"* 1 his is reminiscent of Rep. 604 b. ,

pletho's criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 78 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE /- the same time desires the form of what It is the sort of person who at ivo vices, the extremes. Virtue, Pletho maintained, hypocrite.^^ of each of and the substance of what is bad, that is, the indicative is good liavt mix- one opposite, vice.^^^ The theory was ^ another point ought to The discussion of the highest good afforded Pletho nf -.-itnv^^s ^hich makes his ethics a of Aristotle'-; rc^incted p.^nt had laid it down as speculative of attack agam^i Aristotle. Aristotle

' • to the soul's destiny. It wtrt; -în v n is totally unrelated enjoyed corpst . a. that God always the,u-ht.2^^ In another passage he said have imparted to hope of immoruiiiiv. fuia he a-inuiUM it. would ideal itself lacked Tlic unalloyed pleasured'*' I^letho objected that the nionieiil than thc\- !ia\-e when he makes the virtues irUinitcly irrcatrr it implied that it consisted nobilitv and Aristotle's way of describing ' rcialivc mMgiun- aiu r whicli he them i=i)erate only in tiii> lile.-^ The thought as such and pleasure, of two' distinct elements, speculative the \'iriuc- alô marked in- treatment assigned lo intelligence anioriLi speculative thought. It was not clear, Pletho that is, the pleasure in madi- inhhliiêiu-e the 01 Khics as inferior to that of Ihato, whu the summum honum, maintained, which element he meant to be inili>|>ensal)le rec|uisite of every \-iriiie.-"'' thought was the true func- but he seemed to mean that speculative lor judKinir ^'1 mfIuous and Tlie criterion which Ari>t(.tle a^Mgned good. If so, his philosophy tion of man and pleasure in it his highest -ali>laclnry, viciou- action in the Kudemian Ethics^^ while (|uite Epicureanism. In any might well have been the starting point for not in ki'r|)in,i! with has dwn in Pletho's 0{)inion. wa-. nevertheless, were good. This was a non- case he implied that some pleasures /•:////(-> he assigned nu gauge gfiieral position and m ihc S nomaihean If some pleasures are good, committal wav of handling the subject. Platoni>i-^ claim, ^âid I'lt-tho, that oi what one ought to ^lo.-'^ The are evil, are they evil as pleas- are they good as pleasures or, if some trir ability lo perLuive whicii is m- tlu- true criterion !^ trie noble, would have committed him to ures? An answer to this question litTi-nt in the divine part of mand^*"* question^^^ whether the noble one side or the other of the important defended bv Ck-nnadius In opposition to the (dirc-iian doctrine As far as could be mferred or the pleasurable is the end of life. gi)od or bad l)Ul tliat Pletho maintained that men need n-a be either equivocal.^^^ He should rather from his writings, his position was good are those wdm de-ire and there i> an intermediate stale. The thought were both good, not said that pleasure and speculative what thev >hould have hale what thev should, the bad, tlinM; wiie) de-îre they had present m them the as such and in themselves, but because in the intermediate liate and hate what they ^hi)uld der-jre. ddiobe good God. Vood' flowing from the supercelestial and perfectly ^tmietimes what they shoidd and sometimes Pletho ^late de>ire and hale lies in speculative thought, It is not the pleasure that nn êttled prinei|de of choice what they should not. that i>. lhi^\" liav-e as may be seen from the following argued, which is the highest good, against (n/nnadius U^x iiood or evib Be way est maintaining his tiie-i- what is known. If consideration: Such pleasure lies in recalling n-iediale da-, which he idaced another kinel of |,)err.on ai-«> in the inter element, we should contmue pleasure were the supremely desiral)le the bad in Liic urdinary acUiC ui bad. real!\' lie âl(i. 1- worrse tiian than to continue in actual or con- to recall what we knew rather contradicts the very idea of specu- scious knowledge. But as this »'M. 996 A, B

Pletho of saying that the sanae ^^ M 995 B C. Gennadius had accused '" ^at ApiOtmUhmn a-tm\ riducii. rephed that he had not M, 9<^^ B, I),, vtKOQ. Ti% ai' tiTj, ola 5n desire good and evil. Pletho person mav at the same time whom was true of this third kmd, among Lid "at the same time," yet even that thoughts in the language of philosophy 2^ and the Moral Judgment in those who express ignoble M 999 C, Phild>. 20 e tl Cf Lodge, Reality might be classed SS5 t!. and 453 ff. glance at his opponent. Plato i!i rniLj^ophiiiU Review A .V/.V, this with a

2*- li49a'«. 2*s Eth. 1178b'.

»*^ directs." Tn Fih.. IH^^b" he ^'•^ That IS, no furtdier than "\,i> right reason Eth. 1054b2«. It is dubious w;uo,h.T !!!€ noble" deprecated any further attempt at aetumiun. 2*8 Cf. p. 90, n 42 below. i> an\' more speciiic. 249 M. 998 C. ^^ M. 905 B, 990 B, C. OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 81 80 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO'S CRITICISM

