Text

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139059565.008

Part II Text

LATIN TEXT

1. Legi, patres colendissimi, in Arabum monumentis, interrogatum Abdalam Sarracenum quid in hac quasi mundana scena admirandum maxime spectaretur, nihil spectari homine admirabilius respondisse.
2. Cui sententiae illud Mercurii adstipulatur: “Magnum, o Asclepi, miraculum est homo.”
3. Horum dictorum rationem cogitanti mihi non satis illa faciebant, quae multa de humanae naturae praestantia afferuntur a multis: esse hominem creaturarum internuntium, superis familiarem, regem inferiorum; sensuum perspicacia, rationis indagine, intelligentiae lumine naturae interpretem; stabilis evi et fluxi temporis interstitium, et (quod Persae dicunt) mundi copulam, immo hymeneum, ab angelis, teste Davide, paulo deminutum.
4. Magna haec quidem, sed non principalia, idest quae summae admirationis privilegium sibi iure vendicent.
5. Cur enim non ipsos angelos et beatissimos caeli choros magis admiremur?
6. Tandem intellexisse mihi sum visus cur felicissimum proindeque dignum omni admiratione animal sit homo, et quae sit demum illa conditio quam in universi serie sortitus sit, non brutis modo, sed astris, sed ultramundanis mentibus invidiosam.
7. Res supra fidem et mira!
8. Quidni? Nam et propterea magnum miraculum et admirandum profecto animal iure homo et dicitur et existimatur.
9. Sed quae nam ea sit audite, patres, et benignis auribus pro vestra humanitate hanc mihi operam condonate.
10. Iam summus Pater architectus Deus hanc quam videmus mundanam domum, divinitatis templum augustissimum, archanae legibus sapientiae fabrefecerat.
11. Supercelestem regionem mentibus decorarat; ethereos globos aeternis animis vegetarat; excrementarias ac faeculentas has inferioris mundi partes omnigena animalium turba complerat.
12. Sed, opere consumato, desiderabat artifex esse aliquem qui tanti operis rationem perpenderet, pulchritudinem amaret, magnitudinem admiraretur.
13. Idcirco iam rebus omnibus (ut Moses Timeusque testantur) absolutis, de producendo homine postremo cogitavit.
14. Verum nec erat in archetipis unde novam sobolem effingeret, nec in thesauris quod novo filio hereditarium largiretur, nec in subsellis totius orbis ubi universi contemplator iste sederet.
15. Iam plena omnia; omnia summis, mediis infimisque ordinibus fuerant distributa.
16. Sed non erat paternae potestatis in extrema faetura quasi effetam defecisse; non erat Sapientiae consilii inopia in re necessaria fluctuasse; non erat benefici Amoris ut qui in aliis esset divinam liberalitatem laudaturus, in se illam damnare cogeretur.
17. Statuit tandem optimus opifex ut cui dari nihil proprium poterat, ei commune esset quicquid privatum singulis fuerat.
18. Igitur hominem accepit, indiscretae opus imaginis, atque in mundi positum meditullio sic est alloquutus: “Nec certam sedem, nec propriam faciem, nec munus ullum peculiare tibi dedimus, o Adam, ut quam sedem, quam faciem, quae munera tute optaveris, ea pro voto, pro tua sententia, habeas et possideas.
19. Definita caeteris natura intra praescriptas a nobis leges cohercetur.
20. Tu, nullis angustiis cohercitus, pro tuo arbitrio, in cuius manu te posui, tibi illam prefinies.
21. Medium te mundi posui, ut circumspiceres inde comodius quicquid est in mundo.
22. Nec te celestem neque terrenum, neque mortalem neque immortalem fecimus, ut, tui ipsius quasi arbitrarius honorariusque plastes et fictor, in quam malueris tute formam effingas.
23. Poteris in inferiora, quae sunt bruta, degenerare; poteris in superiora, quae sunt divina, ex tui animi sententia regenerari.”
24. O summam Dei patris liberalitatem, summam et admirandam hominis foelicitatem, cui datum id habere quod optat, id esse quod velit!
25. Bruta, simul atque nascuntur, id secum afferunt (ut ait Lucilius) e bulga matris quod possessura sunt.
26. Supremi spiritus aut ab initio aut paulo mox id fuerunt, quod sunt futuri in perpetuas aeternitates.
27. Nascenti homini omnifaria semina et omnigenae vitae germina indidit Pater.
28. Quae quisque excoluerit, illa adolescent, et fructus suos ferent in illo.
29. Si vegetalia, planta fiet; si sensualia, obrutescet; si rationalia, caeleste evadet animal; si intellectualia, angelus erit et Dei filius.
30. Et si, nulla creaturarum sorte contentus, in unitatis centrum suae se receperit, unus cum Deo spiritus factus, in solitaria Patris caligine, qui est super omnia constitutus omnibus antestabit.
31. Quis hunc nostrum chamaeleonta non admiretur?
32. Aut omnino quis aliud quicquam admiretur magis?
33. Quem non immerito Asclepius Atheniensis, versipellis huius et se ipsam transformantis naturae argumento, per Protheum in mysteriis significari dixit.
34. Hinc illae apud Hebreos et Pythagoricos methamorphoses celebratae.
35. Nam et Hebreorum theologia secretior nunc Enoch sanctum in angelum divinitatis, quem vocant מטטרון, nunc in alia alios numina reformant; et Pythagorici scelestos homines et in bruta deformant et, si Empedocli creditur, etiam in plantas.
36. Quos imitatus Maumeth illud frequens habebat in ore, qui a divina lege recesserit brutum evadere.
37. Et merito quidem: neque enim plantam cortex, sed stupida et nihil sentiens natura; neque iumenta corium, sed bruta anima et sensualis; nec caelum orbiculatum corpus, sed recta ratio; nec sequestratio corporis, sed spiritalis intelligentia angelum facit.
38. Si quem enim videris deditum ventri, humi serpentem hominem, frutex est, non homo, quem vides; si quem in phantasiae quasi Calipsus vanis praestigiis cecutientem et, subscalpenti delinitum illecebra, sensibus mancipatum, brutum est, non homo, quem vides.
39. Si recta philosophum ratione omnia discernentem, hunc venereris; caeleste est animal, non terrenum.
40. Si purum contemplatorem corporis nescium, in penetralia mentis relegatum, hic non terrenum, non caeleste animal: hic augustius est numen, humana carne circumvestitum.
41. Ecquis hominem non admiretur?
42. Qui non immerito in sacris Litteris Mosaycis et Christianis nunc “omnis carnis,” nunc “omnis creaturae” appellatione designatur, quando se ipsum ipse in omnis carnis faciem, in omnis creaturae ingenium effingit, fabricat et transformat.
43. Idcirco scribit Evantes Persa, ubi Chaldaicam theologiam enarrat, non esse homini suam ullam et nativam imaginem, extrarias multas et adventitias.
44. Hinc illud Chaldeorum [ברנש הֻ חי מטבצ משתנֶ ונדד ומחלפת גרמה כֹ וֹכ], idest “homo variae ac multiformis et desultoriae naturae animal.”
45. Sed quorsum haec?
46. Ut intelligamus (postquam hac nati sumus conditione, ut id simus quod esse volumus) curare hoc potissimum debere nos, ut illud quidem in nos non dicatur, cum in honore essemus non cognovisse similes factos brutis et iumentis insipientibus, sed illud potius Asaph prophetae: “Dii estis et filii Excelsi omnes”; ne, abutentes indulgentissima Patris liberalitate, quam dedit ille liberam optionem e salutari noxiam faciamus nobis.
47. Invadat animum sacra quaedam et Iunonia ambitio, ut mediocribus non contenti anhelemus ad summa, adque illa (quando possumus, si volumus) consequenda totis viribus enitamur.
48. Dedignemur terrestria, caelestia contemnamus, et, quicquid mundi est denique posthabentes, ultramundanam curiam eminentissimae divinitati proximam advolemus.
49. Ibi, ut sacra tradunt mysteria, Seraphin, Cherubin et Throni primas possident; horum nos, iam cedere nescii et secundarum impatientes, et dignitatem et gloriam emulemur.
50. Erimus illis, cum voluerimus, nihilo inferiores.
51. Sed qua ratione, aut quid tandem agentes?
52. Videamus quid illi agant, quam vivant vitam.
53. Eam si et nos vixerimus (possumus enim), illorum sortem iam equaverimus.
54. Ardet Saraph charitatis igne; fulget Cherub intelligentiae splendore; stat Thronus iudicii firmitate.
55. Igitur si actuosae addicti vitae inferiorum curam recto examine susceperimus, Thronorum stata soliditate firmabimur.
56. Si ab actionibus feriati in opificio opificem, in opifice opificium meditantes, in contemplandi ocio negociabimur, luce Cherubica undique corruscabimus.
57. Si charitate ipsum opificem solum ardebimus, illius igne, qui edax est, in Saraphicam effigiem repente flammabimur.
58. Super Throno, idest iusto iudice, sedet Deus iudex seculorum.
59. Super Cherub, idest contemplatore, volat atque eum quasi incubando fovet.
60. Spiritus enim Domini fertur super aquas, has – inquam – quae super caelos sunt, quae apud Iob Dominum laudant antelucanis hymnis.
61. Qui Saraph, idest amator est, in Deo est, et Deus in eo, immo et Deus et ipse unum sunt.
62. Magna Thronorum potestas, quam iudicando, summa Saraphinorum sublimitas, quam amando assequimur.
63. Sed quo nam pacto vel iudicare quisquam vel amare potest incognita?
64. Amavit Moses Deum quem vidit, et administravit iudex in populo quae vidit prius contemplator in monte.
65. Ergo medius Cherub sua luce et Saraphico igni nos praeparat, et ad Thronorum iudicium pariter illuminat.
66. Hic est nodus primarum mentium, ordo Palladicus philosophiae contemplativae preses; hic nobis et emulandus primo et ambiendus, atque adeo comprehendendus est, unde et ad amoris rapiamur fastigia, et ad munera actionum bene instructi paratique descendamus.
67. At vero operae precium, si ad exemplar vitae Cherubicae vita nostra formanda est, quae illa et qualis sit, quae actiones, quae illorum opera, prae oculis et in numerato habere.
68. Quod cum nobis per nos, qui caro sumus et quae humi sunt sapimus, consequi non liceat, adeamus antiquos patres, qui de his rebus utpote sibi domesticis et cognatis locuplectissimam nobis et certam fidem facere possunt.
69. Consulamus Paulum apostolum, vas electionis, quid ipse, cum ad tertium sublimatus est caelum, agentes Cherubinorum exercitus viderit.
70. Respondebit utique, Dyonisio interprete, purgari illos, tum illuminari, postremo perfici.
71. Ergo et nos, Cherubicam in terris vitam emulantes, per moralem scientiam affectuum impetus cohercentes, per dialecticam rationis caliginem discutientes, quasi ignorantiae et vitiorum eluentes sordes animam purgemus, ne aut affectus temere debacchentur, aut ratio imprudens quandoque deliret.
72. Tum bene compositam ac expiatam animam naturalis philosophiae lumine perfundamus, ut postremo divinarum rerum eam cognitione perficiamus.
73. Et ne nobis nostri sufficiant, consulamus Iacob patriarcham, cuius imago in sede gloriae sculpta corruscat.
74. Admonebit nos pater sapientissimus in inferno dormiens, mundo in superno vigilans; sed admonebit per figuram (ita eis omnia contingebant) esse scalas ab imo solo ad caeli summa protensas, multorum graduum serie distinctas, fastigio Dominum insidere, contemplatores angelos per eas vicibus alternantes ascendere et descendere.
75. Quod si hoc idem nobis angelicam affectantibus vitam factitandum est, queso, quis Domini scalas vel sordidato pede, vel male mundis manibus attinget?
76. Impuro, ut habent mysteria, purum attingere nephas.
77. Sed qui hi pedes? Quae manus?
78. Profecto pes animae illa est portio despicatissima, qua ipsa materiae tanquam terrae solo innititur: altrix – inquam – potestas et cibaria, fomes libidinis et voluptariae mollitudinis magistra.
79. Manus animae cur irascentiam non dixerimus, quae appetentiae propugnatrix pro ea decertat, et sub pulvere ac sole predatrix rapit quae illa sub umbra dormitans helluetur?
80. Has manus, hos pedes, idest totam sensualem partem in qua sedet corporis illecebra quae animam obtorto (ut aiunt) detinet collo, ne a scalis tamquam prophani pollutique reiciamur, morali philosophia quasi vivo flumine abluamus.
81. At nec satis hoc erit, si per Iacob scalam discursantibus angelis comites esse volumus, nisi et a gradu in gradum rite promoveri, et a scalarum tramite deorbitare nusquam, et reciprocos obire excursus bene apti prius instructique fuerimus.
82. Quod cum per artem sermocinalem sive rationariam erimus consequuti, iam Cherubico spiritu animati, per scalarum idest naturae gradus philosophantes, a centro ad centrum omnia pervadentes, nunc unum quasi Osyrim in multitudinem vi Titanica discerpentes descendemus, nunc multitudinem quasi Osyridis membra in unum vi Phebea colligentes ascendemus, donec, in sinu Patris – qui super scalas est – tandem quiescentes, theologica foelicitate consumabimur.
83. Percontemur et iustum Iob, qui foedus iniit cum Deo vitae prius quam ipse ederetur in vitam, quid summus Deus in decem illis centenis millibus qui assistunt ei potissimum desideret: pacem utique respondebit, iuxta id quod apud eum legitur: “Qui facit pacem in excelsis.”
84. Et quoniam supremi ordinis monita medius ordo inferioribus interpretatur, interpretetur nobis Iob theologi verba Empedocles philosophus.
85. Hic duplicem naturam in nostris animis sitam, quarum altera sursum tollimur ad celestia, altera deorsum trudimur ad inferna, per litem et amicitiam, sive bellum et pacem, ut sua testantur carmina, nobis significat.
86. In quibus se lite et discordia actum, furenti similem, profugum a diis in altum iactari conqueritur.
87. Multiplex profecto, patres, in nobis discordia; gravia et intestina domi habemus, et plus quam civilia bella.
88. Quae si noluerimus, si illam affectaverimus pacem quae in sublime ita nos tollat ut inter excelsos Domini statuamur, sola in nobis compescet prorsus et sedabit philosophia.
89. Moralis primum, si noster homo ab hostibus indutias tantum quesierit, multiplicis bruti effrenes excursiones et leonis iurgia, iras animosque contundet; tum si rectius consulentes nobis perpetuae pacis securitatem desideraverimus, aderit illa et vota nostra liberaliter implebit, quippe quae cesa utraque bestia, quasi icta porca, inviolabile inter carnem et spiritum foedus sanctissimae pacis sanciet.
90. Sedabit dialectica rationis turbas, inter orationum pugnantias et syllogismorum captiones anxie tumultuantis.
91. Sedabit naturalis philosophia opinionis lites et dissidia, quae inquietam hinc inde animam vexant, distrahunt et lacerant.
92. Sed ita sedabit, ut meminisse nos iubeat esse naturam, iuxta Heraclitum, ex bello genitam, ob id ab Homero “contentionem” vocitatam; idcirco in ea veram quietem et solidam pacem se nobis prestare non posse, esse hoc dominae suae, idest sanctissimae theologiae, munus et privilegium.
93. Ad illam ipsa et viam monstrabit et comes ducet, quae procul nos videns properantes “Venite,” inclamabit, “ad me qui laboratis, venite et ego reficiam vos, venite ad me et dabo vobis pacem quam mundus et natura vobis dare non possunt.”
94. Tam blande vocati, tam benigniter invitati, alatis pedibus, quasi terrestres Mercurii, in beatissimae amplexus matris evolantes, optata pace perfruemur: pace sanctissima, individua copula, unianimi amicitia, qua omnes animi in una mente, quae est super omnem mentem, non concordent adeo, sed ineffabili quodammodo unum penitus evadant.
95. Haec est illa amicitia quam totius philosophiae finem esse Pythagorici dicunt; haec illa pax quam facit Deus in excelsis suis, quam angeli in terram descendentes annuntiarunt hominibus bonae voluntatis, ut per eam ipsi homines ascendentes in caelum angeli fierent.
96. Hanc pacem amicis, hanc nostro optemus seculo, optemus unicuique domui quam ingredimur, optemus animae nostrae, ut per eam ipsa Dei domus fiat; ut, postquam per moralem et dialecticam suas sordes excusserit, multiplici philosophia quasi aulico apparatu se exornarit, portarum fastigia theologicis sertis coronarit, descendat Rex gloriae et cum Patre veniens mansionem faciat apud eam.
97. Quo tanto hospite si se dignam praestiterit (qua est illius immensa clementia) deaurato vestitu quasi toga nuptiali, multiplici scientiarum circumdata varietate, speciosum hospitem, non ut hospitem iam, sed ut sponsum excipiet, a quo ne unquam dissolvatur dissolvi cupiet a populo suo, et domum patris sui, immo se ipsam oblita, in se ipsa cupiet mori ut vivat in sponso, in cuius conspectu preciosa profecto mors sanctorum eius: mors – inquam – illa, si dici mors debet plenitudo vitae, cuius meditationem esse studium philosophiae dixerunt sapientes.
98. Citemus et Mosen ipsum, a sacrosanctae et ineffabilis intelligentiae fontana plenitudine, unde angeli suo nectare inebriantur, paulo deminutum.
99. Audiemus venerandum iudicem nobis in deserta huius corporis solitudine habitantibus leges sic edicentem: “Qui polluti adhuc morali indigent, cum plebe habitent extra tabernaculum sub divo, quasi Thessali sacerdotes interim se expiantes.
100. Qui mores iam composuerunt, in sanctuarium recepti, nondum quidem sacra attractent, sed prius dialetico famulatu, seduli levitae philosophiae, sacris ministrent.
101. Tum ad ea et ipsi admissi, nunc superioris Dei regiae multicolorem, idest sydereum aulicum ornatum, nunc caeleste candelabrum septem luminibus distinctum, nunc pellicea elementa in philosophiae sacerdotio contemplentur, ut postremo, per theologicae sublimitatis merita in templi adyta recepti, nullo imaginis intercedente velo divinitatis gloria perfruantur.”
102. Haec nobis profecto Moses et imperat et imperando admonet, excitat, inhortatur, ut per philosophiam ad futuram caelestem gloriam, dum possumus, iter paremus nobis.
103. Verum enimvero, nec Mosayca tantum aut Christiana mysteria, sed priscorum quoque theologia harum, de quibus disputaturus accessi, liberalium artium et emolumenta nobis et dignitatem ostendit.
104. Quid enim aliud sibi volunt in Graecorum archanis observati initiatorum gradus, quibus primo, hercle, per illas quas diximus quasi februales artes, moralem et dialecticam, purificatis, contingebat mysteriorum susceptio?
105. Quae quid aliud esse potest quam secretioris per philosophiam naturae interpretatio?
106. Tum demum ita dispositis illa adveniebat ἐποπτεία, idest rerum divinarum per theologiae lumen inspectio.
107. Quis talibus sacris initiari non appetat?
108. Quis, humana omnia posthabens, fortunae contemnens bona, corporis negligens, deorum conviva adhuc degens in terris fieri non cupiat, et aeternitatis nectare madidus mortale animal immortalitatis munere donari?
109. Quis non Socraticis illis furoribus, a Platone in Phaedro decantatis, sic afflari non velit ut alarum pedumque remigio hinc, idest ex mundo, qui est positus in maligno, propere aufugiens, ad caelestem Hierusalem concitatissimo cursu feratur?
110. Agamur, patres, agamur Socraticis furoribus, qui extra mentem ita nos ponant, ut mentem nostram et nos ponant in Deo!
111. Agemur ab illis utique, si quid est in nobis ipsi prius egerimus; nam si et per moralem affectuum vires ita per debitas competentias ad modulos fuerint intentae, ut immota invicem consonent concinentia, et per dialecticam ratio ad numerum se progrediendo moverit, Musarum perciti furore celestem armoniam intimis auribus combibemus.
112. Tum Musarum dux Bacchus, in suis mysteriis (idest visibilibus naturae signis) invisibilia Dei philosophantibus nobis ostendens, inebriabit nos ab ubertate domus Dei, in qua tota si uti Moses erimus fideles, accedens sacratissima theologia duplici furore nos animabit.
113. Nam in illius eminentissimam sublimati speculam, inde et quae sunt, quae erunt quaeque fuerint insectili metientes aevo, et primaevam pulchritudinem suspicientes, illorum Phebei vates, huius alati erimus amatores, et ineffabili demum charitate quasi aestro perciti, quasi Saraphini ardentes extra nos positi, numine pleni, iam non ipsi nos, sed ille erimus ipse qui fecit nos.
114. Sacra Apollinis nomina, si quis eorum significantias et latitantia perscrutetur mysteria, satis ostendent esse deum illum non minus philosophum quam vatem.
115. Quod cum Ammonius satis sit exequutus, non est cur ego nunc aliter pertractem; sed subeant animum, patres, tria Delphica precepta oppido his necessaria, qui non ficti, sed veri Apollinis, qui illuminat omnem animam venientem in hunc mundum, sacrosanctum et augustissimum templum introgressuri sunt: videbitis nihil aliud illa nos admonere, quam ut tripartitam hanc, de qua est presens disputatio, philosophiam totis viribus amplectamur.
116. Illud enim μηδὲν ἄγαν, idest “nequid nimis,” virtutum omnium normam et regulam per mediocratits rationem, de qua moralis agit, recte praescribit.
117. Tum illud γνῶθι σεαυτόν, idest “cognosce te ipsum,” ad totius naturae nos cognitionem, cuius et interstitium et quasi cynnus natura est hominis, excitat et inhortatur.
118. Qui enim se cognoscit, in se omnia cognoscit, ut Zoroaster prius, deinde Plato in Alcibiade scripserunt.
119. Postremo, hac cognitione per naturalem philosophiam illuminati, iam Deo proximi, εἶ, idest “es” dicentes, theologica salutatione verum Apollinem familiariter proindeque foeliciter appellabimus.
120. Consulamus et Pythagoram sapientissimum, ob id praecipue sapientem, quod sapientis se dignum nomine nunquam existimavit.
121. Praecipiet primo ne super modium sedeamus, idest rationalem partem qua anima omnia metitur, iudicat et examinat, ociosa desidia ne remittentes amittamus, sed dialectica exercitatione ac regula et dirigamus assidue et excitemus.
122. Tum cavenda in primis duo nobis significabit, ne aut adversus solem emingamus, aut inter sacrificandum ungues resecemus.
123. Sed postquam per moralem et superfluentium voluptatum fluxas eminxerimus appetentias, et unguium presegmina quasi acutas irae prominentias et animorum aculeos resecuerimus, tum demum sacris, idest de quibus mentionem fecimus Bacchi mysteriis, interesse, et, cuius pater ac dux merito Sol dicitur, nostrae contemplationi vacare incipiamus.
124. Postremo ut gallum nutriamus nos admonebit, idest ut divinam animae nostrae partem divinarum rerum cognitione quasi solido cibo et caelesti ambrosia pascamus.
125. Hic est gallus cuius aspectum leo, idest omnis terrena potestas, formidat et reveretur.
126. Hic ille gallus cui datam esse intelligentiam apud Iob legimus.
127. Hoc gallo canente aberrans homo resipiscit.
128. Hic gallus in matutino crepusculo, matutinis astris Deum laudantibus, quotidie commodulatur.
129. Hunc gallum moriens Socrates, cum divinitatem animi sui divinitati maioris mundi copulaturum se speraret, Esculapio, idest animarum medico, iam extra omne morbi discrimen positus, debere se dixit.
130. Recenseamus et Chaldeorum monumenta: videbimus (si illis creditur) per easdem artes patere viam mortalibus ad felicitatem.
131. Scribunt interpretes Chaldei verbum fuisse Zoroastris alatam esse animam, cumque alae exciderent ferri illam praeceps in corpus, tum illis subcrescentibus ad superos revolare.
132. Percunctantibus eum discipulis quo pacto alis bene plumantibus volucres animos sortirentur: “Irrigetis – dixit – alas aquis vitae.”
133. Iterum sciscitantibus unde has aquas peterent, sic per parabolam (qui erat hominis mos) illis respondit: “Quatuor amnibus paradisus Dei abluitur et irrigatur; indidem vobis salutares aquas hauriatis.
134. Nomen ei qui ab aquilone […], quod ‘rectum’ denotat; ei qui ab occasu […], quod ‘expiationem’ significat; ei qui ab ortu […], quod ‘lumen’ sonat; ei qui a meridie […], quod nos ‘pietatem’ interpretari possumus.”
135. Advertite animum et diligenter considerate, patres, quid haec sibi velint Zoroastris dogmata: profecto nihil aliud nisi ut morali scientia, quasi undis Hibericis, oculorum sordes expiemus; dialectica, quasi boreali amussi, illorum aciem lineemus ad rectum; tum in naturali contemplatione debile adhuc veritatis lumen, quasi nascentis solis incunabula, pati assuescamus, ut tandem per theologicam pietatem et sacratissimum deorum cultum, quasi caelestes aquilae, meridiantis solis fulgidissimum iubar fortiter perferamus.
136. Hae illae forsan et a Davide decantatae primum, et ab Augustino explicatae latius, matutinae, meridianae et vespertinae cognitiones.
137. Haec est illa lux meridialis quae Saraphinos ad lineam inflammat et Cherubinos pariter illuminat.
138. Haec illa regio quam versus semper antiquus pater Abraam proficiscebatur.
139. Hic ille locus ubi immundis spiritibus locum non esse et Cabalistarum et Maurorum dogmata tradiderunt.
140. Et si secretiorum aliquid mysteriorum fas est vel sub enigmate in publicum proferre, postquam et repens e caelo casus nostri hominis caput vertigine damnavit et – iuxta Hieremiam – ingressa per fenestras mors iecur pectusque male affecit, Raphaelem coelestem medicum advocemus, qui nos morali et dialectica uti pharmacis salutaribus liberet.
141. Tum ad valetudinem bonam restitutos iam Dei robur Gabriel inhabitabit, qui nos per naturae ducens miracula, ubique Dei virtutem potestatemque indicans, tandem sacerdoti summo Michaeli nos tradet, qui sub stipendiis philosophiae emeritos theologiae sacerdotio quasi corona preciosi lapidis insignet.
142. Haec sunt, patres colendissimi, quae me ad philosophiae studium non animarunt modo, sed compulerunt.
143. Quae dicturus certe non eram, nisi his responderem qui philosophiae studium in principibus praesertim viris, aut his omnino qui mediocri fortuna vivunt, damnare solent.
144. Est enim iam hoc totum philosophari (quae est nostrae etatis infoelicitas!) in contemptum potius et contumeliam, quam in honorem et gloriam.
145. Ita invasit fere omnium mentes exitialis haec et monstrosa persuasio, aut nihil aut paucis philosophandum: quasi rerum causas, naturae vias, universi rationem, Dei consilia, caelorum terraeque mysteria pre oculis, pre manibus exploratissima habere nihil sit prorsus, nisi vel gratiam inde aucupari aliquam, vel lucrum sibi quis comparare possit.
146. Quin eo deventum est ut iam (proh dolor!) non existimentur sapientes nisi qui mercennarium faciunt studium sapientiae, ut sit videre pudicam Palladem, deorum munere inter homines diversantem, eiici, explodi, exsibilari, non habere qui amet, qui faveat, nisi ipsa, quasi prostans et praefloratae virginitatis accepta mercedula, male paratum aes in amatoris arculam referat.
147. Quae omnia ego non sine summo dolore et indignatione in huius temporis non principes, sed philosophos dico, qui ideo non esse philosophandum et credunt et praedicant, quod philosophis nulla merces, nulla sint praemia constituta; quasi non ostendant ipsi, hoc uno nomine, se non esse philosophos, quod cum tota eorum vita sit vel in questu, vel in ambitione posita, ipsam per se veritatis cognitionem non amplectuntur.
148. Dabo hoc mihi, et me ipsum hac ex parte laudare nihil erubescam, me nunquam alia de causa philosophatum nisi ut philosopharer, nec ex studiis meis, ex meis lucubrationibus mercedem ullam aut fructum vel sperasse alium vel quesiisse, quam animi cultum et a me semper plurimum desideratae veritatis cognitionem.
149. Cuius ita cupidus semper et amantissimus fui ut, relicta omni privatarum et publicarum rerum cura, contemplandi ocio totum me tradiderim, a quo nullae invidorum obtrectationes, nulla hostium sapientiae maledicta vel potuerunt ante hac, vel in posterum me deterrere poterunt.
150. Docuit me ipsa philosophia a propria potius conscientia quam ab externis pendere iuditiis, cogitareque semper non tam ne male audiam, quam ne quid male vel dicam ipse vel agam.
151. Equidem non eram nescius, patres colendissimi, futuram hanc ipsam meam disputationem quam vobis omnibus, qui bonis artibus favetis et augustissima vestra praesentia illam honestare voluistis, gratam atque iocundam, tam multis aliis gravem atque molestam; et scio non deesse qui inceptum meum et damnarint ante hac, et in praesentia multis nominibus damnent.
152. Ita consueverunt non pauciores, ne dicam plures, habere oblatratores quae bene sancteque aguntur ad virtutem, quam quae inique et perperam ad vitium.
153. Sunt autem qui totum hoc disputandi genus et hanc de litteris publice disceptandi institutionem non approbent, ad pompam potius ingenii et doctrinae ostentationem quam ad comparandam eruditionem esse illam asseverantes.
154. Sunt qui hoc quidem exercitationis genus non improbent, sed in me nullo modo probent, quod ego hac aetate, quartum scilicet et vigesimum modo natus annum, de sublimibus Christianae theologiae mysteriis, de altissimis philosophiae locis, de incognitis disciplinis, in celebratissima urbe, in amplissimo doctissimorum hominum consessu, in apostolico senatu disputationem proponere sim ausus.
155. Alii, hoc mihi dantes, quod disputem, id dare nolunt, quod de nongentis disputem questionibus, tam superfluo et ambitiose quam supra vires id factum calumniantes.
156. Horum ego obiectamentis et manus illico dedissem, si ita quam profiteor philosophia me edocuisset, et nunc, illa ita me docente, non responderem, si rixandi iurgandique proposito constitutam hanc inter nos disceptationem crederem.
157. Quare obtrectandi omne lacessendique propositum, et quem scribit Plato a divino semper abesse choro, a nostris quoque mentibus facessat livor, et an disputandum a me, an de tot etiam quaestionibus, amice incognoscamus.
158. Primum quidem ad eos, qui hunc publice disputandi morem calumniantur, multa non sum dicturus, quando haec culpa, si culpa censetur, non solum vobis omnibus, doctores excellentissimi, qui sepius hoc munere non sine summa et laude et gloria functi estis, sed Platoni, sed Aristoteli, sed probatissimis omnium etatum philosophis mecum est communis.
159. Quibus erat certissimum nihil ad consequendam quam querebant veritatis cognitionem sibi esse potius, quam ut essent in disputandi exercitatione frequentissimi.
160. Sicut enim per gymnasticam corporis vires firmiores fiunt, ita dubio procul in hac quasi litteraria palestra animi vires et fortiores longe et vegetiores evadunt.
161. Nec crediderim ego aut poetas aliud per decantata Palladis arma, aut Hebreos, cum ברזל, idest “ferrum,” שלהחכמים, idest “sapientum,” symbolum esse dicunt, significasse nobis, quam honestissima hoc genus certamina adipiscendae sapientiae oppido quam necessaria.
162. Quo forte fit ut et Caldei, in eius genesi qui philosophus sit futurus, illud desiderent, ut Mars Mercurium triquetro aspectu conspiciat, quasi si hos congressus, haec bella substuleris, somniculosa et dormitans futura sit omnis philosophia.
163. At vero cum his qui me huic provinciae imparem dicunt, difficilior est mihi ratio defensionis: nam si parem me dixero, forsitan immodesti et de se nimia sentientis, si imparem fatebor, temerarii et inconsulti notam videor subiturus.
164. Videte quas incidi angustias, quo loco sim constitutus, dum non possum sine culpa de me promittere quod non possum mox sine culpa non praestare.
165. Forte et illud Iob afferre possem, spiritum esse in omnibus, et cum Timotheo audire: “Nemo contemnat adolescentiam tuam.”
166. Sed ex mea verius hoc conscientia dixero, nihil esse in nobis magnum vel singulare; studiosum me forte et cupidum bonarum artium non inficiatus, docti tamen nomen mihi nec sumo nec arrogo.
167. Quare et quod tam grande humeris onus imposuerim, non fuit propterea quod mihi conscius nostrae infirmitatis non essem, sed quod sciebam hoc genus pugnis, idest litterariis, esse peculiare quod in eis lucrum est vinci.
168. Quo fit ut imbecillissimus quisque non detrectare modo, sed appetere ultro eas iure possit et debeat, quandoquidem qui succumbit beneficium a victore accipit, non iniuriam, quippe qui per eum et locupletior domum, idest doctior, et ad futuras pugnas redit instructior.
169. Hac spe animatus, ego infirmus miles cum fortissimis omnium strenuissimisque tam gravem pugnam decernere nihil sum veritus.
170. Quod tamen temere sit factum nec ne, rectius utique de eventu pugnae quam de nostra aetate potest quis iudicare.
171. Restat ut tertio loco his respondeam, qui numerosa propositarum rerum multitudine offenduntur, quasi hoc eorum humeris sederet onus, et non potius hic mihi soli quantuscumque est labor esset exanclandus.
172. Indecens profecto hoc et morosum nimis, velle alienae industriae modum ponere, et – ut inquit Cicero – in ea re quae eo melior quo maior, mediocritatem desiderare.
173. Omnino tam grandibus ausis erat necesse me vel succumbere vel satisfacere: si satisfacerem, non video cur quod in decem praestare questionibus est laudabile, in nongentis etiam praestitisse culpabile existimetur.
174. Si succumberem, habebunt ipsi, si me oderunt, unde accusarent, si amant, unde excusent: quoniam in re tam gravi, tam magna, tenui ingenio exiguaque doctrina adolescentem hominem defecisse, venia potius dignum erit quam accusatione.
175. Quin et iuxta poetam: “… si deficiant vires, audacia certe laus erit: in magnis et voluisse sat est.”
176. Quod si nostra aetate multi, Gorgiam Leontinum imitati, non modo de nongentis sed de omnibus etiam omnium artium questionibus soliti sunt, non sine laude, proponere disputationem, cur mihi non liceat, vel sine culpa, de multis quidem, sed tamen certis et determinatis disputare?
177. “At superfluum – inquiunt – hoc, et ambitiosum.”
178. Ego vero non superfluo modo, sed necessario factum hoc a me contendo; quod et si ipsi meam philosophandi rationem considerarent, inviti etiam fateantur plane necesse est.
179. Qui enim se cuipiam ex philosophorum familiis addixerunt, Thomae videlicet aut Scoto (qui nunc plurimum in manibus) faventes, possunt illi quidem vel in paucarum questionum discussione suae doctrinae periculum facere.
180. At ego ita me institui, ut, in nullius verba iuratus, me per omnes philosophiae magistros funderem, omnes scedas excuterem, omnes familias agnoscerem.
181. Quare, cum mihi de illis omnibus esset dicendum, ne, si privati dogmatis defensor reliqua posthabuissem, illi viderer obstrictus, non potuerunt, etiam si pauca de singulis proponerentur, non esse plurima quae simul de omnibus afferebantur.
182. Nec id in me quisquam damnet, quod me quocumque ferat tempestas, deferar hospes.
183. Fuit enim cum ab antiquis omnibus hoc observatum, ut, omne scriptorum genus evolventes, nullas quas possent commentationes illectas preterirent, tum maxime ab Aristotele, qui eam ob causam ἀναγνώστής, idest “lector,” a Platone nuncupabatur.
184. Et profecto angustae est mentis intra unam se Porticum aut Achademiam continuisse; nec potest ex omnibus sibi recte propriam selegisse, qui omnes prius familiaritates non agnoverit.
185. Adde quod in una quaque familia est aliquid insigne, quod non sit ei commune cum caeteris.
186. Atque ut a nostris, ad quos postremo philosophia pervenit, nunc exordiar, est in Ioanne Scoto vegetum quiddam atque discussum, in Thoma solidum et equabile, in Egidio tersum et exactum, in Francisco acre et acutum, in Alberto priscum, amplum et grande, in Henrico (ut mihi visum est) semper sublime et venerandum.
187. Est apud Arabes in Averroe firmum et inconcusum, in Avempace, in Alpharabio grave et meditatum, in Avicenna divinum atque Platonicum.
188. Est apud Graecos in universum quidem nitida, in primis et casta philosophia; apud Simplicium locuplex et copiosa, apud Themistium elegans et compendiaria, apud Alexandrum constans et docta, apud Theophrastum graviter elaborata, apud Ammonium enodis et gratiosa.
189. Et si ad Platonicos te converteris, ut paucos percenseam, in Porphirio rerum copia et multiiuga religione delectaberis, in Iamblico secretiorem philosophiam et barbarorum mysteria veneraberis; in Plotino privum quicquam non est quod admireris, qui se undique prebet admirandum, quem de divinis divine, de humanis longe supra hominem docta sermonis obliquitate loquentem sudantes Platonici vix intelligunt.
190. Pretereo magis novitios, Proclum Asiatica fertilitate luxuriantem, et qui ab eo fluxerunt, Hermiam, Damascium, Olympiodorum et complures alios, in quibus omnibus illud τὸ Θεῖον, idest “divinum,” peculiare Platonicorum simbolum elucet semper.
191. Accedit quod, si qua est heresis quae veriora incessat dogmata et bonas causas ingenii calumnia ludificetur, ea veritatem firmat, non infirmat, et velut motu quassatam flammam excitat, non extinguit.
192. Hac ego ratione motus, non unius modo (ut quibusdam placebat), sed omnigenae doctrinae placita in medium afferre volui, ut hac complurium sectarum collatione ac multifariae discussione philosophiae ille veritatis fulgor, cuius Plato meminit in epistolis, animis nostris quasi sol oriens ex alto clarius illucesceret.
193. Quid erat si Latinorum tantum, Alberti scilicet, Thomae, Scoti, Egidii, Francisci Henricique philosophia, obmissis Graecorum Arabumque philosophis, tractabatur, quando omnis sapientia a barbaris ad Graecos, a Graecis ad nos manavit?
194. Ita nostrates semper in philosophandi ratione peregrinis inventis stare et aliena excoluisse sibi duxerunt satis.
195. Quid erat cum Peripateticis egisse de naturalibus, nisi et Platonicorum accersebatur Achademia, quorum doctrina et de divinis semper inter omnes philosophias, teste Augustino, habita est sanctissima, et a me nunc primum, quod sciam (verbo absit invidia), post multa secula sub disputandi examen est in publicum allata?
196. Quid erat et aliorum quot quot erant tractasse opiniones, si, quasi ad sapientum symposium asymboli accedentes, nihil nos quod esset nostrum, nostro partum et elaboratum ingenio, afferebamus?
197. Profecto ingenerosum est (ut ait Seneca) sapere solum ex commentario et, quasi maiorum inventa nostrae industriae viam praecluserint, quasi in nobis effaeta sit vis naturae, nihil ex se parere quod veritatem, si non demonstret, saltem innuat vel de longinquo.
198. Quod si in agro colonus, in uxore maritus odit sterilitatem, certe tanto magis infecundam animam oderit illi complicita et associata divina mens, quanto inde nobilior longe proles desideratur.
199. Propterea non contentus ego, praeter communes doctrinas, multa de Mercurii Trismegisti prisca theologia, multa de Caldeorum, de Pythagorae disciplinis, multa de secretioribus Hebreorum addidisse mysteriis, plurima quoque per nos inventa et meditata de naturalibus et divinis rebus disputanda proposuimus.
200. Proposuimus primo Platonis Aristotelisque concordiam, a multis ante hac creditam, a nemine satis probatam.
201. Boetius, apud Latinos id se facturum pollicitus, non invenitur fecisse unquam quod semper facere voluit.
202. Simplicius, apud Graecos idem professus, utinam id tam praestaret quam pollicetur!
203. Scribit et Augustinus in Achademicis non defuisse plures qui subtilissimis suis disputationibus idem probare conati sint, Platonis scilicet et Aristotelis eandem esse philosophiam.
204. Ioannes item Grammaticus, cum dicat apud eos tantum dissidere Platonem ab Aristotele qui Platonis dicta non intelligunt, probandum tamen posteris hoc reliquit.
205. Addidimus autem et plures locos in quibus Scoti et Thomae, plures in quibus Averrois et Avicennae sententias, quae discordes existimantur, concordes esse nos asseveramus.
206. Secundo loco quae in philosophia cum Aristotelica tum Platonica excogitavimus nos, tum duo et septuaginta nova dogmata physica et metaphysica collocavimus, quae si quis teneat, poterit, nisi fallor (quod mihi erit mox manifestum), quamcumque de rebus naturalibus divinisque propositam questionem longe alia dissolvere ratione quam per eam edoceamur quae et legitur in scolis et ab huius evi doctoribus colitur philosophiam.
207. Nec tam admirari quis debet, patres, me in primis annis, in tenera etate, per quam vix licuit (ut iactant quidam) aliorum legere commentationes, novam afferre velle philosophiam, quam vel laudare illam si defenditur, vel damnare si reprobatur; et denique, cum nostra inventa haec nostrasque sint litteras iudicaturi, non auctoris annos, sed illorum merita potius vel demerita numerare.
208. Est autem, et praeter illam, alia quam nos attulimus nova per numeros philosophandi institutio, antiqua illa quidem et a priscis theologis, a Pythagora presertim, ab Aglaophemo, a Philolao, a Platone prioribusque Platonicis observata; sed quae hac tempestate, ut preclara alia, posteriorum incuria sic exolevit, ut vix vestigia ipsius ulla reperiantur.
209. Scribit Plato in Epinomide inter omnes liberales artes et scientias contemplatrices praecipuam maximeque divinam esse scientiam numerandi.
210. Quaerens item cur homo animal sapientissimum, respondet: “Quia numerare novit”; cuius sententiae et Aristoteles meminit in Problematis.
211. Scribit Abumasar verbum fuisse Avenzoar Babilonii eum omnia nosse, qui noverat numerare.
212. Quae vera esse nullo modo possunt, si per numerandi artem eam artem intellexerunt cuius nunc mercatores in primis sunt peritissimi; quod et Plato testatur, exerta nos admonens voce ne divinam hanc arithmeticam mercatoriam esse arithmeticam intelligamus.
213. Illam ergo arithmeticam, quae ita extollitur, cum mihi videar post multas lucubrationes exploratam habere, huiusce rei periculum facturus, ad quatuor et septuaginta questiones, quae inter physicas et divinas principales existimantur, responsurum per numeros publice me sum pollicitus.
214. Proposuimus et magica theoremata, in quibus duplicem esse magiam significavimus, quarum altera demonum tota opere et auctoritate constat, res medius fidius execranda et portentosa; altera nihil est aliud, cum bene exploratur, quam naturalis philosophiae absoluta consumatio.
215. Utriusque cum meminerint Greci, illam, magiae nullo modo nomine dignantes, γοητείαν nuncupant; hanc propria peculiarique appellatione μαγείαν, quasi perfectam summamque sapientiam, vocant.
216. Idem enim, ut ait Porphyrius, Persarum lingua “magus” sonat quod apud nos “divinorum interpres et cultor.”
217. Magna autem, immo maxima, patres, inter has artes disparilitas et dissimilitudo.
218. Illam non modo Christiana religio, sed omnes leges, omnis bene instituta respublica damnat et execratur; hanc omnes sapientes, omnes caelestium et divinarum rerum studiosae nationes approbant et amplectuntur.
219. Illa artium fraudulentissima, haec altior sanctiorque philosophia; illa irrita et vana, haec firma, fidelis et solida.
220. Illam quisquis coluit semper dissimulavit, quod in auctoris esset ignominiam et contumeliam; ex hac summa litterarum claritas gloriaque antiquitus et pene semper petita.
221. Illius nemo unquam studiosus fuit vir philosophus et cupidus discendi bonas artes; ad hanc Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Plato discendam navigavere, hanc predicarunt reversi, et in archanis precipuam habuerunt.
222. Illa, ut nullis rationibus, ita nec certis probatur auctoribus; haec, clarissimis quasi parentibus honestata, duos precipue habet auctores: Xamolsidem, quem imitatus est Abbaris Hyperboreus, et Zoroastrem, non quem forte creditis, sed illum Oromasi filium.
223. Utriusque magia quid sit Platonem si percontemur, respondebit in Alcibiade Zoroastris magiam non esse aliud quam divinorum scientiam, qua filios Persarum reges erudiebant, ut ad exemplar mundanae reipublicae suam ipsi regere rempublicam edocerentur; respondebit in Carmide magiam Xamolsidis esse animi medicinam, per quam scilicet animo temperantia, ut per illam corpori sanitas comparatur.
224. Horum vestigiis postea perstiterunt Carondas, Damigeron, Apollonius, Hostanes et Dardanus; perstitit Homerus, quem ut omnes alias sapientias, ita hanc quoque sub sui Ulixis erroribus dissimulasse in poetica nostra theologia aliquando probabimus; perstiterunt Eudoxus et Hermippus, perstiterunt fere omnes qui Pythagorica Platonicaque mysteria sunt perscrutati.
225. Ex iunioribus autem qui eam olfecerint tres reperio, Alchindum Arabem, Rogerium Baconem et Guilielmum Parisiensem.
226. Meminit et Plotinus, ubi naturae ministrum esse et non artificem magum demonstrat: hanc magiam probat asseveratque vir sapientissimus, alteram ita abhorrens ut, cum ad malorum demonum sacra vocaretur, rectius esse dixerit ad se illos quam se ad illos accedere.
227. Et merito quidem: ut enim illa obnoxium mancipatumque improbis potestatibus hominem reddit, ita haec illarum principem et dominum.
228. Illa denique nec artis nec scientiae sibi potest nomen vendicare; haec, altissimis plena mysteriis, profundissimam rerum secretissimarum contemplationem et demum totius naturae cognitionem complectitur.
229. Haec, intersparsas Dei beneficio et interseminatas mundo virtutes quasi de latebris evocans in lucem, non tam facit miranda, quam facienti naturae sedula famulatur.
230. Haec universi consensum, quem significantius Graeci συμπάθειαν dicunt, introrsum perscrutatius rimata, et mutuam naturarum cognationem habens perspectatam, nativas adhibens unicuique rei et suas illecebras, quae magorum ἴυγγες nominantur, in mundi recessibus, in naturae gremio, in promptuariis archanisque Dei latitantia miracula, quasi ipsa sit artifex, promit in publicum; et sicut agricola ulmos vitibus, ita magus terram caelo, idest inferiora superiorum dotibus virtutibusque maritat.
231. Quo fit ut quam illa prodigiosa et noxia, tam haec divina et salutaris appareat: ob hoc praecipue, quod illa hominem, Dei hostibus mancipans, avocat a Deo, haec in eam operum Dei admirationem excitat, quam propensa charitas, fides ac spes, certissime consequuntur.
232. Neque enim ad religionem, ad Dei cultum quicquam promovet magis quam assidua contemplatio mirabilium Dei, quae ut per hanc de qua agimus naturalem magiam bene exploraverimus, in opificis cultum amoremque ardentius animati, illud canere compellemur: “Pleni sunt caeli, plena est omnis terra maiestate gloriae tuae.”
233. Et haec satis de magia, de qua haec diximus, quod scio esse plures qui, sicut canes ignotos semper adlatrant, ita et ipsi saepe damnant oderuntque quae non intelligunt.
234. Venio nunc ad ea quae, ex antiquis Hebreorum mysteriis eruta, ad sacrosanctam et catholicam fidem confirmandam attuli; quae ne forte ab his, quibus sunt ignota, commentitiae nugae aut fabulae circumlatorum existimentur, volo intelligant omnes quae et qualia sint, unde petita, quibus et quam claris auctoribus confirmata, et quam reposita, quam divina, quam nostris hominibis ad propugnandam religionem contra Hebreorum importunas calumnias sint necessaria.
235. Scribunt non modo celebres Hebreorum doctores, sed ex nostris quoque Hesdras, Hilarius et Origenes, Mosen non legem modo, quam quinque exaratam libris posteris reliquit, sed secretiorem quoque et veram legis enarrationem in monte divinitus accepisse; preceptum autem ei a Deo ut legem quidem populo publicaret, legis interpretationem nec traderet litteris, nec invulgaret, sed ipse Iesu Nave tantum, tum ille aliis deinceps succedentibus sacerdotum primoribus, magna silentii religione revelaret.
236. Satis erat per simplicem historiam nunc Dei potentiam, nunc in improbos iram, in bonos clementiam, in omnes iustitiam agnoscere, et per divina salutariaque precepta ad bene beateque vivendum et cultum verae religionis institui.
237. At mysteria secretiora et sub cortice legis rudique verborum pretextu latitantia, altissimae divinitatis archana, plebi palam facere, quid erat aliud quam dare sanctum canibus et inter porcos spargere margaritas?
238. Ergo haec clam vulgo habere, perfectis communicanda (inter quos tantum sapientiam loqui se ait Paulus), non humani consilii, sed divini precepti fuit; quem morem antiqui philosophi sanctissime observarunt.
239. Pythagoras nihil scripsit nisi paucula quaedam, quae Damae filiae moriens commendavit.
240. Egyptiorum templis insculptae Sphinges hoc admonebant, ut mystica dogmata per enigmatum nodos a prophana multitudine inviolata custodirentur.
241. Plato, Dionysio quaedam de supremis scribens substantiis, “per enigmata – inquit – dicendum est, ne si epistola forte ad aliorum pervenerit manus, quae tibi scribimus ab aliis intelligantur.”
242. Aristoteles libros Metaphysicae, in quibus agit de divinis, editos esse et non editos dicebat.
243. Quid plura? Iesum Christum vitae magistrum asserit Origenes multa revelasse discipulis, quae illi, ne vulgo fierent comunia, scribere noluerunt.
244. Quod maxime confirmat Dionysius Areopagita, qui secretiora mysteria a nostrae religionis auctoribus ἐκ νοὸς εἰς νοῦν, διὰ μέσου λόγου, idest ex animo in animum, sine litteris, medio intercedente verbo ait fuisse transfusa.
245. Hoc eodem penitus modo cum ex Dei praecepto vera illa legis interpretatio Moisi deitus tradita revelaretur, dicta est Cabala, quod idem est apud Hebreos quod apud nos “receptio”; ob id scilicet, quod illam doctrinam non per litterarum monumenta, sed ordinariis revelationum successionibus alter ab altero quasi hereditario iure reciperet.
246. Verum postquam Hebrei, a Babilonica captivitate restituti per Cyrum et sub Zorobabel instaurato templo, ad reparandam legem animum appulerunt, Esdras, tunc ecclesiae praefectus, post emendatum Moseos librum, cum plane cognoscerent per exilia, cedes, fugas, captivitatem gentis Israeliticae institutum a maioribus morem tradendae per manus doctrinae servari non posse, futurumque ut sibi divinitus indulta celestis doctrinae archana perirent, quorum commentariis non intercedentibus durare diu memoria non poterat, constituit ut, convocatis qui tunc supererant sapientibus, afferret unusquisque in medium quae de mysteriis legis memoriter tenebat, adhibitisque notariis in septuaginta volumina (tot enim fere in sinedrio sapientes) redigerentur.
247. Qua de re ne mihi soli credatis, patres, audite Esdram ipsum sic loquentem: “Exactis quadraginta diebus loquutus est Altissimus dicens: ‘Priora quae scripsisti in palam pone, legant digni et indigni, novissimos autem septuaginta libros conservabis ut tradas eos sapientibus de populo tuo; in his enim est vena intellectus et sapientiae fons et scientiae flumen.’
248. Atque ita feci.”
249. Haec Esdras ad verbum.
250. Hi sunt libri scientiae Cabalae; in his libris merito Esdras venam intellectus, idest ineffabilem de supersubstantiali deitate theologiam, sapientiae fontem, idest de intelligibilibus angelicisque formis exactam metaphysicam, et scientiae flumen, idest de rebus naturalibus firmissimam philosophiam esse clara in primis voce pronuntiavit.
251. Hi libri Sixtus quartus Pontifex Maximus, qui hunc sub quo vivimus foeliciter Innocentium VIII proxime antecessit, maxima cura studioque curavit ut in publicam fidei nostrae utilitatem Latinis litteris mandarentur; iamque cum ille decessit, tres ex illis pervenerant ad Latinos.
252. Hi libri apud Hebreos hac tempestate tanta religione coluntur, ut neminem liceat nisi annos quadraginta natum illos attingere.
253. Hos ego libros non mediocri impensa mihi cum comparassem, summa diligentia indefessis laboribus cum perlegissem, vidi in illis (testis est Deus) religionem non tam Mosaycam, quam Christianam.
254. Ibi Trinitatis mysterium, ibi Verbi incarnatio, ibi Messiae divinitas; ibi de peccato originali, de illius per Christum expiatione, de caelesti Hyerusalem, de casu demonum, de ordinibus angelorum, de purgatoriis, de inferorum paenis eadem legi quae apud Paulum et Dionysium, apud Hieronymum et Augustinum quotidie legimus.
255. In his vero quae spectant ad philosophiam, Pythagoram prorsus audias et Platonem, quorum decreta ita sunt fidei Christianae affinia, ut Augustinus noster immensas Deo gratias agat quod ad eius manus pervenerint libri Platonicorum.
256. In plenum nulla est ferme de re nobis cum Hebreis controversia de qua ex libris Cabalistarum ita redargui convincique non possint, ut ne angulus quidem reliquus sit in quem se condant.
257. Cuius rei testem gravissimum habeo Antonium Cronicum, virum eruditissimum, qui suis auribus, cum apud eum essem in convivio, audivit Dactylum Hebreum peritum huius scientiae in Christianorum prorsus de Trinitate sententiam pedibus manibusque descendere.
258. Sed ut ad meae redeam disputationis capita percensenda, attulimus et nostram de interpretandis Orphei Zoroastrisque carminibus sententiam.
259. Orpheus apud Graecos ferme integer; Zoroaster apud eos mancus, apud Caldeos absolutior legitur: ambo priscae sapientiae crediti patres et auctores.
260. Nam, ut taceam de Zoroastre, cuius frequens apud Platonicos non sine summa semper veneratione est mentio, scribit Iamblicus Calcideus habuisse Pythagoram Orphycam theologiam tamquam exemplar ad quam ipse suam fingeret formaretque philosophiam.
261. Quin idcirco tantum dicta Pythagorae sacra nuncupari dicunt, quod ab Orphei fluxerint institutis; inde secreta de numeris doctrina et quicquid magnum sublimeque habuit Graeca philosophia ut a primo fonte manavit.
262. Sed (qui erat veterum mos theologorum) ita Orpheus suorum dogmatum mysteria fabularum intexit involucris et poetico velamento dissimulavit, ut si quis legat illius hymnos, nihil subesse credat praeter fabellas nugasque meracissimas.
263. Quod volui dixisse ut cognoscatur quis mihi labor, quae fuerit difficultas ex affectatis enigmatum syrpis, ex fabularum latebris latitantes eruere secretae philosophiae sensus, nulla praesertim in re tam gravi, tam abscondita inexplorataque adiuto aliorum interpretum opera et diligentia.
264. Et tamen oblatrarunt canes mei minutula quaedam et levia ad numeri ostentationem me accumulasse: quasi non omnes quae ambiguae maxime controversaeque sunt quaestiones, in quibus principales digladiantur achademiae, quasi non multa attulerim his ipsis, qui et mea carpunt et se credunt philosophorum principes, et incognita prorsus et intentata.
265. Quin ego tantum absum ab ea culpa, ut curaverim in quam paucissima potui capita cogere disputationem; quam si (ut consueverunt alii) partiri ipse in sua membra et lancinare voluissem, in innumerum profecto numerum excrevisset.
266. Et, ut taceam de caeteris, quis est qui nesciat unum dogma ex nongentis, quod scilicet de concilianda est Platonis Aristotelisque philosophia, potuisse me citra omnem affectatae numerositatis suspitionem in sexcenta, ne dicam plura, capita deduxisse, locos scilicet omnes in quibus dissidere alii, convenire ego illos existimo, particulatim enumerantem?
267. Sed certe (dicam enim, quamquam neque modeste neque ex ingenio meo; dicam tamen, quia dicere me invidi cogunt, cogunt obtrectatores) volui hoc meo congressu fidem facere non tam quod multa scirem, quam quod scirem quae multi nesciunt.
268. Quod ut vobis re ipsa, patres colendissimi, iam palam fiat, ut desiderium vestrum, doctores excellentissimi, quos paratos accinctosque expectare pugnam non sine magna voluptate conspicio, mea longius oratio non remoretur, quod foelix faustumque sit, quasi citante classico iam conseramus manus.

