The Ancient Theology, by D.P. Walker

[admin]

The Ancient Theology: Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteen Century
by Daniel Pickering Walker (1914-1985)
© 1972 by D.P. Walker

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

When D. P. Walker wrote about "ancient theology" or prisca theologia, he firmly linked it to Christianity and Platonism (Walker 1972). On the first page of his book, Walker defined the term as follows:

By the term "Ancient Theology" I mean a certain tradition of Christian apologetic theology which rests on misdated texts. Many of the early Fathers, in particular Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, in their apologetic works directed against pagan philosophers, made use of supposedly very ancient texts: Hermetica, Orphica, Sibylline Prophecies, Pythagorean Carmina Aurea, etc., most of which in fact date from the first four centuries of our era. [100-400 A.D.] These texts, written by the Ancient Theologians Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, Pythagoras, were shown to contain vestiges of the true religion: monotheism, the Trinity, the creation of the world out of nothing through the Word, and so forth. It was from these that Plato [428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC)] took the religious truths to be found in his writings. [!!!] (Walker 1972:1)

Walker described a revival of such "ancient theology" in the Renaissance and in "platonizing theologians from Ficino to Cudworth" who wanted to "integrate Platonism and Neoplatonism into Christianity, so that their own religious and philosophical beliefs might coincide" (p. 2). After the debunking of the genuineness and antiquity of the texts favored by these ancient theologians, the movement ought to have died; but Walker detected "a few isolated survivals" such as Athanasius Kircher, Pierre-Daniel Huet, and the Jesuit figurists of the French China mission (p. 194). For Walker the last Mohican of this movement, so to say, is Chevalier Andrew Michael RAMSAY (1686-1743), whose views are described in the final chapter of The Ancient Theology. But seen through the lens of our concerns here, one could easily extend this line to various figures in this book, for example, Jean Calmette, John Zephaniah Holwell, Abbe Vincent Mignot, Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron, Guillaume Sainte-Croix, and also to William Jones (App 2009).

-- The Birth of Orientalism, by Urs App

Contents:

• Foreword
• Introduction
• Orpheus the Theologian
• Savonarola and the Ancient Theology
• The Ancient Theology in Sixteenth-Century France
• Atheism, the Ancient Theology and Sidney's Arcadia
• Edward Lord Herbert of Cherbury and Christian Apologetics
• The Survival of the Ancient Theology in late Seventeenth-Century France, and French Jesuit Missionaries in China
• 'Mon cher Zoroastre' or the Chevalier Ramsay
• Index

[admin]

Foreword

Three of the chapters in this book, nos. 1, 3 and 4, have already appeared in periodicals in a slightly different form.1[Journal of the Warbury & C. Inst., xvi, 1953, pp. 100-20, and xvii, 1954, pp. 204-59; Bibliotheque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, svii, 1955, pp. 252-77.] I feel justified in reprinting them here, since they are still cited by modern scholars. The book is designed so that, after reading the Introduction, the reader can understand any one of the chapters, and need not therefore reread those he is already familiar with.

D.P.W.

[admin]

Part 1 of 4

Introduction

-- Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, by Frances A. Yates, 1964

By the term "Ancient Theology"1 [i.e. prisca theologica, a term which I regret having launched, since no one, including myself, is quite sure how to pronounce it. The main recent works on this subject are: F.A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, London, 1964; J. Dagens, 'Hermetisme et Cabale en France, de Lefevre d'Etaples a Bossuet', in Revue de litterature comparee, annee 35, Paris, 1961, pp. 5-16; Charles B. Schmitt, 'Perennial Philosophy: from Agostino Steuco to Leibniz', in Journal of the History of Ideas, xxvii, 1966, pp. 505-32.] I mean a certain tradition of Christian apologetic theology which rests on misdated texts. Many of the early Fathers, in particular Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius, in their apologetic works directed against pagan philosophers, made use of supposedly very ancient texts: Hermetica, Orphica2 [v. infra, pp. 14 seq.], Sibylline Prophecies,3 [Oracula Sybyllina, ed. J. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902; cf. F.A. Yates, Bruno, p. 8, n. 4.] Pythagorean Carmina Aurea,4 [Les Vers d'or pythagoriciens, ed. P.C. Van der Horst, Leiden, 1932; The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period, ed. H. Thesleff, Abo, 1965; Hieroclis in Aureum Pythagoreorum Carmen Commentarius, ed. F.G. A. Mullachius, Hildesheim, 1971; M.T. Cardini, Pitagorici Testimonianze e Frammenti, Firenze, 1958, 3 vols.] etc., most of which in fact date from the first four centuries of our era. [100-400 A.D.] These texts, written by the Ancient Theologians Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, Pythagoras, were shown to contain vestiges of the true religion: monotheism, the Trinity, the creation of the world out of nothing through the Word, and so forth. It was from these that Plato [428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC)] took the religious truths to be found in his writings. In order to preserve the uniqueness of the Judeo-Christian revelation, it was usual to claim that this pagan Ancient Theology derived from Moses; but sometimes it was supposed to go back further, to Noah and his good sons, Shem and Japhet, or to antediluvian Patriarchs, such as Enoch, or even to Adam. The later Neo-platonists also quoted some of these texts, in particular the Orphica, and added to them the Oracula Chaldaica;1 [W. Kroll, De Oraculis Chaldaicis, Breslau, 1894; H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy, Le Caire, 1956; K. H. Dannenfeldt, 'The Pseudo-Zoroastrian Oracles in the Renaissance', in Studies in the Renaissance, iv, 1957, pp. 7-30.] these oracles were later ascribed by Gemistus Pletho to Zoroaster, who thus enters the ranks of the Ancient Theologians.

The Fathers were dealing with real living pagans, trying either to convert them by showing that one could be both a Neoplatonist and a Christian, or to defend Christianity against philosophical attack by demonstrating that the greatest philosophers had stolen their wisdom from the Chosen People. Their attitude to the Ancient Theologians thus tends to oscillate between admiration for them as witnesses to Christian truth and quite harsh condemnation of them as cowardly idolaters.

When in the Renaissance the Ancient Theology was revived there were of course no longer any pagan philosophers around,2 [With the exception of Gemistus Pletho and perhaps a few disciples of his (cf. infra, p. 13).] and, though they often still used an apologetic framework, the main motive of platonizing theologians, from Ficino to Cudworth, was to integrate Platonism and Neoplatonism into Christianity, so that their own religious and philosophical beliefs might coincide. They are therefore on the whole much less harsh to the Ancient Theologians than were the Fathers; but the ambiguous attitude of the latter also reappears. Thus for a little while divinus ille Plato, the disciple of Orpheus, Hermes Trismegistus and Moses, became a living religious force; and the orthodox, both Catholic and Protestant, warned against the danger of platonizing Christianity instead of christianizing Plato -- not without reason. In the Renaissance this theologico-philosophic tradition was usually accompanied by various other beliefs and ideas, mostly already present in its sources: good natural magic and astrology, numerology, powerful music, patriotic national history (so that, for the English and French, the Druids may become Ancient Theologians), the assumption that deep truths must be veiled in fable and allegory, and, together with these, Biblical typology. Since they were more concerned with finding similarities than differences between various philosophies and religions, Renaissance syncretists tended to be tolerant and liberal in their outlook, both with regard to the several Christian churches and to good pre-Christian or exotic pagans.

The magical strand in the tradition of the Ancient Theology was of the greatest importance during the Renaissance. Since, however, it has been fully and brilliantly treated in F. A. Yates' Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, and since I have dealt with some aspects of it in my book on Ficino's magic, 1 [D. P. Walker, Spiritual and Demonic Magic, London, 1958.] I shall in this book omit it as far as possible. But the dividing line between magic and religion, between theurgy and theology, is a hazy one, and the two overlap and interact; I shall not therefore avoid all mention of magic, but shall assume that the reader has read the two books just mentioned. Moreover, the acceptance or rejection of the Ancient Theology was frequently determined to a high degree by the attractions or dangers of the magical tradition that went with it. Theologians, such as Erasmian Catholics or Calvinist Protestants, who were attempting to rid Christianity of its magical elements, were strongly inclined to reject the Ancient Theologians, because so many of them were also Ancient Magicians.

The significance, during the Renaissance, of the Ancient Theology can best be seen against the background of the long history of agreements, conflicts and compromises between Christianity and pagan philosophy, especially Platonic, Neoplatonic and Stoic. In this Introduction I shall first remind the reader of this background and of the beginnings of Renaissance Platonism, and then give a brief description of the main texts of the Ancient Theologians, and of the historical framework in which these texts were placed.

II

There are some areas of thought where there is a considerable likeness between Christian doctrine and some kinds of pagan philosophy and religion, and where in consequence a satisfactory and stable synthesis between the two is possible. There are other areas where the two collide head on, and where conflict is inevitable, or avoidable only by evasion and compromise. Let us look first at the agreements.

We must remember that Christianity was born and bred in a Hellenistic world, in which Neoplatonism and Stoicism were dominant philosophies. Evidence of this fact can be found already in the New Testament. The Johannine Logos goes back to the Wisdom Books of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, and both have evident connexions with the Stoic immanent divine Logos and the Platonic creative Mind.1 [See C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, London, 1935, and The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1954.] St Paul at Athens quoted from the Stoic poet Aratus:2 [Acts, XVII, 28; Aratus, Phaenomena, 1.5.]

Johannine literature is the collection of New Testament works that are traditionally attributed to John the Apostle, John the Evangelist, or to the Johannine community. They are usually dated to the period c. AD 60–110, with a minority of scholars such as John AT Robinson offering the earliest of these datings.

Johannine literature is traditionally considered to include the following works:

• The Gospel of John
• The Johannine epistles
o The First Epistle of John
o The Second Epistle of John
o The Third Epistle of John
• The Book of Revelation

Of these five books, the only one that explicitly identifies its author as a "John" is Revelation. Modern scholarship generally rejects the idea that this work is written by the same author as the other four documents. The gospel identifies its author as the disciple whom Jesus loved, commonly identified with John the Evangelist since the end of the first century.

Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature (the Gospel of John, Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation) since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment. The authorship by John the Apostle is rejected by many modern scholars.

-- Johannine literature, by Wikipedia

Stephen L. Harris claims that John adapted Philo's concept of the Logos, identifying Jesus as an incarnation of the divine Logos that formed the universe.

-- Logos (Christianity), by Wikipedia

Philo of Alexandria (Jedediah); c.  20 BCE – c.  50 CE), also called Philo Judaeus, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived in Alexandria, in the Roman province of Egypt....

According to Josephus, Philo was largely inspired by Aristobulus of Alexandria and the Alexandrian school.

-- Philo, by Wikipedia

Aristobulus of Alexandria, also called Aristobulus the Peripatetic (fl. c. 181–124 BC) and once believed to be Aristobulus of Paneas, was a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of the Peripatetic school, though he also used Platonic and Pythagorean concepts. Like his successor, Philo, he attempted to fuse ideas in the Hebrew Scriptures with those in Greek thought.

-- Aristobulus of Alexandria, by Wikipedia

The Peripatetic school was a school of philosophy in Ancient Greece. Its teachings derived from its founder, Aristotle (384–322 BC), and peripatetic is an adjective ascribed to his followers.

-- Peripatetic school, by Wikipedia

For in him we live and move and have our being; as certain also of your poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

This was a text constantly used to justify the Christian use of pagan literature.

In the next few centuries the Christian tradition acquired more of these Hellenistic, particularly Platonic strands. The Fathers who were defending Christianity against pagan philosophers tended to use their opponents' terminology and frame of thought in stating their own doctrine, and thus produced partially platonized versions of Christianity, as did, for example, Origen.3 [Especially in his De Principiis; cf. D. P. Walker, 'Origene en France', in Courants religieux et humanisme ... , (Colloque de Strasbourg 1957), Paris, 1959; Edgar Wind, 'The Revival of Origen', in Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene, Princeton, 1954.] St Augustine's conversion to Christianity from Manichaeanism, according to his own account in the Confessions, was partly due to reading Platonic books, in which he found the beginning of St John's Gospel, except for 'the Word was made flesh', and the negative conception of evil.4 [Augustine, Conf. VII, ix.] In the City of God he accepts the nearness of Platonism to Christianity:5 [Augustine, De Civitate Dei, VIII, ix: 'Quicumque igitur philosophi de Deo summo et vero ista senserunt, quod et rerum creatarum sit effector et lumen cognoscendarum et bonum agendarum, quod ab illo nobis sit et principium naturae et veritas doctrinae et felicitas vitae, sive Platonici accommodatius nuncupentur, sive quodlibet aliud sectae nomen inponant ... eos omnes ceteris anteponimus eosque nobis propinquiores fatemur.' (Google translate: Whoever, therefore, philosophizes about God. They felt that this is the highest and most true, that he is the creator of created things and the light of knowing and doing good, that from him is the beginning of nature for us, and the truth of doctrine and the happiness of life, whether they are more aptly called Platonists, whether they put any other name on the sect ... we put them all before the rest and we admit that they are nearer to us.]

Whatever philosophers they were that held this of the high and true God, that He was the world's Creator, the light of understanding, and the food of all action; that He is the beginning of nature, the truth of doctrine, and the happiness of life; whether they be called Platonists (as is fittest) or by the name of any other sect ... them we prefer before all others, and confess their propinquity with our belief.

Augustine's attitude, however, to pagan philosophy was not always so favourable, as we shall see.

Apart from the Ancient Theology, there were extremely important influences on Christianity from other wrongly dated texts and forgeries. The integration of Platonism and Neoplatonism into Christian theology was enormously helped by the writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, based on Proclus and the Parmenides and compiled some time in the sixth century A.D. Since these writings were supposed to be by the Dionysius whom St Paul converted at Athens, they acquired almost canonic status and retained it well into the Renaissance period.1 [v. infra, pp. 80 seq.] Stoic influences were helped by the forged correspondence between St Paul and Seneca, who thus, from the fourth to the fifteenth century, became a crypto-Christian. But Erasmus exploded this inept forgery very thoroughly, and its influence in the sixteenth century and later was slight.2 [Epistolae Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad Senecam <quae vocantur >, ed. C. W. Barlow, American Academy in Rome, 1938. For another view of the legend, see A. Momigliano, Contributo alla Storia degli Studi Classici, Roma, 1955, T. 1, pp. 13-32.]

The likenesses found by Renaissance syncretists between Christian doctrine and Plato, the Neoplatonists, and late Stoics, such as Seneca, may be divided into two classes: first, those which would nowadays be accepted as objectively true, and secondly, those which at best would be considered doubtful.

Of the first class the most important is monotheism. In Plato there is one supreme God; and, though the One and the Good is far from the personal Father of Judaism and Christianity, we must remember that the Pseudo-Dionysius had introduced a wholly transcendent God into the Christian tradition.

Dionysius, or Pseudo-Dionysius, as he has come to be known in the contemporary world, was a Christian Neoplatonist who wrote in the late fifth or early sixth century CE and who transposed in a thoroughly original way the whole of Pagan Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Proclus, but especially that of Proclus and the Platonic Academy in Athens, into a distinctively new Christian context.

Though Pseudo-Dionysius lived in the late fifth and early sixth century C.E., his works were written as if they were composed by St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who was a member of the Athenian judicial council (known as ‘the Areopagus’) in the 1st century C.E. and who was converted by St. Paul. Thus, these works might be regarded as a successful ‘forgery’, providing Pseudo-Dionysius with impeccable Christian credentials that conveniently antedated Plotinus by close to two hundred years. So successful was this stratagem that Dionysius acquired almost apostolic authority, giving his writings enormous influence in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, though his views on the Trinity and Christ (e.g., his emphasis upon the single theandric activity of Christ (see Letter 4) as opposed to the later orthodox view of two activities) were not always accepted as orthodox since they required repeated defenses, for example, by John of Scythopolis and by Maximus Confessor. Dionysius’ fictitious identity, doubted already in the sixth century by Hypatius of Ephesus and later by Nicholas of Cusa, was first seriously called into question by Lorenzo Valla in 1457 and John Grocyn in 1501, a critical viewpoint later accepted and publicized by Erasmus from 1504 onward. But it has only become generally accepted in modern times that instead of being the disciple of St. Paul, Dionysius must have lived in the time of Proclus, most probably being a pupil of Proclus, perhaps of Syrian origin, who knew enough of Platonism and the Christian tradition to transform them both. Since Proclus died in 485 CE, and since the first clear citation of Dionysius’ works is by Severus of Antioch between 518 and 528, then we can place Dionysius’ authorship between 485 and 518–28 CE. These dates are confirmed by what we find in the Dionysian corpus: a knowledge of Athenian Neoplatonism of the time, an appeal to doctrinal formulas and parts of the Christian liturgy (e.g., the Creed) current in the late fifth century, and an adaptation of late fifth-century Neoplatonic religious rites, particularly theurgy, as we shall see below.

It must also be recognized that “forgery” is a modern notion. Like Plotinus and the Cappadocians before him, Dionysius does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition. Adopting the persona of an ancient figure was a long established rhetorical device (known as declamatio), and others in Dionysius’ circle also adopted pseudonymous names from the New Testament. Dionysius’ works, therefore, are much less a forgery in the modern sense than an acknowledgement of reception and transmission, namely, a kind of coded recognition that the resonances of any sacred undertaking are intertextual, bringing the diachronic structures of time and space together in a synchronic way, and that this theological teaching, at least, is dialectically received from another. Dionysius represents his own teaching as coming from a certain Hierotheus and as being addressed to a certain Timotheus. He seems to conceive of himself, therefore, as an in-between figure, very like a Dionysius the Areopagite, in fact. Finally, if Iamblichus and Proclus can point to a primordial, pre-Platonic wisdom, namely, that of Pythagoras, and if Plotinus himself can claim not to be an originator of a tradition (after all, the term Neoplatonism is just a convenient modern tag), then why cannot Dionysius point to a distinctly Christian theological and philosophical resonance in an earlier pre-Plotinian wisdom that instantaneously bridged the gap between Judaeo-Christianity (St. Paul) and Athenian paganism (the Areopagite)? [For a different view of Dionysius as crypto-pagan, see Lankila, 2011, 14–40.]

-- Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, by Kevin Corrigan L. Michael Harrington, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published Mon Sep 6, 2004; substantive revision Tue Apr 30, 2019, Copyright © 2019 by Kevin Corrigan and L. Michael Harrington

There is also the unfortunate fact that Socrates' last words imply an acceptance of polytheism; but there were ways of explaining these away, as we shall see.1 [v. infra, pp. 45, 108.] The Neoplatonists provided a means of rendering the ancient gods compatible with monotheism by interpreting them metaphysically as hierarchical emanations from the One.

But if they shall assert that they deify not the visible bodies of sun and moon and stars, nor yet the sensible parts of the world, but the powers, invisible in them, of the very God who is over all----for they say that God being One fills all things with various powers, and pervades all, and rules over all, but as existing in all and pervading all in an incorporeal and invisible manner, and that they rightly worship Him through the things which we have mentioned----why in the world therefore do they not reject the foul and unseemly fables concerning the gods as being unlawful and impious, and put out of sight the very books concerning them, as containing blasphemous and licentious teaching, and celebrate the One and Only and Invisible God openly and purely and without any foul envelopment?