the pleasure tried to defend Aristotle on this point but misunder- lative thought, which is the active thinking of truth, Gennadius Pletho. his words and so laid himself open to refutation by in it is not chosen at all hazards.^ô stood Utl \evK6s avSpoîro^ the neg- Gennadius quoted Aristotle to the effect that every activity is Pletho, said Gennadius, is making ovk that propositions, the indeterminate affirmative, completed by pleasure,^^! and used these words as evidence ative of two affirmative replied the particular affirmative avOpccTro^ rls tan Aristotle did not consider pleasure the end of action. Pletho tariv avdpoiirosXevKos, and and, affirmatives, if he is right, shoiih! have the same that what completes an activity is its completion (reXetorT/s), XeuKos. These two or end (t€\os) as a matter of fact one of the propositions is not con- since in its absence the activity would lack a completion meaning. Yet held, pleasure the negaln e of the other, ovk ean XeiKos ai'dpuîros may it becomes practically the end. But in reality, Pletho tradicted by rh hin Xhkos avdpu:7ro<;, inasmuch as the does not accompany the completion but the perception of the com- be ttiie at the same time as but something else, such a? wood, etc., is pletion, or accomplishment, of an action.^^s former means ''Not-man, happiness,^^^ li, lastly, ugliness, as Aristotle said, can destroy white."2^7 that the seem to be Plotlio retorted against Gennadius, as against Aristotle, that is, the enjoyment of the highest good, it would against his statement. ''Not" and "man" the contrary of happiness. Thus Aristotle considers that ugliness usage of language was contrary, be joined in thought by one who heard the sentence. hi as its contrary h:ii>piness in addition to its natural woiihi not some foreign idea to a proposition in order \ principal that each thing can If one were allowed to add beauty. This is in i iation of the the same and then speak c f it a< if it were have but one opposite-^^-* to change its significance no limit to which one might not go. Pletho took DccaMuii Uj tiiticize two points of logic in Aristotle's proposition, there would be out for criticism was a statement made works. The second point singled the theory of the syllogism. He had said Aristotle had said that the affirmative and negative propositions by Aristotle regarding existent are not the conclusion from a necessary major premise and r _ ir iirii; a general term are not contradictory when they that true.^^s Pletho replied that in ^^^ av6pu)iros Xeu/cos and €(ttlv avOpcxiiros minor premise might be necessarily gciKTal I ha m selves. ovk Icttiv of of the conclusion will depend upon the nature XevKos mighi both be true, for the negative proposition does not mean, all cases the nature existent or premise. Whether iL l- particular, negative, "No man i- white" but ''Some man is not white." the minor will conform to it and onl> if it is Pletho objected that Aristotle in this offended against the general on!\' possible, the conclusion a necessary conchi M. I). C\ De Caelo 269a^*. It «9 900 B, C. ^' iJr Inierpr^ 1 7b-^. M. these two sentences ^^' ')rn in Ammonius s commentary, In Lib. Delnterpr. 115 Aristotle used common opinion but in Pletho'? citation

two fxample-, "Man i- white" and "Man i- beautiful." Ammonius has both ivith the addition ui --Man is jUSt." ddus additional one only is found in Hh^Timydes' discussion of the point, ^M 142, inui B, C.) 82 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

Pletho in- spheres.2«i Were their souls like those of an oyster, quired .2** theory of Lastly, an inconsistency was noted in Aristotle's APPENDIX while admitting that potentially there were two kinds of of motion.263 The Purpose of Pletho's LAWS and the Interpretation and passive, Aristotle maintained that in actuality motion, activt System of Deities Described in the LAIV^ -''* THE 'i for it.î I'letho suggested, there was onlv ]>a--i\ v motion la:^ wa^ , [i] r^v voulcv avy^ paipTjiJf caused motion but was not itself ]ari!;est work wa- la> Lui^^s that a Ihj.:1\' rrii^lti hv fnund winrh lleUiah- when he •several vears hHV)re the Ih Differentia} moved., Xi-.Trthi'li--. Ar,i>tutlc -a^\/ no anomaly in this composed in pan, at least, tl.}. It is r -Ziab are discussed l)y Schultze (pp. 116 Jtj^:Lribtjd G'.H,1 a= the unvu^^w^l mover The extant traenu'nt> developed his account of f^ from this work,' principally, that Schultze criticizing the system of Pletho's philosophy, setting forth^ and ri:,..ru'î .luctio,ch 2fu P^'llus purpose 2 1 . and I.u. :anV part rightly, the -'5-M.y()9B, a^ Philebui deities there described. He explained, in hrhl the ~tar> to be fixed in the heaven. callcî attention to the fact that An^-tU- somewhat in arguing the thesis of the work'* but shifted his ground -^ Quaed. 12.) *^^' (h5|)ute allirniuiion thai ihey hau aii. {Sol. (O. 1). înh doctrine of a sect founded by Pletho.* that it contained the -ecret employed in two D- I k'- rpr 114,19. based mainly on the language ^ Phxs. V>^-i'\ Dt AninidAIb^K Ci. Xmmonixxs, I n L::. This opinion he at Pletho's death, one hicdilv rhetorical Mineral orations pronounced by Gregorius. the other by Ilieronymus. as a pioneer in some In The former speech 'pietho was praised developed and amplitied others, fields of learning and as having which offered the easiest hewing out for those of his choosing a path orator said: -The truth of access to knowledge.^ Farther on the wisdom) is attested by the most my words (in prai-e of iMetho'. divine soul. It anyone wise and clear writings^ of that blessed and heart, he will not fail to follows them throughout without losing were, a pattern of philosophy find the sacred truth; for they are, as it After an extrava- and unerring doctrine to those who pursue them."^ death Gregorius calleci gant statement of the vôrUV. loss in Pletho's '^ doctrmes, the broad- him the -mystagogue" of the sublime, celestial

i a. Schultze, p. 55 f. 215, 216, CI [v 119 ff, below. ^ Vp. 147 II. NVilh a summary on pp.

3 I-'p, 127 tT. Hettner, repeated t)y Symonds II, 204; by 4 Pp Sift The .tat.nirni wa. Kirchengcschicnte acmt^lo, Fkihon, ZcUschrijt jur p. 175, and Dra.eke in U.or^^us XIX, 27^). i ^ M. 818 A.

•M. 8iJ5B. 83 85 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 84 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