TRANSLATION

1. Most esteemed fathers,¹ I have read in the ancient texts of the Arabians² that when Abdallah the Saracen³ was questioned as to what on this world’s stage, so to speak, seemed to him most worthy of wonder, he replied that there is nothing to be seen more wonderful than man.⁴
2. This opinion is seconded by Mercury’s saying: “A great miracle, Asclepius, is man.”⁵
3. Still, when I considered the reasons behind these maxims,⁶ I was unsatisfied by the arguments put forward by many men to explain the excellence of human nature:⁷ that man is the intermediary between creatures, a companion of the higher beings, a king of the things beneath him; that, by the acuity of his senses, by the discernment of his reason and by the light of his intelligence he was the interpreter of nature;⁸ that man is the midpoint between fixed eternity and fleeting time, the bond (as the Persians say⁹) or rather the wedding-song of the world,¹⁰ and only slightly inferior, as David affirms,¹¹ to the angels.
4. These reasons are indeed great, but they are nonetheless not the principal ones. That is, they are not the main grounds on which man may rightfully claim for himself the privilege of the highest admiration.
5. Indeed, why then would we not find the angels themselves and the blessed choirs of heaven even more admirable?
6. At length, it seemed to me that I had come to understand why man is the most fortunate of beings and therefore worthy of all admiration, and what finally is the condition that befell him in the universal order, a condition to be envied not only by beasts but even by the stars and the intelligences dwelling beyond this world.¹²
7. A thing surpassing belief, and wondrous too!
8. And why not? Since, for this very reason, man is rightly called, and thought to be, a great miracle and a being worthy of all admiration.
9. But hear, fathers, exactly what this condition is and, while you listen benevolently, kindly indulge me in my endeavour.
10. In accordance with the laws of His mysterious wisdom, God the supreme Father and Architect had already fashioned this worldly home we behold, this most sacred temple of His divinity.
11. He had already adorned the supercelestial region with intelligences, enlivened the heavenly globes with eternal souls, and filled the excremental and filthy parts of the lower world with a multitude of forms of animal life.
12. But when the work was finished, the Craftsman¹³ still longed for there to be someone to ponder the meaning of such a magnificent achievement, to love its beauty and to marvel at its vastness.¹⁴
13. So, when everything was done (as Moses and Timaeus testify), He finally thought to bring forth man.¹⁵
14. But there was nothing among His archetypes from which He could mould a new progeny, nor was there anything in his storehouses that He might bestow upon His new son as an inheritance, nor was there among the seats of the world any place for this contemplator of the universe.
15. Every place was by then filled; all things had already been assigned to the highest, the middle, and the lowest orders.
16. But it was not in the nature of the Father’s power to fail, as if exhausted, in His final creation. It was not in the nature of His wisdom to hesitate, as if at a loss, when faced with a necessary task. Nor was it in the nature of His beneficent love to have one who would praise divine generosity in all other things be forced to find it blameworthy in regard to himself.
17. At length, the Master Creator decreed that the creature to whom He had been unable to give anything wholly his own should share in common whatever belonged to every other being.¹⁶
18. He therefore took man, this creature of indeterminate image,¹⁷ set him in the middle of the world,¹⁸ and said to him: “We have given you, Adam, no fixed seat or form of your own, no talent peculiar to you alone. This we have done so that whatever seat, whatever form, whatever talent you may judge desirable, these same may you have and possess according to your desire and judgment.
19. Once defined, the nature of all other beings is constrained within the laws We have prescribed for them.
20. But you, constrained by no limits, may determine your nature for yourself, according to your own free will, in whose hands We have placed you.
21. We have set you at the centre of the world so that from there you may more easily gaze upon whatever it contains.
22. We have made you neither of heaven nor of earth, neither mortal nor immortal,¹⁹ so that you may, as the free and extraordinary²⁰ shaper of yourself, fashion yourself in whatever form you prefer.
23. It will be in your power to degenerate into the lower forms of life, which are brutish. Alternatively, you shall have the power, in accordance with the judgment of your soul, to be reborn into the higher orders, those that are divine.”
24. O supreme liberality²¹ of God the Father, and supreme and wonderful happiness²² of man who is permitted to obtain what he desires and to be what he wills!
25. As soon as they are born, brutes bring with them from their mother’s womb,²³ as Lucilius says, all that they are going to possess.
26. The Intelligences have been, either from the beginning or soon thereafter,²⁴ what they are perpetually going to be throughout eternity.
27. The Father infused in man, at his birth, every sort of seed and all sprouts of every kind of life.²⁵
28. These seeds will grow and bear fruit in each man who sows them.
29. If he cultivates his vegetative seeds, he will become a plant. If he cultivates his sensitive seeds, he will become a brute animal. If he cultivates his rational seeds, he will become a heavenly being. If he cultivates his intellectual seeds, he will be an angel and a son of God.²⁶
30. And if he – being dissatisfied with the lot assigned to any other creature – gathers himself into the centre of his own unity, thus becoming a single spirit with God in the solitary darkness²⁷ of the Father, he, who had been placed above all things, will become superior to all things.
31. Who will not wonder at this chameleon of ours?²⁸
32. Or rather, who will admire any other being more?
33. Not without reason, Asclepius the Athenian²⁹ said that man was represented in the secret rites by Proteus because of his changing and metamorphous nature.³⁰
34. Hence the metamorphoses renowned among the Jews³¹ and the Pythagoreans.³²
35. Indeed, even the most secret Hebrew theology at one time transforms holy Enoch into an angel of divinity,³³ whom they call [מטטרון] Metatron,³⁴ and at other times it reshapes other men into other spirits. According to Pythagoreans, wicked men are deformed into brutes and, if Empedocles is to be believed, into plants as well.³⁵
36. Imitating them, Mohammed frequently remarked that he who strays from divine law becomes a brute.³⁶
37. And, indeed, rightly so. It is not in fact the bark that makes the plant, but dull and insentient nature; not the hide that makes a beast of burden, but a brutish and sensuous soul; not the circular body that makes the heavens, but straightforward reason; not the separation from the body that makes an angel, but its spiritual intelligence.³⁷
38. If you see someone who is a slave to his belly, crawling along the ground,³⁸ it is not a man you see, but a plant; if you see someone who is enslaved by his own senses, blinded by the empty hallucinations brought on by fantasy (as if by Calypso herself³⁹) and entranced by their bedevilling spells, it is a brute animal you see, not a man.
39. If you see a philosopher discerning things with right reason, worship him, for he is not an earthly creature, but divine.
40. If you see a pure contemplator, oblivious to his body and absorbed in the recesses of his mind, this is neither an earthly nor a heavenly creature: this is a still more eminent spirit, clothed in human flesh.⁴⁰
41. Who, then, will not admire man?
42. Not undeservedly, in Mosaic and Christian Scripture he is sometimes called “all flesh” and sometimes “every creature,” insofar as he fashions, shapes, and transforms his own appearance into that of all flesh,⁴¹ his own character into that of every creature.
43. Accordingly, Evanthes the Persian,⁴² writing on Chaldean theology, says man possesses no innate image, but many that are extrinsic and acquired.
44. Hence that saying of the Chaldeans [‏ברנש הֻ חי מטבצ משתנֶ ונדד ומחלפת גרמה כֹ וֹכ‎];⁴³ that is, “Man is by nature diverse, multiform and inconstant.”⁴⁴
45. Yet, why go on about this?
46. So that we may understand that we (having been born into this condition; that is, born with the possibility to become what we wish to be) must take the greatest care, lest people say of us that we, although held in high esteem, did not realize that we had turned ourselves into brutes and mindless beasts of burden. Let us instead recall the saying of Asaph the prophet: “You are all gods and sons of the most high.”⁴⁵ Thus may we avoid abusing the most indulgent liberality of the Father by transforming the free choice He bestowed upon us from something beneficial to something harmful.
47. Let our souls be pervaded by a certain holy and Junonian ambition so that we, not satisfied with what is mediocre, may aspire to what is loftiest, and may apply ourselves with all our strength in that pursuit, for we shall succeed if we are so minded.
48. Let us spurn the terrestrial, disdain the celestial;⁴⁶ disregarding all that is of this world, let us fly off to the otherworldly court that is near to the most eminent Divinity.⁴⁷
49. There, according to the sacred mysteries, seraphim, cherubim, and thrones occupy the first places;⁴⁸ let us emulate their dignity⁴⁹ and glory, unwilling as we are to yield to them and unable to endure second place.
50. If so we wish, we will not be inferior to them at all.
51. But in what way, or by doing what?
52. Let us consider what they do, what life they lead.
53. If we too live that life (and indeed we can), we will be equal to their lot.
54. The seraph burns with the fire of love; the cherub shines with the splendour of intelligence; the throne stands in the steadfastness of judgment.
55. Therefore, if we, being dedicated to an active life, undertake the care of inferior things with proper consideration of their worth, we will be strengthened by the steadfast solidity of the thrones.⁵⁰
56. If we, being unburdened by actions, meditate on the Creator in His creation and on creation in the Creator, we shall be engaged in the tranquillity of contemplation; we shall shine on all sides with cherubic light.⁵¹
57. If we burn for the Creator alone, with charity, with its all-consuming fire, we shall burst into flame in the likeness of the seraphim.⁵²
58. Upon the throne, that is, upon the just judge, sits God, the Judge of all time.
59. Over the cherub, that is, over the contemplator, He flies⁵³ and, as if brooding over him,⁵⁴ imbues him with warmth.
60. Indeed, the Spirit of the Lord is carried over the waters, the waters that, I say, are above the Heavens and that praise God in the pre-dawn hymns in the book of Job.⁵⁵
61. He who is a seraph, that is, a lover, is in God and God is in him; indeed, he and God are one.⁵⁶
62. Great is the power of the thrones that we may reach by judging; supreme is the height of the seraphim that we may reach by loving.
63. And yet in what manner can anyone either judge or love things unknown?⁵⁷
64. Moses loved the Lord Whom he saw. As a judge, Moses administered to the people the things that he earlier saw on the mountain as a contemplator.⁵⁸
65. Hence, the cherub, located in the middle position, uses his light both to prepare us for the seraphic fire and likewise to illuminate for us the judgment of the thrones.⁵⁹
66. The cherub is the bond of the Prime Minds, the order of Pallas, the overseer of contemplative philosophy.⁶⁰ First we must emulate him, thirst after him and to the same degree understand him in order that we may be raised from him to the heights of love and descend from him, well taught and prepared, to the duties of the active life.
67. And yet, if our life is to be modelled on the example of the cherub’s, it is worth our while to have before our eyes an idea of what life they lead and what it is like,⁶¹ what their duties are and what they do.
68. Inasmuch as we, who are flesh and have the smell of earthly things,⁶² are not permitted to follow their model of our own accord, let us consult the ancient Fathers, for they, to whom these things were common and well known, can provide us with certain and abundant evidence of their nature.
69. Let us inquire of the apostle Paul, the chosen vessel,⁶³ regarding the activities of the cherubic hosts whom he saw when raised up to the third heaven.
70. He will certainly answer, according to the interpretation of Dionysius, that they are cleansed, then illuminated, and afterward are perfected.⁶⁴
71. So too, emulating the cherubic life on Earth, curbing the drive of the emotions through moral science, dispersing the darkness of reason through dialectics (as if washing away the squalor of ignorance and vice), may we purge our souls, lest our emotions run amok or our reason imprudently run off course at any time.⁶⁵
72. Then may we imbue our purified and well-prepared soul with the light of natural philosophy so that afterward we may perfect it with the knowledge of things divine.⁶⁶
73. And lest we be satisfied by those of our own, let us also consult Jacob the patriarch, whose image shines, chiselled in the dwelling place of glory.⁶⁷
74. The most wise father, asleep in the lower world and awake in the higher, will illuminate us.⁶⁸ But he will teach us through a figure (in this way all things were known to them) that there is a ladder that stretches from the lowest earth to the highest Heavens and that is marked by a series of many rungs. God is at its height, and the contemplative angels move up and down it in turns.⁶⁹
75. Yet, if we are to carry out these things in our efforts to imitate the angelic life, who, I ask, will dare to touch the Ladder of God, either with unclean feet or with unwashed hands?
76. It is unlawful, as the mysteries have it, to touch the clean with the unclean.⁷⁰
77. But what feet are these? What hands?
78. To be sure, the foot of the soul is that part which is most despicable, that which leans upon matter as if on earthly soil; it is the faculty, I say, that feeds and nourishes; it is, I say, the kindling wood of lust and the teacher of sensual weakness.⁷¹
79. And why not call the hands of the soul its irascible part, that which fights on behalf of Desire,⁷² battles for it, and like a plunderer takes away in broad daylight and the public arena⁷³ the things that Desire, resting in the shade, then devours?⁷⁴
80. These hands, these feet, are the entire sensual part of the body in which resides the attraction that drags the soul back, as they say, obtorto collo.⁷⁵ Let us wash them in moral philosophy as in a flowing river lest we be held back from the ladder as wicked and unclean.⁷⁶
81. And yet not even this will be enough if we wish to be companions of the angels who hasten up and down Jacob’s ladder unless we are first well prepared and instructed to be promoted from step to step, to wheel away nowhere from the course of the ladder, and to face their movements to and fro.
82. Once we, inspired by the cherubic spirit, have reached this point through the art of speaking or of reasoning – that is, philosophizing according to the grades of Nature, penetrating the whole from the centre to the centre⁷⁷ – then shall we descend, dashing the one into many with Titanic force like Osiris, and ascend, drawing together with Phoebean might the many into one, like Osiris’s limbs,⁷⁸ until at last, resting in the bosom of the Father Who is at the top of the ladder, we shall be made perfect in theological bliss.⁷⁹
83. And let us inquire of just Job, who entered into a living pact with the God of life before he was brought into being,⁸⁰ as to what God the Highest desires among those tens of hundreds of thousands who are there present before Him.⁸¹ He will certainly answer “Peace,” in accordance with what is written in the book of Job: “He who makes peace in the heavens.”⁸²
84. And since the middle order interprets the precepts of the supreme order for the lower ones,⁸³ let now Empedocles the philosopher interpret for us the words of Job the theologian.
85. Empedocles, as his songs attest, presents to us through the symbols of strife and friendship, or of war and peace, the dual nature that is set in our souls: one of them lifts us upwards to the heavens and the other drags us down into the depths.⁸⁴
86. In these songs, he deplores being tossed upon the seas, driven by conflict and discord like a madman and banished from the gods.⁸⁵
87. Manifold indeed, O fathers, is the discord in us; we have grave internal, more than civil, wars in our home.⁸⁶
88. They are such that, if we desire them not, if we yearn after that peace which will lift us up and set us among God’s most exalted ones, only philosophy will be able to still the troubles within us and bring us calm.
89. If our man⁸⁷ would just seek a truce from his enemies, moral philosophy will beat down the unbridled stampede of the manifold beast and the aggression, ire, and arrogance of the lion.⁸⁸ Then, if we yearn right-mindedly for the safety of perpetual peace for ourselves, it will come and liberally satisfy our desires; indeed, both beasts having been sacrificed like a stuck sow, it will ratify an everlasting pact of the most holy peace between the flesh and the spirit.⁸⁹
90. Dialectics will calm the tumults of reason agitated and tossed about between the contradictions of speech and the captiousness of syllogisms.
91. Natural philosophy will allay the differences of opinion and disagreements that vex, perplex, and afflict our restless soul from all sides.
92. But it will bring harmony in such a way as to remind us that nature is the offspring of war, as Heraclitus said, and is therefore called “strife” by Homer.⁹⁰ Thus, it is said that in philosophy true rest and stable peace cannot reveal themselves to us alone, that this is the duty and privilege of its mistress; that is, of the most holy Theology.⁹¹
93. She will show us the way to this peace and like a companion will lead us. Seeing us hurrying along from afar, she will call out, “Come to me, you who exert yourselves in vain; come and I will restore you; come to me and I will give you that peace which the world and nature cannot give to you.”⁹²
94. So gently called, so kindly invited, we will then fly away into the embrace of the most blessed Mother like terrestrial Mercuries with winged feet⁹³ and will rejoice in the longed-for peace.⁹⁴ This is that most holy peace, the indissoluble bond, the harmonious friendship in which all souls, in one mind (a mind that is above all minds) are not only in agreement but, indeed, in a certain ineffable way, inwardly become one.⁹⁵
95. This is the friendship that the Pythagoreans call the end of all philosophy,⁹⁶ that peace which God makes in His heavens, which the angels who came down to earth announced to men of good will so that these men would, ascending to heaven, be transformed by it into angels.⁹⁷
96. Let us desire this peace for our friends, for our times; let us desire it for whatever home we enter.⁹⁸ Let us desire it for our soul so that in her⁹⁹ may be made a house of the Lord, so that, after casting off her impurities through moral philosophy and dialectics, our soul may adorn herself with multifaceted philosophy, as if with royal magnificence, and so that she may crown the heights of her doors with the garlands of theology. And let us desire this peace for our soul so that the King of Glory¹⁰⁰ may descend at last, together with the Father, to make a home in her.¹⁰¹
97. If our soul shows herself to be worthy of such a Guest – for His Clemency is immense¹⁰² – she (clad in gold, as in a wedding toga, and surrounded by a diverse variety of sciences¹⁰³) will receive her handsome Guest not merely as a Guest but as a Bridegroom.¹⁰⁴ So as not to be separated from Him, she will wish to be separated from her people. Having forgotten her own father’s home – indeed, having forgotten herself – she will wish to die in herself so that she may live in her Spouse, in Whose sight the death of His saints is truly precious.¹⁰⁵ This is the death, I say (if one must call that plenitude of life death), whose contemplation is, according to the sages, the study of philosophy.¹⁰⁶
98. Let us take as an example Moses, who is himself but a bit inferior to the fountain-like fullness of sacrosanct and ineffable intelligence whose nectar inebriates the angels.¹⁰⁷
99. We will hear the venerable Judge thus declare His laws to us who live in the empty solitude of this body:¹⁰⁸ “Let those who are unclean and as yet in need of moral philosophy dwell with the masses outside the tabernacle in the open air while they purify themselves like the priests of Thessaly.¹⁰⁹
100. Let those who have already put their behaviour in order and have been received into the sanctuary not yet lay hands upon the sacred things, but first, in the service of dialectics, let them serve the holy things of philosophy like diligent Levites.
101. Once they are allowed access to the holy things in the priesthood of philosophy, let them contemplate the multicoloured aspect of the higher kingdom of God; that is, the divine, princely decoration, as well as the celestial candelabra adorned with seven lights.¹¹⁰ Let them behold the skins so that they, permitted at last into the recesses of the temple¹¹¹ through the merits of theological sublimity, may rejoice in the glory of the Divinity without any veil of a likeness coming in between.”¹¹²
102. These things Moses truly commands of us and in commanding instructs, incites, and encourages so that through philosophy we may prepare for ourselves, while we are able, the path to the future celestial glory.¹¹³
103. In fact, however, not only the Mosaic and Christian mysteries¹¹⁴ but also the theology of the ancients¹¹⁵ shows us the dignity and value of the liberal arts, which I came to discuss.
104. For at what else, by Hercules!¹¹⁶ was the observance of the different degrees of initiation in Greek mysteries aimed? Only after having been purified through moral philosophy and dialectics,¹¹⁷ those arts that we might call expiatory, could the initiates gain entrance to the mysteries.¹¹⁸
105. And what else can such an initiation possibly signify if not an understanding, achieved through philosophy, of nature’s most mysterious things?
106. Only then did that ἐποπτεία,¹¹⁹ the intimate vision of divine things by the light of theology, come to those who were so disposed.
107. Who would not yearn to be initiated into such sacred rites?
108. Who, leaving behind all human concerns, scorning the goods of fortune and pleasures of the body, would not wish to become a guest at the table of the gods while still alive on earth¹²⁰ and, inebriated by the nectar of eternity, to receive, though still a mortal creature, the gift of immortality?¹²¹
109. Who would not wish to be so inspired by those Socratic frenzies, which Plato celebrates in the Phaedrus,¹²² that he is whisked away to the heavenly Jerusalem, soaring from here – that is, from this world set on evil¹²³ – with oarlike strokes of wings and feet?¹²⁴
110. Let us be led away, fathers, let us be led away by the Socratic frenzies that will so lift us beyond our minds¹²⁵ as to put our mind and ourselves in God!
111. They will surely lead us away – but only once we ourselves have taken control of what is ours. If, through moral philosophy, the forces of our passions have been guided correctly toward their proper ends (in such a way that they produce together a lasting harmony¹²⁶) and if, through dialectics, our reason has moved along at the proper pace, only then, stirred by the frenzy of the Muses,¹²⁷ shall we drink in that heavenly harmony with our inmost hearing.
112. Then, through his mysteries¹²⁸ (that is, through the visible signs of nature), Bacchus, the leader of the Muses,¹²⁹ will show the invisible things of God¹³⁰ to those of us who pursue philosophy and will make us drunk with the abundance of God’s house;¹³¹ and if we, like Moses, prove faithful in all God’s house,¹³² most sacred Theology shall draw close to us, animating us with a twofold frenzy.
113. For, raised to her most eminent heights, and thence comparing to indivisible eternity all things that are and shall be and have been, we shall be the Phoebean seers of those things;¹³³ and, admiring that primeval beauty, we shall become its winged lovers.¹³⁴ And at last, roused by ineffable love as if by a frenzy,¹³⁵ and borne outside ourselves like ardent seraphim, filled with the godhead,¹³⁶ we shall no longer be ourselves, but He Himself Who made us.¹³⁷
114. The sacred names of Apollo, if anyone investigates their meanings and hidden mysteries, sufficiently show that God is, no less than a seer, a philosopher.¹³⁸
115. But since Ammonius¹³⁹ has amply examined this matter, there is no reason for me to treat it further. Instead, fathers, let us call to mind the three Delphic precepts,¹⁴⁰ which are absolutely necessary to those who are to enter the most holy and august temple, not of the false but of the true Apollo, who illuminates every soul that comes into this world;¹⁴¹ you will realize that they exhort us to do nothing other than embrace with all our strength the tripartite philosophy that we now discuss.
116. For the famous maxim μηδὲν ἄγαν (that is, “nothing too much”)¹⁴² rightly prescribes as rule and norm for every virtue the criterion of the “mean,” of which moral philosophy speaks.
117. Then the maxim γνῶθι σεαυτόν (that is, “know thyself”)¹⁴³ urges and exhorts us to the knowledge of all nature, of which the nature of man is the intermediary and, so to speak, the mixture.¹⁴⁴
118. For he who knows himself in himself knows all things, as was first written by Zoroaster and later by Plato in the Alcibiades.¹⁴⁵
119. Finally, once natural philosophy has enlightened us with this knowledge, we, being very close to God and saying εἶ (that is, “you are”),¹⁴⁶ shall address by a theological salutation the true Apollo on intimate and likewise blissful terms.
120. But let us also consult the exceedingly wise Pythagoras,¹⁴⁷ wise precisely because he never deemed himself worthy of that name.¹⁴⁸
121. He will first advise us “not to sit on a bushel”¹⁴⁹ – that is, not to lose that rational faculty through which the soul measures, judges, and considers all things – by abandoning it to sloth and inaction; rather, he will advise us by the exercise and the rule of dialectics to direct and to stimulate that faculty assiduously.
122. Then he will point out to us two things to be avoided above all: that is, making water facing the sun and trimming our nails while offering sacrifice.¹⁵⁰
123. But after we have urinated away the dissolute appetites of our overflowing pleasures through moral philosophy and pared away, like nail clippings, the sharp points of wrath and the spines of animosity,¹⁵¹ only then shall we finally begin to take part in the sacred rites, that is, in the abovementioned mysteries of Bacchus, and to dedicate ourselves to that contemplation of which the sun is rightly called the father and guide.¹⁵²
124. Finally Pythagoras will exhort us “to feed the cock”¹⁵³ – that is, to nourish the divine part of our soul¹⁵⁴ – with the knowledge of divine things, as if with solid food and heavenly ambrosia.¹⁵⁵
125. This is the cock whose sight fills the lion – that is, all earthly power – with fear and awe.¹⁵⁶
126. This is the cock to whom, as we read in Job, intelligence was given.¹⁵⁷
127. When this cock crows, the erring man comes to his senses.¹⁵⁸
128. In the dawn twilight, this cock sings each day with the morning stars in praise of God.¹⁵⁹
129. This is the cock that the dying Socrates, when – now out of danger of all bodily illness – he was hoping to join the divine part of his soul to the divinity of the greater world,¹⁶⁰ said he owed to Aesculapius; that is, to the physician of souls.¹⁶¹
130. But let us also review the writings of the Chaldeans,¹⁶² and we shall see (if they are trustworthy) that it is by these same arts that the road to happiness is made accessible to mortals.
131. The Chaldean interpreters write that it was a saying of Zoroaster’s that the soul is winged and, when its wings fall off, it plummets into the body;¹⁶³ but once the wings have regrown, it flies back to heaven.¹⁶⁴
132. When his disciples asked him how they too might obtain souls with well-plumed wings and the ability to fly, he replied: “Soak them well in the waters of life.”
133. And when they asked him where they might look for such waters, he answered them with a parable (as was his custom): “God’s paradise is irrigated and cleansed by four rivers.¹⁶⁵ From these you may draw the waters that will save you.
134. The name of the river that flows from the north is […], which means the right; that which flows from the west is named […], which means expiation; that which comes from the east is named […], that is, light; while that from the south is […], which may be translated as piety.”¹⁶⁶
135. Now consider carefully and with your full attention, fathers, what these doctrines of Zoroaster represent. They surely mean nothing other than to induce us to wash away with moral philosophy, as in the Iberian waves, the filth from our eyes, and to straighten our gaze by dialectics, as if by the northern line.¹⁶⁷ Then we should accustom our eyes, in the contemplation of nature, to endure the still feeble light of truth, like the first rays of the rising sun, so that through theological piety and the most holy worship of the gods, we finally become able to endure, like heavenly eagles, the dazzling splendour of the midday sun.¹⁶⁸
136. These are, perhaps, those celebrated morning, midday, and evening thoughts first sung by David and then given a wider explanation by Augustine.¹⁶⁹
137. This is the noonday light that squarely enflames the seraphim and equally illuminates the cherubim.
138. This is the region toward which our ancient father Abraham was ever advancing.¹⁷⁰
139. This is the place where, according to the doctrines of the cabalists and the Moors, there is no place for unclean spirits.¹⁷¹
140. And, if it may be permitted, even in the form of a riddle, to bring anything at all of the most hidden mysteries into the open¹⁷² (inasmuch as the sudden fall from heaven has condemned the head of our man¹⁷³ to dizziness and, according to Jeremiah, death has come in through the windows to smite our livers and breasts¹⁷⁴), let us call upon Raphael,¹⁷⁵ the heavenly physician, to set us free with moral philosophy and dialectics, as if with healing drugs.
141. Then, once we have been restored to health, Gabriel, the strength of God,¹⁷⁶ will abide in us and, leading us through the marvels of nature and showing us everywhere the merit and the power of God, he will finally deliver us to Michael the high priest, who will in turn bestow upon us, who will have completed our service to philosophy, the insignia of theological priesthood,¹⁷⁷ as if a crown of precious stones.¹⁷⁸
142. These are the reasons, most reverend fathers, that have not only encouraged me but even thrust upon me the duty of studying philosophy.
143. And I would certainly not elaborate on them if I were not compelled to respond to those who are accustomed to condemning the study of philosophy, especially in men of high rank or, even more generally, in those of a middling fortune.¹⁷⁹
144. For philosophizing as a whole (and this is the misfortune of our age!) is now derided and disparaged, instead of being honoured and glorified.¹⁸⁰
145. Thus, nearly everyone’s mind has been invaded by the ruinous and monstrous conviction that either no one or only a very few may study philosophy,¹⁸¹ as if having before our eyes and at our fingertips the causes of things, the ways of nature, the logic of the universe, the divine plan, and the mysteries of Heaven and Earth¹⁸² were of no value whatsoever unless accompanied by the possibility of garnering some favour or making a profit.
146. Indeed, it has now reached the point (what sorrow!) that only those who reduce the study of wisdom¹⁸³ to a business¹⁸⁴ are considered wise. It is like seeing chaste Pallas,¹⁸⁵ who dwells among men out of the generosity of the gods, rejected, hooted off and hissed at, with no one to love or protect her, lest she, like a prostitute who accepts a pittance for her deflowered virginity, deposit the ill-earned profit into her lover’s money chest.¹⁸⁶
147. And I say all these things (not without the deepest grief and indignation) not against the lords of our times but against the philosophers who believe and openly declare that no one should pursue philosophy if only because there is no market for philosophers, no remuneration given to them, as if they did not reveal in this very word¹⁸⁷ that they are not true philosophers. Hence, insofar as their whole life has been dedicated to moneymaking and ambition, they are incapable of embracing the knowledge of truth for its own sake.
148. This much shall I grant myself (and I shall not blush a bit for self-praise in this regard): that I have never pursued philosophy for any other reason than for the sake of being a philosopher, nor have I ever hoped for or sought from my studies, from my queries, any reward or fruit beyond the nourishment of my mind and the knowledge of the truth, something I have always very greatly desired.
149. And I have always been so avid for it and so enamoured of it that, setting aside all private and public concerns,¹⁸⁸ I devoted my whole self to the leisure of contemplation,¹⁸⁹ from which no calumny of the envious, no slander of the enemies of wisdom, has thus far managed to distract me, nor will it in the future.