For this was what those who had known the truth ought to do, and not to degrade and debase the venerable name of God into foul and lustful fables of things unspeakable; nor yet to shut themselves up in cells and dark recesses and buildings made by man, as if they would find God inside; nor to think that they are worshipping the Divine powers in statues made of lifeless matter, nor to suppose that by vapours of gore and filth steaming from the earth, and by the blood of slain animals they are doing things pleasing to God.

Surely it became these men of wisdom and of lofty speech, as being set free from all these bonds of error, to impart of their physical speculations ungrudgingly to all men, and to proclaim as it were in naked truth to all, that they should adore not the things that are seen, but only the unseen Creator of things visible, and worship His invisible and incorporeal powers in ways invisible and incorporeal, not by kindling fire nor yet by offerings of ranis and bulls, nay, nor yet by imagining that they honour the Deity by garlands and statues and the building of temples, but by worshipping Him with purified thoughts and right and true doctrines, in dispassionate calmness of soul, and in growing as far as possible like unto Him.

But no one ever yet, barbarian or Greek, began to show all men this truth except only our Saviour; who, having proclaimed to all nations an escape from their ancient error, procured abundantly for them all a way of return and of devotion to the one true and only God of the universe. Yet the men perversely wise who boasted of the highest philosophy of life, whereby as the inspired Apostle says, though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened. They professed indeed to be wise, but became fools, . . . and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

-- Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), by Eusebius of Caesarea

The immortality of the soul and an afterlife of rewards and punishments, including eternal torment, is strongly asserted in the Phaedo and several other Platonic dialogues, though in the Apology the question is left open. On the other hand, the Platonic doctrine of the soul includes pre-existence and metempsychosis [the supposed transmigration at death of the soul of a human being or animal into a new body of the same or a different species.].

With regard to morals, Plato's asceticism, his total devaluation of the body with respect to the soul, and his puritanical view of sex, fit well with a dominant strain in Christianity. Stoic indifference to everything outside the soul and the ideal of ataraxia, the complete mastery by the soul of passions, of pleasure and pain, comes near to some aspects of St Paul's teaching, for example, I Corinthians, VII, 29-31.2 [cf. M. A. Screech, The Rabelaisian Marriage, London, 1955, pp. 104 seq.]

Among the more doubtful likenesses, the two most conspicuous are the Trinity and the Creation of the world out of nothing and its end. That there are some historical connexions between Neoplatonic triads and the Trinity seems highly probable; and with the Neoplatonists, who are post-Christian, the influence may have worked both ways. But in Plato the connexion is much more doubtful, and rests mainly on a spurious text, the second Epistle.

The Second Epistle of John is a book of the New Testament attributed to John the Evangelist, traditionally thought to be the author of the other two epistles of John, and the Gospel of John (though this is disputed). Most modern scholars believe this is not John the Apostle, but in general there is no consensus as to the identity of this person or group. (See Authorship of the Johannine works.)...

The language of this epistle is remarkably similar to 3 John. It is therefore suggested by a few that a single author composed both of these letters. The traditional view contends that all the letters are by the hand of John the Apostle, and the linguistic structure, special vocabulary, and polemical issues all lend toward this theory.

Also significant is the clear warning against paying heed to those who say that Jesus was not a flesh-and-blood figure: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." This establishes that, from the time the epistle was first written, there were those who had docetic Christologies, believing that the human person of Jesus was actually pure spirit or not come at all.

Alternatively, the letter's acknowledgment and rejection of gnostic theology may reveal a later date of authorship than orthodox Christianity claims. This cannot be assured by a simple study of the context. Gnosticism's beginnings and its relationship to Christianity are poorly dated, due to an insufficient corpus of literature relating the first interactions between the two religions.

Gnosticism (after gnôsis, the Greek word for “knowledge” or “insight”) is the name given to a loosely organized religious and philosophical movement that flourished in the first and second centuries CE. The exact origin(s) of this school of thought cannot be traced, although it is possible to locate influences or sources as far back as the second and first centuries BCE, such as the early treatises of the Corpus Hermeticum, the Jewish Apocalyptic writings, and especially Platonic philosophy and the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

-- Gnosticism, by Edward Moore

It vehemently condemns such anti-corporeal attitudes, which also indicates that those taking such unorthodox positions were either sufficiently vocal, persuasive, or numerous enough to warrant rebuttal in this form. Adherents of gnosticism were most numerous during the second and third centuries.

-- Second Epistle of John, by Wikipedia

It is not, I think, a very strained interpretation of the Timaeus to read it as an account of the creation by God of a world that had a beginning. But it is generally agreed nowadays that this interpretation is an erroneous one, due to a failure to realize the mythical nature of the account; and the Neoplatonists certainly believed the world to be eternal.

I have already mentioned some of the areas of conflict between Christianity and pagan philosophy -- metempsychosis and the eternity of the world; but by far the most important was polytheism. However good a case can be made out for the metaphysical monotheism of the philosophers, the fact remains that they were practising polytheists, and that the Neoplatonists, who could have accepted Christianity, did not.

Like Judaism, of which it is a heresy, Christianity is an exclusive religion, in sharp contrast to pagan polytheism. In the Rome of the early Christian era, many kinds of religion, indigenous and foreign, flourished together: the traditional Roman gods, near-eastern cults, such as that of Cybele, Egyptian ones, such as that of Isis. The same man could go in for all of these, and, in addition, worship deified emperors. But for Christians there was only one God, and only one way of worshipping Him; all other cults were sinful idolatry. The pagan might also belong to a mystery cult, Eleusinian or Orphic; these were exclusive in the sense of having a restricted membership, but they did not prevent their adepts from practising public religion. The mysteries were a serious competitor with Christianity, because they too assured to their members a happy afterlife. But Christianity was unique in both promising adherents eternal bliss and threatening all outside the church with eternal torment.

Thus any compromise with pagan gods was impossible for early Christians; polytheism was not merely mistaken religion, but was positively evil, literally diabolic. The standard Patristic [relating to the early Christian theologians or to patristics.] version of euhemerism [an approach to the interpretation of mythology in which mythological accounts are presumed to have originated from real historical events or personages.] was that the names of the pagan gods are those of famous rulers or inventors of whom statues were made, and these were inhabited by deceiving demons who wished to be worshipped.1 [cf. infra, pp. 32-3. See J. Seznec, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, New York, 1953, ch. 1; H. Liebeschutz, Fulgentius Metaforalis (Stud. d. Bibl. Warburg IV), 1926. Perhaps the most important source was Augustine, Civ. Dei, II-X.] The Old Testament leaves no doubt about the right way to treat pagan idolaters:2 [Deuteronomy, XIII, 6-10.]

If thy brother the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods ... thou shalt not consent unto him, nor harken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him. But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

a commandment fulfilled by Elijah:1 [I Kings, XVIII, 40.]

And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.

The New Testament is less violent, but not more favourable. In the first chapter of Romans St Paul writes of Gentile polytheists:2 [2 Romans, I, 22-7.]

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another ...

That is to say: sodomy is the punishment for idolatry, and of course the punishment for sodomy is fire and brimstone. As in the case of the Ancient Theologians, we must remember that St Paul and the Fathers, at least until the time of St Augustine, were living in a world where the pagan gods were still a living religion, and were thus understandably belligerent and harsh towards polytheism and idolatry; whereas during the Renaissance, in a wholly Christian world, people could afford to be much more liberal about the ancient gods, and there were several ways of preserving them in a harmless form, as Seznec has shown3 [Jean Seznec, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, New York, 1953.] and as we shall see in this book.

The first chapter of Romans is a crucial text for the acceptance or rejection of pagan philosophy, just before the passage quoted above, St Paul writes of the Greeks:1 [Romans, I, 19-20.]

That which may be known of God is manifest among them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.[???]

But if they shall assert that they deify not the visible bodies of sun and moon and stars, nor yet the sensible parts of the world, but the powers, invisible in them, of the very God who is over all----for they say that God being One fills all things with various powers, and pervades all, and rules over all, but as existing in all and pervading all in an incorporeal and invisible manner, and that they rightly worship Him through the things which we have mentioned ...

-- Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), by Eusebius of Caesarea

He [Ziegenbalg] writes in his Common School of True Wisdom that the universe serves as "an excellent book of divine wisdom, in which one would find as many pages as are the creatures made by God" (Ziegenbalg, Allgemeine Schule, 1710, 320). Hence, creation is a means to know God and can never become the object of worship. As a result, he encouraged the members of his Tamil church in Tranquebar to cultivate the habit of observing nature and discerning spiritual knowledge. People are meant to worship only God the Creator, and not the creatures (AFSt/P TAM 35, palm leaf 98v, i.e., twenty-third sermon).

In this context, he believes that the Bible alone is the sure means to know the distinction between the Creator and the creatures.

"The fifth sermon explains two ways of knowing God. By observing the creatures human beings can conclude that there should be a creator. Then, they should proceed to find out who this creator is. The second way is to derive knowledge from God's Word. This sermon shows what people can know about God through nature, and what secrets they can learn from the Holy Scripture."

(AFSt/P TAM 37, palm leaves 17v-22r; and Ziegenbalg's summary of this sermon in his Ausfuhrlicher Bericht, 1713, 25.)

Ziegenbalg explains further that while the Book of Nature demonstrates that there is one God, the Book of Grace alone shows the way to obtain the (salvific) knowledge of this God (HR, II, 15. Con., 14-16, Ziegenbalg's conversation with a Brahmin on January 18, 1718).

-- Genealogy of the South Indian Deities: An English translation of Bartholomaus Ziegenbalg's original German manuscript with a textual analysis and glossary [Christian Propaganda], by Daniel Jeyaraj

In its context this is, I think, plainly directed against the pagans, since the next verse reads:

'Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened'.

The pagans are inexcusable, because they could have known God by reading the Book of Nature, but, instead of worshipping Him, they went in for sodomy and idolatry.[???] But it is just possible to interpret this passage, taken in isolation, in a liberal way, as meaning that some pagan philosophers were saved by reading rightly the Book of Nature[???], and that we can profitably study their works. St Augustine, for example, in the City of God quotes this verse to prove that St Paul did not reject all kinds of philosophy,2 [Augustine. Civ. Dei, VIII, x.] and it is frequently used in a liberal way by Renaissance syncretists.

But St Augustine was a two-edged weapon; he can also be used to damn all pagans and their writings. If you were a liberal Christian, attracted to Platonism, you cited the passages in the Confessions and the City of God quoted above, and from the De Doctrina Christiana:3 [Augustine. De Doctrina Christiana, II. xl (Migne, Pat. Lat., T. 34, col. 63): 'Philosophi autem qui vocantur si qua forte vera et fidei nostrae accommodata dixerunt, maxime Platonici, non solum formidanda non sunt, sed ab eis etiam tamquam ab injustis possessoribus in usum nostrum vindicanda.' (Google translate: But those who are called philosophers are, by any chance, true and adapted to our faith. They said, especially the Platonists, that they are not only not to be feared, but also from them as to be claimed for our use by unjust possessors.)]

Whatever those called philosophers. and especially the Platonists, may have said true and conformable to our faith, is not only not to be dreaded, but is to be claimed from them as unlawful possessors, to our use,

as the Jews once robbed the Egyptians, as Moses became 'learned in the wisdom of the Egyptians'. If you were a strict Protestant, or a reactionary Catholic, you quoted from Augustine's Retractiones his regrets for his earlier approval of Platonism; 1 [Augustine, Retract., I, i (Migne, Pat. Lat., T. 32, col. 587), referring to his Contra Academicos; he retracts nothing in the Conf. or De Doctr. Chr.] and from his Contra Julianum the statement that all actions of pre-Christian pagans were sinful, because not done through faith in Christ.2 [Augustine, Contra Julianum, IV, iii (Migne, Pat. Lat., T. 44, col. 750 seq.).]

That We Obtain Remission of Sins by Faith Alone in Christ.

We think that even the adversaries acknowledge that, in justification, the remission of sins is necessary first. For we all are under sin. Wherefore we reason thus:-To attain the remission of sins is to be justified, according to Ps. 32, 1: Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven. By faith alone in Christ, not through love, not because of love or works, do we acquire the remission of sins, although love follows faith. Therefore by faith alone we are justified, understanding justification as the making of a righteous man out of an unrighteous, or that he be regenerated.

-- The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, by Philip Melanchthon, 1531

[admin]

Part 2 of 4

III

In 1462 Cosimo de' Medici provided Ficino with manuscripts containing all [of] Plato's surviving works, and ordered him to translate them into Latin. But first he was to translate Plato's main source, the Corpus Hermeticum; this Ficino did, and then went on to Plato.3 [See Yates, Bruno, pp. 12-3.]

The Corpus Hermeticum is a collection of 17 Koine Greek pseudepigraphical [falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.] writings whose authorship is traditionally attributed to the legendary Hellenistic figure Hermes Trismegistus ("Thrice Great"), a syncretic combination of the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth. The treatises were originally written between c. 100 and c. 300 CE, but the collection as known today was first compiled by Medieval Byzantine editors, and translated into Latin in the 15th century by the Italian humanist scholars Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) and Lodovico Lazzarelli (1447–1500)....

[T]he Corpus Hermeticum contains only a very small selection of extant Hermetic texts (known as Hermetica). Its individual treatises were quoted by many early authors from the second and third centuries on, but the compilation as such is first attested only in the writings of the Byzantine philosopher Michael Psellus (c. 1017–1078).

-- Corpus Hermeticum, by Wikipedia

[S]erious questions were raised during Psellos' lifetime concerning his religious beliefs. For example, according to Byzantinist Anthony Kaldellis, "In 1054 he [Psellos] was accused by his erstwhile friend, the future Patriarch John Xiphilinos, of forsaking Christ to follow Plato." Even stronger doubts arose concerning Psellos' student, John Italos, who succeeded Psellos as Chief of the Philosophers. Italos was publicly accused of teaching such "Hellenizing" ideas as metempsychosis and the eternity of the world. Italos faced such accusations twice, and both times he confessed and recanted.

It was once thought that there was another Byzantine writer of the same name, Michael Psellos the Elder (now also called Pseudo-Psellos), who lived on the island of Andros in the 9th century, and who was a pupil of Photius and teacher of emperor Leo VI the Wise. Michael Psellos himself was also called "the younger" by some authors. This belief was based on an entry in a medieval chronicle, the Σύνοψις Κεδρηνοῦ-Σκυλίτση, which mentions the name in that context. It is now believed that the inclusion of the name Psellos in this chronicle was the mistake of an ignorant copyist at a later time, and that no "Michael Psellos the elder" ever existed.

The term "Pseudo-Psellos" is also used in modern scholarship to describe the authorship of several later works that are believed to have been falsely ascribed to Psellos in Byzantine times.

-- Michael Psellos, by Wikipedia

Ficino's translation of Plato, together with his commentaries, was published in 1484, and it became the standard version for the sixteenth century. In 1490 appeared his translation of Plotinus, also with commentaries. He published translations of several works, mostly magical, of the later Neoplatonists: Porphyry, Iamblichus, Proclus. His main original works were: De Religione Christiana (1474), Theologia Platonica (1476), De Triplici Vita (1489).4 [Marsilio Ficino, Opera Omnia, Basel, 1576; P. O. Kristeller, Supplementum Ficinianum, Florence, 1937, 2 vols; Ficino, Theologie platonieienne, tr. and ed. R. Marcel, Paris, 1964; Ficino, Commentaire sur le Banquet de Platon, tr. and ed. R. Marcel, Paris, 1956. On Ficino see: A. Della Torre, Storia dell' accademia platonica di Firenze, Firenze, 1902; P. O. Kristeller, Il pensiero filosofico di Marsilio Ficino, Firenze, 1953; R. Marcel, Marsile Ficin, Paris, 1958.][/b]

Writings of doubted authenticity

Jowett mentions in his Appendix to Menexenus, that works which bore the character of a writer were attributed to that writer even when the actual author was unknown.[164]

For below:

(*) if there is no consensus among scholars as to whether Plato is the author, and (‡) if most scholars agree that Plato is not the author of the work.

Alcibiades I (*), Alcibiades II (‡), Clitophon (*), Epinomis (‡), Letters (*), Hipparchus (‡), Menexenus (*), Minos (‡), Lovers (‡), Theages (‡)

Spurious writings

The following works were transmitted under Plato's name, most of them already considered spurious in antiquity, and so were not included by Thrasyllus in his tetralogical arrangement. These works are labelled as Notheuomenoi ("spurious") or Apocrypha.

Axiochus, Definitions, Demodocus, Epigrams, Eryxias, Halcyon, On Justice, On Virtue, Sisyphus.

Textual sources and history

See also: List of manuscripts of Plato's dialogues  

Some 250 known manuscripts of Plato survive. The texts of Plato as received today apparently represent the complete written philosophical work of Plato and are generally good by the standards of textual criticism. No modern edition of Plato in the original Greek represents a single source, but rather it is reconstructed from multiple sources which are compared with each other. These sources are medieval manuscripts written on vellum (mainly from 9th to 13th century AD Byzantium), papyri (mainly from late antiquity in Egypt), and from the independent testimonia of other authors who quote various segments of the works (which come from a variety of sources). The text as presented is usually not much different from what appears in the Byzantine manuscripts, and papyri and testimonia just confirm the manuscript tradition. In some editions, however, the readings in the papyri or testimonia are favoured in some places by the editing critic of the text. Reviewing editions of papyri for the Republic in 1987, Slings suggests that the use of papyri is hampered due to some poor editing practices.

In the first century AD, Thrasyllus of Mendes had compiled and published the works of Plato in the original Greek, both genuine and spurious. While it has not survived to the present day, all the extant medieval Greek manuscripts are based on his edition. [Cooper, John M.; Hutchinson, D.S., eds. (1997). Plato: Complete Works. Hackett Publishing. Cooper 1997, pp. viii–xii.]

The oldest surviving complete manuscript for many of the dialogues is the Clarke Plato (Codex Oxoniensis Clarkianus 39, or Codex Boleianus MS E.D. Clarke 39), which was written in Constantinople in 895 and acquired by Oxford University in 1809. The Clarke is given the siglum B in modern editions. B contains the first six tetralogies and is described internally as being written by "John the Calligrapher" [???!!!] on behalf of Arethas of Caesarea [Arethas of Caesarea (Greek: Ἀρέθας; born c. 860 AD) was Archbishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia (modern Kayseri, Turkey) early in the 10th century, and is considered one of the most scholarly theologians of the Greek Orthodox Church. The codices produced by him, containing his commentaries are credited with preserving many ancient texts, including those of Plato and Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations".]. It appears to have undergone corrections by Arethas himself. For the last two tetralogies and the apocrypha, the oldest surviving complete manuscript is Codex Parisinus graecus 1807, designated A, which was written nearly contemporaneously to B, circa 900 AD. A must be a copy of the edition edited by the patriarch, Photios, teacher of Arethas. A probably had an initial volume containing the first 7 tetralogies which is now lost, but of which a copy was made, Codex Venetus append. class. 4, 1, which has the siglum T. The oldest manuscript for the seventh tetralogy is Codex Vindobonensis 54. suppl. phil. Gr. 7, with siglum W, with a supposed date in the twelfth century. In total there are fifty-one such Byzantine manuscripts known, while others may yet be found.