as far as possible," does not said, "We should imitate his xoXireta est and most divine mind, and the divine leader in sublime philosophy, hymns sung to the gods imply the prayers should be offered and the all divine wisdom.® who had examined by his reason and human Pletho, but its meaning is provided for in the state described by Pletho as Schultze saw in the reference to chosen men for whom the sentence in which these rather to be gathered from the fact that out easy path to knowledge evidence of a religious sect hewed an virtue, for the realization of which words occur is an exhortation to speaker was one of the chosen, as Schultze and a secret doctrine. The that the whole speech abounds the state should exist. The argument pointed out;^ he was acquainted with Pletho's Laws^^ and spoke to reverence iii which Uu founder in terms suggesting the superstitious was, at least to some extent, familiar with the an audience which followers carries no weight in view of a sect might be regarded by his work.^^ Others, a? we shall see, were barred from any access to the of the panegyric. The expression, of ihe conventional language book or its contents.^^ Nevertheless, a circle of friends to whom should be taken in the "mystagogue of high, heavenly doctrines," alone the book was known was not necessarily a sect, nor does the was incomparably more just same spirit as the statemcni thai rieiho ixiTcssion, "follow the writings of the divine man" (iTr^adai toIs chaste as Bellerophon or than Minos, Rhadainanib.iis or Aeacus,!^ as auOpooirov pa to practise the regulations Tov delov avyy ujiaaLJj^^ mean of God possible for man.^s Joseph^^ and the most perfect image laid dowii in i!u Laws, but its significance is rather, "understand Pletho was credited Moreover, the divine knowledge with which the writiiiir- ! IMetho."^'* Even the passage^^ in which Gregorius of things that always are, as by his panegyrists^^ was described as nature and human opposed to those of the ciiangeable world of •;M. >I B, I. I he word ''mystagogue" in this passage need not be sup- a knowledge of metaphysics. society. This means no more than B) it is posed to bear any obscurantist meaning. In the same speech (M. 814 Schultze in passage from Gregorius was paraphrased by applied to St. Paul, who was described as developing the thesis (after Psalm XIX) One misrepresented. According to his that the beauty of the heavens reveals the nature of God. (Cf. Romans I, 20.) such a way that its meaning was Fuhrerzudem (. Pletho as '^der grosse Psellus R. I~ X\ 1, 404. Prosecution of the Patriarch Cendarus, Chap. XX) rendering the orator spoke of arr. held a in or a dogma in religiuii. gelehrt habe."^^ The used the word of one who doctrine philosophy hvperuranischen Gotte, den auch Plaion Cf. also Bessarion's use in .\L lol. 716 A. "This divine and whole sentence, literally rendered, runs as follows: Symonds HI, 2o4 says that Pletho was called by his esoteric followers (be- and adornment brought all men by his own proper beauty longing t) the sect) "the mystagogue of divine and celestial doctrines." The great leader supercelestial God, for the contemplation basis for this statement i> the occurrence of this expression in the speech of of virtue^i to a belief in the that Hieronymus that the eyes were placed in the head."^^ Hieronymus (M. 807 C). Symonds, however, failed to notice of whom the great Plato says was not one of the intimate circle. (Cf. Schultze, p. 55.) Uiis sentence than that a good man There i^ not tiing more mystical m •P. 53, also 54 and n. 2. and goodness of God. is evidence of the existence 10 820 Cf. M. C. a. the teacher of in his panegyric spoke of Pletho "The or.Lti)r mentioned the work. (M. 820 C) and quoted from it (Sch. 54, Hieronymus benefits without stmt to ta>k it was to pour forth and n. 2) an i yet the knowledge of it was confined to a chosen few up to that teachers, whose

A it practised and no doubt time, in vie of the secrecy regarding which Pletho all but not tu him.^^ advised it is highly probable that the audience consisted of the chosen few.

'^Cf. p. 85. n 2^. w ^^ > ilie Laws; it is the regular word for a treatise of any kind in the M. 816 18 816 B, C. langi. ai:< )f 1*1 it ., Aristotle, f'lethoand Gennadius. The technical meaning 'code' M.

t'f is knuwh I'M. 817 C. is sur. iv out I hue when the result of following the (xvyypdfxfxaTa to be 20 53, translating ^L ^14 C. edge o! the truth. Schultze, p. 114 e. * iTTtadai follow) is used of understanding the course of an argument regu- «Cf. Phaedo !rh 22 Cf. Tim. 45 a, b; 47 b, c. ar. 1 n I'hit.i vV whose language Gregorius, under Pletho's instruction, gives -'•• .sll eviiien, e of familiarity. M. B, C.

' ,M. 82U C.

h h

87 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 86 PLETHO*S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE Pletho's sense of the another to the Emperor Emanuel,^^ show was complaining of and Schultze maintained that Hieronymus he stiil enter- danger which impended. But in spite of this speech showed no evidence terrible exclusion from Pietho's sect and that his strengthened sufficiently to tained the ho|)e that Greece might be theological doctrines. It is quite of acquaintance with the secret Emanuel in 1415 visited resist tdie I'urks.^^ When the Emperor complaining of exclusion from Pletho's true that Hieronymus was as Judge, he advised the the Peloponnese, wliere Plellio was acting the Laws. But we can no circle and cjave im t'\-i.lcru:i' *'f knowing which actually was to build across the Isthmus the wall than wc csHiid Emperor more infer Iruiri tfii- the cxi-tt-iice i.f a religious sect would do more than begun the same year. But anything which Xo aome i>i tiie from tiif fact thai Sc^crati- refii-etl would have to postpone the day of disaster, Pletho was convinced, reason \va- the inaf)i!it\- ui some |)e()|)le rT-u;n of his (iav,-' Socratt--' fundamental changes go deeper. The onlv hope lay in the most with him tjiit Plelho Iki.I a far mori- urgent to profit hy association religious ideas which lay behind in the government of Greece and the motive from the practical point of view. To let Mirh heretical government. knowk^dge of the doctrines as were contained in the Imics come to the society and the Pletho seems to have laid the blame for the evils of to court a fate whieli may be the ecclesia-^lical authorities wouhi !)e To be sure, he did not bodv politic to the charge of the church. contained in dennadiu-'- Defence oj surnu>e..i from the threat- been a suicidal course. Yet openly attack it. That would have to ilie Iaius atier I'ietho's Aristotle^'' and from tlie treatment accorded that he believed that the plain implication of his religious reforms is to exeruse the greatest care deaUid*' Plelho was, therefore, obliiie.i country than the pohtical Christianity was no less detrimental to the iie a,dmitled to a knowledge of it. I his was reirardinu those whom for which, in his view, it system with which it was associated and the real motive for secrecxo sophists he covertly was responsible. Bv characterizing them as the M.ead\- crun idling of The outstanding fact of Pletho'^ dav wa- of monasticism attacked the Christian monks and the institution tlii:^ the [>e)wer of the ()noman>. Pie t lie) a,id tha,? there were others 4 ^ CamiinoUt had Rfimdroi-. l.\iii'-\. H.itv. 1721. ]'. neither birth nor death but yet had a genesis,^^ holding that it had madness and the ;vi.:kednc>s which lu: en,m'ndered, who shared in t4ie idethonic doctrine of divme incarnations.^^^^ He rejected the u^t an onhu.irix („ hureh- sutTered manv Mirelv this i^ ..i nat.ura! cnoimh wdv rc^aavin^ il i^lidle.. a belief in impHcalion a determinism incompatible with nian to refer to a hcreU.: with a i.»ll;r.vini! of admarer-^. wathout any revelation.^^^^ argued for had thought t!iit the heretic had fnuridetl a religious sect. !-'va-n, if Camariota of an uut>ider and an enemy woidd be -a>pcel. there \va^ a ^eet, the evidence 2SM. 821 A f!. 1- fPerony- Xo mure can Schultze '"]). 54 anti n, 4; h.e perrnittedi, to mainla,in ih.at " M. 840 A ff. ^hall be >catterrd to the mus's statement M SU B , "We hjver> ;A di<,ii--u)n 30 832 ii. -ei't, when h,e at the M. C ends of the earth," o a prophecy of the dissoiutiun of the sect. »i 972 B IT. Same lime >how- that Hieronemu- was not a. member of the M.