150. Philosophy herself has taught me to rely upon my own conscience rather than upon the opinions of others, and always to be careful, not so much that people do not speak badly of me as, rather, that I not say or do anything that is in itself bad.¹⁹⁰
151. In fact, most reverend fathers, I was not unaware that this proposed debate of mine would be just as welcome and enjoyable to all of you who promote the good arts and have honoured this discussion with your most august presence as, on the contrary, it would be bothersome and unpleasant to many others. I furthermore realize both that there has been no lack of men who criticized my undertaking from the outset and that they still continue to do so for a variety of reasons.
152. In truth, endeavours directed sincerely and righteously toward the attainment of virtue have always faced no fewer (indeed, often more) hecklers¹⁹¹ than those directed sinfully and wrongly toward vice.
153. There are, admittedly, some who frown upon both this style of debate and the very institution of publicly disputing matters of learning. They claim that such discussions are better suited to the flaunting of wit and the display of erudition than to the acquisition of knowledge.
154. There are also others who, though not critical of this kind of exercise in itself, entirely disapprove of it in me who, born just twenty-four years ago, have at my age dared to propose a discussion on the sublime mysteries of Christian theology, on the most profound questions of philosophy, and on unexplored fields of knowledge, all in such a famous city, before a vast assembly of learned men and in the presence of the apostolic senate.
155. Still others, although they allow me the right to debate, do not wish to grant me the permission to dispute nine hundred theses, for they wrongfully consider the task and my desire to participate in it to be as superfluous and presumptuous as it is beyond the reach of my intellect.
156. I would have readily given in to their objections had I been so taught by the philosophy that I profess; nor would I now attempt to respond to them, even with the guidance of philosophy, if I believed that this debate among us had been opened with the purpose of fighting and quarrelling.
157. Therefore, let us rid from our minds any intention to disparage and disquiet, as well as the ill will that Plato assures us is absent from the divine chorus.¹⁹² Let us instead amiably consider both whether I am to begin this discussion and whether I should entertain so large a number of theses.¹⁹³
158. First, with regard to those who maliciously criticize this use of public disputation, I shall say very little, since this blunder, if we must call it so, has been committed on numerous occasions not only by me and by all of you, most eminent doctors, who have engaged quite often in it (and not without high honour and praise), but also by Plato, Aristotle, and all the most revered philosophers of every age.¹⁹⁴
159. These men were certain that, in order to achieve the knowledge for which they searched, nothing was more beneficial than wholehearted engagement in the practice of debate.
160. In fact, just as the body’s muscles become robust through gymnastics, undoubtedly so too, in this literary gymnasium of sorts,¹⁹⁵ do the forces of the mind become far firmer and more vigorous.
161. Nor would I believe that the poets, in their singing of the arms of Pallas, and the Hebrews in saying that ברזל [barzel], “iron,”¹⁹⁶ is the symbol שלהחכמים [shel-ha-hḥakhamim], “of wise men,” can mean nothing other than that this honourable pursuit of public debate is absolutely essential to the attainment of wisdom.
162. Perhaps this is why the Chaldeans hope to see in the horoscope of one who is to become a philosopher¹⁹⁷ that Mars faces Mercury from three separate angles;¹⁹⁸ it is almost as if all philosophy would become sluggish and drowsy were it not for the existence of these conflicts and debates.
163. It is more difficult for me, though, to defend myself against those who pronounce me unequal to this undertaking. If I in fact declare myself equal to it, it seems I shall be accused of immodesty and of having an excessively high opinion of myself. If, instead, I admit that I am unequal to it, I shall be charged with recklessness and imprudence.
164. See what difficulties I face,¹⁹⁹ what task awaits me, since I cannot blamelessly promise about myself something I must then fulfil without blame.
165. I can refer, perhaps, to Job’s famous saying²⁰⁰ that the spirit exists in all men, and find comfort in what Timothy was told: “Let no man despise thy young age.”²⁰¹
166. To speak, though, from my own conscience, I could say with all sincerity that there is nothing great or singular about me. While I strongly uphold my own eager commitment to the good arts,²⁰² I do not assume or expect the title of scholar.²⁰³
167. Thus, though I have taken a great burden upon my shoulders,²⁰⁴ it was most certainly not because I am unaware of my weaknesses; rather, I recognize that in this particular kind of clash – that is, one of a literary nature – there is profit in defeat.
168. Consequently, those who are weakest²⁰⁵ should, rather than disparaging such contests, have the right, indeed the obligation, voluntarily to seek them out. He who has been defeated receives not an injury from the winner but an advantage, for, thanks to him, he returns home richer; that is, wiser and better equipped for future contests.
169. Though I am but a weak soldier, I am nonetheless enlivened by this hope, and I have no fear of combat in so difficult a battle against the strongest and most vigorous adversaries.²⁰⁶
170. Whether or not this initiative was reckless will be best decided not from my age but from the final outcome of the battle.
171. It remains in the third place²⁰⁷ for me to respond to those who take offence at the very large number of my propositions, as if this burden lay on their shoulders and it were not instead up to me alone to support its weight, no matter how great.
172. To be sure, it is unseemly and exceedingly patronizing to wish to set limits to another’s efforts and, as Cicero says, to desire moderation in a matter where the greater is the better.²⁰⁸
173. In undertaking so great a venture, it was inevitable that I either fail or succeed. If I should succeed, I do not see why what is praiseworthy to do for ten theses should be considered blameworthy to do for nine hundred.
174. If I should fail, they will have grounds for accusing me if they hate me – and for excusing me if they love me. Indeed, a young man who has failed through lack of intelligence or want of learning in so serious and great an undertaking will certainly be more worthy of forgiveness than of blame.
175. Indeed, according to the poet: “If strength fails, audacity will surely be praised; and in great endeavours, it is enough to have willed.”²⁰⁹
176. And if many in our age, imitating Gorgias of Leontini,²¹⁰ have been accustomed, not without praise, to propose a disputation not merely on nine hundred questions but on all questions related to all arts,²¹¹ why should I not be allowed to engage without blame in debate on questions that, though indeed numerous, are at least precise and determined?
177. But they say this is needless and audacious.
178. Yet I contend that I did this not needlessly but out of necessity, and if they should consider my philosophical method, they must admit, albeit reluctantly, that it is clearly necessary.
179. This is because those who have devoted themselves to any one of the schools of philosophy, siding for instance with Thomas²¹² or with Scotus,²¹³ who are now most in fashion, can surely put their doctrines to the test in the discussion of but a few questions.
180. As for myself, however, I have resolved – in order not to swear by the words of another²¹⁴ – to pore over all masters of philosophy, to examine every page, and to become acquainted with all schools.²¹⁵
181. Therefore, since I was to speak about all of these doctrines (lest I seem committed to advocating one in particular as a result of having neglected the others), it was impossible for there not to be very many questions concerning all of them together, even if only a few questions were proposed in regard to each.²¹⁶
182. Nor should anyone condemn me on this account, for “wherever the tempest carries me, there I am brought as a guest.”²¹⁷
183. For it was a rule observed by all the ancients in studying every kind of writer never to pass over any commentaries they were able to read, and this is especially true for Aristotle, who for this reason was called by Plato ἀναγνώστης; that is, “the reader.”²¹⁸
184. And confining oneself within a single Porch²¹⁹ or Academy²²⁰ certainly does show narrowness of mind. Nor can anyone rightly choose his own doctrine from them all unless he has first made himself familiar with each of them.²²¹
185. In addition, there is in each school something distinctive that is not shared in common with any other.
186. And now, to begin with our own,²²² to whom philosophy came last, we find in John [Duns] Scotus²²³ something lively and meticulous, in Thomas [Aquinas]²²⁴ a balanced solidity, in Giles [of Rome]²²⁵ a neat precision, in Francis [of Meyronnes]²²⁶ a penetrating acuteness, in Albert [the Great]²²⁷ an ancient and grand breadth, in Henry [of Ghent],²²⁸ as it has seemed to me, a constant and venerable solemnity.²²⁹
187. Among the Arabs,²³⁰ we find in Averroes²³¹ an unshaken firmness, in Avempace,²³² as in Al-Farabi,²³³ a thoughtful seriousness, in Avicenna²³⁴ a divine Platonic sublimity.
188. Among the Greeks,²³⁵ philosophy is certainly limpid in general and pure in particular; in Simplicius²³⁶ it is rich and copious, in Themistius²³⁷ elegant and compendious, in Alexander [of Aphrodisias]²³⁸ learned and self-consistent, in Theophrastus²³⁹ seriously worked out, in Ammonius²⁴⁰ smooth and agreeable.
189. And if you turn to the Platonists,²⁴¹ to mention but a few, in Porphyry²⁴² you will be pleased by the wealth of his topics and the complexity of his religion; in Iamblichus²⁴³ you will be awed by an occult philosophy and the mysteries of the barbarians; in Plotinus²⁴⁴ there is no one thing in particular for you to admire, for he offers himself to admiration in every part. Even the Platonists themselves struggle to understand his wisely allusive discourse when he speaks divinely of things divine and when he speaks of human things in a way that far surpasses humanity.
190. I shall pass over the more recent ones, such as Proclus,²⁴⁵ who abounds in Asian fecundity, and those who stem from him, Hermias,²⁴⁶ Damascius,²⁴⁷ Olympiodorus,²⁴⁸ and many others, in all of whom there always shines forth that τὸ Θεῖον – that is, that divine something which is the distinctive mark of the Platonists.
191. One should also add that when some school attacks the more established truths and derisively slanders valid arguments of reason, it strengthens rather than weakens the truth, which – like a flame that is stirred by agitation – is thus enkindled rather than extinguished.²⁴⁹
192. Spurred on by this reasoning, I wished to bring to light the opinions not only of a single doctrine (as some would have liked) but of every school of thought, so that, through the comparison of many schools and the discussion of several philosophies, that “effulgence of truth” which Plato mentions in his letters might more intensely illuminate our minds, like the sun rising from the deep.²⁵⁰
193. Inasmuch as all wisdom has flowed from the barbarians to the Greeks and from the Greeks to us, what would have been the point of dealing only with the philosophy of the Latins – that is, of Albert, Thomas, Scotus, Giles, Francis, and Henry – while leaving the Greek and Arab philosophers aside?²⁵¹
194. Thus, our authors have always seen fit, in matters of philosophy, to ground themselves in foreign discoveries and to perfect the doctrines of others.²⁵²
195. What point would there have been in dealing with natural things alongside the Peripatetics without also invoking the Platonic Academy? Their doctrine on divine things, as Augustine shows,²⁵³ has always been considered the most sacred of all philosophies; this is a doctrine that, as far as I know, is now being brought forward by me for the first time after many centuries (may my words inspire no envy) to be submitted for public debate.
196. And what would have been the point of dealing with the opinions of others, no matter how many there were, if I – like he who comes to the banquet of the wise without contributing anything²⁵⁴ – were to bring nothing of my own, nothing born of and elaborated with my own mind?²⁵⁵
197. It is certainly undignified, as Seneca says,²⁵⁶ to know only through books and, as though the discoveries of our ancestors had barred the way to our own industriousness and the power of nature were exhausted in us, to bring about from ourselves nothing that, even if it fell short of demonstrating the truth, might at least hint at it from afar.
198. For if a farmer hates sterility in his field and a husband hates it in his wife,²⁵⁷ the Divine Mind will certainly hate even more the barren soul that is joined and associated with It, insofar as it is a far nobler offspring that is desired.
199. Hence, I have not been content simply to add, beside the common doctrines, many principles taken from the ancient theology of Hermes Trismegistus,²⁵⁸ many more drawn from the teachings of the Chaldeans²⁵⁹ and Pythagoras,²⁶⁰ and many others deriving from the more secret mysteries of the Hebrews,²⁶¹ and I have also proposed for disputation a good many discoveries and reflections of my own,²⁶² both on things natural and divine.
200. In the first place, I have proposed the concord of Plato and Aristotle, believed by many before me but adequately proven by none.²⁶³
201. Among the Latins, Boethius promised to do it, but there is no evidence that he ever did what he always wished to do.²⁶⁴
202. Among the Greeks, Simplicius made the same declaration, and if only he had fulfilled his promise!²⁶⁵
203. Augustine,²⁶⁶ too, writes that there were not a few Academics who tried with their most subtle arguments to prove the same thing – namely, that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle were one.
204. Likewise John [Philoponus] the Grammarian, who,²⁶⁷ although he says that Plato differs from Aristotle only for those who do not understand what Plato says,²⁶⁸ nevertheless left it to posterity to prove.
205. I have also added many theses in which I maintain that several statements by Thomas and Scotus that are thought to be discordant are in agreement,²⁶⁹ and many others in which I maintain the same about statements by Averroes and Avicenna.²⁷⁰
206. In the second place, I have presented not only my discoveries in Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy²⁷¹ but also seventy-two new theses,²⁷² which I have proposed both in physics and in metaphysics. Whoever grasps these theses will be able – if I am not mistaken, as I shall soon see – to solve any question put to him regarding things natural and divine by a method quite unlike that of the philosophy taught in schools and cultivated by the doctors of this age.
207. Nor should anyone be much amazed, fathers, that in my youth, at a tender age at which (as some propose) I should hardly have been allowed to read the works of others, I wish to introduce a new philosophy;²⁷³ instead, let this philosophy be either praised if it is defensible or condemned if it is refutable. When my discoveries and my writings are eventually judged, one should tally up not the years of their author but rather their merits or demerits.
208. There is, moreover, still another method of philosophizing (one that is carried out with numbers), which I have presented as new but which is in fact old, and was observed by the ancient theologians,²⁷⁴ by Pythagoras in particular, by Aglaophamos,²⁷⁵ Philolaus,²⁷⁶ and Plato, and by the earlier Platonists.²⁷⁷ But in our age this doctrine, like other famous ones, has so fallen into disuse on account of the carelessness of posterity that hardly any traces of it remain.
209. Plato writes in the Epinomis that, among all liberal arts and contemplative sciences, the principal and most divine is the science of numbers.
210. And again, asking why man is the wisest of animals, he answers: “Because he knows how to count.”²⁷⁸ Aristotle also mentions this response in his Problems.²⁷⁹
211. Abumasar²⁸⁰ writes that it was a saying of Avenzoar of Babylon²⁸¹ that he who knows how to count knows all things.
212. None of these things could possibly have been true if they had taken the art of numbering to be that same one at which merchants are now especially skilful. Plato attests to this as well²⁸² when he openly warns us not to believe that this divine arithmetic is the mathematics of the merchants.
213. Since it seemed to me, after long nights of study, that I had thoroughly examined that arithmetic which is so praised, I made up my mind to put these matters to the test and promised that I would answer in public, through the art of numbering, the seventy-four questions²⁸³ that are considered most important in matters natural and divine.
214. I have also proposed some theses regarding magic²⁸⁴ in which I have shown that there are two forms of magic: one is based entirely on the deeds and powers of demons (and is, in truth, an execrable and monstrous thing); the other, when keenly examined, is nothing but the absolute perfection of natural philosophy.
215. The Greeks mentioned both of them, but they call the former γοητείαν (dignifying it in no way with the name of magic), whereas they call the latter by the proper and exclusive name of μαγείαν, the perfect and highest wisdom, as it were.²⁸⁵
216. As a matter fact, as Porphyry says,²⁸⁶ “magus” in the Persian language means the same as “expert and interpreter of divine things” in ours.
217. So, fathers, there is a great or even the greatest difference and disparity²⁸⁷ between these two arts.
218. The former is condemned and abhorred not only by the Christian religion but by all laws and every well-ordered state. The latter is approved and embraced by all wise men and by all peoples devoted to heavenly and divine things.
219. The former is the most deceitful of arts; the latter is the highest and most holy philosophy. The former is sterile and vain; the latter is sure, reliable, and firm.²⁸⁸
220. The former has always been concealed by whoever has practiced it because it would have brought shame and disrepute to anyone who wrote about it, whereas the highest literary renown and glory have since antiquity almost always been sought from the latter.²⁸⁹
221. No philosopher, nor any man eager to learn the good arts, has ever applied himself to the study of the former, but Pythagoras, Empedocles,²⁹⁰ Plato, and Democritus²⁹¹ crossed the seas to learn the latter, taught it when they returned, and considered it chief among the arcane doctrines.²⁹²
222. The former is neither based on any principles nor approved by any reliable author; the latter, ennobled, as it were, by the most celebrated parents, has two authors above all: Zalmolxis,²⁹³ who was imitated by Abaris the Hyperborean,²⁹⁴ and Zoroaster,²⁹⁵ not the one of whom perhaps you are thinking²⁹⁶ but the son of Oromasius.²⁹⁷
223. If we ask Plato what the magic of both these men is, he will answer in the Alcibiades that the magic of Zoroaster is nothing other than that science of divine things in which the kings of the Persians educated their sons so that they might learn to rule their state in accordance with the example of the order of the universe.²⁹⁸ And in the Charmides²⁹⁹ he will answer that the magic of Zamolxis is the medicine of the soul, or that medicine by which temperance is obtained for the soul, just as by the other medicine health is obtained for the body.
224. Afterward, Charondas,³⁰⁰ Damigeron,³⁰¹ Apollonius,³⁰² Osthanes,³⁰³ and Dardanus³⁰⁴ followed in their footsteps. And so did Homer, who likewise concealed this wisdom, just as he concealed all the others, beneath the wanderings of his Ulysses, as I shall eventually prove in my Poetic Theology.³⁰⁵ Eudoxus and Hermippus also followed this path,³⁰⁶ and so, too, did almost everyone else who has assiduously investigated the Pythagorean and Platonic mysteries.
225. Among the later philosophers, then, I find three who have got a whiff of it: the Arabian Al-Kindi,³⁰⁷ Roger Bacon,³⁰⁸ and William of Paris.³⁰⁹
226. Plotinus also mentions it,³¹⁰ where he shows that a magus is the minister and not the maker of nature. That most wise man approves and justifies this kind of magic, so abhorring the other that, invited to the rites of evil demons, he says that it was more fitting for them to come to him than for him to go to them.
227. And rightly so,³¹¹ for just as the former makes man a slave and a minion of wicked powers, the latter makes him their lord and master.
228. The former, in the end, cannot claim for itself the name either of art or of science, whereas the latter, full as it is of the loftiest mysteries, comprises the deepest contemplation of the most secret things and ultimately the knowledge of all nature.
229. The latter, in calling out, as it were, from their hiding places into the light the good powers sown and scattered here and there in the world by God’s beneficence, does not so much perform miracles as sedulously act as the servant of nature, which in turn performs them.
230. The latter has quite profoundly probed into that harmony of the universe that the Greeks more expressively call συμπάθειαν,³¹² and has discerned the mutual kinship³¹³ that natures share. It assigns to each thing its innate charms (which are called the ἴυγγες³¹⁴ of the magicians) and brings out into the open, as if it were itself their cause, the miracles lying hidden in the recesses of the world, in the womb of nature, in the mysterious storerooms of God. Just as the farmer marries elm to vine,³¹⁵ so does the magus marry earth to heaven – that is, the lower things to the endowments and powers of the higher.³¹⁶
231. Hence, the latter is consequently revealed to be just as divine and salutary as the former is monstrous and harmful. It is precisely on this account that the former, in subjecting man to the enemies of God, drives him away from God, whereas the latter stimulates him to admire God’s works, which is the state of mind that most surely gives rise to well-disposed faith, hope, and charity.
232. For nothing better induces us to religion and to the worship of God than the assiduous contemplation of His wonders. Once we have aptly examined them by means of this natural magic I am discussing, we shall be all the more ardently aroused to the worship and love of their Creator, and shall be forced to sing: “The heavens are full, all the earth is full with the majesty of Thy glory.”³¹⁷
233. But this is enough on magic, regarding which I have said this much because I know that there are many who, just as dogs always bark at strangers, likewise often hate and condemn what they do not understand.
234. I come now to those things that I deduced from the ancient mysteries of the Hebrews and that I cite as confirmation of the sacrosanct and Catholic faith. So that these things not be considered, by those who are ignorant of such matters, imaginary trifles or the fables of storytellers,³¹⁸ I wish to explain to all men what they are and what they are like; where they come from; by whom and by how many enlightened authors they are confirmed; and how enigmatic, how divine, how necessary they are to those of our own faith for the safeguard of our religion against the importunate calumnies of the Jews.³¹⁹
235. Not only the celebrated Hebrew doctors but also some among our own,³²⁰ such as Esdras,³²¹ Hilary,³²² and Origen,³²³ write that Moses received from God on the mount not only the five books of the Law³²⁴ that he bequeathed to posterity but also a true and more secret exposition of the Law.³²⁵ God commanded him to proclaim the Law to the people but never to put the interpretation of the Law into writing, nor divulge it, but to communicate it only to Jesu Nave,³²⁶ who would in turn reveal it, under a solemn vow of secrecy, to his successors among the high priests.³²⁷
236. The simple story was sufficient to recognize now God’s power, now His wrath against the wicked, His mercy toward the good, or His justice before all.³²⁸ Divine and salutary precepts were sufficient to learn about the goodly and blessed life, the worship of true religion.³²⁹
237. But to make public to the populace the most secret mysteries and the profoundest arcana of divinity concealed beneath the bark³³⁰ of the Law and the rough vestiture of language,³³¹ what else could this have been but to give holy things to the dogs and to cast pearls before swine?³³²
238. Therefore, the custom of keeping from the masses these things that were to be conveyed only to the perfect³³³ (among whom only Paul³³⁴ declared that he wished to speak of wisdom) derived not from human counsel but from divine commandment³³⁵ and was a practice that the ancient philosophers solemnly observed.
239. Pythagoras wrote nothing but a few insignificant things that he entrusted to his daughter Dama³³⁶ on his deathbed.
240. The Sphinxes carved³³⁷ on the temples of the Egyptians admonished them that the mystical doctrines should be kept inviolate from the profane multitude by the knots of enigmas.³³⁸
241. Plato, writing certain things to Dionysius³³⁹ regarding the supreme substances, explained: “It is necessary to write in enigmas, for should this letter perchance fall into the hands of others, they would then be unable to understand what I have written to you.”
242. Aristotle used to say that the books of the Metaphysics, in which he deals with divine things, were published and unpublished.³⁴⁰
243. What else? According to Origen, Jesus Christ, the Teacher of Life,³⁴¹ revealed many things to His disciples, which they refused to write down so that these things would not be communicated to the common people.
244. This is conclusively confirmed by Dionysius the Areopagite,³⁴² according to whom the secret mysteries were transmitted to the founders of our religion, “ἐκ νοὸς εἰς νοῦν, διὰ μέσου λόγου”³⁴³ – that is, from mind to mind – without writing, through the intercession of the word.³⁴⁴
245. Once the Law’s genuine interpretation, which God conveyed to Moses, had been revealed in this same private way, it was called “Cabala,”³⁴⁵ which means to the Hebrews what “reception”³⁴⁶ means to us (doubtlessly because this doctrine was received not through written documents but through orderly successions of revelations from one man to another, almost by hereditary right).
246. However, after Cyrus³⁴⁷ restored the Hebrews from the Babylonian Exile,³⁴⁸ and once the Temple had been rebuilt under the rule of Zerubbabel,³⁴⁹ the Hebrews turned their minds toward the reestablishment of the Law. Esdras³⁵⁰ (who was then the leader of the people), having amended the books of Moses, clearly realized that – following the exiles, the massacres, the flights and captivity of the people of Israel – the custom instituted by their ancestors for handing down the doctrines could no longer be preserved and that the mysteries of this divinely conveyed celestial doctrine would fade into oblivion in the absence of written documents since they could no longer endure in memory alone. Thus, he decided that those sages who were still alive should be convened,³⁵¹ that each of them should share with the others whatever he could recall of the mysteries of the Law, and that scribes be employed to record it all in seventy volumes³⁵² (roughly the same as the number of sages in the Sanhedrin).³⁵³
247. So that you need not believe only me, fathers, hear what Esdras himself says: “At the end of forty days, the Most High spoke, saying, ‘That which you first wrote, set forth clearly so that the worthy and unworthy alike may read it, but keep to yourself the most recent seventy books so that you may hand them over to the wisest among your people. In them are the vein of intellect, and the fountain of wisdom, and the river of science.’
248. And I did so.”³⁵⁴
249. These are the words of Esdras to the letter.
250. These are the books of the science of the Cabala.³⁵⁵ These tomes, as Esdras³⁵⁶ rightly proclaimed, clearly and from the outset, contain a vein of understanding – in other words, the ineffable theology of the supersubstantial deity – a font of wisdom that is the exact metaphysics of the intelligible and angelic forms, and the river of science that is the most steadfast philosophy of natural things.³⁵⁷
251. Pope Sixtus IV³⁵⁸ – who immediately preceded Innocent VIII,³⁵⁹ under whom we live in happiness – arranged, with the utmost care and concern, for these books to be translated³⁶⁰ into Latin for the common good of those of our faith.³⁶¹ At the time of his death, three of them were already available in Latin.³⁶²
252. These books are held in such religious awe by the Jews of today that no one under the age of forty is permitted to approach them.³⁶³
253. I purchased these books at no little cost to myself,³⁶⁴ and when I perused them with the greatest diligence and unstinting labour, I saw in them (as God is my witness) not so much the Mosaic as the Christian religion.³⁶⁵
254. Here is the mystery of the Trinity,³⁶⁶ here the Incarnation³⁶⁷ of the Word, here the divinity of the Messiah;³⁶⁸ here of original sin,³⁶⁹ of its expiation through Christ,³⁷⁰ of the heavenly Jerusalem,³⁷¹ of the fall of the demons, of the hierarchy of the angels, of Purgatory, of the punishments in Hell.³⁷² I saw the same things that we read every day in Paul, Dionysius, Jerome,³⁷³ and Augustine.³⁷⁴
255. As for those matters pertaining to philosophy, it truly seems you are hearing Pythagoras or Plato, whose conclusions bear such affinity to the Christian faith that our own Augustine pronounced immense gratitude to God that the Platonic books made their way into his hands.³⁷⁵
256. On the whole, there is no point of controversy between us and the Jews on which the latter could not be refuted and convinced by means of the cabalistic books, so that no corner will remain in which they may take refuge.³⁷⁶
257. On this matter, I have a most trustworthy witness in the most erudite Antonius Chronicus,³⁷⁷ who, at a banquet at his house at which I was present, heard with his own ears Dactylus the Jew himself,³⁷⁸ an expert in this science, wholeheartedly acknowledge the Christian tenet of the Trinity.
258. But to return to reviewing the theses of my disputation, I have also presented my own interpretation of the songs of Orpheus and Zoroaster.³⁷⁹
259. Orpheus is extant among the Greeks in an almost complete text; Zoroaster is lacunose among the Greeks but among the Chaldeans is read in a more complete text. Both are credited with being the fathers and authors of ancient wisdom.³⁸⁰
260. Indeed, to say nothing of Zoroaster, who is often mentioned by the Platonists and always with the utmost veneration, Iamblichus of Chalcis writes that Pythagoras regarded Orphic theology as the model on which he fashioned and formed his own philosophy.³⁸¹
261. As a matter of fact, it is said for this reason alone that the Pythagorean maxims are thought to be sacred, for they derive from the Orphic teachings; from this first source flowed forth the secret doctrine of numbers³⁸² and everything that is great and sublime in Greek philosophy.³⁸³
262. However, Orpheus (as was the practice among the ancient theologians) so well concealed the mysteries of his dogmas under the coverings of fables and hid them under the veil of poetry that, if one were to read his hymns, one would believe there is nothing more behind them than the most commonplace tales and trifles.
263. I wished to say this so as to make known what trouble and what difficulties I faced in freeing from the tangle of riddles and the obscurity of fables the meaning of this secret philosophy,³⁸⁴ especially since I could not rely on assistance in a matter so important, so hidden and unexplored, from the work or diligence of any other interpreters.
264. Nevertheless, the dogs have barked³⁸⁵ that I have ostentatiously accumulated a large number of minutia and trivialities, as if all of them were not the most ambiguous and controversial questions over which the principal academies are now in pitched battle; as if I myself had not studied many arguments that are wholly unknown to, and untried by, the very ones who carp at me and who believe themselves to be the noblest of philosophers.
265. Indeed, I am so far removed from this fault that I took care to limit the disputation to as few theses as I could. Had I wished (as is customary among others) to dismember the disputation and chop it into pieces, the theses would have grown to a countless number.
266. And, to say nothing of all of the others, who does not know that I could have subdivided a single thesis of the nine hundred (the one, for example, on the reconciliation of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle) into, say, six hundred or more without arousing the suspicion of padding the numbers by enumerating in detail all the points on which others think they disagree and I believe they agree?
267. There can be no doubt – this I shall declare, although it is neither modest nor in keeping with my character; this I shall nonetheless declare since those who envy and speak ill of me compel me to do so – that I have resolved through this congress of mine to demonstrate not so much that I know many things as that I know things that many do not know.³⁸⁶
268. So that this may become clear to you by the facts, most reverend fathers, and so that my oration no longer postpone the object of your desire, most excellent doctors (whom not without great delight I see ready and, girded up, spoiling for a fight), let us take up ours arms, as if to the sound of the battle trumpet, and may the outcome be fruitful and favourable.