To help establish the text, the older evidence of papyri and the independent evidence of the testimony of commentators and other authors (i.e., those who quote and refer to an old text of Plato which is no longer extant) are also used. Many papyri which contain fragments of Plato's texts are among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. The 2003 Oxford Classical Texts edition by Slings even cites the Coptic translation of a fragment of the Republic in the Nag Hammadi library as evidence. Important authors for testimony include Olympiodorus the Younger, Plutarch, Proclus, Iamblichus, Eusebius, and Stobaeus.

During the early Renaissance, the Greek language and, along with it, Plato's texts were reintroduced to Western Europe by Byzantine scholars. In September or October 1484 Filippo Valori and Francesco Berlinghieri printed 1025 copies of Ficino's translation, using the printing press at the Dominican convent S.Jacopo di Ripoli. Cosimo had been influenced toward studying Plato by the many Byzantine Platonists in Florence during his day, including George Gemistus Plethon.

-- Plato, by Wikipedia

p. 201-213

v. The Rise of the Thrasyllan Text

The major problem for the central thesis of this chapter is the requirement that the Thrasyllan text should have rapidly come to oust all readings from an earlier age. How did it come to dominate? How did interference escape detection? The former question is easier to answer, for domination was to be expected of a readily available complete text; and the complete domination of the Thrasyllan arrangement over rivals,40 [For rival arrangements see Chs. 2 and 3.] both in the Byzantine tradition of Paris A and Bodleian B and in the tradition that gave rise to F, is a powerful indication that his text too could have overshadowed rivals. Principal manuscripts may give a different selection of spuria from those recorded as admittedly spurious in Diogenes Laertius 3.62,41 [See Ch. I .iv on D. L. 3.62b, where I postulate input from Favorinus. not merely from Thrasyllus, for the list of acknowledged spuria.] and they may also give us a few subtitles that disagree with those of Thrasyllus,42 [Phaedrus on Beauty (not On Love) Symposium on Love (not On the Good), etc.; see Alline 1915. p. 125.] but they give us the same basic works and the same Epistles, with the former if not the latter in the same basic order.43 [But it is difficult to determine whether the order in which the Epistles are mentioned at D . L. 3.61 had anything to do with their arranged order; but for the position of the single letter to Dion, one might have thought that they had been mentioned in alphabetical order of recipients (where named).]

The question of how interference escaped notice is more difficult. Indeed we have seen that some interference did not escape notice, particularly in the case of the Timaeus. There is no evidence to link this particular interference with Thrasyllus, though Galen's suspicions may well have fallen on the Thrasyllan version (above, Ch. 7.ii). Proclus knew that the Myth of Er had been tampered with, but he did not seem to know who was to blame (above, Ch. 7. i). Non-Platonists laughed at the tendency of Platonists to emend texts where it suited them (above, Ch. 7.iii), but at a time when whole texts were being forged it is unlikely that such interference would have attracted much outrage. Plenty of intellectuals, like the one who pronounced some Heraclitean burblings of Lucian to be genuine,44 [At last we have a contemporary reference to Lucian, in a surviving Arabic translation of Galen, showing how Lucian put into practice his desire to expose cheats. See G. Strohmaier. 'Ubersehenes zur Biographie Lukians', Philologus 120 (1976), 117-22; M. D. MacLeod, 'Lucian's Activities as a Misalazon', Philologus 123 (1979), 326-28.] could not recognize a forgery anyway. How then could they recognize a few forged phrases in a Platonic dialogue or a forged digression in a Platonic epistle? If the phrase or passage were not obviously un-Platonic, then they would have needed to compare another text. Galen could do so in the case of the Timaeus, but how many others both could and would have done so? How many would have been as certain as Galen that text A was superior to text B? And what were the claims being made for any given text?

The claims made for Atticus' text might easily have rested upon his reputation. A Thrasyllan text would have required a different claim. The type of claim most likely to have carried weight with the readers would have been one of pedigree: nothing would produce greater respect than a perceived link between a given text and one kept by the Academy. Andronicus of Rhodes had created a new Aristotelian industry as a result of the rediscovery and promulgation of significant Aristotelian manuscripts. We do not know how much truth lies behind the tales of this rediscovery, and neither, one suspects, did rival philosophers. Andronicus was credited with having brought to light new Aristotelian epistles. Were they recent forgeries? Who could be certain? Any claims made by one school might suggest to another school the possibility of rival claims. If new epistles by X could be discovered, then so could new epistles by Y. And wherever it was possible that epistles should have had material edited out, then it was possible to claim the discovery of new complete manuscripts. But where could such unedited texts have been acquired?

The answer to this last question is not difficult to supply. The unedited Epistle 2 could have had only one source, the inner recesses of the Academy. The recipient had been instructed to burn the letter and would be expected to have done so. Whether or not Thrasyllan authorship of all or part of it is accepted, it is extremely likely (in my view certain) that the most dubious parts, containing the esotericism and the metaphysics, postdate the breakup of the Academy in the early eighties B.C. The only credible claim of authenticity would have been the claim to have had access to materials previously kept secret by the Academy. That claim would be particularly believable in the case of esoteric passages seemingly designed for the eyes of a small group of seasoned pupils only. The full text might have been expected to have survived only in the Academy; that is to say that it could not have been available to Aristophanes of Byzantium, who had included an unknown quantity of epistles in his Platonic trilogies, along with the Crito and the Phaedo.

The notion that the Academy would have kept its own collection of Plato's works is credible enough, particularly in view of Diogenes' statement that Arcesilaus 'had obtained Plato's works' (4.32). What is meant by this statement is far from clear, but in order to have warranted a mention here it had to mean that Arcesilaus obtained more Platonic writings, or a more authoritative version (original script or first restricted edition), either for himself or for the Academy. Either way, it seems likely that the Academy would have inherited this prize, and that it would have preserved it until the Second Mithridatic War caused the school to break up in disarray. From this wreckage of the school the books would have been salvaged, but by whom? It is likely that the scholar Philo of Larissa would have taken such important texts with him; if so, he would presumably have passed them on to persons whom he thought would continue to fly the Academic flag and to observe its traditional values.

At first, perhaps, such persons could be found; but it is extremely doubtful whether they could be found for long. Philo's influence, I have maintained [1985d], lingered on, influencing Plutarch and others; but it was a case of Academicism lingering on among Platonists, not of Platonism finding a place among Academics. If we look for philosophers who called themselves Academics later in the century, we find only Dio of Alexandria and Eudorus of Alexandria who had much standing. It is possible that Philo should have passed on the school's documents to Dio, and he to Eudorus; certainly he would have done his best to keep them out of the hands of Antiochus of Ascalon and of Antiochus' brother and successor, Aristus. Aristo of Alexandria was too closely associated with Antiochus and the Peripatetics; Dio might also have been too close to Antiochus, though we cannot know.

The attraction of seeing Eudorus as the ultimate recipient of such texts is considerable; there are indications of his respect for Philo,45 [Stobaeus' source at Ed. 2.39.2off. and 2.42.7ff.W speaks highly of both Philo and Eudorus, as if to suggest that they were the true inheritors of the Platonic tradition. This alone would suggest a certain affinity of doctrine, but it is also likely that the source acquired his respect for Philo via Eudorus.] and he went on calling himself an 'Academic' when it is unlikely that he had any direct association with Philo's school. Assuming that he had no loyalty to the methods of Carneades and Clitomachus, the inheritance of some kind of school documents would be the best explanation of his claim to the Academic title.

During or slightly before the time of Eudorus a new age of Platonic scholarship emerges. It is conceivable that it owed something to the awareness of a wider range of texts. If so, this would mean that somebody had available new Platonic documents. I cannot determine which works were in circulation prior to this time, though it is possible that those of tetralogies four and five were not. Most of the well-known works had been included in the trilogies of Aristophanes of Byzantium. And works like the Phaedrus and the Symposium were so well known by the time of Philo of Alexandria46 [See Leisegang's index to the Cohn-Wendland edition, s.v. [x].] that they too must have been circulating widely, even though they were not included in the trilogies.

Here lies a problem. What is meant when it is said that for Aristophanes the other works came 'individually and unordered' (D. L. J.62)? That all books known to Thrasyllus had been treated by Aristophanes, some in trilogies, some individually? Or that a few that had not been placed in trilogies were added individually? Or that all those not in trilogies had been left untreated by Aristophanes but were available singly elsewhere? It is very difficult to see why Aristophanes arranged only fifteen works in trilogies if he had all thirty-six available; surely he could have found some reasonable groups for the twenty-one unordered works. Were the trilogies Sophist-Politicus-Cratylus and Crito-Phaedo-Epistles such obvious groupings? Were they more natural than Laches-Charmides-Lysis, for instance? Or Hippias I-Symposium-Phaedrus or Symposium-Phaedrus-Philebus or Gorgias-Phaedrus- Menexenus or Protagoras-Gorgias-Meno, and so on? A complete arrangement in trilogies was perfectly possible. It seems probable to me that only the fifteen arranged works had originally been available to Aristophanes, and that he or his successors issued others singly as they became available. Aristophanes is mentioned as being one of a number of persons who employed the trilogies, and the reference to single unarranged works may be applicable only to those who followed him, and who had additional material at hand.

Some works outside the trilogies were undoubtedly well known by Thrasyllus' time, first and foremost the Phaedrus and the Symposium.47 [Cicero uses Phdr. frequently: TD 1.53-4: De Or. I. 28. 2.194: Div. I. 80, 2 .I; Off. I. I 5: Fin. 2.52. Orator 15. 41; Leg. 2.6.; the Symposium by contrast has little influence on him: the Didascalius shows a significant debt to both works (see the Index Platonicus in the edition of Louis); Plutarch is interested in both works, rather more so in Phdr. (see the lists of Platonic allusions in Jones [1916]).] The Gorgias, the Protagoras, and the Parmenides were surely not confined to the inner recesses of the Academy.48 [For Gorg, see Cic. TD 5.34. De Or. 3.129: also Charmadas in De Or. 1.47, 87, 90, 92. Prot. attracts no great attention in Cicero's philosophical works, but reasonable attention in Didasc., a little in Plutarch, etc. For Prm. see Ch. 5.] If only fifteen works had been available in Aristophanes' arrangement, then extra items were supplemented over the years: placed rather unnaturally after the Epistles, which one would not have expected to be followed by more dialogues as part of a deliberate arrangement.

By Eudorus' day it is quite possible that there existed (1) a reasonably well distributed collection of dialogues containing the trilogies of Aristophanes plus later accretions, (2) some single works such as the Timaeus circulating much more widely, and (3) a more comprehensive collection of texts held by the Academy until its demise, still not available to the general public and perhaps not reedited since the fourth century. The majority of these additional works were of a zetetic character, highlighting Plato's love of problems and paradox rather than his positive teaching -- the kind of works that would have been expected to feature prominently in any collection that Arcesilaus had been associated with. Their restricted availability may help to explain the ill-informed debate between those who would see Plato as a dogmatist and those who felt he was a sceptic.49 [E.g., Cic. Ac. 1.30, 46: S.E. PH I. 222; anon. Prol. 10; anon. Tht. col. 54: Tarrant 1985d, pp. 71-78.] But as time progressed loyalties to any Academic code of esotericism would have faded, and those who were fairly impartial over the question of Plato's dogmatism may have preferred that the true Plato should be revealed. For a teacher of philosophy, such as Eudorus, one could imagine that it would still be useful to have at his disposal special teaching materials, enhancing his claims to be able to teach Platonism faithfully. But somebody in Thrasyllus' position would have seen more glory in actually editing and distributing these texts.

Thus my claim will have to be that Thrasyllus made new material readily available, presenting it as (what most of it was) material stemming from the Academy. Few could have been certain about the authenticity of each little piece of this material, and in many cases there was no means of checking available. The world had to rely on the honesty of Thrasyllus, and of those via whom the text had come to him. For centuries the world has relied upon their having conformed to modern standards of editorial honesty. The time has come to question this always remembering, of course, that there is a vast difference between a prima facie case and a conviction.

Conclusion

Though the time has arrived to write a conclusion, I am all too aware that the task that this book has commenced has not been completed. There is much that could be said about ancient readings of other dialogues. There is much that could be said about other Epistles attributed to Plato, not only those included in the Thrasyllan collection but also those omitted.1 [For additional Epistles, including elements of the so-called Socratic Epistles, see the Teubner edition of Hermann.] Good questions can be asked about them all,2 [E.g., the relationship of Epistle 3 to 2, or 13 to 3; the identity o f the Socratic Logoi of 13.363a, and the relationship of the 'sphere' at 13.363d to that of Ep. 2. H. Thesleff asks me whether an initial [x] might have disappeared from the beginning of 13; I am sure he will be answering such questions better than I can in due course.] and the regularity with which one meets in them material relating to the philosopher's position as royal adviser makes a great deal of speculation about Thrasyllan interference possible. At this stage, however, such speculation would only cloud the picture; other scholars will be able to contribute more effectively to such topics than I can. In due course, I hope, our picture of interference with the dialogues will become clearer too.

Other questions have emerged in this book, less important for the study of Plato himself, but of considerable importance for the history of Platonism in spite of their neglect by a succession of scholars. Thrasyllus has been found to be a figure with a philosophy of his own, with interpretations of his own, and with a considerable influence upon how generations have interpreted Plato after him.

The influence of Thrasyllus, if my arguments have any credibility, would seem to have been immense. It falls into five main areas: philosophical influence upon (1) Neopythagoreanism, (2) Middle Platonism, and (3) Neoplatonic and early Christian thought; and influence upon Platonic interpretation down to our own times by means of (4) an arrangement of the Platonic corpus that survives and presents the material to us in a particular manner, giving an initial claim to authenticity to all that it contains and overwhelming suspicions of spuriousness to all that it does not contain, and (5) a text of Plato that Thrasyllus' interpretative hand has coloured.

It is obvious that the digression of Epistle 7 and the latter half of Epistle 2 still have an enormous influence upon the Platonic interpretations of those who accept their authenticity.

It is nearly as obvious that there is more resistance to the dismissal of the works contained in the tetralogies than those contained in the spuria, such as the Axiochus, and that some modern scholars still try to credit the Old Academy, and even Plato himself, with some aspects of the Thrasyllan arrangement. To those who know the Neoplatonists, the influence upon them of Epistles 2 and 7 will be equally clear, and we have already discussed the important place of Thrasyllus in the development of the Neopythagoreanism of Moderatus and Numenius. It remains, therefore, to say something about Thrasyllus' place in Middle Platonism and in Platonic interpretation before the time of Plotinus.

First, we must place the present view that Thrasyllus made the complete corpus readily available. The widespread interest in Plato's writings in the second century A. D. would not have been possible if texts had been scarce or unobtainable. It is, moreover, important that the whole range of Plato's works should have been available, thus creating the wider and the narrower difficulties that still bother interpreters today.[???] Debate about the general character of Plato's philosophy and about the specific intentions of various passages is what causes Platonic interpretation to thrive. Moreover, a work such as the Didascalicus draws on just about the whole corpus when attempting to set forth the doctrines, and Platonist education programmes tried to accommodate the whole corpus.

Accompanying the corpus would come Thrasyllus' introduction, providing a framework within which an understanding of Plato could reasonably be sought. Such an introduction would have encouraged rival ones, from Albinus, Theon, and others, which would begin to supplant it.

In his introduction Thrasyllus promoted the two most important ideas for the speedy development of Platonic interpretation: (a) there was an underlying body of doctrine surfacing from time to time in the dialogues, and (b) Plato was an esotericist, so that the core of his system was intentionally kept from the reader (D. L. 3.63). These two notions combined to encourage readers to look for valuable philosophic teaching in Plato and to search for it beneath the surface. Valuable underlying teaching would be expected to be coherent, and it is highly likely that Thrasyllus promoted the view that all Plato 's works became consistent when interpreted with reference to his basic doctrine, just as Eudorus did (Stob. Ecl. 2.50.2- 4W). Plato's many voices masked a unity of doctrine, just as his multitude of terms could reflect a single concept (D. L. 3.63). The search for Plato's fundamental doctrine therefore commenced in earnest, with some seeking a set of doctrines that would explain Aristotle as well, and others taking a more literalist approach to Plato, refusing to accept anything that was not closely related to what the dialogues appeared to say. Among these was Atticus, who may perhaps have been influenced by Plutarch; and Plutarch himself, who may have remained more or less uninfluenced by Thrasyllan activities, standing rather in some more direct relation to Eudorus via his teacher Ammonius and others. At any rate Plutarch seems not to have been convinced that Plato was the kind of dogmatist that other Middle Platonists supposed, and not to have known (or not to have set any importance upon) those parts of the Epistles that we have explained as Thrasyllan in origin. Thrasyllan activities explain later Middle Platonism in a way in which they do not explain Plutarch's Platonism, and this may indicate that the spread of the Thrasyllan edition was at first relatively slow though not so slow[???] as to bypass Plutarch's contemporary Moderatus.

Thrasyllus' text and Thrasyllus' introduction were thus potent tools in the moulding of Middle Platonism. If Thrasyllus introduced, or in any way altered, the critical signs of Diogenes Laertius 3.66, then it is clear that he used a third tool. He taught his readers where to detect Platonic doctrine and where not to do so, thus giving particular passages specific significance for the forthcoming attempts to list Platonic dogmata. Thrasyllus' influence, therefore, although unseen, may have been very considerable. It extends to our own time, and we have still to shake it off. Only by further study can we do so.

There is one example of probable influence that seems to transcend all others in importance. One area of study that was vital to Middle Platonism, early Christian thought, and Neoplatonism was theology. Thrasyllus, we may recall (Ch. 5. ii), utilized the phrase God who is 'Leader of All ' (T23) and could easily have been responsible for the prayer at the end of Epistle 6 that employs that phrase.

*** ... swear by the God that is Ruler of all that is and that shall be, and swear by the Lord and Father of the Ruler and Cause,5 [The divine “Ruler” and his “Father” may perhaps be identified with the World-Soul and Demiurge of the Timaeus; or else with the Sun and the Idea of Good in the Republic (Plat. Rep. 508a, Plat. Rep. 516b, Plat. Rep. 517c) . Cf. also Plat. L. 2.312e ff.] Whom, if we are real philosophers, we shall all know truly so far as men well-fortuned6 [εὐδαίμων, in Platonic usage, implies nobility of spirit as well as felicity cf. Plat. L. 8.354c, Plat. L. 8.355c.] can.  

-- Plat. L. 6, by http://www.perseus.tufts.edu

At the very least he judged those words genuine, employed them himself, and thus displayed some commitment to the theology behind them. What was that theology? It postulated that such a god is also Cause, and that he has a Father who can be known clearly (insofar as our human condition permits it at all) only by those who embrace the true philosophy (323d4- 6).