:i l>y hre mentioned as a »2 i;a. p, 2f). n^ V), In a h-tter te* Idetho tieath was M. 647 C; A. 196. divine were contained in Pletho's works. charged Pletho with calling mitable fate fnr the writer of sucli heresies as 3^ In his Defense of Aristotle Gennadiiis that truth was attainable only by (A. 324.) revelation and inspiration error and teaching argue o t '" of the Laws to Oenna- Pletho did Ihe Exarch Joseph of the Pdoponnese sent the book human reason through the medium of philosophy. the Gennadms must who. in a letter of reply, gave his official e.piiiioa this work was kept secret, dius, the Ihitriarch of Hyzantium, effect in the Laws (A. 34, 36) but, as ot it. wa5 to be burned and anv'une who work or received an oral report of the work and its decea-ed author. Idie r»ook have seen the passage repeated in some other B.) c^tiyc o f the book in his possession should admission. (M. 98/ ref u-ed a second eh-mand to surrender a Pletho's reply to the charge was a virtual be excommunicated. t possible manner. For if the cause A produces subject to ne^cessity. But tht .vuri 1 IS nut ruled y--^ In the universe all things are intelli-^ has decided differently freedom is to be subject to s.;. limes the result B and sometimes the result C, God identical with God^s will a^dj^elH^ence^whUe / V, issue of and in one case has brought about the in 'he two cases as to the best A gence, all things must be free. I ,^ , n.^ on was. or for some other motive. (Cf. Florence in 1439 (Sch. 79, n. 2), \v. r~e result, even if m an-vt r to prayers or gifts This tract, probably published at edited by Reimarius /!/( If. U'^ 1. Whoever holds, therefore, that somethings of Camariota, which were R.p ;.64 e. U)5e. \-- answered in detail by two speeches i^bjit one not .a the same time hold that God really form one unit. There happen without a real and necessary cause can and published in 1721. The two speeches The first -r r 961 B ff.) up both speeches. rules all thing and rnanai^c- tiieni in the hi )o ssible way. (M. and the conclusion (pp. 210 ff.) sums introduction B effect is attested by the cases in which in the first part of his work M. 961 Uui the absolute ruh: of cause and deals wuh arguments of Pletho contained what was in part from M 963 A to the the future to men. Some, having learned in the second . tne gud> h ree revealed to Q63 A and the second to arguments Pletho's death while e-eape ii only to find that fate had taken account been written before store for th.eni. have- tried to end The first speech seems to have the De Fato alone having ai>o. : 961 A.) master's writings, of their foreknowledge M. his circle kept guard over their however, gives deterrnini>rn, that it destroys all freedom, arises 4.) The latter part, The eomriion objection to come to the notice of Camariota. (Cf. p. some knowledge (.•! is not absence of rule Pletho's death when ( treedoin freoii a mi5Concef)ti.jn u the nature evidence of having been composed after 'm.. 0. f 220.) 1 . consider trie rule of rea-on ^M. 9?,o B,- A ^ A L .^ * .-. w uC whether we 216 ff. and especially p. ol)edience to of his Laws had transpired. (Cf. pi). the reason in the soul '.){ man or m the unuo..'rse. ^M. 638 H. 639 D. of namely, the part which In the individual there o- an element unreason, M M. 633 A, B. this comes entirely bv inhcntantc and i^^ therefore, beyond his control. It is pletho's criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 91 90 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE as stated in the Greece to be carried out.« The purpose of the Laws nor Mohammedanism but one more like the ancient would bring the Christianity Introduction was to outline the constitution which Greek religion.^^ Manuel of the Peloponnese, a churchman who under it;** and later / greatest possible happiness to those who lived flourished about 1510,^^ said that Pletho's infidelity showed every- expressed that the constitution in the course of the work the wish was little tract by Pletho on the Latin Dogma." possible happiness where in a might be put into effect with a view to the greatest

\\ i ilt rejecting Christianity in favor of Platonism as his own under it^^ The both public and private of those who should live religion, Pletho nevertheless held that an abstract philosophy was probably led Pletho character of Prince Manuel of the Peloponnese not possible for every one. Those incapable of severe thinking rvraiii who, as Plato said, to believe that in him he had found the something more concrete u they were to attain even lo !hat compelling them Lo needed k-vaM accomplish the greatest good for men by measure of truth wliirli wa- possible for them. Plato, like Tiuiriy Pletho gave him advice adopt a good constitution.^^ At any rate, other religious philosophers, he asserted, in recognition of this lai t regarding the reorganization of nut oiilv as to the defense but also expressed his meaning for the benefit of the many in poetical myths.**® repeated from what he the Peloponnese; advice which was doubtless combining such religious teaching with (theoretical) statesman- he offered his own By had alrtarh' written in his Laws}'^ Moreover, ship Plato conferred upon mankind the greatest benefit which it is Disappointed at the services to aid in carrying out the advice.*^ to to accomplish. Pletho never wearied of praising those the hope that the time given man truitlessness of his counsel Pletho yet cherished as at once religious teachers and law-givers practical support whom tradition celebrated would come when his wisdom would meet with the organizers of society."*^ It is to be expected, therefore, that Pletho as Patriarch of By- or necessary lor ii^ realization. Gennadius, who the example of Plato as a law-giver and teacher of a Christianity, heard should follow zaiUiiim had the power and also the will to uphold religion which would foster a spirit consonant with the laws. The as 'kn obstacle to the ful- tlKii Flitho regarded Gennadius's living