1 Pico prepared this oration for a future debate in Rome, at which he believed his nine hundred theses would be discussed. He speaks of this congress as a senate or a council (see §154); cf. Pico’s Epistle to Lorenzo (Bausi Reference Bausi1996, 115).

2 Pico was studying Arabic under the guidance of Flavius Mithridates. See his letter to Corneus (Pico 1971, Opera omnia 1:376–79). Cf. Pico’s Epistle to Ficino from Fratta and his Epistle to Corneus of 15 October 1486.

3 Various hypotheses have been formulated about the identity of this Abdallah: Tognon (Pico 1987, 62) and Cicognani (Pico 1941, 97) identify him with ‘Abd-Allāh ibn al-Muqaffa‘, an Arabic writer of the eighth century and a translator of Persian works into Arabic; Bausi (Pico 2003, 2) identifies him with ‘Abd-Allāh ibn Salam, a Jew of Medina who converted to Islam two years before the death of Mohammed (630) after recognizing the identity of the Koran and the Torah. According to tradition, he collaborated in the writing of the Koran and was one of the four Jews who interrogated Mohammed himself on one hundred theological questions (Doctrina Machumeti); cf. Bibliander (Reference Bibliander1543) and Nicholas of Cusa (Reference Gaia1971, 718, 733). Piemontese (Reference Piemontese2012) identifies him as ‘Abd-Allāh b. al Tamir, head of the Christian community of Nagran (Yemen) and famous in medieval Islamic literature because of his martyrdom in 523 ad.

4 Nihil … respondisse: P has here some presumably Arabic letters, written in an inexpert hand, that may be deciphered as the sequence ’-l-r-‘-j-w-?-l, perhaps naively intended to spell al-rajul. There then comes a blank space followed by idest hominem respondisse. See fig. 1.

5 “A great miracle…”; see Hermes Trismegistus, Asclepius 6.1–2 (Corpus Hermeticum, Hermes Trismegistus Reference Trismegistus and Festugière1960, 2:301–2). The Hermetic writings are attributed to the Egyptian God Thot, Hermes Trismegistos in Greek, the inventor of writing, who was made to correspond to the Latin Mercury. Written in Greek and Latin, they are dated between the first and the third centuries ad and were highly valued during the period of humanism and the Renaissance, thanks to Marsilio Ficino’s translation of the most important among them, the Poimandres. Among these works, one also finds the Asclepius (Fr. Asclepius, Lat. Aesculapius, god of medicine and prophecy). Cf. Heptaplus 5.6; Ficino, Theologia Platonica 14.

6 Cf. Cicero, De Oratore 1.1 (Bausi Reference Bausi1996, 115).

7 Pico is here referring to the rich literature on the dignity of man (e.g., Bartolomeo Fazio or Giannozzo Manetti, for whom ancient Christian authors were essential); see Garin (Reference Garin1938) and De Lubac (Reference De Lubac1974). Pico accepts the idea of man as a microcosmos, gathering within himself all the elements, mediator and interpreter of the universe (see §§17 and 27, Heptaplus 5.7, Picatrix 3.5.1). This is also the central thesis of Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology, in which the soul is placed between matter and angelic intelligences (see Kristeller Reference Kristeller1988, 118–23), but Pico believes that man’s calling consists not in the static enjoyment of this central position but rather in the dynamism by which the human being is called to transcend the world of images and finally to become one with the Absolute, which is beyond representation.

8 Note the sequence sense, reason, intellect; these elements will reappear in the three-stage ascension according to the model of the angelic orders: thrones, cherubim, seraphim. The same sequence is in §§29ff. (and again in §§37–40), where man is meant to transcend even the angelic orders and to become one with God.

9 “Persians.” Pico is possibly thinking of a “Chaldaic” source. The Chaldean Oracles (a mystic writing probably of the second century and very important to Proclus) had been attributed to Zoroaster by Gemistus Plethon, Ficino’s source. See §259 and Conclusiones 2.8 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 486–93). We do not know, however, exactly which Chaldean texts Pico is referring to. See §129; Persae: magi P.

10 Ficino, Theologia Platonica 10 and also his Epistle to Bracciolini (Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 1:657); cf. Chaldean Oracles, frag. 6 (De Places 1971, 68).

11 See Ps. 8:4–7: “quoniam videbo caelos tuos; opera digitorum tuorum lunam et stellas quae tu fundasti / quid est homo quod memor es eius aut filius hominis quoniam visitas eum / minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis gloria et honore coronasti eum / et constituisti eum super opera manuum tuarum” (“For I will behold thy heavens, the works of thy fingers: the moon and the stars which thou hast founded. / What is man that thou art mindful of him? Or the son of man that thou visitest him? / Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour: / And hast set him over the works of thy hands”).

12 Note the order angels, stars, lower creatures, repeated in reverse order in §11.

13 “Craftsman” translates artifex, a term echoed both in architectus (§10) and opifex (§56).

14 Note the threefold structure (to ponder, to love, to wonder), repeated in §14 (archetypes, treasure-houses, seats), §15 (higher, middle, lower orders), §16 (power, wisdom, love, with a reference to the Trinity), and once more in §18 (seat, form, talents). Bausi believes that this rhetorical device derives from the original redaction of the Oration, which takes three “anaphoric series” as its point of departure (Bausi Reference Bausi1996, 115).

15 This account of Creation depends on both biblical and Platonic sources (Bori 1996b and Bori Reference Bori2000, 35ff.). (a) Biblical is the sequence of creative acts that places Adam at the centre of a Creation already concluded, even if the way the generative processes take place is different from that of Genesis 1. Here, Creation occurs in a movement downward from on high: the area above the heavens, the animated heavenly bodies, the animals on the earth and man, with a sort of ontological degradation. (b) The idea of God speaking to His new creature is biblical, but the words spoken are quite different: instead of prohibiting accession to the tree of knowledge, there is the invitation to direct desire, knowledge, and one’s whole being toward the highest possible aim. Man is taught this and not the prohibition. (c) While the image’s theme is biblical, Pico’s man has not been created in the image of God but is opus indiscretae imaginis (“a creation of an indeterminate image”). (d) The idea of sovereignty over things, which in Genesis 2 is expressed together with the faculty of naming, is also biblical. As for the Platonic source, attention must be drawn to Timaeus 41b (man is created as the last of beings, as a mixture of mortality and immortality), Protagoras 321c–d (the myth of the creation of Epimetheus, created in a state of imperfection and need), and especially the Symposium (interpreted by Ficino in his De Amore, as well as by Pico himself in his Commento, both of 1486). According to the well-known myth, Eros was conceived in the garden of Zeus by Poros (resource) and Penia (poverty) on the day Aphrodite was born. Eros gets his imperfect nature from this intermediate position between ignorance and knowledge, and is always seeking the latter (Symp. 203d–204c). Both in the Oration and in the Symposium (a) we find the praise of someone – Eros and the human creature, respectively – not for his innate dignity, based only on stereotypes and clichés, but for his potential capacity to reach the highest of ends; (b) we find someone who is in an intermediate condition, neither mortal nor immortal, neither of the earth nor of the heavens (Symp. 203e); (c) we find someone placed in the midst (medium, metaxù in the Symposium), capable of reaching, through the love of knowledge, the supreme reality (Symp. 202d); and (d) we find the priority of love, of desire, of the will as the final essence of the human being, while his intellectual nature is not at odds with but within his spiritual development and is supported by the dynamics of desire (and there is again here a parallel between the ascent described at the end of Diotima’s intervention and the exit from the cave described in Republic 7).

