CHAPTER 8 A Web of Translations: Planudes in Search of Human Reason Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides In his volume Humanism and the Church Fathers,1 Charles L. Stinger reflects on the fact that Byzantine scholars, particularly Planudes and Demetrius Cydones, chose to translate Latin works such as Cicero’s Dream of Scipio along with Macrobius’ Commentary on it, Boethius’ On Topical Differences and Consolation of Philosophy and Augustine’s De Trinitate, when they had ac- cess to Porphyry and other Neoplatonists in their original Greek. To explain this choice, I argue that Maximus Planudes translated such works precisely because they transplanted in the West the combined thought of Aristotle and Plato as already discussed by the Neoplatonic philosophers Plotinus and Porphyry. Neoplatonic thinkers had absorbed Aristotelian theses on many is- sues: Porphyry, for example, accepted Aristotle’s division of Reason into higher and lower (despite insisting on the unity of the human soul),2 a doctrine which confuses the notion of the triple hypostasis of God. As a translator, Planudes is known for his tendency to interpret the texts that he chooses to translate3 and, especially with regard to Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, ‘the decidedly non-literal character’ of his translation has been noted in scholarship.4 Much like Porphyry who dedicated himself to interpreting Plotinus’ obscure writing style5 and used to embellish his own expositions with quotations from other authors,6 Planudes clearly appreciates the task of the translator as involving exegesis as much as conveying a text into another language. 1 Stinger 1977, 90: ‘… it is odd that a Byzantine scholar should choose to translate these works when he had access to Porphyry and other neo-Platonists in their original Greek;’ cf. Fisher 2003: 78–9 on the motives of Planudes and Holobolos in translating Latin works; on this, also, see n. 20 below. 2 See, for example, Plot. Enn.VI.3.28.8–11 discussed in Wagner 2002, 234–235. Also, see Haas 2001, passim. 3 See Gigante 1961 on Planudes’ translation of Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis; also, see Fisher 1990 on his translation of Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Fournier 2011, esp.34–35. 4 Fournier 2011, 34 with n. 13 citing Papathomopoulos 1999, Coeletta 1974, and Pertusi 1951. 5 Crafton 2006, 32–39. 6 Smith 2007, 12–13. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004349070_0�0 156 Anagnostou-Laoutides Furthermore, the Neoplatonic approach fitted exceptionally well Planudes’ aim of advocating the union of the two Churches under the instructions of Michael VIII,7 because it demonstrated that Latin theological thinking ema- nated from the same tradition as that of the Orthodox Church which could, of course, serve as a first point of reconciliation for the supporters of the union of the Churches. Here, I will focus particularly on Planudes’ translations of Boethius’ and Augustine’s discussions of aspects of human reason, especially memory, our grasp of the divine trinity, and the ex nihilo creation. These instances offer tan- gible clues of the approach which Planudes employed in translating Latin texts and an introduction to a topic which begs further study. Planudes, Plotinus, Boethius Planudes’ knowledge of the ancient Greek philosophical tradition was thor- ough and Plotinus, along with his student Porphyry who published his master’s works (given that Plotinus never did), was never far from his thought. Hence, it is not surprising that Planudes introduces his Vita Boethii by stating that, in his view, Boethius undertook to explain in Latin many of the doctrines of Porphyry and Aristotle,8 acknowledging right from the beginning of his trans- lating venture that the Neoplatonists engaged systematically with the theories of Aristotle. The text is cited below: [1] Βοήτιος ὁ σοφὸς ἦν μὲν ἐκ τῆς τῶν Τορκουάτων οἰκίας, γέγονε δὲ ἐμπειρότατος τὴν παιδείαν κατ’ ἄμφω τὰς διαλέκτους, τήν τε τῶν Ἑλλήνων φημὶ καὶ Λατίνων. [2] Ὅθεν καὶ πλείστας βίβλους ἐξέδωκεν ἐξηγησάμενος τὴν Πορφυρίου Εἰσαγωγὴν καὶ τὸ Περὶ ἑρμηνείας Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ ἕτερα, φασὶ δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ περὶ τῶν Τοπικῶν ἴδιον βιβλίον συντάξασθαι; γέγονε δὲ καὶ περὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν μαθημάτων ἄριστος. 7 Fisher 2003, 79; Wilson 1990, 230. 8 Cf. Harris 1976, 15–6 discussing the contribution of Boethius in introducing neoplatonism to Latin Christianity although he did not contribute significantly to neoplatonic thinking per se. On the importance of Boethius and Augustine in shaping western theological thought and the main differences between their arguments and those of Byzantine thinkers on the nature of God, see Bradshaw 2006, esp. 332–336..