i) Tuiv vbûiv (TuyypaifTi is his attempt. In the account of the funda- years of his life Pletho f^lliTuiit of his hopes.*3 Even in the last ideas which should be accepted by the state he of his own mental religious prophesied to Georgius Trapezuntius the supremacy followed Plato closely.'*^ In other respects he differed from him religion.^° polytheism or system of religion which reems to be considerably but the so-called Strange as this confidence appears, it nevertheless developed in the Laws is based on Plato much more minutely than the secret doctrine of a he the case that the work was written, not as generally been believed. political organization and a has religious sect, but as the description of a Before dealing with this subject, however, it should be pointed as long as the leaders of religion. While necessarily kept secret out that Pletho really expected his plans for the re-organization of C, Dj that the execution " Pletho's admission to Prince Theodore (M. 864 Schultze '^ Trapezuntius, next involve many difficulties can not, as Comparatio inter Platonem et Aristotelem by Georgius of his plan< iV.r reorganization would that Pletho recognized that the times were not to last chapter. wishes (p 47), be taken as evidence of himself 38 leading up to the comparison Fabric. XII, 100. suited to his reforms. Pletho was rather to a even if it involves pain, as opposed " Ibid. to a physician, who knows how to cure I his was a of those to whom he ministers. " M. 985 B. Cf. pp. 26, 27 above. cook who is indifferent to the health «i Polilicus 297 e. M. 994 C. Cf. Plato, Laws, 859a. Pletho mentioned Zoroaster, Men, favorite comparison of Plato also. Cf. Gorgias 500 e, Dionysus (M. 971 C), Pythagoras and Plato (M. 984 A, B) as teachers of religious " M. 636 C. truth, some of whom also founded institutions for men. Other law-givers to whom are Plethon, in Archiv fUr Geschichte Pletho referred are given by Gennadius in his review of Pletho's Laws. They « Laws', 709 e. Cf. Draseke, Zu Platon und A, Minos, Lycurgus, Eumolpus, Polyeides and Teiresias. (M. 639 B.) i» Philosophic, XX\fI, 288 ff. « M. 854 I), 856 A, B. These doctrines were taken from Plato's Laws 885 b. *7 Schultze, 265. They run as follows: There is a divine principle which gives being to all that is; "M. 840 B. this divinity cares for human affairs; it manages them according to the strictest ** M. 633 D, 634 \ first is lu justice undeterred by prayers or gifts. In Plato's account the doctrine Cf- <•>(). merely that the gods exist. 92 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 93 church and state were hostile, these doctrines were to be imparted under more favorable circumstances to the whole of Greece, restoring were the Ideas of those things which were perishable. The former her to a vigor by which she might repel the Turks and save to man- group included one pair and three quintets of deities. They were the of kind for all time the world's choicest race and culture. as follows: (a) Poseidon, the Idea of form, and Hera, Idea In the Laws Pletho described an elaborate ritual for an equally matter. They were the creators of ail below them, (b) A quintet of elaborate system of gods. He was accordingly accused by Gennadius gods representing general categories: Apollo, the Idea of sameness; or per- of a belief in polytheism^^ and even Schultze, while offering an Artemis, the Idea of difference; Hephaestus, the Idea of rest explanation of part of the system as a representation of mediaeval manence; Dionysus, the Idea of self-motion due to love; Athena, the partici- logic,^^ nevertheless criticized it as though it were an original and Idea of caused motion, (c) A second quintet of gods. Ideas serious attempt to give a metaphysical explanation of the universe. pating in that which has soul and is eternal: Atlas, the Idea of the the planets; Dione, the Idea of But if the deities are divested of their names and if we consider what stars in general; Tithonus, the Idea of Pluto, the they represent as Pletho tells us, it becomes clear that Pletho has the fixed stars; Hermes, the Idea of the earthly demons; of the merely filled in the picture of the universe given in Plato's Timaeus. Idea of the human souls, (d) The third quintet consisted or the De Anima Mundi of the pseudo-Timaeus. A few modifica- Ideas of that which has no soul but is eternal: Rhea, the Idea of the tions have been introduced from Proclus or other works of Plato.^^ the elements in general; Leto, the Idea of the aether; Hecate, of The following summary outline of the system is reproduced air; Tethys, of water; Hestia, of the earth. substantially from Schultze, pp. 215, 216. The Ideas of the perishable had at their head a pair corresponding At the head of the deities was Zeus, who was pure being. Beneath to Poseidon and Hera among the Ideas of the eternal. Kronos and him were his children, the Ideas, divided into two groups, the legiti- Aphrodite were the Ideas of form and matter respectively in what was mate and illegitimate. The legitimate offspring comprised the Ideas mortal. Aphrodite was further defined as the Idea of the immortality the which participated in whatever was eternal, while the illegitimate seen in the sequence of generations. Kore or Persephone was Idea of the mortal part of man; Pan, of the reasonless animals; " M. 638 B. Demeter, of plants. « Pp. 158 ff. He is followed in general by Symonds, II, 202 and Hettner, of deities, those within the Italienische Studien, 174. Hacke, p. 62, regards the work as a mark of Pletho's Below the Ideas was a lower group intellectual decline. heavens, that is, in space, and known as the offspring of Poseidon. " Some scholars referred to by Boivin (II, 727) already surmised that the They also were distinguished as legitimate and illegitimate. The system was based very closely on Plato's writings. He writes: "II s'est trouv6 former were the stars, the latter the demons. The stars were des 6crivains catholiques, du nombre desquels est Leo AUatius qui ont fort regret- divided into the planets