16 Pico’s conception of microcosmos is active: the presence in man of the principles of every being allows him to ascend, so to speak, through all beings.

17 The term “indeterminate” translates the Latin indiscretus, which is influenced by the Greek ἀδιάκριτος (“undecided”). Genesis 1:26 seems to be contradicted here insofar as man has no image; however, the human being has no image precisely because he or she is called to become God, Who is beyond all representation. See §30, “caligo Patris.”

18 Human centrality (see also §21) is statically affirmed, but in relation to the dynamics of freedom.

19 This comes from the Symposium; see §13. Cf. Ps. 8:6.

20 God is the “ordinary” creator. Honorariusque om. P. Arbitrarius: cf. Martianus Capella 1.68. Man is “honorarius,” while God is “ordinarius” (Bausi Reference Bausi1996, 119); Plotinus, Enneads 1.6, 9, 13 (Pico 2003, 11).

21 liberality: Pico, the scion of an aristocratic family, goes beyond the earthly meaning of “liberality,” one of the Aristotelian virtues discussed in Nicomachean Ethics 4.1, and celebrated in the Tenth Day of Boccaccio’s Decameron, as a sort of aristocratic sublimation of the utilitarian, mercantile logic that pervades fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Florentine civic culture. Cf. Cicero’s (2005b) De officiis 1.20: “beneficientia, quam eandem vel benignitatem vel liberalitatem appellari licet” (“charity, which may also be called kindness or generosity”). Cf. also Pico (1998, De ente et uno 8): “in veritate venerari artificis sapientiam, in bonitate redamare amantis liberalitatem” (“in truth, we can venerate the wisdom of the artisan; in goodness, we can love in return the liberality of the lover”).

22 happiness: Here, too, Pico goes beyond the Aristotelian-Scholastic roots of this term (see Dante, Conv. 4.17.8: “felicitade è operazione secondo virtude in vita perfetta” – “happiness is activity according to virtue in perfect life”), embracing a more dynamic, spiritual meaning in Platonic or Neoplatonic terms. In book 4 of his De dignitate et eccellentia hominis (following Lactantius; see Garin Reference Garin1972, 23ff.), Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459) had already questioned the opinions of those, whether ancients or moderns, pagans or Christians, who emphasize the misery of human life. Manetti considers happiness to be the result of a “virtuous life” – that is, a Christian life (“…all those who accurately observe heavenly commandments will without doubt be destined to be fortunate from birth, and always happy and blessed forever,” quoted by Garin 1952b, 485, my translation), emphasizing the importance of “active” versus “contemplative” life (vita activa vs. vita contemplativa). Pico, perhaps influenced by Marsilio Ficino, seems to find a new connection between the active and the contemplative aspects – knowledge as an active force – for which it may not be out of place to recall here also Virgil, Georgics 2.490: “Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causam.” (“Happy is he who could know the cause of things”). See also Heptaplus 7 (Pico 1942, 324–26), in which Pico makes a distinction between a “natural” and a “supernatural” happiness, the latter achievable only “per gratiam,” through divine grace (see also Pico 2003, introduction, 20, and n17). Cf. Pico, Expositiones in Psalmos 17 (Pico 1997, 154): “Hoc autem principium est universae humanae foelicitatis: ut rectae sint cogitationes nostrae et Dei spiritu agamur” (“This, however, is the source of all human happiness: that our thoughts be righteous and that we be moved by the Spirit of God”).

23 bulga, a Latin term of Celtic origin, translated as “womb” by analogy (from Lucilius 1904–5, Satyres 1:26, 623; 2:230–31).

24 That is, after Lucifer’s fall.

25 In the second proem of Pico’s Heptaplus (a commentary on Genesis), we read: “It is a common expression in the Schools to say that man is a microcosm, whose body is a mixture of elements, including the heavenly spirit, the vegetative soul, the senses of brutes, reason, the angelic mind and the image of God” (Pico 1942, 193, my translation). Cf. Augustine, De civitate Dei 7.30 and 12.24.

26 In his commentary, Bausi (Pico 2003, 12–13, n29) traces this crucial passage to Iamblichus, Protrepticus 5, a collection of philosophical readings compiled in the third and fourth centuries (for an English translation, see Iamblichus Reference Iamblichus, Johnson, Godwin and Neuville1988). Cf. Asclepius 1.5–6a (in Hermes Trismegistus Reference Trismegistus and Scott1924–36, 1:294–96). Garin suggests looking to medieval sources as well, such as John of Salisbury (Policraticus 8.12 [PL 199.756b]) and Alan of Lille. In the latter’s De Planctu Naturae (prose 3), “the possibility for man to degenerate into a brute and regenerate himself in God are expressed in terms very similar to those used by Pico” (Garin Reference Garin1972, 37); cf. Ps. 48:21. Tognon suggests a precise reference for this entire section of the Oratio: John Scotus Eriugena’s De divisione naturae (3.37, PL 122.732b–c and 4.5, PL 122.754a–b). According to De Lubac, the Oration simply repeats the same idea that was expressed many times before in Patristic literature (De Lubac Reference De Lubac1974, 198–99). Cf. Ficino, Theologia Platonica 14.3: “It [the soul] lives the life of a plant insofar as it indulges the body by fattening it up; the life of the beast insofar as it flatters the senses; the life of a man insofar as it calls upon reason to handle human affairs; the life of the heroes insofar as it investigates things in nature; the life of the demons insofar as it contemplates mathematics; the life of the angels insofar as it inquires into the mysteries divine; and the life of God insofar as it does all things for God’s sake. Every man’s soul in a way makes trial of all these in itself, although different souls do so in different ways, and thus humankind strives to become all things, since as a genus it lives the lives of all. Mercurius Trismegistus was struck with wonder by this and declared, ‘Man is a great miracle, an animal meet to be worshipped and adored’” (Allen trans. in Ficino Reference Ficino, Allen, Warden, text, Hankins and Bowen2001–6, 4:240–43).

27 Among several plausible sources for this passage, both Bori (Reference Bori2000, 43) and Bausi (Pico 2003, 13) suggest Gregory of Nyssa (Reference Malherbe and Ferguson1978, Life of Moses 2.162–65), where we read: “When therefore Moses grew in knowledge, he declared that he had seen God in darkness, that is, that he had then come to know that what is divine is beyond all knowledge and contemplation.” Cf. Exod. 19:9: “The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud”; Exod. 20:21: “And the people stood afar off. But Moses went to the dark cloud wherein God was”; 2 Chron. 6:1: “Then Solomon said: The Lord promised that he would dwell in a cloud.” See also Deut. 4:11: “And you came to the foot of the mount, which burned even unto heaven: and there was darkness, and a cloud and obscurity in it.” Bori (Reference Bori2000, 42) quotes a passage from Pico’s De ente et uno (Pico 1942, 414) in which we find an articulate definition of the paradoxical (mystical) nature of our “knowledge” of the divine, according to which “there is no darkness, no light, no error, no truth, and about the divine it is not possible [to make] either a positive or a negative statement.” Cf. Conclusiones 1.26.5 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 338–39); Conclusiones 2.10.15 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 510–11); Statius, Thebaid 3.498; Kaldaica Skolia, frag. 18; Proclus, On Cratylus 57.25; Ps. 17:12: “et posuit tenebras latibulum suum in circuitu eius tabernaculum eius tenebrosa aqua in nubibus aeris” (“And he made darkness his covert, his pavilion round about him: dark waters in the clouds of the air”). See, too, De ente et uno (Pico 1942, 412–15) and Bausi (Reference Bausi1996, 120–21). Cf. Ficino, In Dionysium Areopagitam (Ficino Reference Ficino, Kristeller and Sancipriano1962, 2:1014) and §13, Asclepius 1.6a, 26–28 (in Hermes Trismegistus Reference Trismegistus and Scott1924–36, 1:294–96), and P, 117ff. (Pico 2003, 150–51).

28 According to Garin (followed by Pico 2003, 14n31), the most important reference for Pico’s use of this word is Ficino’s mention of that passage of Priscian’s commentary on Theophrastus where the adjectives chameleontean and Protean are attributed to human imagination (“Imagination is both [a] Proteus and chameleon”). See Ficino (Reference Ficino, Kristeller and Sancipriano1962, 2:1825) and Garin (Reference Garin1985, 351). Copenhaver suggests that behind Pico’s use of the term there may also be a (negative) reference to magical tradition after Pliny the Elder’s Natural History (8.51), a text that Cosimo de’ Medici had Cristoforo Landino translate into Florentine: “According to ancient sources that Pico knew, it [the chameleon] looks and behaves like a lizard, combining features of a fish, pig, viper, tortoise, and crocodile into a horrific appearance that masks its harmlessness. Is man such a monstrosity, assembled from parts of other creatures?” […] With one exception, Pico’s other examples of mutability in this section of the Oration are as negative and ambiguous as the chameleon – transmigration of criminal souls into animals or plants and the shapeshifting of Proteus, the Old Man of the Sea who fights the noble Menelaus in the Odyssey. The only clearly positive transformation is angelic” (Copenhaver Reference Copenhaver2002a, 60). See also Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics 1100b, 5–9, on human happiness, and Ficino’s translation and gloss on Priscian’s comments on Theophrastus’s De Phantasia et Intellectu (Ficino Reference Ficino, Kristeller and Sancipriano1962, Opera omnia 2:1824–25).

29 Bausi (Pico 2003, 14n33) says that the identity of the Asclepius to whom Pico refers here is unknown. The adjective Athenian could make us think of Asklepios (Lat. Aesculapius), the legendary Greek physician, son of Apollo and Coronis and god of healing (also related to the Egyptian god Imothep). His first teacher was the wise centaur Chiron (on the cult of Asklepios in ancient Greece, see Aleshire Reference Aleshire1991). However, contextual evidence makes it more plausible that Pico here refers again to that composite collection of texts known as the Corpus Hermeticum (already quoted in the opening paragraph of the Oration), which Marsilio Ficino started to translate from Greek into Latin in 1463; namely, to the so-called Latin Asclepius (Ficino’s edition of the Asclepius was printed in 1469). Pico’s text clearly echoes the Hermetic Asclepius (the interlocutor and disciple of Hermes Trismegistus, also understood to be a descendant of the great Asklepios, just as Hermes is a grandson of the great Egyptian god Toth).

30 For the mythological Proteus, see Homer, Odyssey 4.383–570, and Virgil, Georgics 4.387–527. However, the most immediate reference is to the Orphic Hymns quoted in Ficino’s Theologia Platonica 11.3: “Theologia Orphica Protheum appellat essentiam tertiam, animarum rationalium sedem” (“Orphic Theology calls Proteus the third essence, and the seat of the rational soul”). (See Pico 2003, 14n33: the human soul can be compared to a Proteus because it contains the essence of all things.) De Lubac dedicates two chapters of his book on Pico (De Lubac Reference De Lubac1974, pt. 2, “Metamorphosis”) to Proteus in the works of the Church Fathers and in medieval culture.

31 The specific reference seems to be to the “Hebrew Cabalist Wisemen Whose Memory Should Always be Honoured,” to whom forty-seven cabalistic Conclusiones are dedicated. See Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 344–45 and notes) for a discussion of Pico’s cabalistic sources, all drawn from late medieval texts, and more specifically, according to Wirszubski (Reference Wirszubski1989), from Flavius Mithridates’ Latin translation of Menahem Recanati’s Commentary on the Pentateuch (a thesis criticized by Farmer). At the Vatican Library, there are four codices (Vaticani Hebraici 189–91 and Chigi A VI 190) that contain Mithridates’ translations with glosses by Pico. On the issue of Pico’s relationship to Jewish culture, in addition to Wirszubski, see the important contributions of Paolo Edoardo Fornaciari (Reference Fornaciari and Castelli1988, 107–20), Fabrizio Lelli (Reference Lelli1994, 193–223 and Reference Lelli1997, 1:303–25), and Giuliano Tamani (Reference Tamani and Garfagnini1997, 2:491–530). See also Copenhaver (Reference Copenhaver2002a, 78ff.).

32 Cabalistic and Pythagorean doctrines and calculations are a significant component of Pico’s Conclusiones (according both to the opinions of others and to his own). For references to the mathematics of Pythagoras, namely, the Quaternarius, see in particular 1.25.1–14. According to Farmer, Pico draws his references to Pythagorean doctrines from late Greek sources, primarily Proclus’s Theologia Platonica (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 334). In short, a numerical (and mystical) ratio underlies the metamorphic nature of the cosmos. On Pythagoras and Florentine culture of the fifteenth century, and Pico’s contemporary Giovanni Nesi (1456–1506), in particular, possibly the transcriber of the only extant manuscript of the Oration, P, see Celenza (Reference Celenza2001). Cf. Conclusiones 2.10.28 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 514).

33 Both Garin and Tognon refer to the Ethiopic Book of Enoch 40.8 (first or second century; see Knibb Reference Knibb and Ullendorf1978). Tertullian considered it part of the Holy Scriptures. There are at least three references for the Book of Enoch: the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, also known as 1 Enoch; the Slavonic Book of Enoch, also known as 2 Enoch; and the so-called Third Book of Enoch. Rather than referring to a single text, Pico more likely elaborates on a complex, and apocryphal, textual tradition. His reference could include the so-called Third Book of Enoch, presumably compiled in Babylon around the sixth century. This late apocalyptic text, which circulated also in medieval manuscripts, harkens back to the mysticism of the Merkabah (Scholem Reference Scholem1941, 66ff.). In the Jewish tradition, many legends accrete around the figure of Enoch (son of Jared, father of Methuselah, the seventh in Adamitic genealogy in the line of Seth). See Gen. 5:24: “And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him,” and also the apocryphal Sir. 50:14: “No one like Enoch has been created on earth, for he was taken up from the earth.” Transfigured, he was taken to heaven without abandoning the human form. In the Jewish tradition, Enoch is also represented as the inventor of letters, arithmetic, and geometry, and is called “the first author.”

34 The princeps edition has a blank space where the Hebrew word should be. Both Basel editions (1557 and 1572) have Mal’akh ha-Sekinach, Hebrew retroversion of the Latin angelum divinitatis. Following Wirszubski (Reference Wirszubski1989, 232), Bausi (Pico 2003, 171–72) restores in his edition the characters found in the earlier version of the Oration (possibly one of two drafts Pico prepared in fall 1486 while in Umbria before moving to Rome) in the manuscript Palatino 885 of the National Library in Florence, reading them as Metatron (see fig. 2). A reference to Metatron can be found in Pico’s Commento sopra una canzona (written in the same period as the Oration and the Conclusiones, 1486) almost in the exact terms of the Oration, as a synonym of transfiguration: “This is what the statement of the Cabalist wise men must mean, when they say that Enoch was transformed into Metatron, angel of divinity, or, in general, that any other man is transformed into an angel” (Pico 1984, 147; see also Pico 1942, 554). On the interpretation of the Enoch-Metatron transfiguration, see also Conclusiones 1.19.2 (according to Themistius) and 2.11.10 (cabalistic conclusions confirming the Christian religion). It is generally held that there are three possible etymological interpretations of the word Metatron: in addition to the Greek “Methathronius,” meaning he who is next to the throne of God, one derived from matara (“keeper of the watch”), and one derived from metator (“guide”). See Scholem (Reference Scholem1941, 66–69, and Reference Scholem, Roth and Wigoder1971–72, 1443–46). As Scholem writes, “two different traditions have been combined in the figure of Metatron. One relates to the heavenly angel who was created with the creation of the world, or even before, and makes him responsible for performing the most exalted tasks in the heavenly kingdom [derived from the angel Yaol, a sort of lesser YHWH]. […] A different tradition associates Metatron with Enoch […] he who ascended to heaven and was changed from a human being into an angel – in addition he also became the great scribe who recorded men’s deeds.” Interestingly enough, the fact that this second tradition associating Metatron with Enoch is “absent from the Talmud or the most important Midrashim, is evidently connected with the reluctance of the Talmudists to regard Enoch in a favourable light” (Scholem, Reference Scholem, Roth and Wigoder1971–72, 1444–45). It is perhaps not surprising that the identification occupies a prominent place in Pico’s Christian Cabala. Cf. Gen. 5:21–24; Enoch 12:1–4; 3 Enoch 3:1, 16:5.

35 “I was born a male and female child, a plant, a bird and a dumb fish of the sea…” (Empedocles of Akragas, frag. 117 [Diels]; see Fitt Reference Fitt1962, 65–66). Cf. Pico, Heptaplus 4.5 (1942, 280–81): “Hence that Chaldean saying: ‘the beasts of the earth live in you’; and we learn from Plato, in the Republic, that we have inside us diverse species of animals; thus it is not difficult to believe (if one understands it well) the paradox of the Pythagoreans, that wicked men transform themselves into beasts.” See also Pico’s Conclusiones 2.3.71, where Empedocles’ doctrine is connected to the sefirot (“By strife and friendship in the soul Empedocles means nothing but the leading upwards and leading downwards in it, which I believe is proportional in the science of the sefirot to eternity and adornment,” trans. Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 421) and to Zoroaster and his Chaldean commentators (“In the same place, by the roots of the earth they can only mean the vegetative life, which conforms to the words of Empedocles, who posits transanimation even into plants,” 2.8.4, trans. Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 489).

36 See Sura 2:65: “And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.” See also Sura 5:60, 7:166. We know that Pico, who was studying Hebrew and Arabic with the help of Flavius Mithridates, borrowed a Latin translation of the Koran from Marsilio Ficino (Pico 2003, 17n36).

37 According to Bausi (Pico 2003, 17n37), this passage shows that Pico does not adhere to the doctrine of metempsychosis (or transmigration of the soul) and agrees with Ficino (Theol. Pl. 17.4) on a moral and allegorical interpretation of the transformations of which Empedocles and other ancient authors speak.

38 The Latin text (humi serpentem hominem) plays on a popular etymology for human, derived from humus (man shaped out of earth), already used by G. Manetti in his own De dignitate. There are many medieval sources for this passage; see Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies 11.1.4 and Pico’s own commentary on Genesis (Pico, 1942, 270, my translation): “Because he was made of earth, as Moses writes, he was called man.”

39 Homer, Odyssey 1.55–57 (Homer Reference Homer and Mandelbaum1990, 5). It was widely taken that Ulysses is the allegory of the “good (moral) man” and that Calypso, the enchantress, binds him with false imaginations.

40 For this paragraph, possible sources are Seneca, Epistles 41.4–5, and Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.1 (1145a), echoed by Dante’s Convivio 3.7.6.

41 See, for example, Gen. 6:12 (“God had seen that the earth was corrupted, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth”); Num. 27:16; Deut. 5:26; Luke 3:6; John 3:6 and 17:2; 1 Cor. 15:39; 1 Peter 24.

42 It is difficult to know which “Persian” source Pico has in mind.

43 The Hebrew characters here derive from Wirszubski’s transliteration of the phrase in the Palatino manuscript, which is reproduced in fig. 3. (See Mithridates Reference Mithridates and Wirszubski1963, 38, and Wirszubski Reference Wirszubski1989, 241.) Pico claims he possessed the Chaldean Oracles (i.e., books containing the oracles of “Ezre, Zoroastris and the Melchiar of the Magi”) in a letter to Ficino (fall 1486, Ficino Reference Ficino and Kristeller1937, 2:272–73). According to Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 486–87), this became the source of a conviction among Renaissance editors of the Oracles – such as, for example, Francesco Patrizi – that Pico indeed possessed the original, integral texts from which the extant and incomplete Greek collections made by Psellus (eleventh century) and Pletho (fifteenth century) were drawn (fragments from Plotinus, Proclus, and others). Ficino himself had translated and provided commentary on Pletho’s collection. There is no trace of it (attributed to Chaldean sources) in the Conclusiones. According to Bausi (Pico 2003, 172–73), who follows both Wirszubski and Marchignoli (in Bori Reference Bori2000, 98, 106), the rather uncertain quotation is in a composite language, a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew, written in an Ethiopic script, that Pico’s “consultant,” Flavius Mithridates, presented to his patron as Chaldean. See §§130–35. The Heinrich Petri editions present not these words but a Latin paraphrase translated back into Hebrew (see Pico 2003, 172).

44 Bausi (Pico 2003, 20n44) notes how the Latin word here translated as “inconstant” (desultorius) is used by Varro and Apuleius in reference to riders (desultores) who jumped like acrobats from one horse to another. More interestingly perhaps (also according to Bausi), Poliziano uses the same adjective for Venus (desultoria Venus) in Nutricia 106–7, speaking of the “free love” of primitive men before the institution of marriage.

45 The reference is to Ps. 81:6–7: “I have said: You are gods and all of you the sons of the most High. / But you like men shall die: and shall fall like one of the princes.” These are words spoken by God to the angels, condemned for their sins. Pico applies them to men in order to incite them to ascend from their intermediate (and shapeless) station toward a higher, angelic form, the theme of the next section of the Oration. Cf. Copenhaver (Reference Copenhaver2002a, 61).

46 Wallis, Miller, and Carmichael mistakenly translate “caelestia contemnamus” as “let us struggle toward the heavenly.” I prefer to be consistent with the letter of the text, sticking to the classical meaning of the verb contemnare (used by Cicero and others) and translating caelestia as “celestial” rather than “heavenly.” Pico’s reference might be to the astronomical-astrological knowledge of the heavens. In any case, it is consistent with what he writes in §40, where he suggests a higher stage of contemplation beyond the earthly and the celestial (see also my reference to the rubbed out word “demon” in the introduction).

47 This image is developed further in §94 and §132.

48 On angelic hierarchies, see the commentary to the next section.

49 This is the first time the word “dignity” appears in the text of the Oration. It also appears written in the margins of the Bolognese incunabulum of 1496 (visible online on the site of the Pico Project) and will migrate later into the title (see Michael Papio’s introduction to this volume). In addition to Garin (Reference Garin1938, 102–46), Bori (Reference Bori2000, 41) lists a number of canonical and extracanonical sources most likely known to Pico, including a text by Pope Leo the Great, that have become part of the Christmas service: “Agnosce, o christiane, dignitatem tuam …” (Acknowledge, o Christian, your dignity; and espousing divine nature, do not regress to the old filth, with a degenerate conversation”). See also Buck (Reference Buck1997, 1:5). The dignity and nature of man is the eighth point in Pico’s twelve Spiritualis pugnae arma (“Arms of the spiritual struggle”), included in his Twelve Rules for the Spiritual Struggle. Cf. Manetti’s De dignitate et excellentia hominis (Reference Manetti1532, fol. 163): “…quod neque angelis neque ulli aliae creaturae, nisi homini dumtaxat, ad admirabilem quandam humanae naturae dignitatem et ad incredibilem quoque eius ipsius excellentiam, datum, concessum et attributum esse novimus” (“…we acknowledge what neither pertains to the angel nor to any other creature, if not to man, and it is given, allowed and attributed to the admirable dignity of human nature and his own incredible excellence”).

50 Cf. Pico’s first exposition on Ps. 17:12 (Raspanti in Pico 1997, 149).

51 As in Calcidius’s commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, opifex (from δημιουργός; e.g., Tim. 28c) may be taken as God or the Creator. Opificium, then, comes to mean “creation” or “world.” See Pico’s Heptaplus (e.g., 1.1.3, 1.5.2, and 6.proem).

52 In accordance with the scheme set out by Pseudo-Dionysius (see §70 of the Oration) and confirmed by St. Thomas (Summa Theologiae 1.108, art. 6) and St. Gregory (In evang. II hom. 34), Pico represents here the three divisions of the highest order of angels: the seraphim, the cherubim, and the thrones. The fact that Pico specifically calls the cherubim contemplators does not, of course, mean that the seraphim and thrones are not. Man’s task is the emulation of the highest angels, and dialectics is the necessary intermediate stage in this mystic process (Bori Reference Bori1996b, 557). See Conclusiones 1.6.7, 1.28.2. It has been suggested (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 346–51) that Pico consciously overlaid the cabalistic sefirot on the celestial hierarchy elucidated by Pseudo-Dionysius. In this arrangement, as it applies here, each of these three types of angels is associated with a specific sefirah: the seraphim with Hesed (love); the thrones with Din (judgment); the cherubim with Binah (intelligence). See Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy 205b–209a.

53 Yahweh flies through the Heavens mounted on a cherub (2 Sam. 22:11; Ps. 17:11).

54 This unusual phrase, in which God “broods,” is glossed by Pico himself in Heptaplus 2.2: “Above this [i.e., the crystalline heaven of the upper waters] was borne or, as Hebrew wisdom has it and as Ephraim the Syrian translates it, ‘brooded,’ the Spirit of the Lord; that is, the closely adhering spiritual Olympus, the seat of the Spirits of the Lord, warmed it with its warmth-giving light” (Pico 1998). See also Heptaplus 1.2 and Pico’s Commento 1.10. Interestingly, the gloss of St. Ephrem in question (Com. on Genesis 1.7) explicitly states that it was a normal wind and not the Spirit of the Lord (Hebrew הור, ruah) that hovered or brooded above the waters (Kronholm Reference Kronholm1978, 43–44). Jerome registers the Hebrew term mentioned there as תפחרמ, which he transcribes as merefeth (Liber Hebraicarum quaestionum in Genesim PL 23.937c). Some manuscripts, however, have the apparently more accurate merahefeth or merahaefeth. For the implications of this line of interpretation, see Hayward’s commentary on Jerome’s Hebrew Questions on Genesis (in Jerome Reference Jerome and Hayward1995, 103–5) (see also 2 Sam. 22:11; Pss. 18:11, 104:3; Hos. 4:19; Augustine, Confessions 13.9, De Genesi ad litteram 1.18; Abelard, Sic et non 23; Basil, Homilia II in Hexaëron). Later in the Heptaplus (6.2 and 6.5), Pico returns to this same image, citing James 1:17. See also: Pss. 17:11, 23:2; Gen. 1:2; Jer. 4:23.

55 As Bausi rightly notes, most commentators direct the reader to Job 38:7, but a more likely source is actually Ps. 148:4. Cf. Conclusiones 1.28.24, 2.11.67; Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 549 and passim). On early-morning prayer, see Conclusiones 1.28.37.

56 Cf. 1 Cor. 12:8–14; Augustine, De trinitate 9.3.

57 On loving the unknown, see Augustine, De trinitate 10.1.3, and Rabanus Maurus’s Commentary on Matthew 4.13.5. Cf. John 10:30, 17:11, 21–22; Deut. 29:29; Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 226, 252).

58 Exod. 24:15–18. After his ascent to the mountain to make atonement for his people’s sins (Exod. 32:30ff.), Moses returned to his people in the Sinai Wilderness and revealed to them what he had learned in direct communion with God: the Law tablets (Exod. 34:1–4), the granting of Israel’s covenant (Exod. 34:10ff.), the establishment of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread (Exod. 34:18), the revelation of the Sabbath (Exod. 35:1ff.), and the organization of the tabernacle (Exod. 35–38). For Moses as a contemplator, see Philo, Life of Moses 2.68–69, and Pseudo-Dionysius, Mystical Theology 1001a.

59 These three classes of angels are known as the “first hierarchy,” as they are closest to God. The necessity of the middle level in joining the upper and the lower is addressed in the Heptaplus (6.7) in imagery consonant with that employed here. Cf. Pico’s Exposition (230–38) on Psalm 50 (in Pico 1997, 246) and the Heptaplus’s second proem.

60 Cf. Macrobius, On the Dream of Scipio 1.6.11, and Pico’s Heptaplus 6.6. The “Prime Minds” are the angels; the “Order of Pallas” is a phrase referring to the cherubim, insofar as they preside over the contemplators (Pico 2003, 26–27).

61 Bausi (Reference Bausi1996, 126) maintains that the language here is drawn directly from Ermolao Barbaro (Reference Barbaro and Branca1943, 1:15), but see also Quintilian’s Institutiones 6.3.111 and Seneca’s Controversiae 2.13.

62 Rom. 8:5; Phil. 3:19; Col. 3:2. Cf. Heptaplus (proem to 7): “si nixum propria fortitudine nihil supra se ipsum potest assurgere (alioquin se ipso esset validius), utique nihil nitens per se ipsum ad felicitatem maius aliquid vel perfectius sua natura assequi poterit” (“since nothing can rise above itself by relying on its own strength [otherwise it would be stronger than itself], so nothing relying on itself can attain a felicity any greater or more perfect than its own nature” (Pico 1998).

63 Acts 9:15. See also Commento 2.9; Panofsky (Reference Panofsky1962, 140–41).

64 Celestial Hierarchy 165b–c, 205c–209d. This Dionysius was, of course, thought to be the homonymous follower of Paul of Acts 17:34. See also Heptaplus 3.3 and Pseudo-Dionysius’s Divine Names 821b–d. The mystic three-stage path, or triplex via, was often articulated as purgatio-illuminatio-unitio (or perfectio).

65 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 537a–c.

66 Augustine, among several others, regularly defines the cherub as plenitudo scientiae (“the fullness of knowledge”). See, for example, his sermon on Psalm 97, in which he makes a connection between the fullness of knowledge, love, and God’s throne. Pico may have also been thinking of Richard of St. Victor’s De arca mystica: “Certe cherubin plenitudo scientiae dicitur, et sub talis vocabuli praesagio magnum quiddam secretioris scientiae proponere, vel polliceri videtur” (“Certainly the word ‘cherub’ means ‘fullness of knowledge,’ and under the indication of this word it seems that a kind of great thing of hidden knowledge is being proposed and promised,” Zinn, trans., in Richard of St. Victor 1979, 259). See also Gregory, Moralia in Job 17.27 (PL 76.29a); Isidore of Seville, Mysticorum expositiones sacramentorum, “On Genesis” 5.13–14 and “On Exodus” 46.1 (PL 83.222c and 311b–c). Pico’s use of the phrase in the Oration additionally evokes Jerome’s famous notion of scientia secretorum, which seems particularly appropriate to his discussion of the mysteries (see §104).