The notion of a god who is 'leader' and 'arranger and carer of all' has its origin in the Phaedrus (246e4-6), where these terms are applied to Zeus with the addition of the phrase 'in heaven'. Whoever wrote Epistle 6 (or added the prayer at the end) believed in a god who was the supreme leader in heaven. Such a Zeus (30d) is to be found at Philebus 28c- 30e too, his heavenly role being stressed at 28e, and his role as Cause throughout. It is thus that the 'leader' can be termed 'cause' in the prayer, even though there is a higher god than this one.

The notion of a higher god is not immediately evident in either the Phaedrus or the Philebus, but the Phaedrus does introduce the hyperheavenly world at 247C, to which world the Idea of the Beautiful belongs. For Thrasyllus, we have argued (Ch. 6. iii), the Idea of the Beautiful is just an aspect of the supreme principle, which may also be termed 'One' (as in the Parmenides) or 'Good' (as in both the Symposium and the Philebus). So Thrasyllus' interpretation of the prayer of Epistle 6 (or his meaning if he wrote it) would have involved a heavenly demiurge and motive cause plus that deity's hyperheavenly Father, who was more like a supreme Idea, One-Good-Beautiful.

The importance of such doctrine for Middle Platonism is soon evident. It is the origin of the distinction between heavenly and hyperheavenly gods in Didascalicus 28 (p. 181.31H), a distinction that underlies the theology of Didascalicus 10 also, where the heavenly intellect is ordered by an unmoved god termed 'Father' , and in his turn arranges all that is in our cosmos (p. 165.3-4H).

... the Didascalicus, an introduction to Plato's thought ascribed to Alcinous by the manuscripts and to Albinus by several modern scholars.3 [See C. Mazzarelli, 'L'autore del Didaskalikos -- l'Alcinoo dei manoscritti o il medioplatonico Albino?', Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica 82, 1980, 606-639; J. Whittaker (ed), Alcinoos: Enseignement des doctrines de Platon (Paris, 1990), pp. VII-XIII; J. Dillon, Alcinous: the Handbok of Platonism (Oxford, 1993), pp. ix-xiii.]

-- Logical Matters: Essays in Ancient Philosophy II, by Jonathan Barnes, edited by Maddalena Bonelli, 2012

The term 'Father' is explained partly in terms of his relationship to the heavenly intellect (p. 164.35- 37H), whereby it is evident that he is thought of as Father of that intellect. The distinction between Idea-type 'Father' and heavenly demiurge principle is likewise central to Numenius' theology (fr. 12dP = 21L). In short it is crucial to the more imaginative contributions to Middle Platonism and Neopythagoreanism, as well as to some strands of Gnosticism and the environment in which Neoplatonism grew. It is not Epistle 6 itself that has played this vital formative role, but the theology behind it. This theology can be claimed for Thrasyllus.

The actual wording of Epistle 6 had a greater influence upon early Christian theory, as authors like Clement (Strom. 5. 102) and Origen (c.Cels. 6.8) strove to detect Platonic foreshadowings of the Father-Son relationship that they themselves were postulating. They would also have seen in the prayer a promise of knowing god (as far as possible) for the faithful alone; nor would such a promise have been lost on the more scholarly Gnostics. It is indeed quite possible that the major work towards convincing Christians of the agreement of their beliefs with those of Greek philosophy in general and of Platonism in particular had been done by Christ's two contemporaries Philo and Thrasyllus, the former via his syncretist mind, the latter through influence over the text of Plato.

Thrasyllus, of course, with his type of logos theory (T23) and his two-divinity system would hardly have approved of the use to which logos theory and Father-Son relationships in theology were later put. If he did indeed write the passages about which we have spoken, then he had been misinterpreted by Christians and Neoplatonists alike. Middle Platonists and Neopythagoreans, drawing on the philosophy of Thrasyllus' period rather than upon forged texts, came far closer to the intended understanding of the Epistles, and so of Plato. The longer-term influence of Thrasyllus was unintended influence. One might with justification claim that Thrasyllus should have heeded Plato's warnings about the danger of the written word being poorly understood. His attempts to set down in writing the unwritten philosophy of Plato have produced the kind of problems that Plato always feared. Whether Platonists will ever free themselves from those problems I doubt. Thrasyllus did not understand Plato badly, and many a Platonist will be attracted to his interpretations. Therefore they will be encouraged to pronounce the suspect passages authentic. Few will both respect these passages and athetize [reject a passage in a text as spurious.] them, for athetizers are expected to show that what they excise is somehow un-Platonic. I have chosen not to do this.[!!!] The object of our exercise has not been to show how the passages disagree with Plato, but how they agree even more with the concept of Plato's philosophy to be found in Thrasyllus and his contemporaries.[???!!!] Even if they were written by Plato, it was Thrasyllus who really put them to use.

My claims that Thrasyllus has an important place in the history of Platonism will no doubt be resisted by those who prefer a case to be thoroughly documented. How could Thrasyllus have had such influence and failed to leave a greater mark on philosophers who followed? I do not believe the question to be difficult. Our answer has two parts. First, Thrasyllus was not endeavouring to be seen as an innovator, but as a faithful follower of Plato. Wherever he had sufficient influence to convince others of his interpretation, then these people saw Plato's influence rather than his. Second, the period most directly influenced is not well documented. Plutarch, I believe, was influenced by others, such as Eudorus and Ammonius; Thrasyllan influences somehow bypassed him. His contemporaries Moderatus and Theon are a different story; Moderatus, though innovative, follows in the Thrasyllan line; Theon is at times a slave to Thrasyllus. What little we have of Albinus confirms Thrasyllan influence; what little we have of Numenius is compatible with it. Maximus Tyrius, Atticus, and Plotinus are not given to mentioning the names of Platonic scholars. Porphyry mentions them, including Thrasyllus where appropriate, but by now over two centuries had passed. We no longer suspect much direct influence. Thrasyllus' legend lived on longer in the astrological traditions, and Julian and Themistius still reflected upon the role of Thrasyllus as Tiberius' close adviser.

Later Neoplatonists, however, forgot Thrasyllus; for the most part they did not study the whole Thrasyllan corpus. They puzzled over the Middle Platonic age and understood little about it. Names such as Plutarch of Chaeronea, Atticus, and Albinus signified dull and pedestrian forms of Platonism for Proclus3 [See in particular Whittaker 1987.] But these figures had at least written works in commentary form, and their memory lived on, albeit with little affection, in the traditions of commentary. Of those who preceded [came before] them virtually nothing was known. The greatest factor in the decline of Thrasyllus' outward influence was the willingness, after Iamblichus,4 [Anon. Prol. 26.] to leave many of the works in the Thrasyllan corpus out of any education programme, thereby making many of the labours of Thrasyllus irrelevant to the needs of the age. When the Olympiodoran Prolegomena mention the tetralogies, they do so only to reject them firmly; and the man who promoted them remains unnamed.

Like my previous book, Scepticism or Platonism? this study has been in part an exercise in tracing the conditions and innovations that enabled Platonism first to revive, then to thrive. But just as I never sought there to claim to have found the 'origins' of Middle Platonism (or even of Middle Platonic epistemology), so it would be foolish to do so here. Thrasyllus was a key figure; for a while he was a key influence. His visible influence declined with Neoplatonism, but his unseen influence continues today unseen, perhaps, because we cannot adequately distinguish Thrasyllus from Plato. That was always his intention -- that Thrasyllus' Plato should be our Plato too. This was no game that he was playing, but a mission; the same sort of mission that Platonists regularly embark upon. He should not be criticized. With these remarks my own mission must end too. I require only that the reader reflect upon the issues raised. I do not require that my Thrasyllus be your Thrasyllus, let alone that my Plato be yours. Let this be my cock for Asclepius.

Plato says that Socrates's last words were, “Crito, we owe a cock to Asclepius; pay it and don't forget.” Asclepius was the god of healthy, and the sacrifice of a cock was a normal offering of thanks for recovery from illness. Socrates believed he was cured of the disease of life, and was not frightened by his death.

-- Socrates’s Trial and Death, by C.C.M. Taylor, Men of Carnegie

-- Thrassyllan Platonism, by Harold Tarrant, © 1993 by Cornell University

I. The 'Canon' of Thrasyllus

These Complete Works make available a single collection of all the works that have come down to us from antiquity under Plato's name. We include all the texts published in the early first century A.D. in what became the definitive edition of Plato's works, that by Thrasyllus, an astrologer and Platonist philosopher from the Greek city of Alexandria, in Egypt.4 [For the sake of completeness, we also print translations of the short poems ('Epigrams') that have come down to us from antiquity with Plato's name attached.] From Thrasyllus' edition derive all our medieval manuscripts of Plato -- and so almost all our own knowledge of his texts. Apparently following earlier precedent, Thrasyllus arranged the works of Plato (thirty-five dialogues, plus a set of thirteen 'Letters' as a thirty-sixth entry) in nine 'tetralogies' -- groups of four works each -- reminiscent of the ancient tragedies, which were presented in trilogies (such as the well-known Oresteia of Aeschylus) followed by a fourth, so-called satyr play, preserving a link to the origins of tragedy in rituals honoring the god Dionysus. In addition to these, he included in an appendix a group of 'spurious' works, presumably ones that had been circulating under Plato's name, but that he judged were later accretions. We follow Trasyllus in our own presentation: first the nine tetralogies, then the remaining works that he the designated as spurious.5 [Since our manuscripts standardly present the thirty-six 'tetralogical' works in the order that ancient evidence indicates was Thrasyllus', it is reasonable to think that their order for the spuria goes back to Thrasyllus' edition too. We present these in the order of our oldest manuscript that contains them, the famous ninth- or tenth-century Paris manuscript of the complete works. (In some other manuscripts Axiochus is placed at the front of the list, instead of the back.] With one exception, earlier translations into English of Plato's collected works have actually been only selections from this traditional material:6 [The only previous comparably complete translation (it does however omit one small work of disputed authorship, the Halcyon, included here, and the Epigrams as well) is The Works of Plato, edited by George Burges, in six volumes, for the Bohn Classical Library, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1861-70. This is a 'literal' translation, not easy to read or otherwise use.] usually they have omitted all the Thrasyllan 'spurious' works, plus a certain number of others that were included in his tetralogies, since the editors of the collections judged them not in fact Plato's work. In their widely used collection,7 [The Collected Dialogues of Plato including the Letters, Bollingen Foundation (Princeton University Press, 1961). ] Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns include none of the 'spuria' and only twenty-nine of the thirty-six other works.8 [In its ten Plato volumes, the Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, various dates) does include translations (with facing Greek text) of all thirty-six works in Thrasyllus' tetralogies, but none of the 'spuria.' ] From Thrasyllus' tetralogies they omit Alcibiades, Second Alcibiades, Hipparchus, Rival Lovers, Theages, Clitophon, and Minos. Even if these dialogues are not by Plato himself (and at least Clitophon and Alcibiades could very well be), they are all valuable works, casting interesting light on Socrates and the Socratic legacy. They also deserve attention as important documents in the history of Platonism: it is worthy of note that teachers of Platonist philosophy in later antiquity standardly organized their instruction through lectures on ten 'major' dialogues, beginning with Alcibiades -- omitted by Hamilton and Cairns, presumably as not by Plato. The dialogues classified by Thrasyllus as spurious also deserve attention, even though in their case there are strong reasons for denying Plato's authorship; and the Definitions are a valuable record of work being done in Plato's Academy in his lifetime and the immediately following decades.9 [In the table of contents works whose Platonic authorship has plausibly been questioned in antiquity or modern times are marked, either as ones which no one reasonably thinks are by Plato or as ones as to which there is no consensus that they are by him.] (For further details see the respective introductory notes to each of the translations.)

Especially given the often inevitably subjective character of judgments about authenticity, it is inappropriate to allow a modern editor's judgment to determine what is included in a comprehensive collection of Plato's work. The only viable policy is the one followed here, to include the whole corpus of materials handed down from antiquity. At the same time, it should be frankly emphasized that this corpus -- both the works it includes as genuine and the text itself of the works -- derives from the judgment of one ancient scholar, Thrasyllus. His edition of Plato's work, prepared nearly four hundred years after Plato's death, was derived from no doubt differing texts of the dialogues (and Letters) in libraries and perhaps in private hands, not at all from anything like a modern author's 'autograph'. No doubt also, both in its arrangement and in decisions taken as to the genuineness of items and the text to be inscribed, it may have reflected the editor's own understanding of Plato's philosophy (perhaps a tendentious one) and his views on how it ought to be organized for teaching purposes.10 [For a somewhat speculative, rather alarmist, view of the extent of Thrasyllus' editorial work, see H. Tarrant, Thrasyllan Platonism (Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 1993).] So, since the present editor has exercised his own judgment only to the extent of deciding to follow the edition of Thrasyllus, we are thrown back on Thrasyllus' judgment in the works included and in their order and arrangement. Since Thrasyllus included all the genuine works of Plato that any surviving ancient author refers to, plus some disputed ones, we apparently have the good fortune to possess intact all of Plato's published writings.

Thrasyllus' order appears to be determined by no single criterion but by several sometimes conflicting ones, though his arrangement may represent some more or less unified idea about the order in which the dialogues should be read and taught. For example, the first four works (Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo) manifestly follow internal evidence establishing a chronological order for the events related in them -- the 'Last Days of Socrates'. The conversation in Euthyphro is marked as taking place shortly before Socrates' trial; his speech at his trial is then given in the Apology, while Crito presents a visit to Socrates in prison, three days before his execution, which is the culminating event of the Phaedo. Somewhat similar internal linkages explain the groups Republic-Timaeus-Critias and Theaetetus-Sophist-Statesman (although the conversation in Theaetetus seems to present itself as taking place earlier on the same day as that of Euthyphro -- a key to grouping that Thrasyllus quite reasonably opted to ignore). But topical and other, more superficial connections play a role as well. Clitophon is placed before Republic, and Minos before Laws to serve as brief introductions to the central themes of these two major works, justice and legislation respectively, and the two Alcibiades dialogues are grouped together, as are the Greater and Lesser Hippias. Even the presumed order of composition seems responsible for the last tetralogy's bringing the series to a conclusion with Laws and its appendix Epinomis (followed by Letters): we have evidence that Laws was left unpublished at Plato's death, presumably because he had not finished working on it.

Most readers will have little need to attend to such details of Thrasyllus' arrangement [???!!!], but one point is important. Except for Laws, as just noted, Thrasyllus' tetralogies do not claim to present the dialogues in any supposed order of their composition by Plato. Indeed, given the enormous bulk of Laws, different parts of it could well have been written before or contemporaneously with other dialogues -- so Thrasyllus' order need not indicate even there that Laws was the last work Plato composed. Thrasyllus' lack of bias as regards the order of composition is one great advantage that accrues to us in following his presentation of the dialogues. Previous editors (for example, both Hamilton and Cairns and Benjamin Jowet11 [The Dialogues of Plato (London: Macmillan, 1st ed. 1871, 3rd 1892; 4th ed., revised, by D. J. Allan and H. E. Dale, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953, four vols.). Allan and Dale claim explicitly that theirs is the approximate order of composition; Jowett left his own order unexplained, but it is not very different from Allan and Dale's. Of Thrasyllus' thirty-six 'genuine' works Jowett1 prints twenty-seven dialogues (no Letters); Jowett3 adds a twenty-eighth (Second Alcibiades), plus one of Thrasyllus' eight 'spurious' works (Eryxias), both translated by his secretary Matthew Knight; Jowett4 shrinks back to twenty-eight (adding Greater Hippias, translated by Allan and Dale themselves, but omitting Second Alcibiades as nongenuine). The earliest comprehensive English translation, that of Thomas Taylor (except that F. Sydenham is credited with the translation of nine dialogues) (London, 1804, five vols.) is organized on a fanciful 'systematic' basis, in which the dialogues judged by him to establish the 'comprehensive' Platonic views respectively in ethics and politics and in natural philosophy and metaphysics come first, followed by the various more 'partial' treatments of specific questions. The title page to each of Taylor's five volumes claims to present '[Plato's] Fifty-five Dialogues and Twelve Epistles', a surprising way of referring to the thirty-five Thrasyllan 'genuine' dialogues that the collection actually contains (he omits the thirteenth Letter as obviously spurious): presumably he counts each book of Republic and Laws as a separate 'dialogue', in which case the total is indeed fifty-five.]) imposed their own view of the likely order of composition upon their arrangement of the dialogues. But judgments about the order of composition are often as subjective as judgments about Platonic authorship itself. In modern times, moreover, the chronology of composition has been a perennial subject of scholarly debate, and sometimes violent disagreement, in connection with efforts to establish the outline of Plato's philosophical 'development', or the lack of any. We have solid scholarly arguments and a consensus about some aspects of the chronology of Plato's writings (I return to this below), but this is much too slight a basis on which conscientiously to fix even an approximate ordering of all the dialogues. Speaking generally, issues of chronology should be left to readers to pursue or not, as they see fit, and it would be wrong to bias the presentation of Plato's works in a translation intended for general use by imposing on it one's own favorite chronological hypotheses. Thrasyllus' order does not do that, and it has the additional advantage of being for us the traditional one, common ground for all contemporary interpreters.12 [Modern editions of Plato in Greek (for example, that of J. Burnet in the Oxford classical Texts series of Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1900-1907, in five volumes: a revised edition is underway) regularly present the Thrasyllan corpus in Thrasyllus' order.] Such interpretative biases as it may contain do not concern any writer nowadays, so it can reasonably be considered a neutral basis on which to present these works to contemporary readers.

-- Plato: Complete Works, Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by John M. Cooper; Associate Editor, D.S. Hutchinson

[admin]

Part 3 of 4

Plato, "Ep. II", 312A
by Jerry Stannard
The Pennsylvania State University
Phronesis, 1960, Vol. 5, No. 1 (1960), pp. 53-55 

I DO NOT propose to reopen the question of the authenticity of the epistles. Rather, I wish to examine one argument advanced against the genuineness of Ep. II.1 [Scholars are divided as to the authenticity of Ep. II. Among recent scholars, it is accepted as genuine by Taylor, Plato,5 15-16; Field, Plato and His Contemporaries, 199; Post, Thirteen Epistles of Plato, 5; Burnet, Greek Philosophy, 2 12; for the older literature cf. Hackforth, Authorship of the Platonic Epistles, 40 sq. It is rejected by Hackforth l.c. and Morrow, Studies in the Platonic Epistles, 106 sq.] In that epistle, the author states that his purpose in coming to Syracuse was to gain the assistance of Dionysius [x] (312A). Bury, in the Loeb edition, states in his prefatory note that in addition to the "historical inconsistencies there is much to arouse suspicion in the tone and matter of the letter" (p. 399).2 [On the alleged historical inconsistencies of Souilhe's Introduction p. LXXX in the Bude edition; Hackforth op. cit. 42; Morrow l.c.] As evidence, he says, "Can we imagine the real Plato saying that his object in visiting Suracuse was 'to make philosophy honoured by the multitude'?" (I.c.).3 [The similarity between Bury's position and Hackforth's seems not to have been noted. Hackforth (op. cit. 44) writes, "In 312A we are told that the object of Plato's visit in 367 B.C. was that 'philosophy might be honoured of the people'. Not only is no such object referred to in Ep. III and Ep. VII, but it is foreign to Plato's whole convictions (cf. especially Rep. 494A, [x]).' For the Quellenforscher, Richards, C.R. (1900) 336 would seem to suggest considerable, but unacknowledged, indebtedness on the parts of both Bury and Hackforth.] And as a footnote ad loc. he adds, "A most un-Platonic sentiment: contrast Rep. 493E ff., and 314A below".