and the fixed stars. The planets were t^ la perte de cet ouvrage de Plethon et qui ont pr6tendu que le dessein de I'auteur Selene, the moon, a pair of deities n'estoit nullement de renverser la religion Chrestienne, mais seulement de devel- headed by the sun, Helios, and loper le systeme de Platon et d'eclaircir ce que lui et les autres philosophes avoient which had certain creative functions for the world of matter. Beneath ^crit sur la matiere de religion et de politique." them were stationed Phosphoros (Venus), Stilbon (Mercury), Phae- is estimate than that of Symonds, who says (II, 202) "It will This a juster non (Saturn), Phaeton (Juppiter), and Pyroeis (Mars). be perceived that this is bastard Neoplatonism—a mystical fusion of Greek As the link between the gods and the world of ''nature" stood mythology and Mediaeval Logic, whereby the products of speculative analysis soul he belonged to the world of the are hypostasized as divine persons." man, partaking of both. By his of the lower animals, plants Tozer (J. H. S. 7, 361) says: "Whether the gods of Plethon's system are to immortals and by his body to the world be regarded as embodiments of Plato's Ideas, or as a resuscitation of the Aeons and lifeless matter. of Gnosticism, or as an eclectic combination of the two. ..." A little consideration will reveal the close relation between this Delia Torre's explanation is as follows (429): "0 per meglio dire la dottrina system of Pletho's and Plato's account of the universe in his Timaeus. neoplatonica dell' emanazione ai diversi gradi della quale egli fece corrispondere secondo la loro rispettiva importanza i diversi Dei dell' Olimpo pagano." ARISTOTLE 95 pletho's criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 94 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND activity of the souL" other things, as, for example, the the other of the motion in Plato spoke of two worlds, one of Ideas and motion due to the love of the Pletho identified the latter kind with said little of the world of created world, a copy of the first." He SywôiiMOT 204 e. Bood, as described in Plato's detail the created world. Pletho, on the rest Ideas but described in some universe was immaterial and invisible; gave most So much of the with the intention of providing a religion, heavenly bodies (which the other hand, It consisted, first, of the to the was material. the world of Ideas and attributed divinity material elements, these of his attention to the demons, human souls and the were gods), of In examining his system we shall disregard mortal-the bodies Ideas themselves. and, in the second place, of what was the sort of being eternal; the divinities and look beyond the Ideas for names of the lower animals and the plants. that described of men, by Pletho in order to compare it with in the Timaeus 41 d. universe depicted The heavenly bodies were living deities, as and five other planets. bv Plato. The most important were the sun, moon to Pletho, haa bcmg. been the first place, the universe, according but their names niav have In These were mentioned in Timaeus 38 c of it in Plato'c nrroimt," ol the was likt .vie the most important element 392a=^ The existence This taken from Aristotle's De Mundo according to the J'lrmenides^ while in t general category, Timaeus 40 d,e, as it was the mi demons might have been inferred from below being we find, in Pletho's between gods and an 1 >^.-phi^t}^ Next their mediation Theaetetus^'^ the Symposium'^ and Politims^' among the entities, sameness and believed iii ihur form an i matter, ranked Pletho account, men was more fully described." Although Timaeus but they had supersti- They v,. r^ not so ranked in the common with popular otherness. existence, his belief had nothing in to male and female, while which their place and were there compared the Laws, now lost, the title o tion He wrote a chapter of likened to children.'^^ prob- concrete objects formed by their union were the belief in evil demons,^' the indicates that it was an attack on the level of work the same comparison is seen raised to The demons ranked between the In Pletho's ably based on Politicus 271 d. of form and matter were made or fire, air, water ci I lea., where the Ideas elements (aether the world gods and human souls. The four in the heavens. ivimxlc hlut who begot the visible bodies for, while the individual male and and earth) were inanimate but eternal, were mentioned in Timaeus ca . ries, sameness and otherness, each other, as m the The next two elements might perish by passing into of the universe. Rest or the Timaeus'^ along with being as parts the "Nothing can be more grotesque than from many passages of Plato." " Svmonds II, 203 remarks: perrr.anence wa'^ n category drawn motion under the "ties of Apolo of identity and self-determining category and at other personf/cTtiL to cate in Pia: .^ writings, was sometimes one than the attribution of sex Motion, Dionysus, nor any confusion more fatal of it, Ld into several. Pletho made two categories times it was divided of the understanding." gories .v.tânrip?^'^t^g"";^ of Phaedrus'' and Laws,'' before Kant, was not aware of following the division made by Plato in the Pletho, of course, having lived °^ the Ideas -tlun th were motion caused from nor did he even suppose that -« to which its two subdivisions the underslanding," jus according every mmd was full of sameness, causing Psellus (O. D. 26) who said that and motion which was its own cause while also mind, like without Ideas. tice and other similar divine n. 59 and 97, u. 7V. Regarding the sex of the Ideas, cf. p. 94, M r.-K 20 a, 39 e. » 202 d. " Tim. 35 a. good demons, a that Plato held a serious belief in "141 etc. "PUtho was convinced 0, 468 «.) from Egypt. (M. 161, 717 C. Cf. belief derived probably ^J/.«6 from Psellus, who attributed to ui. .. M 960 A Pletho markedly differed is to the demo 245 ,i u 122, 876 C.) Pletho '^""ûted Greeks a belief in evil demons. (M. sj while Psellu sup- T., 50 d. 97 c ff., is never mistaken, right opinion, which, as in Mcno