67 Richard of St. Victor’s De duodecim patriarchis is based on the notion that Jacob was the father of twelve sons: the successive stages of the contemplator’s quest for mystical enlightenment. The recurring topos of Jacob’s image engraved in the throne of God comes from the Aggadic tradition. See Wolfson 1995, 1–62. Jacob, like Moses, was considered a prototype of effective enlightenment. “Those of our own” refers to the scholars of the Latin tradition (see §186).

68 Jacob saw God here on Earth only during a dream (Gen. 28:11–17); in Heaven, however, the vision of God is attainable in a waking state. Cf. Heptaplus 3.4, Commento (notes to fourth stanza), and St. Hilary’s Tractatus super psalmos (PL 9.657b). This paradox of Jacob’s heightened powers of perception during “sleep” was used by Richard of St. Victor as a model of ascetic contemplation, of the time when the body seems to sleep but the mind is acutely aware (De exterminatione 3.16).

69 Genesis 28:12–13; Commento (notes to sixth stanza); Philo, De somniis 1.2ff.; Iamblichus, Protrepticus 1 (41.11–24 in Iamblichus Reference Iamblichus and Places1989). Interestingly, Pico’s depiction of the relatively harmonious comings and goings of the angels on the ladder is a rather joyous contradiction of the typical iconography of the ladder to God. See Katzenellenbogen (Reference Katzenellenbogen1964, 22–26).

70 See Plato, Phaedo 67b (Pico 2003, 31). See also Num. 4:15: “[…] non tangant vasa sanctuarii ne moriantur…” (“and they shall not touch the vessels of the sanctuary, lest they die”); 2 Kings 6:6–7: “extendit manum Oza ad arcam Dei et tenuit eam quoniam calcitrabant boves iratusque est indignatione Dominus contra Ozam et percussit eum super temeritate qui mortuus est tibi iuxta arcam Dei” (“Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died there before the ark of God”).

71 The conception here of aspects of the soul as a hindrance to the attainment of spiritual and philosophical purity (§§78–80) owes much to Plato’s Phaedo (64c–67b), in which mastery of physical appetite is the cornerstone of moral rectitude.

72 Cf. Ps. 17:25. Cf. Arnobius Afer, Disputationum adversus gentes libri VII 2.9; Rabanus Maurus, Commentaria in libros II paralipomenon 2.28. See also Bausi (Reference Bausi1996, 127).

73 The phrase sub pulvere (“within the dust”) often means “furtively” (e.g., Gregory, Mor. 32.10) but here conveys precisely the opposite meaning: “in the public arena” or “publicly.” See, for example, Cicero, De legibus 3.6.14.

74 Job 40:16; Isidore, Sententiarum libri tres 2.39, “De fornicatione” (PL 83.641a). Cf. Pico (1998, De ente et uno 10): “Unitatis pacem turbat ambitio et sibi haerentem animum extra se rapit et in diversa quasi lacerum trahit atque discerpit” (“Ambition disturbs the peace of unity and wrenches the soul that clings to it out of itself, and drags and tears the soul in pieces as if wounded”).

75 “By the neck.” Despite some commentators’ ingenious source hunting, this was not a particularly uncommon expression. See, however, Garin’s edition of the Oration, in which he observes that this particular usage here may echo Asclepius (Pico 1942), an opinion adopted by Copenhaver (Reference Copenhaver2002a, 67–68) and Hermes Trismegistus (Reference Trismegistus and Copenhaver1992, 74).

76 Psalm 23:3–4: “quis ascendet in montem Domini et quis stabit in loco sancto eius [?] innocens manibus et mundo corde qui non exaltavit frustra animam suam” (“Who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord: or who shall stand in his holy place? The innocent in hands, and clean of heart, who hath not taken his soul in vain”). Cf. Aeneas to Anchises (Virgil Reference Virgil and Fairclough1986, Aen. 2.717ff.): “Tu, genitor, cape sacra manu patriosque Penatis; / me, bello e tanto digressum et caede recenti, / attrectare nefas, donec me flumine vivo / abluero” (“Father, do thou take in thy hand the sacred things and our country’s household gods; for me, fresh from such a conflict and recent carnage, it were sin to handle them, until I have washed me in a running stream.”

77 This could be a reference to the metaphor of eternal happiness as circular movement. See Heptaplus (proem to 7): “Circular motion, through which a body is carried around to the point from which it started, is the most express image of the true felicity, through which a creature returns to the beginning from which it proceeded” (Pico 1998). This passage may be inspired principally by al-Batalyawsi. See Idel (Reference Idel2005, Ascensions 183–87).

78 A probable source for these similes is Plutarch’s On Isis and Osiris 18. After Osiris dies, Typhon (who is identified as being akin to the Titans in 49 and whom Pico identifies with Satan in Conclusiones 2.10.13) comes upon his corpse and cuts it into pieces. Isis afterward collects almost all of the body parts and, with the help of her son Horus (first identified with Apollo in Herodotus 2.144), conquers Typhon. As a result of this conflict, Osiris comes to be regarded as the god of the dead but also of renewed life through Horus (who is, like Apollo, associated with the sun). See also Pico’s Commento 2.8.

79 “To be made perfect” is a phrase that refers to “perfection” in its mystical sense. See §70 and note 64.

80 It actually was not Job but Jeremiah who entered into a pact with God before his birth (see Jer. 1:5). See also, however, Job 31:18.

81 Daniel 7:10.

82 Job 25:2; Dan. 7:10; Gen. 1:2; Heptaplus 3.6. Cf. Conclusiones 1.28.24 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 355) and Mithridates (Reference Mithridates and Campanini2005, 151).

83 Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy 209a–b. Cf. Conclusiones 2.5.3.

84 Empedocles, frag. 17 (Diels and Kranz 1951–52). This is a reference to the “Cosmic Cycle” of Empedocles, according to which two fundamental cosmic forces are locked in an eternal struggle. Love (φιλία) strives to attract and combine, while Strife (νεῖκος) seeks to repel and separate. Cf. Aristotle, Met. 985a20–30; Plutarch, On Isis and Osirus 48. By comparing Conclusiones 2.3.71 and 2.11.66, we see that the former is akin to the seventh sefirah and the latter to the eighth (i.e., what moves toward superior things and what toward inferior). See Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 421, 549).

85 Empedocles, frag. 115, 13–14 (Diels and Kranz 1951–52). Cf. Conclusiones 2.3.71.

86 Cf. Lucan, Pharsalia 1.1 (Cassirer, Kristeller, and Randall in Pico 1948, 231). Plusquam civilia bella (“more than civil wars”) are those waged not only among citizens but even members of a single family. See Isidore of Seville (Etym. 18.1) and Rabanus Maurus (De universo 20.1). Cf. Augustine, De doctrina christiana 4.139.

87 The phrase “our man” in 2 Cor. 4:16 is explained as the “exterior self” (Pico 2003, 38). Bonaventure (1882–1902, 2:587) glosses the expression as the body, as opposed to the “interior self,” which is the “rational spirit” or mind.

88 Pico elaborates on the metaphor of man’s interior “manifold beast” in Heptaplus 4.5–7, citing Plato’s statements in the Republic (588c–92b) that our secret desires can be compared to various beasts that dwell within us. Cf. Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 12.46. Bori explains that there is an allusion here to the labours of Hercules (Bori Reference Bori2000, 77) and that the phrase “manifold beast” refers to the hydra (sensuality) and the “lion” refers to the Nemean lion (wrath). Cf. Bausi (Pico 2003, 39).

89 To understand this simile of the “icta porca” (stuck sow), we must look to Virgil, who, in the eighth book of the Aeneid, recounts the peace made between Romulus and Tatius over the sacrificed sow (Aen. 8.639–41). This passage is incorporated by Pico in Christian terms and brought in here as the symbol of a ratified peace. See also the last verse of Pico’s Carmen latinum 7.

90 Contentio (“strife”) is perhaps the Latin translation of νεῖκος but could refer just as well to Homer’s use of ἔρις, related to Eris, the goddess of discord. The comparison between Heraclitus and Homer is found in Aristotle (Eudem. Eth. 1235a25), Plutarch (De Iside et Osiride 48), and others. See Heraclitus, frags. 10, 53 (in which the etymon is πόλεμος [Pico 2003, 40]), and 80 (Diels and Kranz 1951–52); Homer, Iliad 18.107. Cf. Commento 2.8 and the first Epistle to Gianfrancesco.

91 Cf. Philo, On the Cherubim 37.

92 Matthew 11:28; John 14:27; Jer. 6:16.

93 In other words, we who are of this world will fly into the embrace of Theology. See Conclusiones 2.5.9. Cf. De ente et uno 10; Ps. 54:7; Commento (notes to stanza I). See also §109. Although Pico casts the beatissima mater (“most blessed Mother”) specifically as Theology, his phrase is constructed in such a way as to bring to mind also the Virgin and the Dove of Song of Songs 6:8 as well as the female personification of knowledge or philosophy at large (cf. Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy 4. prose 1, metre 1). This feminine personification likewise suggests Shekhinah or the Matronita. A relationship between the medieval Marian tradition and the Shekhinah of the Zohar is proposed by Green (94–97).

94 This phrase echoes quite closely the important proem of the Heptaplus’s (Pico 1998) third book, in which we read: “volabo insuper caelestem regionem, ubi vera est quies, vera pax, vera tranquillitas, pax utique quam hic visibilis et corporeus dare non potest” (“I shall fly above the heavenly region to that of true repose, peace, and tranquility, especially that peace which this visible and corporeal world cannot give”).

95 On the unity of the intellect, see Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 112–14). See also Conclusiones 1.7.3, 1.20.7, 2.4.24–25; Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 107–8). It should be noted that the yearning for peace is, in effect, also the desire for truth (cf. Mithridates Reference Mithridates and Campanini2005, 158), for without peace there is no union (whether unitio or henosis), and without truth there is no understanding of the Godhead (or the One). For Pico, these are all logical points of ontological – and philosophical – convergence. See De ente et uno 10 (Pico 1998): “Pat[er …] ipsa unitas, ipsa veritas, ipsa bonitas est. […] Evolemus ad Patrem ubi pax unifica, ubi lux verissima, voluptas optima” (“The Father […] is unity itself, truth itself, goodness itself. […] Let us fly to the Father where there is unifying peace, truest light, best pleasure”).

96 See Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 33.229–33. See also Pico’s Epist. 20.5.

97 Cf. Luke 2:13–14 and Heptaplus 7.4.

98 Cf. Matt. 10:12–13: “Intrantes autem in domum salutate eam et siquidem fuerit domus digna veniat pax vestra super eam” (“And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house”); Luke 10:5–6; John 14:23.

99 As will soon become apparent, the feminine pronouns in this section and the next refer to the soul, anima, which is a feminine noun in Latin.

100 Psalm 23:10. Cf. Conclusiones 1.6.3.

101 See Macarius’s first homily (3–4), in which he explains the allegories of Ezekiel’s vision, comprehensible only if one takes it anagogically to represent the advent of Christ (the hand that appears beneath the cherub’s wings), Who oversees the perfection of the human soul and its preparation to become God’s throne. For Proclus’s tripartite path to theology as an analogue to Pseudo-Dionysius’s triple way, see Bori (Reference Bori2000, 51ff.). Despite man’s apparent ability to raise himself up, the self-preparatory elements of the soul’s attainment of union with God should not be seen as existing outside the need for God’s grace (see Dulles Reference Dulles1941, 121–25). Cf. John 14:23; Ps. 23:7–8.

102 Cf. Conclusiones 1.28.3; Prov. 20:28.

103 Psalm 44:10–11: “Adstetit regina a dextris tuis in vestitu deaurato circumdata varietate / audi filia et vide et inclina aurem tuam et obliviscere populum tuum et domum patris tui” (“The queen stood on thy right hand, in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety. / Hearken, O daughter, and see, and incline thy ear: and forget thy people and thy father’s house”). According to the most common interpretations of these verses, the bride here represents the emergence of a single church from a “variety” of languages and customs (cf. Jerome Ep. 65.14–15 [PL 22.633]; Augustine, Enarrationes in psalmos 44.24–25 [PL 36.510]). Pico recasts the image as the illumination of the single soul through a variety of “sciences,” or schools of thought.

104 Cf. Isa. 49:18, 61:10; Jer. 2:32; John 3:29; Rev. 19:7–8, 21:2. This eroticization of the union between the soul and God clearly owes much in tone to the Song of Songs. Cf. also Hos. 2:19–20. This union is of a very personal nature inasmuch as this intimate “marriage” represents the contemplative’s ultimate goal. See Rabanus Maurus, Commentary on Ezekiel 15.40; Ps. 44:11–12; Isa. 49:18; Gen. 24:7. The allegorical allusions belong both to the cabalistic tradition of hieros gamos (e.g., Shekhinah’s coupling with Binah) and to the Christian mystical vision of the soul’s union with the Godhead (e.g., Bernard of Clairvaux’s Sermones in Epiphania 2.2–3 [PL 183.158–59]). See also Richard of St. Victor’s De arca mystica 3.13–16.

105 Cf. Conclusiones 1.17.3–5; Ps. 115:15.

106 That “plenitude of life” known as death is explained more clearly by Pico in De ente et uno 5. Citing Paul (1 Cor. 15:31; Rom. 7:24) and Seneca (Ep. 102 and 120), Pico casts our worldly life as death itself inasmuch as it is simply the soul’s temporary vivification of the body, not a state of existence that is characteristic of the essence of the soul. The soul’s “life” is being and, given that the study of philosophy is also the contemplation of being, can in this way be seen to exemplify the object of the philosopher’s endeavour. Cf. the last sentence of De ente et uno and Phaedo 82b–84b. In the Commento (notes to stanza 4), Pico explains that the cabalists believed many patriarchs had died as a result of intellectual rapture, represented allegorically in the kiss. Having been so completely uplifted, they were able to abandon their bodies (Conclusiones 2.8.7, 2.11.13). See also Macrobius, In somnium Scipionis 1.12.17; Rom. 14:7–8; Col. 2:11–13; Plato, Phaedo 60d ff. (Pico 1987, 20), 81a (Cassirer, Kristeller, and Randall in Pico 1948, 232).

107 See Origen’s first homily on Genesis: “Therefore, by participation in that celestial water which is said to be above the heavens, each of the faithful becomes heavenly, that is, when he applies his mind to lofty and exalted things, thinking nothing about the earth but totally about heavenly things” (Origen Reference Origen and Heine1982, 50). This notion is not far from those expressed in §§55–56 and indeed corresponds to Pico’s explanation of the “deathless fountain” in the Commento (notes to stanza 4). Cf. Conclusiones 2.9.6. The image of heavenly nectar in this context goes back to Plato’s discussion of the angelic charioteer who, after guiding the soul to heaven, refreshes his horses with ambrosia and nectar (Phaedrus 243e–257a). Cf. Macrobius, In somnium Scipionis 1.12.11. Nectar, according to Proclus, corresponds to the Infinite (cf. Conclusiones 1.24.54; Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 333). Ficino was especially intrigued by this mythical “hymn,” of which he wrote several times and which indeed occupies nearly all of his commentary on the Phaedrus. In a letter sent to Giovanni Cavalcanti (known as the De raptu Pauli ad tertium coelum [Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 1:697ff.]), Ficino uses Plato’s charioteer as a stylistic model for Paul’s vision of heaven (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2–4 and §70). The motif is revisited, complete with mention of the divine foods, in two other works: in De voluptate, Ficino explains that ambrosia represents contemplation and nectar the joy of being near to God; in De amore (7.14), ambrosia and nectar are symbolic of the wondrous vision of heaven. These two interpretations come together in his commentary on the Philebus (chap. 34) and in the Theologia Platonica (18.8). These various ideas on the meaning of heavenly nectar appear frequently in many of Ficino’s letters. See Allen (Reference Allen1981, 220 and passim). Pico probably begins with this Platonic notion of the presence of nectar in heaven but then, relying on Plotinus’s interpretation (Enneads 3.5.9) of a passage in Plato’s Symposium (203b–c), adds the reference to intoxication, an allusion in the case of Plotinus to the way in which knowledge is passed down from higher to lower levels. See also Pico’s Commento (2.14a, notes to stanza 3 and notes to stanza 4, in which he refers to Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed 2.12) and Conclusiones 2.10.24, 2.11.17; cf. §108. For the cherub as the supercelestial charioteer who guides the soul in an orderly fashion away from discord, see Philo, On the Cherubim 23–24.

108 “Solitude of the body” is a phrase that was sometimes associated with Job 39:6 (Gregory, Moralia in Job 30.16). See also Gerhoh of Reichersberg’s Commentaria vetustissima et profundissima super Canticum Canticorum 3.3 (PL 195.1129c–d).

109 Cf. Exod. 19:22–23; Lev. 16:23–24. The allegory of the tabernacle as an end is traditional. See Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses 177–78. Though hardly as enthusiastic about pagan philosophers, Richard of St. Victor (both in his De arca mystica and the Nonnullae allegoriae tabernaculi foederis) likewise glosses the various grades of access to the tabernacle as linear phases of epistemological progress that culminate in the grace of understanding through the contemplation of divine invisibilia. For the purification of the priests, see Philo’s Life of Moses 2.74 and 138ff.; Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis 5.6; Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel, chap. 3; and Pico’s first exposition on Ps. 17:12 (Pico 1997, 149). Thessaly, long considered a hotbed of magicians, fits in nicely with the concept of the intelligent but misguided soul.

110 The menorah appears also in the eighth tale of Flavius Mithridates’ translation, made for Pico, of The Great Parchment. Its modern editor, Giulio Busi, explains: “In various passages, [the author] expresses the theoretical principle of the correspondence between a particular sefirah and the whole. He says for instance that ‘the holy Temple below is arranged according to the region of the holy temple above,’ thus signifying that malkut (the lower Sanctuary) reproduces the structure of the whole emanation (the upper Sanctuary). Such a perfect mirroring is however possible only when the priest takes his dirty ‘clothes […] away [and …] puts clean linen over his head.’ That is when the evil forces are driven away and yesod (the holy priest) is connected purely with malkut. Such a mystical purity makes it possible to ascend through meditation to the outermost source of light” (Mithridates Reference Mithridates, Bondoni and Campanini2004, 38).

111 Cf. Rabanus Maurus’s Commentary on Ezekiel 42.17; Bausi (1996, 37).

112 The meaning of §§98–102 relies upon several Old Testament passages related to temples and the duties of priests. Most scholars attribute the wondrous images of §101 to the descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant (Exod. 25–26). See also Exod. 27:21; Lev. 4:6, 24:3; Heptaplus (second proem); and Conclusiones 1.2.22. To be sure, the phrase pellicea elementa (“skin coverings”) is difficult to understand if not in reference to the furs placed over the ark’s exterior (cf. Exod. 26:7, 14, 36:19, and 39:33; see Pico 1948, 233). The skins could be Christological symbols and/or representative of the Fall and Redemption; cf. Conclusiones 2.8.8–9 and Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 489–90). Similarly, the seven-part candelabra could well be inspired by the septem lucernas (“seven lights”) of Exod. 25:37–39 and the multicoloured decorations of the supercelestial world by the various blues, scarlets, purples, and golds of the tabernacle’s curtains (Exod. 26:1–6).

113 Such a forthright assertion recalls Eriugena’s famous phrase “Nemo intrat in caelum nisi per philosophiam” (“No one enters heaven except through philosophy,” in Eriugena 1939, 64).

114 Pico was not the only one to use the term “mystery” as applied to Moses’s teachings. Cf., for example, Ficino’s In Phaedrum (Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 1363): “Tum vero interea mirabile nota mysterium mosayco mysterio simile” (“Meanwhile, take note of this marvelous mystery, which resembles the Mosaic mystery,” trans. Allen Reference Allen1981, 74–75). For an antecedent, see Philo, On the Cherubim 48–49. See also Eriugena, Periphyseon 2.22 (PL 122.564a–b).

115 On the theology of the ancients, or prisca theologia (a notion that was taken from Gemistus Pletho), see Ficino’s Argumentum set before his translation of the Pimander (Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 1836): “There is, therefore, a theology of the ancients (prisca theologia) […] which has its origins in Mercury and culminates in the divine Plato.” For an alternative thread, which begins with Zoroaster, see Theologia Platonica 17.1 (Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 386). For the different genealogies, see Walker (Reference Walker1956). For a general overview, see Walker (Reference Walker1972); see also M. J. B. Allen, “Golden Wits, Zoroaster and the Revival of Platon” in Allen (Reference Allen1998). Pico’s trust in the prisca theologia will turn into disillusionment and then finally disappear in his Disputationes; see Valcke (Reference Valcke1989, 192), cited in Bausi (Reference Bausi1996, 110n19).

116 The exclamation “by Hercules!” (akin to “by Jove!”) was not uncommon, but see Bausi (Pico 2003, 167–68) for its appearance in Gianfrancesco’s editorial work.

117 On dialectics seen as an expiatory art, see Plato, Sophist 230c–d.

118 Ancient mystery cults (e.g., the Eleusinian) often required novices to progress through a series of stages before beholding in person the contents of the sacred κίστη and attaining epopteia (see §§104 and 106). The creation of an analogy between the path of philosophy and that of the mysteries – the first steps of which consist in purification and initiation – is typical of Neoplatonism but is already present in Plato’s Phaedo 69b–d: “…but truth is in fact a purification from all these things, and self-restraint and justice and courage and wisdom itself are a kind of purification. And I fancy that these men who established the mysteries were not unenlightened, but in reality had a hidden meaning when they said long ago that whoever goes uninitiated and unsanctified to the other world will lie in the mire, but he who arrives there initiated and purified will dwell with the gods. For as they say in the mysteries, ‘the thyrsus-bearers are many, but the mystics are few’; and these mystics are, I believe, those who have been true philosophers” (Plato Reference Plato and Fowler1990). A.-J. Festugière has suggested that the mystères cultuels have been replaced through the mystères littéraires (cf. Diès Reference Diès1927). Regarding the issue of the “language of mysteries” in a Platonic context, refer to Wind’s introduction (Wind Reference Wind1968).

119 Cf. Plato, Symposium 210a; Plutarch, On Isis and Osiris 77 (382d).

120 See Plato, Phaedo 69c.

121 See Plato, Phaedrus 247e, in Ficino’s translation: “Cum autem redierit, auriga ad praesepe sistens equos obicit illis ambrosiam, et post ipsam nectar potandum” (“On his arrival, the charioteer stops the horses at the stable and offers them ambrosia and nectar also to drink,” Allen trans. in Allen Reference Allen1981, 220). See also §98.

122 Plato’s most significant passage may be found in Phaedrus 265b: “And we made four divisions of the divine madness, ascribing them to four gods, saying that prophecy was inspired by Apollo, the mystic madness by Dionysos, the poetic by the Muses, and the madness of love […] by Aphrodite and Eros” (Plato Reference Plato and Fowler1990). This passage is amply treated by Ficino in the final pages of his Commentarium in Convivium Platonis, whence Pico draws the order of the four madnesses, or furores, described later. On the divinus furor, see also Ficino’s letter to Pellegrino Agli (Gentile Reference Gentile1990; Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 613ff.). The translation of the Greek manía into the Latin furor appears in Cicero, De divinatione 1.80: “Negat enim sine furore Democritus quemquam poetam magnum esse posse, quod idem dicit Plato. Quem, si placet, appellet furorem, dum modo is furor ita laudetur ut in Phaedro Platonis laudatus est” (“Democritus says that no one can be a great poet without being in a state of frenzy, and Plato says the same thing. Let Plato call it ‘frenzy’ if he will, provided he praises it as it was praised in his Phaedrus,” Falconer trans. in Cicero Reference Cicero and Falconer1959). See Plato, Phaedrus 244a.

123 John 5:19: “Scimus quoniam ex Deo sumus: et mundus totus in maligno positus est” (“We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness”).

124 See Virgil, Aen. 6.19. See Marsilio Ficino, Commentarium in Convivium Platonis 7.14: “Alas animo tribuit, per quas in sublime feratur” (“[Plato] attributes wings to the soul, by which it may be borne to the sublime,” Jayne trans. in Ficino Reference Ficino, Symposium and Jayne1944). See also §§48 and 94.

125 Marsilio Ficino, Theologia Platonica 1.6: “Aliud tamen mens erit, aliud veritas. Quod sic aperit Zoroaster: Μάνθανε τὸ νοητόν, ἐπεὶ ἔξω νόου ὑπάρχει, id est: ‘Scito intellegibile ipsum esse extra mentem’” (“Yet mind and truth will still be different things. Zoroaster unfolded it like this: ‘Be aware that the intelligible lies outside the mind,’” Allen, trans. in Allen Reference Allen1981). See Chaldean Oracles 1.10 (Des Places Reference Des Places1971, 66).

126 Marsilio Ficino, Commentarium in Convivium Platonis 7.14: “Primus itaque furor inconcinna et dissonantia temperat” (“So the first kind of madness tempers dissonant and unharmonious parts,” Jayne trans. in Ficino Reference Ficino, Symposium and Jayne1944).

127 Marsilio Ficino, Commentarium in Convivium Platonis 7.14: “Primus quidem poeticus furor, alter mysterialis, tertius vaticinium, amatorius affectus est quartus. Est autem poesis a Musis, mysterium a Dionysio, vaticinium ab Apolline, amor a Venere” (“The first is the poetic madness, the second is that of the mysteries, the third is that of prophecy, and the fourth is that of love. Moreover, the poetry is from the Muses, the mystery from Dionysus, the prophecy from Apollo, and the love from Venus,” Jayne trans. in Ficino Reference Ficino, Symposium and Jayne1944). Ficino, while paraphrasing Plato’s Phaedrus, gives the four furores a different order, which is followed by Pico. See Plato, Phaedrus 265b.

128 Second furor, the furor mysterialis. See note 127.

129 On the relation between Dionysus and Apollo (to whom the appellation Musagetes normally refers), see Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 389b–c.

130 Romans 1:20: “Invisibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur” (“For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”). See Ficino, De divino furore, a letter to Pellegrino Agli (in Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 613): “Itaque Paulus ac Dionysius, Christianorum theologorum sapientissimi, invisibilia Dei, asserunt, per ea quae facta sunt queque hic cernuntur intelligi” (“Paul and Dionysius, the wisest of the Christian theologians, affirm that the invisible things of God are understood from what has been made and is to be seen here,” trans. in Ficino Reference Ficino1975–2003, 1:43–44).

131 Psalm 35:9: “Inebriabuntur ab ubertate domus tuae” (“They shall be inebriated with the plenty of thy house”).

132 Hebrews 3:5: “Et Moses quidem fidelis erat in tota domo eius tamquam famulus” (“And Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant”). Additionally, Heb. 3:2: “Qui fidelis est ei qui fecit illum sicut et Moses in omni domo illius” (“Who is faithful to him that made him, as was also Moses in all his house”), which is a quotation of Num. 12:7: “At non talis servus meus Moses, qui in omni domo mea fidelissimus est” (“But it is not so with my servant Moses who is most faithful in all my house”).

133 Cf. Homer, Iliad 1.70, cited in Plutarch’s On the E at Delphi 387b. This is the third furor, the vaticinium (see note 127).

134 The fourth furor, the amatorius affectus (“loving emotion”) (see note 127).

135 The original term, aestrus or oestrus, derives from the Greek οἶστρος (lit. “gadfly”), which was often used metaphorically, as in Sophocles and Euripides, to refer to any stimulus that drives one mad. See Pico’s letter to Benivieni of 12 November 1486 (in Dorez Reference Dorez1895, 358). See also Bausi (Pico 2003, 54).

136 On the ardent seraphim, cf. §§54 and 57. See, again, Ficino’s De divino furore (in Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 613): “in hac autem ipsa alarum recuperatione abstrahi a corpore illarum vi animum Deoque plenum ad Superos trahi ac vehementer anniti” (“On recovery of these wings, the soul is separated from the body by their power. Filled with God, it strives with all its might to reach the heavens and thither it is drawn,” Allen trans. in Allen Reference Allen1981).

137 Galatians 2:20: “Vivo autem iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus” (“And I live, now not I; but Christ liveth in me”).

138 Cf. Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 385b.

139 This philosopher, who was Plutarch’s teacher, belonged to the Platonic Academy; he is one of the main characters of Plutarch’s On the E at Delphi. See Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 385b–c.

140 The whole passage is clearly dependent on Plutarch’s On the E at Delphi, where the three Delphic maxims are commented on.

141 John 1:9: “Erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum” (“That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world”).

142 Cf. Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 385d.

143 Cf. Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 385d and passim.

144 Cf. Nonius Marcellus (Reference Marcellus, Lindsay and Onions1903, 1:62, 83); Cicero, Orator 21. See also Bausi (Pico 2003, 56–57).

145 Plato, Alcibiades I (131a–33c).

146 Cf. Plutarch, On the E at Delphi 392a and passim.

147 On the reception of Pythagoras during the Renaissance, see Casini (Reference Casini1998).

148 Cf. Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 8.44.

149 Cf. Iamblichus, Protrepticus 21 (Iamblichus Reference Iamblichus and Pistelli1967, 107, 116–17; Iamblichus Reference Iamblichus and Places1989, 134, 142–43); Porphyry, Vita Pythagorae 42; Ficino, Symbola Pythagorae philosophi; Ficino, Commentariolus in symbola Pythagorae (in Ficino Reference Ficino and Kristeller1937, 2:102).

150 Cf. Iamblichus, Protrepticus 21 (Iamblichus Reference Iamblichus and Pistelli1967, 107–8, 115, 121–22; Iamblichus Reference Iamblichus and Places1989, 134, 141, 147); Ficino, Symbola Pythagorae philosophi (in Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 1979); Ficino, Commentariolus in symbola Pythagorae (in Ficino Reference Ficino and Kristeller1937, 2:102–3). Cf. also Diogenes Laertius 7.34–35; Hesiod, Opera et dies 727, 742–43; Pliny, Natural History 28.69.

151 Ficino, Commentariolus in symbola Pythagorae (in Ficino Reference Ficino and Kristeller1937, 2:100): “Mingere est purgari, incidere ungues etiam est amovere a te superba et vilia” (“To urinate is to purge oneself, to cut the nails is to distance oneself from prideful and vile things”). See Celenza (Reference Celenza1999, 694–95).

152 Cf. Plato, Republic 508b–c.

153 Cf. Iamblichus, Protrepticus 21; Ficino, Symbola Pythagorae philosophi; Ficino, Commentariolus in symbola Pythagorae (in Ficino Reference Ficino and Kristeller1937, 2:101). See Celenza (Reference Celenza1999, 695–97).