My remarks to Bury, and indirectly to Hackforth (cf. n. 3), would be these. First, Bury minimizes the force of the sentence immediately following the one quoted: [x].4 [Richards' proposal of [x] (op. cit. 98) has found no acceptance.] For, to paraphrase Bury, this is a most Platonic sentiment and, in spirit, quite close to the tone of despair often noted in Socrates' final discussion with Callicles, the so-called "digression" of the Theaetetus and elsewhere.5 [The so-called digression of the Theaetetus (172B-177C) was prompted, Cornford suggests (P.T.K. 89) by "Plato's sad experiences at Syracuse". Cf. esp. the derision of philosophy in 175B and, whether genuine or no, Ep. XI, 35[I]E.] Secondly, and of a more serious nature, is the fact that Bury's two references in his footnote are misleading. In Rep. 493E Plato, it is true, does cast doubt on the intellectual abilities of the [x], as he does in other passages as well.1 [[x], Gorg. 474A. Cf. also, Pol. 292E, 300E; Protag. 317A; Theaet. 175D. On the [x] as ignorant and incompetent cf. Gorg. 459A, 474A, 490A; Theaet, 152C.] But in that passage it is the obviously difficult Theory of Forms that is in question while Ep. II, 3 14A ([x]) alludes to the obscure teaching of 312E sq. Surely it is one thing to recommend secrecy for esoteric doctrines and something quite different to be cautious in matters of technical philosophy lest one's auditors be hopelessly confused.2 [Cf. Parmenides 136 D7 - E2: [x]. I leave for a later study on the Phaedrus a discussion of Ep. II, 314C; ep. VII, 341 C and the Theuth Myth (Phaedr. 274C sq.)] Whether 312E sq. is a garbled version of the Theory of Forms, Pythagorean mystification, or what not, I leave to others.3 [Cf. Jones, C.P. 21 (1926), 323n. and Souilhe, op. cit. lxxvii sq. For examples of the sort of exegesis this passage has prompted cf. Eusebius Praep. Ev. XI 20; Athenag. Legatio 23 and perhaps Justin, Apol. I 60.] At any rate, it is difficult to understand and our author has done well in thinking that such a teaching would not be of much practical benefit to the [x]. There is, then, no incompatibility between our passage in 312A and the two passages adduced by Bury for the simple reason that they are concerned with two quite different matters. So much for the first half of my reply to Bury.

The second half concerns the implication, whether or not intended by Bury, that Plato was unconcerned with the [x]. Nothing could be less faithful to Plato's message.4 [It should be evident from such passages as Gorg. 507D ([x]) and Theaet. 176A that Plato was concerned with the [x]] It is patent, I think, that such an implication runs counter to the Socratic legacy inherited by Plato, viz. the reform of society.5 [Cf. the [x], Leg. XII, 950C. The wise ruler attempts to preserve the citizens and [x]. Pol. 297B, cf. Gorg. 513E. Epp. V, 322AB; VII 330E, 331D and Plut. Dion. 11 attest to the ancient opinion of Plato's participation in political reform. There is also the tradition that Socrates was invited to give advice to Archelaus, King of Macedon, cf. Arist. Rhet. II 23, 8 and Gorg. 470D sq. Xenophon records Socrates' proffered advice to Pericles (Mem. III 5, 1) and this admonition to future statesmen: [x], ib. III 7, 9.] To be more specific, not only does the passage in 312A not run counter to the evidence brought forward by Bury, in point of fact it accords quite well with other evidence which we know to have been Plato's considered belief. Consider, e.g. the purpose of the second half of the Phaedrus (259E sq.). There can be no doubt that Plato is strongly urging the replacement of rhetoric and sophistical forensic oratory, which aim at [x] and [x], by dialectic,1 [Rhetoric is defined as [x] (Gorg. 453A; cf. Phileb. 58A; Phaedr. 271D) hence it is the inculcation of probability ([x] Gorg. 486A; cf. Phaedr. 272E; Theaet. 162E) or what seems to be the case ([x] Phaedr. 273D; cf. Soph. 268D) rather than the search for truth (Gorg. 459C; cf. Phileb. 58C; Phaedr. 260A).] which aims at the truth and rational conviction.2 [The truth dialectic seeks to uncover is rooted ultimately in the ability to discriminate the real from the apparent (Phaedr. 262A; Pol. 292D; Phileb. 12DE; Soph. 231A) and to understand the logical implications of the vocabulary of Forms (Phaedr. 263A; Soph. 218C, 253D). Hence truth and rational conviction go hand in hand. Cf. Phaedr. 276A and the important passage at 260D: [x]. The discriminatory function of dialectic was considered from a different perspective in a previous paper, in this Journal, vol 4. (1959), pp. 120-134.] Phaedrus 271 sq. states the issue clearly. Not only is rhetoric indefensible morally but in terms of what a [x] should be, it likewise fails (cf. Gorg. 463B, 517A; Phaedr. 260E; Leg. XI, 938A; Phileb. 55E). Consequently, Plato urges the widespread adoption of dialectic in place of the Isocratean or Lysian rhetoric as the correct means of writing and speaking [x] (scil, dialectic) [x] (271C). Clearly, Plato was urging the adoption of the dialectical method with more in mind than academic exercises. These other functions for which dialectic was intended, spelled out in some detail in the Sophistes and the Politicus, are precisely those which Bury, by implication, finds so strange, viz. to reach out to the [x] and to get them, if possible, to honor philosophy. On no other assumption can Plato's quarrel with the sophists and the rhetors in the Gorgias, Phaedrus and the later dialectic dialogues be understood.3 [I confine myself to one remark on the larger issue of the agon between dialectic and rhetoric. In the Gorgias and the Phaedrus Plato is clear that rhetoric poses such a danger to philosophy because both it and dialectic (1) are concerned with their respective auditors and the effects produced therein (Gorg. 455B, D; 456A, C; Phaedr. 260A, C; 261 AB, 262B) and (2) each makes the claim that it is alone required for effective speaking (Phaedr. 266B; Gorg. 503E). Consequently, dialectic is developed by Plato precisely to meet the claims of rhetoric in the political arena.]

II. THE PHILOSOPHICAL DIGRESSION

Though what the epistle tells about Plato's teaching is incidental to the historical narrative, it has, as I said at the very beginning, influenced the modern interpretation of Plato as much as the autobiography. If the latter has reshaped the view of Plato's life and political theory, the so-called "philosophical digression" (342 A-344 B) in particular has changed the view of his philosophy. But even when there is agreement on the genuineness of the passage, no agreement exists concerning the exact meaning of the statement of Plato's thought. One finds in it either an attitude characteristic of the dialogues, yet slightly modified, or a further development of ideas contained in the written works. Or, again, one detects an entirely new approach to the solution of problems raised in the dialogues.1 [The differences between the dialogues and the Seventh Letter are stressed e.g. by Stenzel ("Der Begriff d. Erleuchtung bei Platon," Kl. Schrift., pp. 165 f.; 168 f.), though he admits that there is a continuous development. Howald (pp. 42; 49) considers the doctrine of the letter unique. Bluck (Plato's Life and Thought) seems to take the epistle and the dialogues to be almost identical in outlook (p. 148).])

The result of my previous investigation naturally creates a prejudice to the effect that the representation of Plato's philosophy too is invented. It is, then, all the more obligatory for the interpreter to undertake his task in an unbiased spirit. The possibility that he will have to revise his judgment cannot be rejected outright. On the other hand, if there are reasons for doubting that the letter states Plato's philosophy, he need not immediately conclude that the philosophical digression is without value. During recent decades, the debate on the subject has been marked by exaggerations. The defenders of the Seventh Letter often consider the document the most elaborate expression of Plato's final views. The opponents tend to debase the philosophy contained in it and therefore to reject the letter altogether.2 [I Quote e.g. Wilamowitz' "the rejected building stone which must be ]) Some scholars, to be sure, are more cautious. Assuming that the letter itself is genuine, they maintain that the philosophical digression must have been added by someone else. 3) My intention is simply to resolve the question of authenticity, keeping in mind that even if the philosophical digression is not Plato's professio fidei [Google translate: profession of faith], it could still be a most interesting interpretation of his position.[???]

The philosophical digression is embedded in the report of his third voyage to Sicily. It is preceded by a story telling of a test (340 B-341 A) which Plato gave to Dionysius after his arrival in order to find out whether he was really concerned with philosophy, as Plato had heard -- a rumour to this effect had finally determined him to accept Dionysius' invitation (339 D-E). The description of this test is followed by a statement of Plato's own attitude toward writing about philosophy (341 B-E), which serves to introduce the philosophical digression. The digression itself clarifies, through a more detailed account, the "argument" which confronts anyone trying to write on philosophical problems, and ends with a renewed indictment of the philosopher who writes (344 C-D). Much can be learned from the passages which form the framework for the resume of Plato's epistemology, and I shall therefore treat them as a unity, starting with the test given to Dionysius.

***

2. PLATO'S VIEWS ON PHILOSOPHICAL WRITING

Although the letter insists that Dionysius cannot be familiar with Platonic philosophy, it admits that the tyrant thought otherwise. And this is the reason why he did not ask Plato to expound the matter fully (nor did Plato do so on his own initiative); Dionysius believed that "he himself knew many of the most important doctrines and was sufficiently informed owing to the versions he had heard from his other teachers" (341 B-C). 15 [Incidentally, as E. Frank has pointed out, Hermodorus, a pupil of Plato's, carried on a trade in Platonic logoi in Sicily (A.J.P., 61, 1940, p. 37, note 4).]) Since, as the letter contends, the Master had taught him nothing on his second trip, and he was ashamed to admit that he had had no lessons from Plato and cherished the desire to know "more explicitly" what his doctrines were (338 D-E), he had apparently done his best to inform himself by consulting others. This the letter seems to find reprehensible. Yet it would appear to be a reasonable procedure. After all, the Platonic dialogues were common property[???]. Plato's views on philosophy must have been known to all and sundry.[???] Why, then, could one not have learned about them from others?

The answer to this question emerges from what the letter has to say about a book which Dionysius wrote later "on what he then heard from [Plato]", composing it "as though it were something of his own invention and quite different from what he had heard" (341 B), and calling it a treatise "about the highest and first truths of Nature" (344 D). 16 [Morrow (p. 64) has drawn attention to this passage, in which the title of Dionysius' book is mentioned in a reference to all those who wrote treatises on the same subject (see below, p. 81). For [x] and [x] see below, note 72. [x] here obviously means the object of philosophy ([x] or [x]); thus Taylor apud Harward ad 341 d 7.]) While Plato has apparently not seen the book, but has only heard about it, he does not hesitate to pronounce the verdict that it can have nothing to do with his own philosophy. Remembering "certain others [who] have written about these same subjects" treated by Dionysius (341 B), and fearing that in the future more people will undertake to write about them, he declares -- concerning all these interpreters, contemporary as well as prospective, "who claim to know the subjects which I seriously study ([x]) whether as hearers of mine or of other teachers, or from their own discoveries" that they cannot possibly understand the matter at issue. "There does not exist nor will there ever exist any treatise of mine dealing therewith, for it does not at all admit of verbal expression like other studies, but as a result of continued application to the subject itself and communion therewith it is brought to birth in the soul ([x]) on a sudden, as light that is kindled by a leaping spark, and thereafter it nourishes itself" (341 C-D).

These few passionate words -- words of beauty and pathos, and laden with meaning make one thing clear immediately: despite the fact that the dialogues are current, Plato's "serious" views cannot be known to everyone and cannot be learned from others.[???] For he has never dealt with them in any book, and one cannot compose a book on them. Dionysius and the other interpreters of Platonism, had they understood Plato, would not have attempted to set forth his teaching in writing. 17 [Harward believes that Dionysius held "mistaken views" -- which he conjectures to be hedonistic and materialistic -- and was therefore rejected by Plato (pp. 26 f.). But the word [x] cannot convey the notion of falsity (p. 209; cf. Richards, Platonica, p. 281 and above, I, note 54).] ) Moreover, it is impossible even for Plato to instruct a pupil in his serious studies. The last principles are not the object of discursive thought; no exposition of them can be given. A light is kindled in the soul. The latter assertion surely does not mean, as is often held, that "a light is kindled in one soul by the fire bursting from the other," namely, the Master. Although there can be some guidance, the student must brace himself to follow the pathway shown him; with the help of his teacher, and through his own effort, he goes on "until he has reached the goal; or is capable of discovering the truth without the aid of the instructor" (340 C); "men are able to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction" (341 E). The contention is that one can grasp the truth only through a non-discursive experience. 18 [Contrary to Taylor ("The analysis of [x] in Plato's Seventh Letter," Philos. Stud., 1934, p. 202 [Mind, 21, 1911-12, 347-70]), who is followed by e.g. Bluck ad 341 C-D; Howald, Die Briefe Platons, p. 48. The passages Taylor quotes (Republic, VII, 518 B; Phaedrus 274-76; Theaetetus, 149-51) at most attest the general significance of teaching and conversation, or confirm that philosophical insight cannot be taught (Republic, 518 B). They tell nothing of the influence of the teacher's personality. Plato, to be sure, gives great weight to guidance through teaching (Friedlander, I[2] , pp. 72 f.; see also Epistle VII, 340 C). Yet not even in the Phaedrus is it said (contrary to Friedlander, p. 73) that the pupil, formed by the teacher, his lover, could reach the goal only through his mediation (see "Platonic Anonymity," A.J.P., 83, 1962, pp. 9 f. ). Knowledge cannot flow from one to the other (cf. Symposium, 175 D) . (For [x], cf. Republic, VI , 493 B; Politicus, 285 C; for [x], Politicus, 302 B; for [x], see below, note 72.)])

It is too early to ask what is implied by the view taken here of the understanding of the ultimate principles of philosophy, or whether it could be Plato's. In the philosophical digression proper, the letter has more to say about the impossibility of expressing in words the nature of existence[???], and judgment must be postponed until this later discussion has been analyzed. 19 [Cf. below, p. 81 ff.]) It will first of all be necessary to find out how far the interdiction against writing extends, what exactly is meant by it. The letter itself continues with a consideration of Plato's thoughts on writing in general, and what is said here will, I think, make it possible to clarify the issue. Plato, it is said, would surely have been better able to write or speak about the ultimate principles of nature than anyone else[???]; no one would be more pained by their misrepresentation than he (D). 20 [The haughtiness with which Plato speaks here[???] is reminiscent of his representation in the narrative; cf. above, p. 50.] However, had he thought "that these subjects ought to be fully ([x]) stated in writing or in speech to the public ([x]), what nobler action could I have performed in my life than that of writing what is of great benefit to mankind and bringing to the sight of all men the nature of things ([x])? But were I to undertake this task it would not, as I think, prove to be of any good for men, except for some few who are able anyhow to discover the truth themselves with but little instruction; for as to the rest, some it would most unreasonably fill with a mistaken contempt, and others with an overweening and empty aspiration, as though they had learned something sublime" (E). 21 [The first words of the quotation, which I have given as translated by Bury, are often misunderstood. Bluck translates: "If . . . they could be adequately explained to the masses"; Harward: "If they had appeared to me to admit adequately of writing." But Bury's rendering of [x] surely is correct (see also Howald, who rightly, I think, reads in the following [x] instead of [x] [compare the apparatus criticus in Burnet's edition, 341 d 5))· The last words of the passage quoted seem to be an echo of such passages as Philebus, 15 E and Republic, VII, 539 B.]

What do The Buddha, Confucius, Socrates and Jesus all have in common? The answer might surprise you. None of them ever wrote anything.

-- Jon Budington, communitymythos.com

The sentences just quoted have been differently interpreted. Some interpreters take it that they constitute "Plato's apology for giving to the public of his time only 'discoveries of Socrates' [???], and not an exposition of his own philosophy." 22 [Thus Taylor apud Harward, p. 200.] But disregarding the question of whether the Platonic dialogues are in fact representations of Socrates, and perhaps, in addition, of other philosophers, and do not contain his own views, the letter itself seems innocent of such an assumption. It does not disown Plato's writings; it merely contends that certain aspects of Plato's philosophy have not been written about by him and explains Plato's decision not to do so. 23 [On Taylor's theory in general, see H. F. Cherniss, The Riddle of the Early Academy, pp. 9 f.; 11.] Other interpreters assert that Plato here admits to having a secret doctrine.[!!!] But if there is such a doctrine, that is, one not published, it is secret not because Plato wishes to withold the truth from others, but rather because he is afraid that its publication would either do harm or be useless.24 [A secret doctrine has been assumed by Boas, Philos. Review, 1953, p. 87. Zeller thinks that the letter transfers to Plato the Pythagorean secrecy (II, ,I[4], p. 486 and note I). Long before, W. C. Tenneman (Geseh. d. Philos., II, 1799) spoke of a "geheime Philosophie" of Plato (p. 205); see also F. Ast (Plato's Leben u. Schriften, 1816), "esoteric wisdom" (p. 521).] In these circumstances, one can only take at face value the claim made, determine its bearing on the question of writing, and inquire whether it could be Platonic.

To start from what is obvious, the fact that the ultimate understanding of the fundamental principles flares up like a light surely does not mean that one cannot write or say anything at all about the subject.[!!!] Though knowledge of this kind is non-discursive, argumentation about the topic is possible. One can at least point out that the truth cannot be put into words. Moreover, as the philosophical digression proper shows, one can also set forth "a certain argument which confronts the man who ventures to write any thing at all on these matters" (342 A). The epistemological problem, as it were, that is posed when one attempts to understand the highest and first truth of nature, can be expressed in words, and Plato has done so often (ibid.). 25 [On this interpretation there is no inconsistency between the statement made in 34l C and the expose given in 342 A ff. (contrary to Boas, Philos. Review, 1948, p. 456: also 1953, p. 7).] Granted that Plato could not have written, or even spoken, about the ultimate truth itself[!!!], the difficulty with which the writer of the letter is faced is that this assertion is not found in any of the dialogues. Plato has not even stated what he could have stated in the dialogues, addressed to all men, as well as in the letter, namely, the reasons for being silent, and the reasons for the impossibility of writing or speaking. Plato, the author claims, believed one ought not to do so.