> 1 foreknowledge, ^"^^^^ ^ poses them to have a coniectural remark (433)^^^^^^^^^about ^^Z^XPorph> ry s etc. della Torre's unfortunate 180 d, e, Sophist 254 d, f 122 873 C.) Cf. /'jf FT. IM *, TktMl. M used similar '; though Pletho also might have iSiice placate evil demons, as '•- :4^ c. language. « yiA b. pletho's criticism of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 97 96 PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE "polytheism" was Proclus,'^ adding that Pletho suppressed his name,^* eternal. 49 b ff., yet as a whole the elements, that is, matter, were in order that he might himself be thought the originator of the

The perishable part of the universe consisted of the mortal part of religion. It is true that Pletho did not include the name of Proclus man, the lower animals and the plants, the formation of which was in the list of those through whom religious truth had come to man- described at great length in the Timaeus. They might, however, kind^3 but that he did it for the purpose assigned is absurd. Pletho be said to be immortal by virtue of the succession of generations. believed he was embodying in the religion the philosophical truth, This notion of biological immortality was developed in Plato's which was gradually attained by a few wise men and handed down Symposium 206 c. Its expression is disguised in Pletho's work. to later ages. He probably did wish to conceal from the many the He identified the Idea of matter in that which is perishable with the source of this embodiment of the truth, lest the knowledge that it was Idea of the immortality due to the succession of generations. By a "medicinal lie" might beget a spirit of rebellion against its author- the use of the key we have employed in the interpretation of his ity. At least, such a Platonic attitude (Cf. Rep. 537 e ff.) would system of gods this identification in the world of Ideas becomes not be inconsistent with the frequency with which he adopted other nothing more than the continuity of the material existence of the Platonic attitudes. ^^ animals and plants. This is the biological immortality as found in Gennadius was in a position to know, however, that Pletho had Plato's Symposium. spoken of Proclus as an authority on Aristotle's views in theology^^ A few aspects of Pletho's system can not be exactly reconciled and privately Pletho discussed Proclus as he did any other philoso- with Plato's account. The Idea of form was made the Demiurge pher.^^ There can be no doubt that Proclus was his direct source by Pletho. If the sense of the words is pressed, this means that the for the conception of logical deities and their relationships, for some Demiurge was a part of the Ideal world and even had a part in its of their names and probably also for the idea of composing hymns to creation, in as far as eternal things have a creation. In Plato's them. account, on the other hand, the Demiurge was apparently external Proclus composed hymns to the sun, "the king of intelligible to both the visible and the Ideal universe, his task being to fashion fire," to the Muses, to Aphrodite and several other deities. ^^ These, the former after the likeness of the Ideal world.«« Again, Pletho al- like Pletho's,^^ were addressed to divinities with the ordinary Greek lowed for Ideas of form and matter in what was eternal and others of names but were understood in a logical sense. General categories form and matter in what was perishable. This implies form and were named by Proclus in his commentaries and divided into male and matter in the eternal as distinct from form and matter in the perish- female.''^ Zeus was not, as with earlier writers, the intelligence and able. Yet in the Timaeus, while different deities created the eternal creator of the universe. ^° He was being. His creative or demiurgic and the perishable,^^ there was no explicit distinction drawn between the two kinds of form and matter. This is rather a plausible develop- '1 M. 639 C. " Voight (II, 120), who in general adopted regarding Pletho the judgment ment of Plato's account than the employment of an idea clearly of his bitterest enemy, repeated Gennadius's statement concerning the suppression expressed in his writings. of Proclus's name. source for the names of his deities and in general for the Pletho's 7» A. 32. were composed was idea of logical gods to whom hymns of praise 7* Cf. p. 37. indicated in general terms by his chief opponent, Gennadius. Writing 76 M. 981 C. 7«M. 717 BfiF. to the Exarch Joseph, he said that the unavowed origin of Pletho's 161, " Didot ed. of Proclus, 1316 ff.

'8 A. 202 ff. " Pletho stated in M. 161, 717 B that Plato seemed to be of the opinion that T" In Tim. I, 47, 6. the Demiurge came second in order after the highest God. »oAs Porphyry, for example, held, quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Evang. I. 70 r^H 41 c. 130, 16 ff. of PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 99 m PLETHO'S CRITICISM OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE pletho's criticism

who had Hera as wife. therefore, necessary to add one. This was done by dividing motion function was taken over by Poseidon," logical world.^^ These One other exact correspondence between Proclus She was the leader of animal generation in the into two kinds.^^ seems to have chosen is observable in the fact that Hermes was, according to characteristics were all adopted by Pletho, who and Pletho accordance with a proportion the leader of the ''gnostic powers" (that is, the demons) the names of the next two deities in Proclus,^^ created the Ideas system of Pletho was the Idea of the earthly demons. worked out by Proclus. Poseidon and Apollo anc! in the particulars.** Again, Hera and of the names used by Pletho seem to have been assigned the former as a whole and Apollo the The rest the genesis of what ^° Artemis were those who supplied the material for independently. the physical. Hence tradition of rationalization by which names of deities has soul TTrri of the logical and Artemis of The Stoic Apollo was chosen by often on the basis of fanciful ei}inologies, to various : Artemis.«« were assigned, PoseI^< n Hn :: Apollo which is analogous to or aspects of the imiverse would seem to have been without Pletho to Tvprv^vnt the Idea of identity, elements traditional but represent the Idea of difference, iiilluence on Pletho. Porphyry represented thi^ I iral an i Artemis to being an i th. of the and so produces the little or nothing in common between his account which îiMac. Lhc unity up into particulars there is that, since of the of Pletho. His deities were not general categories or nûltinliritv of things. It might be observed god.- and tliat so that his Proclus," being, sameness, other- Ideas l)ut the potencies of pans and aspects of nature :.vr hiiihvA iai< unfit- namcd by or reserved for Zeus, there were only to ihem/'^ resembled addresses to a generalized Zeus ness FtM an! moll II. the first was hymns fragments. Zeus, Poseidon and Hera. Tt was, Aphrodite such as might be f<ûn(] in tragedy or the Orphic xûr left lor the quintet below Moreover, even when Pleilio named the Ideas of the material ele- Poseidon the example of justification for degrading if at all, he might be expected to follow 8 /rJnr ! '06 15 an i K-2, 18. Some ments, where, places as brother and wife of Zeus was except in one ,. wtil i^ Hera below their traditional Porphyry, there is no discoverable correspondence, passages from Homer in wtnch rnrlii^ in the fact that he could cite found by } which is probably accidental.*^ appropriateness of choos- case, Tim. Ill, 185, 3 ff. The earh railed Zeu. i uhcr. Cf. In becoming seems to have been arrived m, f'o.euinn to preside over the world of Athens " . 95. interpreted the constitution of the ancient Cf pp. 94, a Mvne .vb it as follows: Proclus symbohc of the «» In Tim. I, 79, 9 ff. the struggle with the Atlantians as (Cf T'm.û^ 24 d If.) and below. Over the heavens^ 30 For possible exceptions cf. n. 86 above and n. 93 he.vern Z\ the world of becoming. {In Tim. I, 206, 3). natural that over the world •^ Eusebius, Praep. Evang., I, 130, 16 ff. of being, presided Zeus. It was whi. h wa. I he wurM of the Atlantians. They, »2 Wolff, p. 144 ff. !e the god who was the ancestor of genesi. .houM |.r. m the chthonic potency and with {In Tt^'^^]^ " Hestia, in Porphyry's account, was leader of eontinent, were the children of Poseidon. comin, from a .ea ..rt in mind, it was probably the fact that Pletho was the Idea of earth. If Pletho had any example natural ground for his choice than 8) This êern^ a n.ore the earth, the element which cube, according that of Psellus, who said that Hestia represented applied by the Pythagoreans to the first Poseidon', name wa> universe, because she remained "remained," that is, remained in the center of the to Plutarch, MoraliaAU 480, 6 ff. the intelligible wodd, as at home when the other gods went in chorus to view «3 Cb n. M, Psellus's commentary on described in the Phaedrus, 247 a. (Cf. the fragment of «3 In Ttm. 1, 7'''b b the Phaedrus published in Hermes 34, 316.) »* 1. In Tim. b ?J, • • , , in world of Ideas. They had a genesis a. Pnd The logical world is the soul or life, being "separable minds." th.. -ht or lugie and they had influence here. Those ot that ^« broelus seem, to show Neo-Pythagorean o^ Apolk) Moralia II, 480, 6 ff., gave the name persua.ion; a. cordm, to Plutarch, dyad, the Ideas, and that of Artemis to the the monad winch corresponds to to Athene, as particulars. They named the hebdomad which i< productive of was familiar. It may be no more tMn a renorted m th. book, -vith which Pletho seventh deity among the Ideas. comcidence that Athene u. Pletho's system is the •^ Cf, In Tim. I, b'^s 12. INDEX OF IMPORTANT NAMES