154 Cf. Plato, Alcibiades I (133c).

155 “Solid food” in this context recalls Paul’s admonition not to take spiritual food that is too strong before one is ready. See Heb. 5:12–14: “Etenim cum deberetis magistri esse propter tempus rursum indigetis ut vos doceamini quae sint elementa exordii sermonum Dei et facti estis quibus lacte opus sit non solido cibo. Omnis enim qui lactis est particeps expers est sermonis iustitiae parvulus enim est; perfectorum autem est solidus cibus eorum qui pro consuetudine exercitatos habent sensus ad discretionem boni ac mali” (“For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: and you are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat [solido cibo]. For every one that is a partaker of milk, is unskillful in the word of justice: for he is a little child. But strong meat [solidus cibus] is for the perfect; for them who by custom have their senses exercised to the discerning of good and evil”). Regarding ambrosia, see notes 107 and 121.

156 Cf. Prov. 30:30–31: “Leo, fortissimus bestiarum, ad nullius pavebit occorsum; gallus succinctus lumbos, et aries; nec est rex, qui resistat ei” (“A lion, the strongest of beasts, who hath no fear of anything he meeteth: A cock girded about the loins: and a ram: and a king, whom none can resist”). See, moreover, Ficino, De vita coelitus comparanda 3.14 (in Ficino Reference Ficino1576, 550).

157 Job 38:36; cf. Ficino, Commentariolus in symbola Pythagorae (in Ficino Reference Ficino and Kristeller1937, 2:102).

158 Cf. Ficino, Commentariolus in symbola Pythagorae (in Ficino Reference Ficino and Kristeller1937, 2:102). See Matt. 26:74–75: “Et continuo gallus cantavit. Et recordatus est Petrus verbi Iesu, quod dixerat: prius quam gallus cantet, ter me negabis” (“And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said: Before the cock crows, thou wilt deny me thrice”).

159 Cf. Job 38:7: “Cum me laudarent simul astra matutina […]” (“When the morning stars praised me together […]”).

160 The greater world (maior mundus) is the Neoplatonic Macrocosmos or Megacosmos.

161 Plato, Phaedo 118a. Since those who recovered from illness often sacrificed a cock to Aesculapius as recognition for their cure, these famous last words of Socrates were commonly taken to mean that he viewed death as the ultimate remedy for the vicissitudes of this life.

162 Unfortunately, the nature of Pico’s sources is not clear. Some texts had been brought to his attention by Flavius Mithridates (see Pico’s letter to Ficino written in autumn 1486, in Supplementum Ficinianum, 272–73: “Chaldaici hi libri sunt, si libri sunt et non thesauri: In primis Ezre, Zoroastris et Melchiar Magorum oracula, in quibus et illa quoque, que apud Graecos mendosa et mutila circumferuntur, leguntur integra et absoluta. Tum est in illa Chaldeorum sapientum brevis quidem et salebrosa, sed plena misteriis interpretatio. Est itidem et libellus de dogmatis Chaldaice theologie cum Persarum, Grecorum et Chaldeorum in illa divina et locupletissima enarratione” (“These are the Chaldean books, if they are to be considered books and not treasures: first the oracles of the Mages, Ezra, Zoroaster, and Melcher, in which one can read in its absolute integrity what has been transmitted only in fragments and full of mistakes among the Greeks. In those books is contained the somewhat condensed and hard to decipher, yet comprehensive, interpretation of the mysteries of the Chaldean wise men. One equally finds in them also a small book about the dogmas of the Chaldean theology, with a divine and most authoritative explanation of the Persians’, the Greeks’, and the Chaldeans’”). Pico certainly had some texts or fragments written in a language that Wirszubski, on the basis of the extant fragments preserved in the Palatino manuscript (for example, the names of the paradisiacal rivers listed in §134), considered to be a mixture of Aramaic, Syrian, and Hebrew, written in Ethiopic characters. These “texts,” however, might obviously have been fabricated, perhaps by Flavius Mithridates himself (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 13, 486–87). Pico considered them, as in the preceding quotation, as being genuine versions (perhaps the originals) of the Chaldean Oracles; according to him they were better and richer than the compilation of scattered Greek fragments that circulated under that title (on the fortune of the Greek Chaldean Oracles during the Renaissance, see Dannenfeldt Reference Dannenfeldt1957). Gemistus Pletho might have been the first to believe that the Chaldean Oracles embodied sentences by Zoroaster (see also Masai Reference Masai1956, 136ff.; Bidez and Cumont Reference Bidez and Cumont1938; Duchesne-Guillemin Reference Duchesne-Guillemin1958, 4). He was followed by Ficino in the Theologia Platonica (see Gentile Reference Gentile1990). See also Bausi (Pico 2003, 173–75).

163 See Psellus, Summaria et brevis dogmatum Chaldaicorum expositio (PG 122.1152d).

164 See note 127.

165 PG 122.1129a.

166 The names of the rivers are not available in the editio princeps, and the lacunae are normally filled in later editions with the Hebrew names of the paradisiacal rivers (Gen. 2:10–14). In the Palatino manuscript, Wirszubski (Wirszubski Reference Wirszubski1989, 242, and in Mithridates Reference Mithridates and Wirszubski1963, 38ff.) was able to read the four names as written in Ethiopic letters, but in a language that can be interpreted as a mixture of Aramaic, Syriac, and Hebrew, as follows: 1. q-s-t = “truth” (in Syriac); 2. k-?-r-n = “expiation” (in Hebrew); 3. n-h-r = “light” (in Aramaic); 4. r-h-m-n-t = “piety” (in Hebrew). See fig. 4.

167 The phrase “northern line” translates boreali amussi. Amussis was a term variously used to signify an instrument employed to ascertain the degree to which a flat surface was level or precise. Pico may intend here nothing more esoteric than the plane one establishes while aligning one’s sight through the eyepieces of an astrolabe (or by levelling a quadrant, nocturnal, or other navigational device) pointed toward Polaris (the North Star). Hence, we could assume here an image, albeit a rather complicated one, that approximates the modern expression “moral compass.” The reference to Iberian waves could be, as Bausi conjectures, to Seneca (Pico 2003, 64). See also the notion of “median line” in Idel (Reference Idel2005, Ascensions 167–81).

168 The North, therefore, would represent dialectics; the East, natural philosophy; the South, theology; and the West, moral philosophy.

169 Psalm 54:18: “Vespere, et mane, et meridie, narrabo, et annuntiabo” (“Evening and morning, and at noon I will speak and declare”). Augustine, De genesi ad litteram 4.30.47: “[…] ubi semper est dies in contemplatione incommutabilis veritatis, semper vespera in cognitione in seipsa creaturae, semper mane etiam ex hac cognitione in laude Creatoris” (“when it is always day in the immutable contemplation of truth, it is always evening in man’s awareness of himself and morning always arises from that awareness in praise of the Creator”). See also Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 54.18: “Evangeliza tu, noli tacere quod accepisti, vespere, de praeteritis; mane, de futuris; meridie, de sempiternis” (“Do thou proclaim glad tidings, keep not secret that which thou hast received, ‘in evening’ of things gone by, ‘in morning’ of things to be, ‘at noon’ of things ever to be,” Augustine of Hippo, Reference Coxe1888). Morning, then, comes to be associated with natural philosophy, evening with moral philosophy, and noon with theology. This pattern, with the exception of dialectics, is compatible with the allegory of the cardinal directions listed in note 168.

170 Cf. Gen. 12:1–13:3, 13:14–15; Conclusiones 1.28.14.

171 The “Moors” are, more accurately, the Arabs. See Conclusiones 1.21.3. This could be a reference to the ideas that informed Conclusiones 1.28.21 inasmuch as midday, like the South, belongs to theology.

172 On the prohibition against disclosing the contents of the mysteries, see, for one example among many, Plotinus, Enneads 6.9.11: “This is the intention of the command given in the mysteries here below not to disclose to the uninitiated” (Plotinus 1966–88).

173 For the phrase “our man,” see note 87.

174 Jeremiah 9:21: “Quia ascendit mors per fenestras nostras, ingressa est domos nostras” (“For death is come up through our windows, it is entered into our houses”). Bausi reminds us that the windows of our souls are our senses, through which we are susceptible to temptation. He likewise notes that Plato associated our liver and breast with concupiscence and wrath, respectively (Pico 2003, 67).

175 For a possible source of this angelological conclusion, see Gregory the Great, XL Homiliarum in Evangelia libri duo 34.9 (PL 76.1251a): “Raphael vero dicitur medicina Dei” (“In truth, Raphael is called the medicine of God”). Cf. Tob. 3:25: “Et missus est angelus Domini, ut curaret eos ambos, quorum uno tempore sunt orationes in conspectu Domini recitatae” (“And the holy angel of the Lord, Raphael was sent to heal them both, whose prayers at one time were rehearsed in the sight of the Lord”). On the names of the angels as connected to the doctrine of the sefirot (a connection which might be alluded to through the words “the most hidden mysteries”), see Yates (Reference Yates1979). For Raphael as healer, see, for example, Tob. 3.25–26 and 11.8ff.

176 Cf. Gregory the Great, XL Homiliarum in Evangelia libri duo 34.9 (PL 76.1251a): “Gabriel autem, fortitudo Dei” (“And Gabriel is the strength of God”).

177 Cf. Gregory the Great, XL Homiliarum in Evangelia libri duo 34.9 (PL 76.1251a): “Michael namque, qui ut Deus” (“And Michael, who is like God”).

178 Psalm 20:4: “Posuisti in capite eius coronam de lapide pretioso” (“thou hast set on his head a crown of precious stones”).

179 For an example of an analogous use of the term fortune, see Pico, Epistle 36 (to Andrea Corneus), 15 October 1486 (Pico 1971, Opera omnia 1:376–79), to which this whole section of the Oration is very similar (Bori Reference Bori2000, 73–77): “Everyone must act this way, especially those whom fortune has treated so benevolently that they can live not merely splendidly and comfortably, but also magnificently. Great fortunes raise one up to the skies and therefore induce ostentation but, like an indomitable, bucking steed, they often behave badly and torment, rather than transport, him who rides upon them” (Pico 1971, 1:377).

180 As Bausi (Pico 2003, 68) notes, this whole passage recalls the opening paragraph of Cicero’s De finibus bonorum and malorum (On Moral Ends), where we find a similar defence of philosophical studies: “In this work I am putting into Latin themes which philosophers of the highest talent and most refined learning have dealt with in Greek, and I am well aware, Brutus, that this will incur criticism of various kinds. Some people, by no means uneducated, altogether disapprove of philosophizing. Others do not criticize it so long as it is done in an easygoing manner, but consider that one should not devote so much of one’s enthusiasm and attention to it” (Cicero 2001b).

181 See again Pico’s letter to Andrea Corneus: “Men’s minds have been invaded by the ruinous and monstrous conviction that noblemen ought to refrain from philosophical studies or, at most, that they should taste them only with the edge of their lips in order to show off their intelligence, rather than putting them into practice, in peace, so as to better themselves. They consider Neoptolemus’ saying as a decree: no one, or just a very few, should engage in philosophy” (Pico 1971, 1:377). The Neoptolemus referred to here is the protagonist of a lost tragedy by Ennius quoted by, among others, Cicero (De Republica 1.18.30): “He much preferred Ennius’ Neoptolemus, who said that ‘he wanted to be a philosopher but only a little; it didn’t please him totally’” (Cicero 1999b). See also De Oratore 2.37.156: “I have determined to philosophize, as Neoptolemus says in Ennius, ‘In a few things, for I don’t want to do so in all ways’” (Cicero 1979–82); Aulus Gellius (Reference Gellius and Rolfe1984, Attic Nights 5.15.9): “I agreed with Ennius’ Neoptolemus, who rightly says: ‘Philosophizing there must be, but by the few; / Since for all men it’s not to be desired.’”

182 Here Pico outlines again a comprehensive plan for philosophical study in three stages, ascending from the investigation of earthly phenomena and natural philosophy (“the causes of things, the ways of nature”) to celestial phenomena (“the logic of the universe”) and theological mysteries (the plans of God, the mysteries of Heaven and Earth). The passage is reminiscent of Cicero, Tusculan Disputations (4.57): “[W]isdom is the knowledge of things divine and human, together with an understanding of each thing’s cause” (Cicero Reference Cicero and Graver2002).

183 “The study of wisdom” is an etymological reflection of the Greek φιλοσοφία (“philosophy”). Cf. Augustine, Against the Academicians 3.9.20: “Listen, my friend, philosophy is not called wisdom itself but the zeal for wisdom” (Augustine of Hippo Reference King1995); Augustine, Epistles 3.149.2: “[…] and what is philosophy in Latin, if not the study of wisdom?” Cf. also Cicero, Tusculan Disputations 1.1: “The theoretical study of all the skills which have to do with the right way of living is to be identified with the pursuit of wisdom, that is, philosophy. So I decided that I should expound this in Latin” (Cicero Reference Cicero and Douglas1985).

184 See again Pico’s letter to Andrea Corneus: “Would it therefore be ignoble or wholly improper for a nobleman gratuitously to pursue wisdom? Who could hear or tolerate such a thing without irritation? No one who has practiced philosophy in such a way as to be able or unable to do so has ever truly been a philosopher. Such a man has engaged in commerce, not philosophy” (Pico 1971, 1:377). As Bausi (Pico 2003, 70) notes, this passage also echoes Convivio 1.9.3–5, where Dante, however, speaks against perverting the pursuit of “letters” in general (not philosophy, in particular) into practical and monetary advantage. Such a scornful attitude toward the pursuit of knowledge is one of the main themes of the early humanists (cf., e.g., Petrarch’s Invective contra medicum and Boccaccio’s Genealogiae deorum gentilium 14).

185 See §161 and §§65–66, where “the order of Pallas” is described as that of cherubic contemplation that brings to fruition the link between love (the seraphim) and justice or law (the thrones): throughout the Oration and Conclusiones, as the personification of Wisdom or Philosophy, Pallas signifies the intellectual nature which leads to wisdom (in Conclusiones 2.5.14 and 2.11.10, the Orphean Pallas is associated with the cabalists’ Metatron).

186 Cf. Plato, Republic 495c. For the image of chaste Philosophy as neglected, scorned, and reduced to prostitution, one may also recall these famous verses from Petrarch (Reference Durling1976, RVF 7.10–11): “Povera e nuda vai, Philosophia, / dice la turba al vil guadagno intesa” (“‘Philosophy, you go poor and naked!’ / says the mob, bent on low gain”).

187 That is, “remuneration.”

188 This may be a reference to the fact that in 1483 Pico renounced the administration of his patrimony, securing for himself only one-third of its revenues (Pico 2003, 72). According to Gianfrancesco, he renounced all earthly possessions three years before his death (in 1496).

189 See again the epistle to Andrea Corneus, in which Pico speaks about the opposition between active and contemplative life: “But you might say: I want you to embrace Martha [the active life], but without abandoning Mary [the contemplative life]. I do not reject this opinion; in truth, I neither condemn nor impugn anyone who holds it. But maintaining that it is not a mistake to pass from a contemplative to a public life is very different from considering one’s refusal to do so to be an act of slothfulness or, indeed, even a sin or a crime” (Pico 1971, 1:377). As to whether the active life is more excellent than the contemplative, see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 2.2.182.1 (which follows Aristotle’s Ethics 10.7.8). This question was vigorously debated in humanist circles: see Cristoforo Landino (1424–1504), Disputationes Camaldulenses 1. See also Philippus de Harveng, Commentaria in cantica canticorum 3.7 and 3.11.

190 Bori (Reference Bori2000, 76) notes that this passage echoes Plato’s Apology of Socrates 28a–34d, where we read: “I greet you, Athenians, with affection, but I shall obey the god rather than you, and so long as I am alive and capable I will not stop doing philosophy…” (Plato Reference Plato and Stokes1997).

191 Literally “barking opponents.” The Latin term oblatrator is found in Sidonius, Epist. 1.3.2 and 4.22.6 (Bausi Reference Bausi1996, 136), and in the feminine form in Plautus’s Miles gloriosus 3.1.87. See §264 and Jerome, Epist. 133.13.

192 Cf. Plato, Phaedrus 247a: “First in the heavens travels Zeus […] after him there follows an army of gods and divinities, ordered in eleven companies […] and after them follows anyone who wishes and is able to do so, for jealousy is excluded from the divine chorus” (Plato Reference Plato and Rowe2005).

193 It is difficult to ascertain who exactly has taken these differently nuanced positions toward the idea of a public discussion of Pico’s nine hundred theses. Bori (Reference Bori2000, 75) conjectures that this whole segment, from where the text departs from the extant manuscript P in the second line of §143 (“And I would certainly not elaborate on them …”) to §150, was added to the text of the Oration by inserting parts of the letter to Corneus, written in mid-October 1486. Bausi (Reference Bausi1996, 111–12), however, conjectures that Pico’s defence of philosophy was part of his answer to the five objections that were addressed to him after the publication of the nine hundred theses. On the history of the text in its present edition, including a synopsis of the manuscript P, the editio princeps, and Pico’s Apologia, published in Naples in 1487, see Massimo Riva’s preface and Pier Cesare Bori’s and Michael Papio’s introductions to this volume.

194 Bausi (Pico 2003, 76) observes that this whole passage echoes Angelo Poliziano’s commentary on Statius’s Silvae, where Poliziano quotes Aristotle (Problemata 916b.19), saying that “even the most contentious argument greatly sharpens the intellect” (“Contentiosa enim illa disputatio, ut Aristoteles scribit, magnopere ingenium exacuit”). Cf. Poliziano (Reference Poliziano and Martinelli1978, 92).

195 Cf. Sidonius, Epist. 1.6, 2.9.

196 The term barzel (“iron”) occurs seventy-six times in the Old Testament and appears for the first time in Gen. 4:22. All of the occurrences refer, either literally or metaphorically, to the significance of iron. The metaphorical aspect that interests us here is one that alludes to the ideas of physical force, harshness, difficulty, and resistance. Grinding iron against iron symbolizes the way in which a sage tempers the presence of another person’s spirit in such a way that, as a result, the latter’s ability to react will become razor sharp. See, for example, Prov. 27:17: “Iron sharpens itself with iron and man sharpens the intelligence of his companion,” and also Cicognani’s note (in my translation): “In the Talmud the wise are likened to iron, which is ground and sharpened by beating one piece against the other. See the Babylonian Talmud, discussed in the book of Ta’anith, p. 7a. ‘Rab Hammah observes: what is the significance of the text of Prov. 27:17: iron and iron together? As it occurs among instruments of iron, where one sharpens the other, so it is also the case among two wise men who sharpen themselves one against the other” (in Pico 1943, 119). Cf. Bausi (Pico 2003, 172).

197 What is here translated as “horoscope” is literally genesi (“the moment of birth”).

198 Literally, “they desire […] that Mars face Mercury directly from a horizontal trine.” “Triquetrus aspectus (the 120° angle formed by the position of the two planets in question) is […] a technical astrological term: cf. Pliny the Elder, Natural History 2.77” (Bausi Reference Bausi1996, 132). It signifies a most propitious conjunction. See also Carena (in Pico 1994, 75): “Triquetrus, said of a celestial body at a distance of one third of the zodiac from another body or, rather, that forms with that body one side of an equilateral triangle in the zodiac.” See also Cicognani’s note in his edition (in Pico 1943, 119): “The astrological viewpoint spoken of here is called ‘triangular aspect,’ which means that the two lines of sight construct a 120° angle, one of the most favourable aspects; and the would-be philosopher will have to the highest degree the conjunction of hermetic intelligence (Mercury) and pugnacious prowess (Mars).” See also Pico, Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem 6.14.16 and 10.9 (with the corresponding annotations by E. Garin in Pico 1946–52); Pliny the Younger, Natural History 2.59, 2.77, 2.80; Lucretius, De rerum natura 1.717, 4.653; Julius Caesar, Bellum Gallicum 5.13.1.

199 Bausi (Reference Bausi1996, 140) notes the transitive use of incidere with the simple accusative, found in poetry (see Lucretius, De rerum natura 4.568), in post-classical Latin (Solinus, Tacitus, and especially Apuleius) and in the Christian authors. See Ermolao Barbaro, Temistius fol. 113v.

200 Cf. Job 32:8: “But, as I see, there is a spirit in men, and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth understanding.”

201 Cf. 1 Tim. 4:12: “Let no man despise thy youth: but be thou an example of the faithful in word, in conversation, in charity, in faith, in chastity.”

202 Cf. §151. The term “good arts” is found in Ovid (Reference Ovid and Wheeler1988, Tristia 3.7.32): “So put aside the causes of sloth, accomplished girl, return to [noble arts] and thy sacred offerings” (Wheeler trans., with modifications). See also Augustine, In Psalmum IX Enarratio (PL 36.127).

203 For the allusion to Pythagoras (who chose for himself the term “philosopher,” or “lover of wisdom,” rather than that of “wise man”), see §120 and notes.

204 Cf. Horace, Ars Poetica 38–40: “Pick a subject, writers, equal to your strength and take some time to consider what your shoulders should refuse and what they can bear” (Horace 1995b).

205 For the term imbecillissimus, see Cornelius Celsus 2.18; Seneca, De beneficiis 4.18. Pico uses the term in his letter to Corneus and numerous times elsewhere in his works.

206 Cf. Titus Livius, Ab urbe condita 28.14.12 and 33.5.

207 Pico’s self-justification continues, in parallel with the text of the Apologia, until §266.

208 Cicero, On Moral Ends (De finibus bonorum et malorum) 1.2: “The second class of critics, who, however much they approve of philosophy, nevertheless would rather have it less eagerly prosecuted, are asking for a restraint that is not easy to practise. The study is one that when once taken up admits of no restriction or control. In fact, the attitude of the former class, who attempt to dissuade us from philosophy altogether, seems almost less unreasonable than that of those who would set limits to what is essentially unlimited, and expect us to stop half-way in a study that increases in value the further it proceeds” (Cicero 1999a). Bausi adds a further reference to 1.3 (Pico 2003, 80–81n172). Carena adds a reference to the catalogue of the books possessed by Pico (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, no. 1217). According to Reich and Buck, who follow Reich’s apparatus to the letter, “no exactly corresponding passage” can be found. Reich adds a reference to Cicero, Philippicae 8.3.10 (Wuilleumier 99), “What do we promise our armies? Far better and greater rewards” (Cicero Reference Cicero and Bailey1986), and Cato maior (Carena in Pico 1994, 17, but the quotation is imprecise: see Cicero, Cato maior de senectute 6.17: “non facit ea [senectus] quae iuvenes; at vero multo maiora et meliora facit” [“Granted that an old man does not do what young men do: still, the things he does are vastly more significant and more worthwhile,” Copley trans. in Cicero Reference Cicero and Copley1967]).

209 Propertius, Elegiae 2.10.5–6. See Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, nos. 236, 324, 795). Compare the closing paragraph of the Heptaplus’s second proem.

210 Gorgias of Leontini (c. 485–c. 380 bc) was a major representative of early Sophistry. See Diels and Kranz (Reference Diels and Kranz1951–52, 82A.1a, from Philostratus, Vitae sophistarum 1.9.1ff.).

211 Cf. §158. For the reference to Gorgias, prince of dispute, see Cicero, De Oratore 3.32.129: “And Gorgias was actually the very first to dare, in large gatherings, to call on people to tell him what subject each of them wanted to hear about” (Cicero 2001a). See also Cicero, Brutus 12.46–47; Cicero, On Moral Ends 2.1. See Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, nos. 55, 507, 331). Regarding Aristotle, see the Τεχνῶν συναγωγὴ (Technôn sunagôgê: “collection of systems”), “which, to integrate his Rhetoric, contained a history of eloquence in the presentation of the single systems (τέχναι)” (Cicero Reference Cicero, Jahn and Kroll1962, 28n). See also Sophistici elenchi 34.183b36–184a1: “For the training given by the paid teachers of contentious argument resembled the system of Gorgias. For some of them gave their pupils to learn by heart speeches which were either rhetorical or consisted of questions and answers, in which both sides thought that the rival arguments were for the most part included” (Aristotle Reference Aristotle and Furley1955).

212 Cf. §186.

213 Cf. §186.

214 Horace, Epistles 1.1.14: “nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri” (“I am not bound over to swear as any master dictates,” Horace Reference Horace and Fairclough2005). Cf. Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, nos. 37, 109, 357, 414, 718); Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 1.8.19.

215 The correspondence with the text of manuscript Palatino 885, interrupted at §169, is resumed here and continues to §190. A significant omission, with respect to the text of the Palatino, is to be noted. The text of the Palatino manuscript reads: “My first aim was not to swear by anyone else’s words but to pore over all masters of philosophy, to examine all books, and to become acquainted with all schools. […] I discovered that in order to do so it was necessary to know not only the Greek and Latin languages, but also the Hebrew and Chaldean languages, and the Arabic language as well, with which I have just begun to labour under the guidance of William Mithridates, an expert on all these languages.” The William Mithridates mentioned here by Pico is the Jewish Orientalist, his collaborator and teacher, better known as Flavius Mithridates: “a much sought-after translator, he had to flee from Rome in 1483 after a mysterious crime. […] Willelmus Ramundus Mithridates, professor of arts and sacred theology, member of the curia and translator from the Hebrew, Arabic, Chaldean, Greek and Latin languages.” This was the title he gave himself in the edition of the Dicta septem sapientium dated 24 March 1485 in Cologne (Secret Reference Secret1965, 170). According to Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 167), this “passage praising Flavius Mithridates” and similar ones are “suspiciously left out of the Oration as Gian Francesco printed it,” a circumstance that may be an indication (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 171n108) of the shrewd “editorial sieve” applied by Gianfrancesco to the text of the 1496 Bolognese edition (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 169). On the Chaldean language, see §199.

216 The proposition is omitted in the Palatino manuscript. Olivier Boulnois comments: “Pico does not reject the Medieval principle of dispute; on the contrary, he extends it to everything that may be thought” (in Pico 1993, 328) because “if the Discourse has man’s dignity as its object, its aim is to permit the integration of all things within the peace of the absolute. […] Hence, the aim pursued is not that of constituting an inventory, but that of restoring a theological and philosophical peace, the foundation of all the other, moral and political, forms of peace” (Pico 1993, 326–27).

217 Horace, Epistles 1.1.15: “quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes” (“wherever the storm drives me, I turn in for comfort,” Horace Reference Horace and Fairclough2005). See Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, nos. 37, 109, 357, 414, 718). This, too, is omitted in the Palatino manuscript.

218 See De vita Aristotelis 1–3 (Aristotle Reference Aristotle and Rose1967, 428) and 14–15 (Aristotle Reference Aristotle and Rose1967, 443).

219 The “Stoa,” that is, the portico (or “porch” as here) in Athens, where in about 300 bc the Stoic School had its original seat.

220 Plato’s school, the Academy, is thus called because it had its seat near the gardens dedicated to the legendary hero Academos.

221 The Palatino manuscript adds: “In the past there has never been, nor will there ever be after us, anyone whose task is to understand the whole truth. Its vastness goes beyond the human capacity to be equal to it.”

222 From this point on, the text begins to follow the order of the exposition of the nine hundred theses, which can be divided into two major and numerous minor sections. The first main section can be defined as “quasi-historical” and is subdivided into several minor sections that present in reverse chronological order the “opinions of the pagans and their heresiarchs.” Thus, “the Latin scholastics (§186) are followed by the Arabs (§187), the Arabs by the Greeks (§§188–90), the Greeks by the Chaldeans (§199), the Chaldeans by the Egyptians (§199), and the Egyptians by the Hebrew cabalist wise men (§199). The second main section contains, in turn, theses “presented according to Pico’s own opinion (secundum opinionem propriam)” §195, §199, and following sections (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 8). As Pignagnoli notes, “by ‘our own,’ Pico means the Scholastics” (in Pico 1969, 119n); cf. Conclusiones 1.1.1–6.11 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 212–49). The “Latin” authors quoted by Pico “are all to be found in abundance in his library” (Carena in Pico 1994, 76n).

223 Cf. Conclusiones 1.4.1–22 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 236–41). John Duns Scotus (ca. 1266–1308) is considered one of the most important thinkers of the entire scholastic period, surnamed Doctor subtilis (“the subtle Doctor”) for his highly technical and meticulous reasoning.

224 Cf. Conclusiones 1.2.1–45 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 218–31).

225 Cf. Conclusiones 1.6.1–11 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 246–49).

226 Cf. Conclusiones 1.3.1–8 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 232–35).

227 Cf. Conclusiones 1.1.1–16 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 212–17). Albertus Magnus (ca. 1200–1280), also known as Saint Albert the Great, was a Dominican theologian and philosopher.

228 Cf. Conclusiones 1.5.1–13 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 242–45). Henry of Ghent (ca. 1217–1293) was a philosopher and theologian at the University of Paris.

229 Pico’s style of enumeration is modelled on a passage in Cicero’s De Oratore (3.7.28).

230 Cf. Conclusiones 1.7.1–1.14.2 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 250–81). The Arab authors cited are also “all in Pico’s library” (Carena in Pico 1994, 76n).

231 Cf. Conclusiones 1.7.1–41 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 50–63). Ibn Rushd (1126–1198), the “commentator of Aristotle,” was famous in the Latin world under the name of Averroes. He was a scholar well grounded in Muslim religious studies and in the positive sciences (physics, medicine and biology, astronomy), as well as being a theologian and philosopher.

232 Cf. Conclusiones 1.14.1–2 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 280–81). Ibn Bājja (late 1000s–1139), known as Avempace in the medieval West, was a famous philosopher and wazir of Spain in the twelfth century. Together with Averroes in the Islamic West and Avicenna in the East, he was one of the greatest of all Islamic philosophers. There is no doubt, moreover, that the philosophical mysticism of Ibn Bājja’s work The Regime of the Solitary Man had a great influence on Ibn Tufayl’s philosophical novel Risalat Hayy ibn Yaqzan (“The Story of Hayyi ibn Yaqzan”), which was of great importance to Pico. The Hebrew version of this novel was “translated into Latin by Pico himself for his own personal use, under the influence of Johanan Alemanno” (Cassuto Reference Cassuto1918, 322; Cicognani in Pico 1941, 114n). According to Wirszubski, “the person who next to Flavius Mithridates matters most for the study of Pico’s encounter with the Kabbala is Johanan Alemanno” (Wirszubski Reference Wirszubski1989, 256).

233 Cf. Conclusiones 1.9.1–11 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 268–71). Al-Farabi (870–950), known to the Middle Ages as Alfarabius or Avennasar, was one of the most prominent Muslim philosophers.

234 Cf. Conclusiones 1.8.1–12 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 264–67). Ibn-Sina (980–1037), known in the West as Avicenna, had a comprehensive philosophical system that was much indebted to Aristotle and, to a certain extent, to Neoplatonic doctrines, but featured substantial original thought.