Furthermore, when he[???] proposes that Plato did not write about these matters because he considered it superfluous as far as the few qualified people are concerned and dangerous as regards the rest, the writer[???] is touching on what for him is an important theme. At the end of the philosophical digression, he says "of Dionysius or any lesser or greater man who has written something about the highest and first truths of Nature" that if they had truly understood the teachings of philosophy, "they would not have dared to expose them to unseemly and degrading treatment" (344 D). And since they could not possibly have meant their books as "aids to memory" -- one cannot forget the truth once one has grasped it -- "they can have written only in order to gratify [their] base love of glory ([x]), either by giving out the doctrines as [their] own discoveries, or else by showing, forsooth, that [they] shared a culture which [they] by no means deserved because of their lust for the gain accruing from its possession" (344 E). 26 [For Dionysius' [x], see above, p. 40.] He is sure that "every serious man in dealing with really ([x]) serious subjects carefully avoids writing, lest thereby he may possibly cast them as a prey to the envy and stupidity of the public" ([x], 344 C). It is clear, then, that he means what he says in explanation of Plato's attitude toward writing.

But can one believe that the Plato of the dialogues imposed silence upon himself because he was convinced that he could not really benefit the few who understand, and because he was afraid to harm the many who cannot, that is, the majority of mankind? Surely, the reader of his works must wonder that their author should have had doubts about writing for men of understanding.[!!!] As the Platonic conversations take place among people of intellect and culture, so they appeal to people willing to reason and to follow arguments. And nowhere does Plato betray a fear such as is expressed in the letter that the truth can be harmful to the multitude. He does hold that not everyone can become a philosopher. "The thyrsus-bearers are many, but the mystics few" (Phaedo, 69 C) . He contends that "philosophy, the love of wisdom, is impossible for the multitude" (Republic, VI, 493 E-94 A). But, first of all, even "among the great mass of men ([x]) there are always, in fact, some, though few, of a superhuman quality; they are to be found in States with defective laws no less than in States with good, and their society is priceless" (Laws, XII, 951 B). Furthermore, he asks the philosopher "not thus absolutely [to] condemn the multitude" ([x], Republic, VI, 499 E). They are open to instruction if one speaks to them "in no spirit of contention but soothingly and endeavoring to do away with the dispraise of learning" (ibid.; cf. 500 A-B). And when Socrates wants to make clear that one must not despair of reasoning because some arguments have turned out to be wrong, and for this purpose compares arguments with men, he holds with regard to both that few are either very good or very bad, while "those between the two are very many" (Phaedo, 88 A-90 A) . One must therefore beware of becoming either a "misologist" or a "misanthropist" (89 D). The author of the letter is more exclusive than is Plato. 27 [Cf. below, pp. 92 ff.; and for the author's exclusiveness in philosophical and political matters, below, p. 109.].

That the author takes such an attitude one can well understand. He must, as I said, explain why what he was to tell is not found in Plato's writings -- and that this is so has by now been shown -- though he has failed, or not even tried, to account for the fact that in the letter addressed to Dion's followers, Plato states what he has withheld from the readers of his dialogues. Yet it is puzzling that he goes even further and gives a characterization of all written works, and thus implicitly of Plato's works, which is most unplatonic.[!!!] "In one word," he contends, "whenever one sees a man's written compositions -- whether they be the laws of a legislator or anything else in any other form ([x]) -- these are not his most serious works, if so be that the writer himself is serious; rather, those works abide in the fairest region he possesses [his mind]. If, however, these really ([x]) are his serious efforts, and put into writing, 'Then truly, not the gods, but mortal men themselves have utterly ruined his senses'" (344 C-D).

I am aware of the fact that most interpreters will not admit that the verdict just quoted is unplatonic. They maintain that it is fundamentally the same indictment of writing which Plato himself pronounces in the Phaedrus. 28 [Cf. e.g. Friedlander, I[2], pp. 120 f. A few interpreters see an agreement between the letter and other passages. Thus Bury refers to Laws, VI, 769 A and Politicus, 294 A. But the former passage speaks of the contrast between [x] and [x], -- a concept missing in the epistle (see note 30) -- and the latter, while it does maintain that the true artist cannot be bound by books because they give fixed rules for human behavior, is not at all concerned with whether one should write. It does, in fact, insist on rulership in agreement with the written word. According to Souilhe, all that is meant in the letter is that such dialogues as the Laws and the Philebus deal merely with isolated questions in an unsystematic fashion and do not treat them fully. But the contention that the written works are not serious surely implies more than that.] But in the Phaedrus, Plato rejects the written word because, unlike the spoken one, it cannot answer questions (275 D-E), while "the word which is written with intelligence in the mind of the learner" is able to defend itself, to speak and to be silent (276 A). Moreover, if the philosopher does write, even despite the shortcomings of the written word, his books may not deserve "to be treated very seriously" ([x] [277 E]), for clearness and perfection and seriousness are written only in the soul (278 A). Nevertheless, the philosopher does write[!!!], and not only because books are "reminders" ([x]) for himself when he comes to the forgetfulness of old age and for others who follow the same path;" he will also "be pleased when he sees them putting forth tender leaves" (276 D). To put it differently, books, though inferior to the spoken word, have for Plato a certain significance; and in so far as they are not written "in earnest" (267 C), they are written for the sake of "amusement" a "pleasure" or "pastime" ([x][276 D]). They are works of play in the sense in which life is a play (Laws, VII, 803 E), in the sense in which the cosmology of the Timaeus is written "for the sake of recreation," for the sake of "a pleasure not to be repented of," for the sake of "a pastime that is both moderate and sensible" (59 C-D). 29 [On the concept of [x], see L. Edelstein, "The Function of the Myth in Plato's Philosophy," J.H.I., 10, 1949, pp. 470 f. Friedlander (I[2], p. 125) in my opinion minimizes the importance attributed to writing in the Phaedrus, and therefore the contrast between the statement made in the dialogue and that made in the letter (above, note 28); cf. Misch, op. cit., I, 1[2], p. 148.]

The Phaedrus, then, devaluates writing merely in contrast with speaking, conversing or teaching. It says nothing about the impossibility of expressing in words the last truths of Nature; nor does it condemn writing, as does the epistle, on the basis of its usefulness or uselessness for the few or the many. Moreover, the Phaedrus sees in writing a pleasure or pastime which the epistle fails to mention; it considers that books, though they do not deserve to be treated with "great" seriousness, are nevertheless of serious import, while the letter goes so far as to deny that they can contain one's "truly serious" thoughts. In short, the doctrine of the Phaedrus differs significantly from that of the letter. 30 [Muller (pp. 264 f.) has noted that the concept of play, or pastime, so prominent in the Phaedrus, is missing in the letter. Of course, the Phaedrus is the basis for the discussion of writing in the Seventh Letter, but the author, as usual, takes a one-sided view of the problem, while Plato does justice to its complexity. On the relation between the Phaedrus and the Seventh Letter, see Zeller, II, I[4], p. 485, note I, and G. Vlastos, Gnomon, 35, 1963, pp. 652 f. (Two points of agreement between the Phaedrus and the letter may be noted: Books are justified if they are intended as aids to memory, though according to the letter, this does not apply to the last principles of the truth [344 D]; the fault of any written formulation is that it is unalterable [343 A].)]

Undoubtedly, however, the passages in the Phaedrus raise a real problem. They make it hard to understand that Plato, holding the beliefs he propounds there, should have bothered to write at all. Or, as some ancient commentators put it, it is a "puzzle" ([x]) that he wrote down his own views[???], and did not leave behind him pupils only, as did Socrates and Pythagoras (Prolegomena to Plato's philosophy, chap. 13, VI, p. 207 [Hermann )). Their solution was that in this respect, as in others, he was imitating the divine, and chose the greater good over the smaller evil.[!!!] For just as God made some of the things he created invisible -- all the immaterial bodies, the souls and so forth -- and made some of the things perceptible -- the heavenly bodies, that which comes into being and passes away -- so Plato, too, transmitted some things in writing, others he left unwritten, and not subject to perception, in the manner of immaterial bodies, namely, all that was said in the school or what according to Aristotle was contained in the unwritten conversations of Plato (cf. Aristotle, Physics, IV, II, 209 b 15).31 [ I owe my knowledge of the passage in the Prolegomena to Friedlander, I[2], p. 131 and note 26.]

The truth is, I think, that Plato was divinely unconcerned with the inconsistency which troubled his expositors.[!!!] He wrote books though he was aware of their shortcomings as written and defenseless arguments, and never claimed that in his teaching he gave something other than what was in his writings. 32 [Zeller has rightly emphasized the fact that authors such as Aristotle unhesitatingly take the Platonic dialogues as the basis for their discussion of Plato's philosophy, and that they must therefore contain his "serious" teaching (II, I[4], p. 486). See in general, Cherniss, The Riddle of the Early Academy, pp. 11 ff.] But the author of the epistle may well have seen the aporia as did the commentators, though he does not, to be sure, solve it in the same way. At any rate, like the later Platonists, he certainly believes that Plato did express opinions in the Academy, that he had some kind of oral exposition to offer, as he makes clear when he expounds the argument against writing (342 A). And [b]when he says that in books on laws or on whatever other subject, one cannot find the "serious" thoughts of a "serious" writer, that these thoughts abide in the mind, he devaluates the published works and arrogates the right to go beyond them or to add to them. Thus he has freed himself from any bondage to the dialogues; even where he violates their letter or their spirit, he cannot be refuted by reference to them.[???!!!] For he can always take refuge in the claim that he is stating what Plato thought or said. 33 [The letter never states in positive terms what the dialogues are meant to be if they are not "really serious."[???!!!] Perhaps the author, impressed by their usually negative outcome, took them to be merely a kind of propaedeutics to philosophy (d. the Cleitophon, which shows that Socrates' teaching is at most protreptic). For him, then, the dialogues, though not "really serious" nor playful in the Platonic sense of the word, are not altogether without value.]

I doubt that Plato wanted his writings to be taken with such freedom. He was accused in antiquity of having employed "a variety of terms in order to make his system less intelligible to the ignorant" (Diogenes Laertius, III, 63); he was accused of speaking in riddles (Aristotle, Fr. 28 [Rose]). But [b]he was never charged with deliberate deception, of which he would be guilty had he written down only what he himself did not regard as really serious[???] and never hinted that he was doing this. The verdict, then, must be that as the author of the letter has "invented" the story of the test, so he has "invented" Plato's rejection of serious writing, of withholding the truth from the public.

-- Plato's seventh letter, by Ludwig Edelstein

All these together constitute an interpretation of Plato, which, although a quite faithful translation of Plato is embedded in it, is very unlike any present-day view of him. [b]The great difference between Renaissance Platonism and ours is that for Ficino and his like Plato was primarily a religious writer. There are two reasons why it was possible to regard Plato in this light. First, there are many passages in Plato's dialogues where he does expound religious views, Socrates's speech in the Symposium, for example, or discusses matters closely connected with religion, such as the creation in the Timaeus or the good kinds of madness in the Phaedrus, or tells a myth that can easily be given a religious meaning, such as the Cave in the Republic, or uses such highly abstract terms that they may easily be given a religious meaning, as in the Parmenides. His frequent use of a mythical or poetic presentation of his ideas asks for various and ingenious interpretations; he has, like St Paul and the Neoplatonists, enough of that obscurity which is essential to any group of texts that is to be the basis of a long, flexible and richly various tradition.

Secondly, the Neoplatonists, who were taken by Renaissance Platonists as giving a correct interpretation of Plato, lived at a time, from the third to the fifth centuries A.D., when all over the ancient world there was a great increase of interest and belief in mystical religions, astrology and magic. Many and various kinds of religion interwove with each other: Christian, Gnostic, Manichaean, Hermetic, Orphic, neo-Pythagorean; in these the emphasis tended to be on astrological or magical practices, on theurgy, as opposed to theology, on works and ceremonies, rather than reason and thought.1 [See Festugiere, La revelation d' Hermes Trismegiste, T. I, Paris, 1944, chs 1-4.] The Neoplatonists were more and more drawn into this religious and magical world,2 [See E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley, 1951, Appendix on Theurgy, pp. 283 seq. 3 Walker, Magic, pp. 3, 22-3.] the world of Lucian's and Apuleius' Golden Ass.

"While they were voraciously dispatching everything in sight they started to deliberate about our punishment and their revenge. As usual in such an unruly crowd there was lively disagreement. One wanted the girl to be burned alive, another said she should be thrown to the beasts, a third thought she should be crucified, and a fourth was all for torturing her to death; the one point on which they were unanimous was that die she must. Then, when the hubbub had died down, one quietly took up the running. 'It is repugnant,' he said, 'both to our principles as professionals and our humanity as individuals, not to mention my own ideas of moderation, to allow you to punish this crime more savagely than it merits. Rather than invoking the beasts or the cross or fire or torture, or even giving her a quick death, if you will be guided by me you will grant the girl her life -- but in the form that she deserves. You won't, I'm sure, have forgotten what you've already decided to do with that bone-idle ass that does nothing but eat; deceitful too, shamming lame and aiding and abetting the girl's escape. My proposal therefore is that tomorrow we slaughter him, remove his insides, and sew the girl up in his belly naked -- since he prefers her company to ours -- with just her head showing and the rest of her hugged tight in his bestial embrace. Then we'll leave this dainty dish of stuffed donkey on some rocky crag to cook in the heat of the sun. In that way both of them will undergo all the punishments to which you have so justly sentenced them. The ass will die as he richly deserves; the girl will be torn by beasts when the worms gnaw her, she will be roasted when the blazing sun scorches the ass's belly, and she will be gibbeted when the dogs and vultures drag out her entrails. And think of all her other sufferings and torments: to dwell alive in the belly of a dead animal, to suffocate in an intolerable stench, to waste away and die of prolonged fasting, and not even to have her hands free to compass her own death.'"

-- "The Golden Ass," by Apuleius (as translated by E.J. Kenney)

Plotinus was still primarily a philosopher in our sense of the word; but, though he disapproved of magic, he plainly believed in it, and he was one of the starting-points for Ficino's Orphic magic.3 [Walker, Magic, pp. 3, 22-3.] His pupil Porphyry commented on the Oracula Chaldaica, those mysterious Greek verses, later ascribed to Zoroaster, which give directions for summoning demons, and for carrying out a cult of the sun and fire. Iamblichus also commented on these, and in his De Mysteriis, which Ficino translated, he asserted the supremacy of theurgic practices over any rational or intellectual method of reaching God. The emperor Julian the Apostate, having embraced Neoplatonic philosophy and re-established pagan religion, became a powerful patron of theurgy and gave his chief devotion to the sun. Proclus, though still a philosopher and capable of writing a good commentary on Euclid, was a great magician, especially good at rain-making; he wrote a treatise De Sacrificiis et Magia, translated by Ficino, and a long commentary on the Oracula Chaldaica.

The Chaldean Oracles [Oracula Chaldaica] are a set of spiritual and philosophical texts widely used by Neoplatonist philosophers from the 3rd to the 6th century CE. While the original texts have been lost, they have survived in the form of fragments consisting mainly of quotes and commentary by Neoplatonist writers. They were likely to have originally formed a single mystery-poem, which may have been in part compiled, in part received via trance, by Julian the Chaldean, or more likely, his son, Julian the Theurgist in the 2nd century CE. Later Neoplatonists, such as Iamblichus and Proclus, rated them highly. The 4th-century emperor Julian (not to be confused with Julian the Chaldean or Julian the Theurgist) suggests in his Hymn to the Magna Mater that he was an initiate of the God of the Seven Rays [The seven rays is a concept that has appeared in several religions and esoteric philosophies in both Western culture and in India since at least the sixth century BCE. They are also known as chohans or angels from heaven.], and was an adept of its teachings. When Christian Church Fathers or other Late Antiquity writers credit "the Chaldeans", they are probably referring to this tradition.

An analysis of the Chaldean Oracles demonstrates an inspiration for contemporary gnostic teachings: fiery emanations initiate from the transcendental First Paternal Intellect, from whom the Second Intellect, the Demiurge comprehends the cosmos as well as himself. Within the First Intellect, a female Power, designated Hecate, is, like Sophia, the mediating World-Soul. At the base of all exists created Matter, made by the Demiurgic Intellect. The matter farthest from the Highest God (First Father / Intellect) was considered a dense shell from which the enlightened soul must emerge, shedding its bodily garments. A combination of ascetic conduct and correct ritual are recommended to free the soul from the confines of matter and limitations, and to defend it against the demonic powers lurking in some of the realms between Gods and mortals.

-- Chaldean Oracles, by Wikipedia

As a member of Iamblichus' school prophesied, 'a fabulous and formless darkness shall tyrannize over the fairest things on earth'.1 [Quoted in T. Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 1928, p. 132: [x].]

Seen through such a screen, Platonism could not possibly be, for Renaissance thinkers, a secular, religiously neutral, innocuously natural philosophy, as, in the large areas of logic and natural science, Aristotelianism could claim to be. It taught a theology and a theurgy; it was either a rival religion to Christianity, or the two must be somehow fused together. The theurgy, the religious and magical practices, could not properly be made compatible with Christianity, though Ficino and others tried to revive them. But Platonic theology could, to a large extent, be integrated into Christian theology, and it was, not only by Ficino, but also by a long line of successors, who stretch to the Cambridge Platonists and beyond. That this integration could be successfully carried out was largely due to the mistaken belief that behind Plato stood Moses and the Ancient Theologians; as Numenius, a Neoplatonist, asked: 'What is Plato but Moses talking Attic Greek?'2 [Numenius, apud Clement Alex., Stromata, I, xxii: [x].]

Ficino, of course, was not alone, and indeed he saw himself as standing at the end of a line of mediaeval Platonists.3 [R. Klibansky, The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the Middle Ages, London, n.d., pp. 42-7.] He is, however, not only a convenient starting-point, but also a justifiable one. For, although it certainly had roots in the middle-ages, Renaissance Platonism did bring something quite new, namely, the possibility of reading in Latin all Plato's surviving works, all Plotinus's, many works of the later Neoplatonists, the Corpus Hermeticum and such Greek Fathers as Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria,1 [See Walker, art. cit. (supra, n. 3, p. 4).] the great store-houses of the Ancient Theology. Within the Renaissance, however, one might push the beginnings of this kind of syncretizing Platonism further back than Ficino.

Kristeller has suggested that it was from Gemistus Pletho that Ficino derived the conception of a genealogy of Ancient Theologians extending from Zoroaster to Plato;2 [Kristeller, The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino, New York, 1945, p. 15.] and I have suggested that Pletho might be one of the origins of Ficino's Orphic magic.3 [Walker, Magic, pp. 60-3.]

Orphism (more rarely Orphicism; Ancient Greek: Ὀρφικά, romanized: Orphiká) is the name given to a set of religious beliefs and practices originating in the ancient Greek and Hellenistic world, as well as from the Thracians, associated with literature ascribed to the mythical poet Orpheus, who descended into the Greek underworld and returned. Orphics revered Dionysus (who once descended into the Underworld and returned) and Persephone (who annually descended into the Underworld for a season and then returned). Orphism has been described as a reform of the earlier Dionysian religion, involving a re-interpretation or re-reading of the myth of Dionysus and a re-ordering of Hesiod's Theogony, based in part on pre-Socratic philosophy.