Alexander Aphrodisias, 33, 34, 45, 64, 73. Manuel. 5ee Emanuel. Andronicus, 14, 19. Mauropus, John, 7. Ammonius, 33, 36, 61, 62, 80, 82. Medici, Cosimo de', 20. Apostolius, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19. Michael of Ephesus, 7. 62. Aquinas, Thomas 6, 8. Olympiodorus 33, 61, (Archytas), 27. Perottus, Nicholaus, 17, 19. Argyropoulos, 16-19. Petrus Hispanus, 32. Franciscus, 18. Aristotle, 7, 11,20,95. Philelphus relation to Christianity, 6-8, 11. PhUoponus, 34. subject of debate, 8-16, 19. Photius,6,7,31,33,35. 93 flf. Pletho's criticism of, 21, 29, 30, 38-82. Plato, 20-22, 29, 47, 85, 88, 90, 91, 32. Asclepius, 34. mediaeval study of 7, 12-14, 16, 19. Averroes, 20. subject of debate, 9, 10, 26-28, 36, 37. Bessarion, 1,20,48, 52,84. Pletho's interpretation of, Aristotle, iii. part in debate, 9-16, 19, 61, 62. difference from 88. Blemmydes, 7, 32, 36, 80. Plotinus, 8, 33, 51, Boivin, 14, 18, 92. Plutarch, 33. 99. Camariota, Matthaeus, 86, 89. Porphyry, 6, 28, 31, 33, 71, 95, 97, 58, 61, 64, 69, 75, 88, Comnena, Anna, 7. Proclus, 27, 31, 33, Damascius, 6, 31, 33, 34. 96-98. 32-35,52,84,88,99. Draeseke, 1, 2, 8, 37, 83, 91. PseUus, 6, Emanuel (Manuel) II, Emperor of By- Pythagoras, 28, 36, 90 zantium(d. 1425),1,4,87,91. Sandys, 17. Gennadius. Ficinus, Marsilius, 18, 20. Scholarius, Georgius. Su 20, 21, 26, 29, 30, Gaspary,9-12, 13, 15, 17. Schultze, vii, 1, 2, 8, 9, Gass, vii, 20, 21, 56, 58, 64, 67, 71. 73,83-86,89,91,92. Gennadius (Georgius Scholarius), 8, 11, Simplicius, 34. 86. 12, 19, 27, 28, 32, 34-36. Socrates, 67, debate with Pletho, 21-26, 46, 57, 59, stein, Ludwig, 2, 10-14, 16, 17. 95. 60. Symonds, J. A., 2, 9, 83, 84, 92, hostility to Pletho, 86-89, 91, 96, 97. Tamour, 4. Gregorius, 20, 83, 84. Theodore, Prince of the Peloponnese, 1, Gregorius Nyssenus, 75. 86,91. Hesaias, 15, 16, 19. Theodore of Gaza, 10-15, 17, 19, 57. 83, 85, 86. Hieronymus, 20, (Timaeus, the Pythagorean), 28, 33, 50. lamblichus, 28, 33, Torre,deUa, 1,92, 95. Italus, John, 7 Tozer, 2, 92. Joseph, Exarch of the Peloponnese, 21, 86, Trapezuntius (George of Trebizond), 1, 96. 12, 14-16, 17, 19, 57, 89-91. Justinian, 6. Tzetzes, 7. Lucian, 26, 29, 82. 36, 90. Magentinus, Leo, 7. Zoroaster, 28, 100

( i i

ME'',f,ki-' F

I " '> '^»Sl'4 ij| mmM Vn HUH ^-lll O^flH

•t ^MIV

1010663320

Bi/ »* , ^

.: 1 1'

i ;S!|I

^m ] ''B' 'i

r^':^

,r-- r •^il

^^Ni

<."»

V' Tl » -'. \L

.!,*

>!i' I