The central focus of Orphism is the suffering and death of the god Dionysus at the hands of the Titans, which forms the basis of Orphism's central myth. According to this myth, the infant Dionysus is killed, torn apart, and consumed by the Titans. In retribution, Zeus strikes the Titans with a thunderbolt, turning them to ash. From these ashes, humanity is born. In Orphic belief, this myth describes humanity as having a dual nature: body (Ancient Greek: σῶμα, romanized: sôma), inherited from the Titans, and a divine spark or soul (Ancient Greek: ψυχή, romanized: psukhḗ), inherited from Dionysus. In order to achieve salvation from the Titanic, material existence, one had to be initiated into the Dionysian mysteries and undergo teletē, a ritual purification and reliving of the suffering and death of the god. Orphics believed that they would, after death, spend eternity alongside Orpheus and other heroes. The uninitiated (Ancient Greek: ἀμύητος, romanized: amúētos), they believed, would be reincarnated indefinitely.

In order to maintain their purity following initiation and ritual, Orphics attempted to live an ascetic life free of spiritual contamination, most notably by adhering to a strict vegetarian diet that also excluded broad beans.

-- Orphism (religion), by Wikipedia

Georgios Gemistos Plethon (Greek: Γεώργιος Γεμιστός Πλήθων; Latin: Georgius Gemistus Pletho c. 1355/1360 – 1452/1454), commonly known as Gemistos Plethon, was a Greek scholar and one of the most renowned philosophers of the late Byzantine era. He was a chief pioneer of the revival of Greek scholarship in Western Europe. As revealed in his last literary work, the Nomoi or Book of Laws, which he only circulated among close friends, he rejected Christianity in favour of a return to the worship of the classical Hellenic Gods, mixed with ancient wisdom based on Zoroaster and the Magi.

He re-introduced Plato's ideas to Western Europe during the 1438–1439 Council of Florence, in a failed attempt to reconcile the East–West schism.

The Council of Florence is the seventeenth ecumenical council recognized by the Catholic Church, held between 1431 and 1449. It was convoked as the Council of Basel by Pope Martin V shortly before his death in February 1431 and took place in the context of the Hussite Wars in Bohemia and the rise of the Ottoman Empire. At stake was the greater conflict between the conciliar movement and the principle of papal supremacy.

The Council entered a second phase after Emperor Sigismund's death in 1437. Pope Eugene IV convoked a rival Council of Ferrara on 8 January 1438 and succeeded in drawing some of the Byzantine ambassadors who were in attendance at Basel to Italy. The remaining members of the Council of Basel first suspended him, declared him a heretic, and then in November 1439 elected an antipope, Felix V.

After becoming the Council of Florence (having moved to avoid the plague in Ferrara), the Council concluded in 1445 after negotiating unions with the various eastern churches. This bridging of the Great Schism proved fleeting, but was a political coup for the papacy. In 1447, Sigismund's successor Frederick III commanded the city of Basel to expel the Council of Basel; the rump Council reconvened in Lausanne before dissolving itself in 1449.

-- Council of Florence, by Wikipedia

There, Plethon met and influenced Cosimo de' Medici to found a new Platonic Academy, which, under Marsilio Ficino, would proceed to translate into Latin all of Plato's works, the Enneads of Plotinus, and various other Neoplatonist works.

Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici (27 September 1389 – 1 August 1464) was an Italian banker and politician who established the Medici family as effective rulers of Florence during much of the Italian Renaissance. His power derived from his wealth as a banker, and he was a patron of arts, learning and architecture. He spent over 600,000 gold florins (approx. $500 million inflation adjusted) on art and culture, including Donatello's David, the first freestanding nude male sculpture since antiquity. Despite his influence, his power was not absolute; Florence's legislative councils at times resisted his proposals throughout his life, and he was viewed as first among equals, rather than an autocrat.

-- Cosimo de' Medici, by Wikipedia

Plethon also formulated his political vision in several speeches throughout his life. The phrase that boasted in one of the speeches "We are Hellenes by race and culture", and also, the proposition of a reborn Byzantine Empire following a utopian Hellenic system of government centered in Mystras has generated a lively and fruitful discussion about Byzantine and modern Greek identity.

Mystras or Mistras (Greek: Μυστρᾶς/Μιστρᾶς), also known in the Chronicle of the Morea as Myzithras (Μυζηθρᾶς), is a fortified town and a former municipality in Laconia, Peloponnese, Greece. Situated on Mt. Taygetos, near ancient Sparta, it served as the capital of the Byzantine Despotate of the Morea in the 14th and 15th centuries, experiencing a period of prosperity and cultural flowering during the Palaeologan Renaissance [The Palaeologan Renaissance or Palaiologan Renaissance is the final period in the development of Byzantine art. It coincided with the reign of the Palaiologoi, the last dynasty to rule the Byzantine Empire (1261–1453), and essentially preceded and predetermined the Greek and Italian Renaissance.], including the teachings of Gemistos Plethon. The city also attracted artists and architects of the highest quality. The site remained inhabited throughout the Ottoman period, when Western travellers mistook it for ancient Sparta. In the 1830s, it was abandoned and the new town of Sparti was built, approximately eight kilometres to the east. Since the 2011 local government reform it is part of the Sparti municipality.

-- Mystras, by Wikipedia

 In this regard, Plethon has been labelled both "the last Hellene" and "the first modern Greek".

-- Gemistos Plethon, by Wikipedia

Against these suggestions, one must remember that once Ficino had begun reading such authors as Eusebius, Proclus, or even Augustine, the general theory of the Ancient Theology would occur to him in any case. Moreover, there is the serious objection that Pletho was an anti-Christian Platonist,4 [Pletho, Traite des Loix, ed. C. Alexandre, tr. A. Pellissier, Paris, 1858, p. 258; cf. F. Masai, Plethon et le Platonisme de Mistra, Paris, 1956, ch. 7, 8.] and that Ficino, if he was familiar enough with Pletho's ideas to derive anything from them, must have known this, even if he had not read George of Trebizond's5 [Georgius Trapezuntius, Comparationes Phylosophorum Aristotelis et Platonis, Venice, 1523, n.p., penultimate chapter; this work appeared in MS. in about 1455.] attacks on him. But this objection is certainly not conclusive. For Pletho's rejection of Christianity did not deter Ficino, in a published work, from ascribing to his influence Cosimo's project of resuscitating Plato,6 [Ficino, Op. Omn., p. 1537 (Preface to his translation of Plotinus (1490)).] just as it did not apparently diminish Cardinal Bessarion's admiration for this reincarnation of Plato, as he called him in his letter of condolence to Pletho's sons.7 [Quoted in Masai, Plethon, p. 307.]

Bessarion would be another obvious source for Ficino, were it not that Ficino had apparently not read the In Calumniatorem Platonis until Bessarion sent him a copy in 1469.8 [Ficino, Op. Omn., p. 616-7 (letter to Bessarion); Bessarion, In Calumniatorem Platonis, ed. L. Mohler, Paderborn, 1927 (first ed. Rome, 1469). On Bessarion see L. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann, Paderborn, 1923.] Nevertheless Bessarion is another important starting-point for the Christian interpretation of Plato and the Ancient Theology. In this defence of Plato, directed against George of Trebizond's Comparationes Phylosophorum Aristotelis et Platonis, Bessarion is not in general much concerned with pre-Platonic theologians, though he remarks that Plato was a follower of Orpheus.1 [Bessarion, op. cit., p. 121. Bessarion possessed a ms. copy of the Orphic Hymns and Argonautica (Venice, Marciana, cod. gr. 480; v. C. Nigra, 'Inni di Callimacho', in Rivista di filologia e d'istruzione classica, Turin, 1892, p. 200).] But he does state that Plato, when in Egypt, had learned much from Mosaic writings.2 [Bessarion, op. cit., p. 246, based on: Augustine, Civ Dei, VIII, xi; Cyril, Contra Julianum, I (Migne, Pat. Gr., T. 76, col. 524 seq.); Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, passim. Mohler's comment on this is (op. cit., I, 389): 'Wer mochte aber ihm das verargen, da seine Zeit uberhaupt noch keinen Einblick in die philosophiegeschichtliche Entwicklung gehabt hat!'] He reproduces Pseudo-Justin's suggestion that Plato was prevented from clearly publishing his true religious views by the example of Socrates' death.3 [Bessarion, op. cit., p. 229; cf. Pseudo-Justin, Cohortatio ad Gentiles, c. 20 (Migne, Pat. Gr., T. 6, col. 276).] He examines with great detail and competence the resemblances and differences between Platonic and Neoplatonic triads and the Christian Trinity.4 [Bessarion, op. cit., pp. 93 seq., 297 seq.] All these are typical and persistent themes of the syncretists with whom we are concerned.

[admin]

Part 4 of 4

IV

In this book I shall deal mainly with only two of the Ancient Theologians: Orpheus and Hermes Trismegistus. The texts attributed to these are, I think, of major importance, both in volume and content; but we certainly need detailed studies of the rest of the Ancient Theological writings during the Renaissance, in particular of the Oracula Chaldaica. Another grave omission in this book, due to my inability to read Hebrew and Aramaic, is the Cabala,5 [See G. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Jerusalem, 1941, and 'Zur Geschichte der Anfange der christlichen Kabbala', in Essays presented to L. Baeck, London, 1964; F. Secret, Les Kabbalistes chretiens de la Renaissance, Paris, 1964.] which, from Giovanni Pico's time onwards, enters the tradition of the Ancient Theology.

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola; Latin: Johannes Picus de Mirandula; 24 February 1463 – 17 November 1494) was an Italian Renaissance nobleman and philosopher. He is famed for the events of 1486, when, at the age of 23, he proposed to defend 900 theses on religion, philosophy, natural philosophy, and magic against all comers, for which he wrote the Oration on the Dignity of Man, which has been called the "Manifesto of the Renaissance", and a key text of Renaissance humanism and of what has been called the "Hermetic Reformation". He was the founder of the tradition of Christian Kabbalah [Christian Kabbalah arose during the Renaissance due to Christian scholars' interest in the mysticism of Jewish Kabbalah, which they interpreted according to Christian theology. It is often transliterated as Cabala (also Cabbala) to distinguish it from the Jewish form and from Hermetic Qabalah.], a key tenet of early modern Western esotericism. The 900 Theses was the first printed book to be universally banned by the Church. Pico is sometimes seen as a proto-Protestant, because his 900 theses anticipated many Protestant views.

-- Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, by Wikipedia

The Orphica can conveniently be divided into three groups:

(1) Fragments of verse embedded in ancient writers, particularly Proclus, and the Greek Fathers, Pseudo-Justin (author of the Cohortatio ad Gentiles), Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius.1 [Otto Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta, Berlin, 1922. A fairly complete edition of these fragments was published by Henri Estienne: Poesis Philosophica ... Audiuncta sunt Orphei illius carmina qui a suis appellatus fuit (Google translate: Philosophical Poetry ... Listened they are the songs of that Orpheus who was called by his people) [x] .... , Paris, 1578. There was a different edition of them: [X] Paris, 1588.] These are of varying dates, some possibly going back to pre-Platonic times, and some being fairly obvious Christian or Jewish forgeries.2 [I am not here concerned with the extremely controversial historical problems of ancient Orphism, on which see: W. K. C. Guthrie, Orpheus and Greek Religion, London, 1985; K. Ziegler, articles Orpheus and Orphische Dichtung in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1942; E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, ch. 5.]

(2) The Hymns.3 [Orphei Hymni, ed. G. Quandt, Berlin, 1955. The editio princeps, s: [x], Florentie, Philippi Junte, 1500, containing, besides the Argonautica, Orpheus' and Proclus' Hymns; the edition is probably by Constantine Lascaris (v. E. Legrand, Bibliographie hellenique, Paris, 1885, I, lxxxvi). At least a dozen other editions appeared during the sixteenth century. There are at least 24 mss., mostly of the fifteenth century; none are earlier. It seems likely that the first ms. was brought over from Constantinople by Giovanni Aurispa in 1424 (v. R. Sabbadini, Biografia Documentata de Giovanni Aurispa, Noto, 1890, p. 20, and Ambrosius Traversarius, Latinae Epistolae, ed. L. Mehus, Florence, 1759, col. 1026-7).] These are now usually thought to be of the second or third century A.D., and are not quoted by any ancient writer. They are not specifically Orphic in content, but are considered by modern scholars to be genuine examples of hymns used by some religious sect. Like other Hellenistic hymns, they consist largely of strings of epithets.

(3) The Argonautica. This is a poem of the late fourth century A.D., based largely on the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes.4 [Les Argonautiques d'Orpee, tr. and ed; G. Dottin, Paris, 1930.]

Of these, group (1) is for us by far the most important, since these fragments lend themselves readily to Christian and Platonic interpretations, for which purpose they had originally been chosen and quoted by the Fathers and Neoplatonists. The hymns are not very suitable for Christian-Platonic uses; but their lack of any specific content made them well-fitted for ingenious, Proclus-like interpretations, of which Ficino's commentary on the Hymn to Nature1 [Letter to Germain de Ganay, in Ficino's translation of Athenagoras' De Resurrectione, Paris, 1498, reprinted by Kristeller, 'The Scholastic Background of Marsilio Ficino', in Traditio, 11, 1944, p. 257.] is a good example. [b]The Argonautica were chiefly of interest because of passages where Orpheus sings short cosmogonies, and the mention that he had been to Egypt.2 [Orph. Arg., 1. 419 (cf. Apollonius Rhod., Arg., I, 492).]

None of these texts was known in Western Europe until the fifteenth century. From the time of George of Trebizond's Latin translation of Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica, printed in 1470,3 [Begins: 'Ad sanctissimum papam Nicolaum. q. Georgii Trapezuntii in traductionem Eusebii Praefatio', n.p., 1470.] the main Orphic fragments, group (1), were easily accessible. The Hymns and the Argonautica were not published until 1500;4 [v. supra, n. 3, p. 15.] but the Hymns had been translated by Ficino in 1462,5 [See Kristeller, Suppl. Ficin., I, cxliv-v.] and are frequently cited in his works.

With regard to the antiquity of all these works and their attribution to Orpheus, Renaissance scholars were aware that many of the Orphic poems must be of widely different dates; they knew, from the Suidas Lexicon, that several different authors had written under the name of Orpheus.6 [See Kern, Fr., test. 22S, cf. ibid., test. 225 (Constantine Lascaris).] Agostino Steuco, in 1540, and Henri Estienne, in 1566, both assert on internal evidence that the Hymns must be later than most of the fragments.7 [Steuco, De Perenni Philosophia, Lyons, 1540, I, xxviii (Steuco, Opera Omnia, Venice, 1591, III, fo 24 vo). H. Estienne, Praefatio to his [x], 1566, p. 487; this contains the Orphic Argonautica, Hymns and Lithica.] Leonardo Bruni, in about 1420, and Gian-Francesco Pico, in 1496, even reproduce Aristotle's denial that Orpheus was the author of the Orphica or indeed that he ever existed.8 [Cicero, De Natura Deorum, I, xxxviii: 'Orpheum poetam docet Aristoteles nunquam fuisse, et hoc Orphicum carmen Pythagorei ferunt cujusdam fuisse Cercopis' (Google translate: Aristotle teaches Orpheus the poet and this Orphic poem of Pythagoras is said to have belonged to a certain Cercopus). Leonardo Bruni Aretino, Humanistisch-philosophische Schriften, ed. Hans Baron, Leipzig, 1928, p. 133 (Proemium in quasdam orationes Homeri, proving these to be the oldest; elsewhere (ibid., p. 59, Le Vite di Dante e di Petrarca) he cites Orpheus and Hesiod as examples of poets inspired by furor. Gian-Francesco Pico, Opera Omnia, Basel, 1573 (T. II of both Picos' Op. Omn.), p. 36.]

Orpheus (Ancient Greek: Ὀρφεύς) is a Thracian bard, legendary musician and prophet in ancient Greek religion. He was also a renowned poet and, according to the legend, travelled with Jason and the Argonauts in search of the Golden Fleece, and even descended into the Underworld of Hades to recover his lost wife Eurydice.

Ancient Greek authors as Strabo and Plutarch note Orpheus's Thracian origins. The major stories about him are centered on his ability to charm all living things and even stones with his music (the usual scene in Orpheus mosaics), his attempt to retrieve his wife Eurydice from the underworld, and his death at the hands of the maenads of Dionysus, who tired of his mourning for his late wife Eurydice. As an archetype of the inspired singer, Orpheus is one of the most significant figures in the reception of classical mythology in Western culture, portrayed or alluded to in countless forms of art and popular culture including poetry, film, opera, music, and painting.

For the Greeks, Orpheus was a founder and prophet of the so-called "Orphic" mysteries. He was credited with the composition of the Orphic Hymns and the Orphic Argonautica. Shrines containing purported relics of Orpheus were regarded as oracles.

-- Orpheus, by Wikipedia

But these questions, at least as far as group (1) is concerned, were not often discussed; those syncretists who make great use of Orpheus assume that the Orphica, even if not all literally by Orpheus, were the genuine sacred writings of a very ancient religious tradition.

The Hermetica fall into two groups: first, the Asclepius (or De Voluntate Divina), a dialogue which has survived only in the Latin translation ascribed to Apuleius; secondly, the Pimander (or De Sapientia et Potestate Dei) and the Difinitiones Asclepii, a group of fifteen short dialogues in Greek.1 [Pimander is properly the title of the first dialogue, but it was frequently used to denote the whole set. See Kristeller, Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, Rome, 1956, p. 223. The Definitiones happened to be missing in the first Greek ms. of the Hermetica, brought to Florence in about 1460, and are not therefore in Ficino's translation; they were translated by Lazarelli and printed in Champier's Liber de Quadruplici Vita, Lyons, 1507. On other early editions in France, v. infra pp. 67 seq. and F. A. Yates, Bruno, pp. 17, 179-82. The most convenient modern edition is: Corpus Hermeticum, ed. A. D. Nock and A. J. Festugiere, Paris, 1945. The edition by Walter Scott (Oxford, 1924-36) has an unusable text, but valuable notes and a volume of Testimonia.] Both these date from the second or third century A.D. Though they purport to be Egyptian, the greatest modern authority on them, Festugiere, considers them to be mainly Greek in origin, a Hellenistic amalgam of Platonism, Stoicism, Judaism and Christianity, set in a gnostic and magical framework.2 [Festugiere, Rev. d'Herm., T. I, Introduction; but cf. Yates, Bruno, pp. 2-3.]

The Corpus Hermeticum is itself heterogeneous, but the various treatises in it have a family likeness, and all of them preach some form of gnostic mysticism, a magical religion dominated by the stars and offering its initiates the possibility of being transformed into powerful Magi.3 [There is a good description of this religion in Yates, Bruno, ch. 2.] It is this specific, if varied, religious content that makes the Hermetica much more important historically than the texts of the other Ancient Theologians, which, consisting of more or less enigmatic fragments, could be absorbed into orthodox Christianity with comparatively little difficulty. But right from the start the Hermetica gave trouble. Ficino was led into his Orphic magic mainly by the idol-making passage in the Asclepius.1 [Walker, Magic, pp. 40 sq.]

“Let us turn again to mankind and reason, that divine gift whereby a human is called a rational animal. What we have said of mankind is wondrous, but less wondrous than this: it exceeds the wonderment of all wonders that humans have been able to discover the divine nature and how to make it. Our ancestors once erred gravely on the theory of divinity; they were unbelieving and inattentive to worship and reverence for god. But then they discovered the art of making gods. To their discovery they added a conformable power arising from the nature of matter. Because they could not make souls, they mixed this power in and called up the souls of demons or angels and implanted them in likenesses through holy and divine mysteries, whence the idols could have the power to do good and evil.”

“Take your ancestor, for example: he was the first to discover medicine, Asclepius. They dedicated a temple to him on the Libyan mountain near the shore of the crocodiles. There lies his material person – his body, in other words. The rest, or rather, the whole of him (if the whole person consists in consciousness of life) went back happier to heaven. Even now he still provides help to sick people by his divine power, as he used to offer it through the art of medicine. And Hermes, whose family name I bear, does he not dwell in his native city that was named for him, where mortals come from all around for his aid and protection? Isis, wife of Osiris: we know how much good she can do when well disposed, when angered how much harm! Anger comes easily to earthly and material gods because humans have made and assembled them from both natures. Whence it happens that these are called holy animals by the Egyptians, who throughout their cities worship the souls of those deified while alive, in order that cities might go on living by their laws and calling themselves by their names. For this reason, Asclepius, because what one group worships and honors another group treats differently, Egypt’s cities constantly assail one another in war.”

“And the quality of these gods who are considered earthly – what sort of thing is it, Trismegistus?”

“It comes from a mixture of plants, stones and spices, Asclepius, that have in them a natural power of divinity. And this is why those gods are entertained with constant sacrifices, with hymns, praises and sweet sounds in tune with heaven’s harmony: so that the heavenly ingredient enticed into the idol by constant communication with heaven may gladly endure its long stay among humankind. Thus does man fashion his gods.”

“Do not suppose that these earthly gods act aimlessly, Asclepius. Heavenly gods inhabit heaven’s heights, each one heading up the order assigned to him and watching over it. But here below our gods render aid to humans as if through loving kinship, looking after some things individually, foretelling some things through lots and divination, and planning ahead to give help by other means, each in his own way.”

-- Asclepius [De Voluntate Divina], by Apuleius, translated by Fr. Luke Dysinger

With Agrippa the relatively discreet magic of Ficino and Pico comes more into the open as an obvious rival to Christianity,2 [ibid., pp. 90 seq.] and finally, with Giordano Bruno, the magic religion of the ancient Egyptians has swallowed up the younger faith -- Christ is only one of several preaching, wonder-working Magi in the Hermetic tradition, and Bruno is another.3 [Yates, Bruno, ch. 11-19.] But this story has been told too fully and too well by F. A. Yates for me to repeat it here, though I have added an appendix to it in Chapter 5.

Like the Orphica, the Hermetica were not known in Western Europe until the fifteenth century, except for the Asclepius, which was quite widely known in the middle ages,4 [See Kristeller, Studies, p. 222.] both because it is in Latin and because Augustine discusses it at length in the City of God,5 [Augustine, Civ. Dei, VIII, xxiii-xxvi.] and except for passages from the other Hermetic dialogues quoted by Lactantius.6 [See Yates, Bruno, p. 7.] Ficino's Latin translation of the Pimander was published in 1471,7 [Mercurii Trismegisti Liber de Potestate et Sapientia Dei e graeco in Latinum traductus a Marsilio Ficino (Google translate: Mercurii Trismegistus' Book on the Power and Wisdom of God from Greek into Latin translated by Marsilius Ficino.) ... , n.p., 1471.] and Lazarelli's translation of the Difinitiones Asclepii in 1507.8 [v. supra n. 1, p. 17.]

There was a general acceptance of the great antiquity of the Hermetica, though syncretists occasionally expressed doubts about the attribution of them to Hermes Trismegistus, who had early been identified with the Egyptian God-king, Thoth, mentioned by Plato.9 [Plato, Phaedrus, 274 c- 275 B; Philebus, 18 B-D.] Duplessis Mornay, for example, writes in 1581:10 [Philippe Duplessis Mornay, De la Verite de la Religion Chrestienne, Antwerp, 1581, p. 38: 'Mercure Trismegiste, qui est (si vrayment ces livres sont de luy, et pour le moins sont-ils bien anciens) la source de tous (sc. les Sages), enseigne partout: Que Dieu est un ...' (Google translate: From the Truth of the Christian Religion, Antwerp, 1581, p. 38: 'Mercure Trismegistus, who is (if indeed these books are by him, and at least they are very old) the source of all (sc. the Sages), teaches everywhere: That God is a...']

Hermes Trismegistus, who is (if these books are really by him, and at least they are very ancient) the source of all the Sages, teaches everywhere: that God is one ...

But this serene assumption lasted only until 1614, when Isaac Casaubon, with convincingly thorough scholarship, redated the Hermetica well within the Christian era.1 [See Yates, Bruno, pp. 398-402.]

'And Uranus, having succeeded to his father's rule, takes to himself in marriage his sister Ge, and gets by her four sons, Elus who is also Kronos, and Baetylus, and Dagon who is Siton, and Atlas. Also by other wives Uranus begat a numerous progeny; on which account Ge was angry, and from jealousy began to reproach Uranus, so that they even separated from each other.

'But Uranus, after he had left her, used to come upon her with violence, whenever he chose, and consort with her, and go away again; he used to try also to destroy his children by her; but Ge repelled him many times, having gathered to herself allies. And when Kronos had advanced to manhood, he, with the counsel and help of Hermes Trismegistus (who was his secretary), repels his father Uranus, and avenges his mother.

'To Kronos are born children, Persephone and Athena. The former died a virgin: but by the advice of Athena and Hermes Kronos[???] made a sickle and a spear of iron. Then Hermes talked magical words to the allies of Kronos, and inspired them with a desire of fighting against Uranus on behalf of Ge. And thus Kronos engaged in war, and drove Uranus from his government, and succeeded to the kingdom. Also there was taken in the battle the beloved concubine of Uranus, being great with child, whom Kronos gave in marriage to Dagon. And in his house she gave birth to the child begotten of Uranus, which she named Demarus.

'After this Kronos builds a wall round his own dwelling, and founds the first city, Byblos in Phoenicia.

'Soon after this he became suspicious of his own brother Atlas, and, with the advice of Hermes, threw him into a deep pit and buried him. At about this time the descendants of the Dioscuri put together rafts and ships, and made voyages; and, being cast ashore near Mount Cassius, consecrated a temple there. And the allies of Elus, who is Kronos, were surnamed Eloim, as these same, who were surnamed after Kronos, would have been called Kronii.

'And Kronos, having a son Sadidus, dispatched him with his own sword, because he regarded him with suspicion, and deprived him of life, thus becoming the murderer of his son. In like manner he cut off the head of a daughter of his own; so that all the gods were dismayed at the disposition of Kronos.

'But as time went on Uranus, being in banishment, secretly sends his maiden daughter Astarte with two others her sisters, Ehea and Dione, to slay Kronos by craft. But Kronos caught them, and though they were his sisters, made them his wedded wives. And when Uranus knew it, he sent Eimarmene and Hora with other allies on an expedition against Kronos, and these Kronos won over to his side and kept with him.

'Further, he says, the god Uranus devised the Baetylia, having contrived to put life into stones. And to Kronos there were born of Astarte seven daughters, Titanides or Artemides: and again to the same there were born of Rhea seven sons, of whom the youngest was deified at his birth; and of Dione females, and of Astarte again two males, Desire and Love. And Dagon, after he discovered corn and the plough, was called Zeus Arotrios.

'And one of the Titanides united to Suduc, who is named the Just, gives birth to Asclepius.

'In Peraea also there were born to Kronos three sons, Kronos of the same name with his father, and Zeus Belus, and Apollo. In their time are born Pontus, and Typhon, and Nereus father of Pontus and son of Belus.

'And from Pontus is born Sidon (who from the exceeding sweetness of her voice was the first to invent musical song) and Poseidon. And to Demarus is born Melcathrus, who is also called Hercules.

'Then again Uranus makes war against Pontus, and after revolting attaches himself to Demarus, and Demarus attacks Pontus, but Pontus puts him to flight; and Demarus vowed an offering if he should escape.

'And in the thirty-second year of his power and kingdom Elus, that is Kronos, having waylaid his father Uranus in an inland spot, and got him into his hands, emasculates him near some fountains and rivers. There Uranus was deified: and as he breathed his last, the blood from his wounds dropped into the fountains and into the waters of the rivers, and the spot is pointed out to this day.'

This, then, is the story of Kronos, and such are the glories of the mode of life, so vaunted among the Greeks, of men in the days of Kronos, whom they also affirm to have been the first and 'golden race of articulate speaking men,' that blessed happiness of the olden time!

Again, the historian adds to this, after other matters:

'But Astarte, the greatest goddess, and Zeus Demarus, and Adodus king of gods, reigned over the country with the consent of Kronos. And Astarte set the head of a bull upon her own head as a mark of royalty; and in travelling round the world she found a star that had fallen from the sky, which she took up and consecrated in the holy island Tyre. And the Phoenicians say that Astarte is Aphrodite.

'Kronos also, in going round the world, gives the kingdom of Attica to his own daughter Athena. But on the occurrence of a pestilence and mortality Kronos offers his only begotten son as a whole burnt-offering to his father Uranus, and circumcises himself, compelling his allies also to do the same. And not long after another of his sons by Rhea, named Muth, having died, he deifies him, and the Phoenicians call him Thanatos and Pluto. And after this Kronos gives the city Byblos to the goddess Baaltis, who is also called Dione, and Berytus to Poseidon and to the Cabeiri and Agrotae and Halieis, who also consecrated the remains of Pontus at Berytus.

'But before this the god Tauthus imitated the features of the gods who were his companions, Kronos, and Dagon, and the rest, and gave form to the sacred characters of the letters. He also devised for Kronos as insignia of royalty four eyes in front and behind . . . but two of them quietly closed, and upon his shoulders four wings, two as spread for flying, and two as folded.

'And the symbol meant that Kronos could see when asleep, and sleep while waking: and similarly in the case of the wings, that he flew while at rest, and was at rest when flying. But to each of the other gods he gave two wings upon the shoulders, as meaning that they accompanied Kronos in his flight. And to Kronos himself again he gave two wings upon his head, one representing the all-ruling mind, and one sensation.

'And when Kronos came into the South country he gave all Egypt to the god Tauthus, that it might be his royal dwelling-place. And these things, he says, were recorded first by Suduc's seven sons the Cabeiri, and their eighth brother Asclepius, as the god Tauthus commanded them.

'All these stories Thabion, who was the very first hierophant of all the Phoenicians from the beginning, allegorized and mixed up with the physical and cosmical phenomena, and delivered to the prophets who celebrated the orgies and inaugurated the mysteries: and they, purposing to increase their vain pretensions from every source, handed them on to their successors and to their foreign visitors: one of these was Eisirius the inventor of the three letters, brother of Chna the first who had his name changed to Phoenix.'

Then again afterwards he adds:

'But the Greeks, surpassing all in genius, appropriated most of the earliest stories, and then variously decked them out with ornaments of tragic phrase, and adorned them in every way, with the purpose of charming by the pleasant fables. Hence Hesiod and the celebrated Cyclic poets framed theogonies of their own, and battles of the giants, and battles of Titans, and castrations; and with these fables, as they travelled about, they conquered and drove out the truth.

'But our ears having grown up in familiarity with their fictions, and being for long ages pre-occupied, guard as a trust the mythology which they received, just as I said at the beginning; and this mythology, being aided by time, has made its hold difficult for us to escape from, so that the truth is thought to be nonsense, and the spurious narrative truth.'

Let these suffice as quotations from the writings of Sanchuniathon, translated by Philo of Byblos, and approved as true by the testimony of Porphyry the philosopher.

-- Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel), by Eusebius of Caesarea

Hermes is an Olympian deity in ancient Greek religion and mythology. Hermes is considered the herald of the gods. He is also considered the protector of human heralds, travellers, thieves, merchants, and orators. He is able to move quickly and freely between the worlds of the mortal and the divine, aided by his winged sandals. Hermes plays the role of the psychopomp or "soul guide"—a conductor of souls into the afterlife.

In myth, Hermes functions as the emissary and messenger of the gods, and is often presented as the son of Zeus and Maia, the Pleiad. Hermes is regarded as "the divine trickster," about which the Homeric Hymn to Hermes offers the most well-known account.

His attributes and symbols include the herma, the rooster, the tortoise, satchel or pouch, talaria (winged sandals), and winged helmet or simple petasos, as well as the palm tree, goat, the number four, several kinds of fish, and incense. However, his main symbol is the caduceus, a winged staff intertwined with two snakes copulating and carvings of the other gods. His attributes had previously influenced the earlier Etruscan god Turms, a name borrowed from the Greek "herma".

In Roman mythology and religion many of Hermes' characteristics belong to Mercury, a name derived from the Latin merx, meaning "merchandise," and the origin of the words "merchant" and "commerce."...

An epithet of Thoth found in the temple at Esna, "Thoth the great, the great, the great", became applied to Hermes beginning in at least 172 BC. This lent Hermes one of his most famous later titles, Hermes Trismegistus (Ἑρμῆς ὁ Τρισμέγιστος), "thrice-greatest Hermes". The figure of Hermes Trismegistus would later absorb a variety of other esoteric wisdom traditions and become a major component of Hermeticism, alchemy, and related traditions.

-- Hermes, by Wikipedia

This was, however, as we shall see, by no means the end of their influential career. The status of the Asclepius was always more doubtful, since it existed only in the Latin translation attributed to Apuleius. It could therefore be argued that Apuleius, known to be a magician and idolater, had tampered with the text.2 [V. infra, pp. 70, 106.]

The context in which Renaissance scholars first became acquainted with these texts was extremely important, namely, pre-Nicene Fathers and Proclus for group (1) of the Orphica, and for the Hermetica Lactantius and Augustine. The early Fathers were quoting Orpheus and Hermes in order to show that anything valuable in Greek philosophy had been stolen from Moses, and Proclus pointed the way to the interpretation of polytheism in terms of an intricate scheme of metaphysical entities.3 [cf. L. J. Rosan, The Philosophy of Proclus, New York, 1949.] Both Proclus and the Fathers would also suggest the conception of an ancient, pre-Platonic religious tradition, including Orpheus, the Oracula Chaldaica, and Pythagoras. It was on a combination of these lines that the Renaissance syncretists worked. Lactantius and Augustine vouched for the extreme antiquity of Hermes, and for the genuineness of the writings attributed to him. While Lactantius is wholly favourable to Hermes, as a prophetic witness to Christianity, Augustine condemned him very harshly as an idolater, and applied to him the verse from Romans I, quoted above: 'Because that when they knew God ... '4 [Augustine, Civ. Dei, VIII, xxiii-xxvi; Romans quoted in VIII, xxiii; cf. supra, p. 9.] This condemnation did worry Renaissance admirers of Hermes; but it applied only to the Asclepius, which may have been corrupted by Apuleius, and one could offset Augustine's blame with Lactantius' praise.

v

If a Christian wishes to believe in the existence of a series of Ancient Theologians who in some measure foreshadow the Christian revelation, he must assume or accept as historical fact the following:

Either that the only or main pre-Christian revelation was the Jewish one; but that this filtered through to the Gentiles, the usual channel of communication being Egypt, where Moses had taught the priests or left books.

Or that there were partial pre-Christian revelations other than that given to the Jews.

These are not mutually exclusive, since a Gentile revelation may be supposed to be reinforced or completed by a Jewish one. The first assumption is evidently more surely orthodox, since it safeguards the unique authority of the Old Testament, and this is the assumption adopted by the Fathers and the more cautious Renaissance syncretists. From either or both these assumptions derive lists of Ancient Theologians, all teaching the same religious truths, some of them with texts attached to their names, some without.1 [e.g. Ficino, Op. Omn., p. 25 (De Christiana Religione, c. xxii: 'Prisca gentilium Theologia, in qua Zoroaster, Mercurius, Orpheus, Aglaophemus, Pythagoras consenserunt, tota in Platonis nostri voluminibus continetur' (Google translate: Ancient Gentiles Theology, in which Zoroaster, Mercury, Orpheus, Aglaophemus, Pythagoras agreed, the whole is contained in the volumes of our Plato); cf. ibid., p. 1, where the Druids are mentioned), p. 871-2 (where the list is extended to Plotinus and Ficino himself); Steuco, Op. Omn., III, 97 vo, 114 vo, 26 ro; Amaury Bouchard, De Lexcellence et immortalite de Lame, Bibl. nat., ms. fr. 1991, fos. 10, 32 vo; Gemistus Pletho, Loix, ed. Alexandre, pp. 30-2, 253; Cornelius Agrippa, De Incertitudine et Vanitate Scientiarum, ed. of 1539, n.p., c. lii, lvi.] A typical list, but fuller than any I have actually found, would run (the textless Theologians are in brackets): (Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Noah), Zoroaster, Moses, Hermes Trismegistus, (the Brahmins, the Druids), David, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, the Sibyls ... The series culminates in the New Testament; but, since the main intention is to provide a Christian Platonism, it can be continued to include the Neoplatonists, as valuable interpreters of Plato, and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who, by being back-dated, becomes their source.2 [v. infra, pp. 80 seq.]

These Ancient Theologians may either derive successively one from another, or each may be said to have visited Egypt and learnt the Mosaic doctrine, or, more usually, both. Orpheus, for example, is nearly always the oldest of the Greeks, and, having visited Egypt, is thus the main source of religious truth for Pythagoras, Plato, etc.; but these had also studied in Egypt, and were also influenced by Zoroaster and Hermes Trismegistus --- that is to say, the tradition had several channels, which might all operate at once.

The chronological place of Moses in these genealogies is obviously crucial, if one wishes, as the majority of would-be orthodox syncretists did, to derive the Ancient Theology from the Pentateuch. There was no difficulty in showing that Orpheus and the rest of the Greeks were considerably later than Moses; but the place of Hermes Trismegistus was more doubtful. St Augustine had made Hermes the great-grandson of a contemporary of Moses,1 [Augustine, Civ. Dei, xviii, xxxix.] and Ficino repeats this in his introduction to the Pimander.2 [Ficino's Argumentum to his translation of the Pimander, which was reprinted in all the earlier editions of the Hermetica.] Lazarelli contradicts him, and makes Hermes considerably the older.3 [Lazarelli, Crater Hermetis, in Pimander, ed. Lefevre, 1505, fo. 61 ro; cf. Kristeller, Studies, pp. 228-9.] During the sixteenth century opinions varied; the orthodox preserved Moses's greater antiquity, while whole-hearted Hermetists, such as Foix de Candale4 [v. infra, p. 69.] or Giordano Bruno, made Hermes by far the older.5 [See Yates, Bruno, p. 223.]