235 Cf. Conclusiones 1.15.1–1.19.5 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 282–95).

236 Simplicius (ca. 490–560), a Neoplatonist philosopher, was one of the chief commentators of Aristotle. In Pico’s library could be found Avicenna’s commentaries to Aristotle’s Categories (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, nos. 439, 452, 1616), De anima (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, no. 447), De caelo (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, nos. 455, 463, 715, 1020, 1595), and Physics (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, nos. 439, 446, 455, 457, 464, 499, 514, 745). The catalogue contains two copies of an alleged commentary by Simplicius, In secundum et tertium ethicorum (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, nos. 446, 451), but as far as we know he wrote only one commentary on ethical matters, namely, a commentary on the Manual of Epictetus (see Hadot Reference Hadot and Hadot1987, 39).

237 Themistius (ca. 317–388), a Peripatetic, politician, and commentator on Aristotle, was also to be found in Pico’s library (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, no. 575).

238 Alexander of Aphrodisias was a master of Aristotelian philosophy in Athens between 198 and 211 and is known as the greatest commentator on Aristotle in ancient times. There are numerous works by Alexander among Pico’s books (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, nos. 29, 510, 511, 617, 730, 1588, 1592, 1597).

239 Theophrastus (ca. 372–ca. 287 bc) was a philosopher and scientist, becoming Aristotle’s successor in directing the Peripatetic school from 322 bc on. His works were found in Pico’s library (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, nos. 450, 631, 1557).

240 Pico’s stylistic considerations prevent his identification with Ammonius Saccas (175–252), an Alexandrian Neoplatonist who was the teacher of Origen and Plotinus. It is certain that “it was not Ammonius Saccas, or Ammonius, Plato’s master, but Ammonius, the son of Hermias, a scholar of Proclus” (Pignagnoli in Pico 1969, 121n117). Ammonius Hermiae (ca. 440–after 517) was head of the Neoplatonic School in Alexandria, commentator on Aristotle, and teacher of Asclepius, Damascius, Philoponus, and Simplicius.

241 Cf. Conclusiones 1.20.1–1.24.55 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 296–333). Together with the other Neoplatonic authors Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus, “there were numerous works by Proclus in Pico’s library” (Carena in Pico 1994, 77n90).

242 Porphyry (234–ca. 305) was a Neoplatonic philosopher who sought to bring even greater precision to Plotinus.

243 Iamblichus (ca. 242–327) was a Neoplatonic philosopher who was a disciple of Porphyry and launched the Neoplatonic School in Syria: “His writings had a great influence on the Athenian School which arose during the following century under Plutarch [of Athens]” (Morrow in Proclus Reference Proclus and Morrow1970, 19n). His thinking was essential to later Neoplatonic metaphysics.

244 Plotinus (205–270) is unanimously considered the chief representative of Neoplatonism. He was a pupil of Ammonius Saccas in Alexandria and, after the (presumed) death of his teacher, he settled in Rome, where he taught Porphyry.

245 Proclus (412–485), a Neoplatonic philosopher, joined the Neoplatonic School at Athens around 430 or 431 and studied under Plutarch of Athens and Syrianus, whom he succeeded as head of the school (ca. 437). In Proclus, there is a Neoplatonic synthesis of Aristotelian and Stoic elements.

246 Hermias (fifth century), a Neoplatonic philosopher, was a fellow disciple of Proclus in Athens at the school of Syrian the Great, but lived and taught in Alexandria.

247 Damascius (ca. 462–after 538), a Neoplatonic philosopher, sought to reinvigorate the Neoplatonists’ reputation after the death of Proclus in 485. He faced a sharp increase in Christianity, against which he hoped to apply philosophic reasoning.

248 Olympiodorus (before 510–after 565), a Neoplatonic philosopher and disciple of Ammonius in Alexandria, attained the chair of philosophy in about 541. Though many of his students were Christians, he never converted. Olympiodorus can be found in Pico’s library (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, no. 1130).

249 Here the Palatino manuscript contains an addition, which Garin transcribes as “Sunt haec veritatis privilegia, ut vinci nesciat et coniecta contra spicula in auctores redeant” (Garin Reference Garin1961, 239–40): “These are the privileges of truth: it cannot be conquered and the weapons used against it rebound against their authors.” See also Boulnois and Tognon (in Pico 1993, 49n). Yet, for a slightly different lectio, see Marchignoli (in Bori Reference Bori2000, 136, 157): “Sane hoc veritatis privilegio [it is truly by this privilege of truth], ut vinci nesciat et contorta in eam spicula in auctores redeant.” At this point, the correspondence with the text of manuscript P is interrupted, to return in §193 and §268.

250 Cf. Plato, Epistula 7.341c–d.

251 The text of manuscript P reads: “In fact it is certain that all knowledge was passed down from the barbarians to the Greeks and from the Greeks to us”; see Marchignoli (in Bori Reference Bori2000, 154). See also Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 1.Proem.1. On Eudoxus and Hermippus, see §224. The origin of the doctrines of knowledge among the barbarians is also recalled by Eusebius’s Praeparatio evangelica 9.10.1–7 and 14.10.4–5.

252 The text of manuscript P adds: “It is undoubtedly necessary to obtain the sacred knowledge and most secret mysteries in the first place from the Hebrews and the Chaldeans and then from the Greeks. The Arabians share with the Greeks all the other arts and the most diverse forms of philosophical knowledge. How could anyone who does not approach them be able to progress in this knowledge? However, since many of their books, including the most valuable ones, have come down to us lacking any translation, and of those that have reached us the translators have distorted more things than they have rendered useful, obviously then a foggy obscurity has spread over everything so that what for the native readers was simple, clear and useful has become for us full of difficulties and contortions, hence evasive, immediately thwarting any attempt on the part of the scholars to understand it.” See Marchignoli (in Bori Reference Bori2000, 155).

253 The commentators refer readers to De vera religione 3.3, but, as Reich notes, “an exact reference has not been documented” (in Pico 1968, 64n66). Reich refers readers rather to De civitate Dei [City of God] 8.11. See also De civitate Dei 9.1. The De civitate Dei was to be found among Pico’s books (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, no. 194) together with a commentary by Thomas Anglicus (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, no. 539), presumably Thomas Waleys O.P. (fl. 1314–1350). The work by Thomas Waleys, and its continuation by his Dominican confrere Nicholas Trevet, is one of the few, or perhaps the only, extended commentaries on Augustine’s City of God written in the Middle Ages.

254 Cf. Gellius 7.13.1–2; see Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, no. 420).

255 Cf. Conclusiones 2.1.1–2.11.72 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 364–553) and §199. In fact, there are only 498 theses in the final edition of this second main section of the work, while there were originally 500. To compensate for this lack, however, there are 402 theses in the final draft of the first main section, while there were originally 400 (see Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 8).

256 Seneca, Epistles 33.7. See Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, no. 995).

257 Cf. Corpus Hermeticum 2.17: “Prudent people therefore regard the making of children as a duty in life to be taken most seriously and greatly revered, and should any human being pass away childless, they see it as the worst misfortune and irreverence” (Hermes Trismegistus Reference Trismegistus and Copenhaver1992).

258 Cf. Conclusiones 1.27.1–10 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 340–43). “Ancient theology” here translates the rather wider ranging Latin expression prisca theologia. “Under the name of the (Egyptian god) Hermes Trismegistus numerous texts circulated, the contents of which were partly astrological and partly Platonist-Neopythagorean, presented as translations of ancient Egyptian texts. A corpus of 18 texts, which were probably collected in late antiquity in Neoplatonic circles, has been handed down. The Corpus Hermeticum was translated in 1471 by Ficino, who was strongly influenced by the mystic wisdom of these texts” (Reich in Pico 1968, 64n66).

259 Cf. Conclusiones 1.26.1–6 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 338–39). The name “Chaldea,” originally applied to the southernmost area of Mesopotamia, was later used to designate the entire Babylonian territory. The Chaldeans probably came from Arabia, and with the decline of Assyrian power a dynasty of Chaldean origin assumed power in Babylon (626 bc), holding it until the Persian invasion (529 bc). Farmer notes rightly that the “Chaldean” taught to Pico by Flavius Mithridates was in actual fact “Aramaic” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 3). The “Chaldean” texts Pico stated he had in a letter to Ficino in 1486 are quite probably the work, according to Farmer, of Mithridates’ forgery (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 13, 486–87, and note).

260 Cf. Conclusiones 1.25.1–14 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 334–37); Pythagoras (sixth century bc) was a mysterious figure in Greek intellectual history. Religious reformer, mathematician, and inspired thaumaturge, he has been compared to Oriental shamans. On shamanic influences, see §193 and §222.

261 Cf. Conclusiones 1.28.1–47 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 344–63). Here Pico is referring to the doctrines of the Cabala.

262 Cf. again Conclusiones 2.1.1–2.11.72 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 364–553); in actual fact only 498 (see §196 and note 255).

263 Cf. Conclusiones 2.1.1–17 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 364–73). Unlike the authors cited, Pico expressly strove to demonstrate agreement between Plato and Aristotle. “The scholar from Mirandola claims to be the first to propose the concordia between the two greatest Greek philosophers ‘after many centuries’ [see §195],” Pignagnoli writes, and “the claim […] is true in the sense that no one until then had dedicated any profound studies to the matter” (in Pico 1969, 123n123). This work, perhaps left unfinished, has not come down to us. However, Pico speaks explicitly of it in the De ente et uno, which according to Boulnois and Tognon “is undoubtedly a fragment of it” (in Pico 1993, 109n50). Like the De ente et uno, the Concordia was also ordered into ten parts to suggest “the importance of this Pythagorean numerus numerorum” (“number of numbers”) (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 30); cf. Conclusiones 2.9.23 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 502–3). Pico probably composed the De ente et uno “in 1491 as a preliminary sketch for the Concord” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 25).

264 Boethius, Commentaries on Aristotle’s De interpretatione 2.3 (Boethius Reference Boethius1987, 2:80). See Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, no. 119).

265 See Simplicius’s proem to In Aristotelis Categorias commentarium and Kalbfleisch (in Simplicius Reference Simplicius and Kalbfleisch1907, 29–32). It is not present, however, in In Aristotelis Physicorum libros commentaria 8.5 (Arist. 258b4 [Diels and Kranz 1951–52, 2:1249, 12–13]) or In Aristotelis De caelo commentaria 3.7 (Arist. 306a1). For the presence of Simplicius among Pico’s books, see §188 and note 236. A very similar judgment is directly expressed by Pico in a letter to Ermolao Barbaro of 6 December 1484 (Pico 1971, Opera omnia 1:368–69). See also Cicero, Academica 1.4.17–18.

266 Cf. Contra Academicos 3.19.42, in which Augustine refers to Cicero’s Academica 1.17–18: “Non defuerunt acutissimi et sollertissimi viri qui docerent disputationibus suis Aristotelem ac Platonem ita sibi concinere, ut imperitis minusque attentis dissentire videantur” (“There have been acute and clever men who taught in their disputations that Aristotle and Plato in such wise agree with one another that those who are unskilled or examine the matter cursorily think that they disagree,” Augustine of Hippo Reference O’Meara1950).

267 John Philoponus (ca. 490–570) was “a Christian philosopher and theologian, disciple of Ammonius Hermiae in Alexandria”; philoponos, or “lover of work,” “is the name given to the members of certain ascetic associations” (Faggin Reference Faggin1957, 2:758). Reich’s supposition that the reference should have been to “John Garland, who lived from about 1190 to 1260/70, a grammarian, lexicographer, musicologist and pedagogue” (in Pico 1968, 66n72) is highly unlikely. Some of Philoponus’s works can be found in Pico’s library (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, nos. 449, 1131).

268 Cf. De vita Aristotelis 23–25 (Aristotle Reference Aristotle and Rose1967, 438).

269 Cf., in particular, Conclusiones 1.2–9, 14, and 17 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 366–71).

270 Cf., in particular, Conclusiones 1.15–16 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 370–71).

271 Cf. Conclusiones 2.2.1–80: “Eighty philosophical conclusions according to my own opinion, which while dissenting from the common philosophy, do not depart radically from the common method of philosophizing” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 372–97). In these theses, too, according to Farmer, Pico “resolves numerous standard scholastic conflicts” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 206).

272 They are the “Conclusiones paradoxae secundum opinionem propria nova in philosophia dogmata inducentes” (“Paradoxical conclusions according to his own opinion, leading to new philosophical dogmas”): Conclusiones 2.3.1–71. In the editio princeps, however, they are indicated as 71 (numero lxxi); see Farmer (Reference Farmer1998, 398–421). This discrepancy in numbering can be explained by the changes Pico carried out “shortly before, and apparently while, the work was in press” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 183). A “faulty cross-referencing” shows also that “one from his ‘paradoxical conclusions introducing new doctrines into philosophy’ [was] excluded” in the final draft (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 461). The fourth of the “Conclusiones magicae […] secundum opinionem propriam” (“Magical conclusions according to my own opinion [9.4]”) in fact reads: ex ista conclusione et conclusione paradoxa dogmatizante .xlvii. sequitur … (“from that conclusion and the forty-seventh paradoxical conclusion, it follows …”) (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 495), but the reference in 9.4 is actually to the forty-sixth “paradoxical dogmatizing conclusion” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 495, note). According to Farmer, the thesis was deleted “almost surely for theological reasons” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 18n49). These “seventy-two” theses, or the remaining seventy-one, make up the philosophia nova (“new philosophy”) that Pico intended to introduce.

273 Farmer points out that “historians have routinely bypassed this passage,” in which Pico expressly states that he wishes to introduce a new philosophy (novam afferre velle philosophiam), whereas it should be obvious, in his opinion, that in this “key” passage Pico “underscored the importance” of the very part of the nine hundred theses in which his intention directly took shape (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 18).

274 “Marsilius Ficinus cites in the Platonica theologia a certain number of ‘ancient theologians’” (Boulnois and Tognon in Pico 1993, 55n21); cf. Marsilio Ficino, Theologia Platonica de immortalitate animorum 6.1 (Marcel in Ficino Reference Ficino and Marcel1964–70, 1:224). Pignagnoli (in Pico 1969, 127n130) observes that “for prisca theologia (or theologia priscorum), Ficino meant thoughts about the ‘divine’ contained in the Corpus Hermeticum [see §199 and note 258] and, prior to this, the wisdom of Zoroaster contained in the Chaldean Oracles.” See §137, §230 and note 314.

275 E. Wellmann describes Aglaophamos as “the presumed Orphic master of Pythagoras, from whom he is thought to have received his initiation in Thrace.” See Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 146; Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, no. 844). See also Aristotle, Metaphysica 1.5 (985b23–986a3).

276 Philolaus (ca. 470–385 bc), “a contemporary of Socrates and Democritus,” member of the Pythagorean school and “the first to make his doctrine known by means of an ample exposition of it [in his Περὶ φύσεως (“On Nature”)], of which numerous fragments remain” (Pozzo Reference Pozzo1957, 2:390).

277 Cf. Proclus, In primum Euclidis Elementorum libri commentarii, Prologue 1; Theologia Platonica 1.5; Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 146 (Iamblichus Reference Iamblichus, Deubner and Klein1975, 60, 1–9). It is not present in Aristotle’s Metaphysica 1.5 (985b23–986a3).

278 Cf. Plato, Epinomis 976c–e. The Epinomis belongs to a set of works that were ascribed to Plato in antiquity; however, their authenticity has come into doubt in the modern period. Alcibiades I and II also belong to this set of works (see §35). “The Epinomis is thought by some scholars to be the work of Philip of Opus; but, if it is Plato’s, it certainly belongs to his late period” (Kraut Reference Kraut, Zeyl, Devereux and Mitsis1997, 389). According to Cicognani, however, the dialogue “already attributed by many, following Diogenes Laertius (3.37), to Philip of Opus, a direct follower of Plato, is nowadays held to be authentic by the most authoritative critics” (in Pico 1941, 118n65).

279 Aristotle, Problemata 30.6 (956a11–13).

280 Abu Mashar (787–886), a Persian astronomer and astrologer “known mainly in western Europe as Albumazar, who studied in Baghdad and was a contemporary of the famous philosopher Al-Kindi (first half of ninth century); after having studied Islamic traditions, he mainly dedicated himself to the study of astronomy and astrology, and it is to the latter discipline that he owes his renown” (Millas 1954–, 143). Abu Mashar “is one of the most famous medieval astrologers, above all thanks to the great influence he had in the West,” where he became “the principal author on whose works astrology was studied” (Kunitzsch 1977–98).

281 “Who this Babylonian Avenzoar may be,” writes Cicognani, “I have no means of knowing.” Thus, in his opinion, Pico must have considered this Avenzoar “Babylonian” “to distinguish him from Avenzoar of Seville, a famous physician, the first of the Arabs to allow tracheotomy” (in Pico 1941, 119n67). The latter, also called by the Latins Abumaron or Abhomaron, was considered by Averroes, “his friend and adviser,” the “greatest doctor since the time of Galen.” Abumaron, or more precisely Abu Marwan ibn Zuhr (ca. 1094–1162), was the “most important representative of a family of doctors, who for six generations practised this profession in the Arabian-Hispanic world” (Lauer 1977–98). Pico considers his opinions in the nine hundred theses (see Conclusiones secundum Abumaron Babylonium numero .iiii. [“Four conclusions according to Abumaron the Babylonian”] 1.11.1–4; Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 274–75) and “is probably drawing here from Averroes’ discussions of Ibn Zuhr, although he could also be approached through a Latin translation of his Taysir, his most famous medical work.” In fact, “the first printed edition of that text, which appeared in 1490/91, found its way into Pico’s library” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 274, note). See Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, 103–4). In the Conclusiones, Pico for some reason calls Abumaron “Babylonian,” but the incongruence of his words reported by Abumasar, who was a contemporary of Al-Kindi and lived far earlier, remains. Cicognani, however, finds it “fruitless to examine the Latin versions of Abumasar’s work” and states that “perhaps Avenzoar, in Pico’s text, is a mistake” (in Pico 1941, 119).

282 Plato, Republic 525b–c.

283 Pico here alludes to the Questiones ad quas pollicetur se per numeros responsurum (“Questions to which he promises to respond through numbers”) 2.7a.1–74 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 470–85), seventy-four in number, which are included among the Conclusiones de mathematicis secundum opinionem propriam numero .lxxxv. (“Eighty-five conclusions on mathematics according to my own opinion”) 2.7.1–11, 2.7a.1–74 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 466–85).

284 Cf. Conclusiones 2.9.1–26 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 494–503) and 2.10.1–31 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 504–15).

285 For the distinction between γοητεία (goêteia) and μαγεία (mageia), see the Suda: “Magic [μαγεία] is the invocation of beneficent spirits for the production of something good; like the oracles of Apollonius of Tyana. Sorcery [γοητεία] is the invocation of maleficent spirits which takes place around the graves” (Roth Reference Roth2002). From here until §231, Pico refers to γοητεία (goêteia) and μαγεία (mageia) as the “former” and the “latter,” respectively.

286 Porphyry, De abstinentia 4.16.1. See also Apuleius, Apologia 25.9; Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, no. 656).

287 As Bausi points out, the term disparilitas, used here by Pico in the expression disparilitas et dissimilitudo (“difference and disparity”), “was to be found already in the letter to Barbaro” (Bausi Reference Bausi1996, 124). The terms dissimilitudo, diversitas (“difference, diversity”) are found in Gellius, Macrobius, Apuleius, Calcidius, and the Christian authors, but also in Barbarus, Temistio, fol. 114r. Besides occurring in the Oration, it returns “in the Heptaplus, p. 190 Garin (disparilitas conditionis); and it moreover recurs in the preface to the first Miscellanea by Angelo Poliziano. […] Synonymic diphthology with dissimilitudo is found also in Aug. Epist. 120.12” (Bausi Reference Bausi1996, 38).

288 Cf. Pliny, Natural History 30.1: “eo ipso quod fraudolentissima artium plurimum in toto terrarum orbe plurimisque saeculis valuit” (“were it only because the most fraudulent of arts has held complete sway throughout the world for many ages,” Jones trans.); 30.2: “natam primum e medicina nemo dubitabit ac specie salutari inrepsisse velut altiorem sanctioremque medicinam” (“Nobody will doubt that it first arose from medicine, and that professing to promote health it insidiously advanced under the disguise of a higher and holier system,” Pliny the Elder 1967–70, Jones trans.); see Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, no. 913). As Boulnois and Tognon point out, “these are the theses extensively developed by Pico in his Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem, which clearly distinguish for the first time mathematical astronomy from divining astrology” (Pico 1993, 57n22). Compare the proem of the Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem: “And when I say astrology, I do not mean that which measures the size and motion of the stars with a mathematical method, a certain and noble art, full of dignity for its merits, widely supported by the authority of highly learned men, but that which foresees the future from the course of the stars, a deceitful speculation, forbidden by religious and civil laws, maintained by the curiosity of men, derided by philosophers, supported by charlatans, suspect to all good people and to all wise men” (Pico 1971, 1:412; Pico 1946–52, 1:1–9, 40).

289 Cf. Pliny’s Natural History 30.8: “quamquam animadverto summam litterarum claritatem gloriamque ex ea scientia antiquitus et paene semper petitam” (“and yet I notice that of old, in fact almost always, the highest literary distinction and renown have been sought from that science,” Pliny the Elder 1967–70, Jones trans.).

290 Empedocles (492–432 bc), “the last of the great naturalist philosophers of the 5th Century,” “led a life of wandering; if the diverse aspects of his life are described as ‘orator – physician – priest – magician’, this is precisely what is meant: that he tried to heal, order and conciliate” (Dörrie 1964–75b, “Empedocles”).

291 Democritus (ca. 460–ca. 370 bc) “was one of the main representatives of ancient atomism, which he had learnt from Leucippus” (Bodnár Reference Bodnár and Cancik1996–, “Democritus”). “According to one of his own accounts, kept for us by Clement of Alexandria (Str. 1.69), he made very long journeys, as no other of his time: he thus had the occasion to know the Babylonians and the Egyptians” (Dörrie 1964–75a, “Democritus”). However, according to Bodnár (Reference Bodnár and Cancik1996–, 3:455), “the great travels attributed to Democritus allude to nothing but the encyclopaedic vastness of his work” (cf. Diels and Kranz Reference Diels and Kranz1951–52, 68B64 and B65).

292 Cf. Pliny, Natural History 30.2: “Certe Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, Plato ad hanc discendam navigavere exiliis verius quam peregrinationibus susceptis, hanc reversi praedicavere, hanc in arcanis habuere” (“Certainly Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus and Plato went overseas to learn it, going into exile rather than on a journey, taught it openly on their return, and considered it one of their most treasured secrets,” Pliny the Elder 1967–70, Jones trans.). On the travels to the East attributed to the Greek sages, see further Iamblichus, De mysteriis 1.1: “For it would not be becoming that Pythagoras, Plato, Demokritos, Eudoxos, and many others of the Old Greeks, should have obtained competent instruction from the temple-scribes of their own time, but that thou [Porphyry] who art contemporary with us, and having the same disposition as they, should be turned away by those now living and recognized as public teachers” (Iamblichus Reference Iamblichus and Wilder1911).

293 As for Zalmoxis, Griffiths writes: “According to Herodotus (4.94–6), a God of the Getae in Thrace (‘also called Gebeleizis’) who promised immortality to his devotees […]. Also offered is an alternative, euphemistic version, in which Zalmoxis was a charlatan who imported ideas picked up from Pythagoras, whose slave he had been” (Griffiths Reference Griffiths, Hornblower and Spawforth2003b, “Zalmoxis,” Reference Griffiths, Hornblower and Spawforth1633). More extensively, Dodds observes: “We know at any rate that Pythagoras founded a kind of religious order, a community of men and women whose rule of life was determined by the expectation of lives to come. Possibly there were precedents of a sort even for that: we may remember the Thracian Zalmoxis in Herodotus, who assembled ‘the best of the citizens’ and announced to them, not that the human soul is immortal, but that they and their descendants were going to live forever – they were apparently chosen persons, a sort of spiritual élite. That there was some analogy between Zalmoxis and Pythagoras must have struck the Greek settlers in Thrace, from whom Herodotus heard the story, for they made Zalmoxis into Pythagoras’ slave. That was absurd, as Herodotus saw: the real Zalmoxis was a daemon, possibly a heroised shaman of the distant past. But the analogy was not so absurd: did not Pythagoras promise his followers that they should live again, and become at least daemons or even gods?” (Dodds Reference Dodds1951, 144).

294 Abaris is known for being “the priest of Apollo the Hyperborean and a shaman like Aristeas of Proconnesus” (Des Places in Porphyre 1982, 49, 153). In the Charmides, Plato associates him with Zalmoxis (Plato, Charmides 158b). In his commentary on the passage in Plato, Alfred Croiset refers readers to the information Herodotus gives of him: “Abaris is a semi-legendary figure, a sort of thaumaturge, to whom was attributed, among his other works, a poem about Apollo among the Hyperboreans. According to Herodotus (4.36), he was a priest of Apollo. It was narrated that he had travelled around the Earth without eating, carrying with him the whole time an arrow that Apollo had given him as a sign of his devotion” (Plato Reference Plato and Croiset1921, 58–59n3); cf. Herodotus, Historiae 4.36.1.

295 Cf. Pliny, Natural History 30.3. Zoroaster, who was “the creator of the highly influential theological and moral system which was Iranian dualism,” remains, however, for us “a hazy figure in an imprecise past time” (Bidez and Cumont Reference Bidez and Cumont1938, 1:v). “The most ancient information that has been passed down to us about Zoroaster came from the early Greek historians of Asia Minor, the main one of whom was Xanthos the Lydian, who wrote in the 5th century, before Herodotus” (Bidez and Cumont Reference Bidez and Cumont1938, 5). Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica 1.94.2) records that “Zathraustes” received the laws of the “Benign Spirit.” “It is now admitted that this prophet lived at the beginning of the sixth century bc. He was an Iranian from the northeast, and the cradle of his preaching was ‘the Arian region’ during the reign of King Vishtaspa (Hystapes for the Greeks), north of Sogdiana (see Varenne Reference Varenne1966). The term Arianois is, therefore, quite correct as this region had not yet been conquered by Cyrus and was neither Median nor Persian. The ‘Benign Spirit’ is Ahoura Mazda, god of light, who abducted Zarathustra in ecstasy in order to dictate his laws to him” (Diodorus Siculus Reference Siculus, Bertrac and Vernière1993, 173n1). On Ahoura-Mazda, see also p. 235 n. 297.

296 Cf. Pliny, Natural History 30.8: “diligentiores paulo ante hunc [Osthanen] ponunt Zoroastrem alium Proconnensium” (“A little before Osthanes, the more careful inquirers place another Zoroaster, a native of Proconnesus,” Jones trans. in Pliny Reference Rackham and Rackham1967–70). This should be Aristeas of Proconnesus according to Diels and Kranz (Reference Diels and Kranz1951–52, 217, 68 [55] B 300, 13), yet cf. Pliny, Natural History 30.3: “Sine dubio illic orta in Perside a Zoroastre, ut inter auctores convenit. Sed unus hic fuerit an postea et alius, non satis constat” (“Without doubt magic arose in Persia with Zoroaster. On this our authorities are agreed, but whether he was the only one of that name, or whether there was also another afterwards, is not clear,” Jones trans. in Pliny Reference Rackham and Rackham1967–70). (See Bidez and Cumont Reference Bidez and Cumont1938, 2:13n18.) Aristeas is, “like Abaris and Zalmoxis, a legendary wisdom-figure associated with the cult of Apollo, reflecting early Greek contacts with Scythian culture” (Griffiths Reference Griffiths, Hornblower and Spawforth2003a, “Aristeas,” 159). On the legend of Aristeas, whose “capacity to disappear and reappear, and whose presence at the same time in different places, made him similar […] to other ‘magicians’” (Aldo Corcella in Herodotus Reference Herodotus and Asheri1991–, 4:240), see Herodotus, Historiae 4.13–15.

297 Cf. Apuleius, Apologia 26.1–2. In Zoroastrianism, Oromazes, or “Ahoura-Mazda,” is the god of Good, “the supreme, omniscient, omnipresent god, standing well above other divine mights; he is, as an inscription in Persepolis says, ‘the creator of this earth, the creator of heaven, the creator of man’” (Bidez and Cumont Reference Bidez and Cumont1938, 1:v). See Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 1.Proem.8.

298 Plato, Alcibiades I 121e–122a. The passage from Plato is quoted by Apuleius in a place quite probably known to Pico; see §216 (and note 286) and Apologia 25.10–11.

299 Plato, Charmides 156c–157a.

300 Cf. Apuleius, Apologia 90.6. According to Reich, the Charondas cited by Pico is nothing but the Carmendas from Apuleius’s text, which at this point, moreover, turns out to be highly corrupt. He observes that “both the mss. in the Biblioteca Laurenziana report the abbreviation carm‾das, which explains Pico’s ‘erroneous’ form.” In Reich’s opinion, therefore, “Carondas means, as is found in Apuleius’ testimony, the magician Carmendas, whose name Pliny (Natural History 30.5) hands down more correctly as Tarmoendas”; Pliny “includes him among the magicians quorum nulla extant monumenta” (in Pico 1968, 72n83). However, “Tarmoendas is also mentioned only once by Pliny” and, according to the interesting conjecture by Adam Abt, “because of the way the name is recorded in the codex, it signifies that this is the first time it has been seen,” and the name Carmendas is “like a rhetorical name: qui carmen dat” (Apuleius Reference Apuleius and Abt1908, 319). Also according to Butler and Owen (Apuleius Reference Apuleius, Butler and Owen1914, 162), the name Carmendas “would not be an unnatural name for a magician, qui carmen dat” and, as Vincent Hunink points out, “in the latter variant, it may well have been the surname of any great magician” (Apuleius Reference Apuleius and Hunink1997, 2:223). Cf. Pliny, Natural History 30.5. However, Iamblichus includes Charondas among the first followers of Pythagoras (see §222).

301 Damigeron is the presumed author of a work of Greek origin (second century ad) on the properties of the stones, whose content is similar to that of the pseudo-Zoroaster used by Pliny (Natural History 37.139–85).

302 Apollonius is the renowned Apollonius of Tyana, of whom the Athenian Philostratus wrote a biography dedicated to the Empress Julia (before 217, the date of her death).

303 “Several texts on magic, which recalled Zarathustra [Zoroaster] circulated bearing the name of Hostanes, or Osthanes” (Reich in Pico 1968, 72n83); “the Oktateuchos, a book on magic that was widespread in the first centuries of Christianity, was attributed to him.” Osthanes is cited several times by Pliny: see Natural History 28.6.69 and 256; 30.8.11 and 14. The Suda speaks of a “guild or society” of magicians called Ostanai (Butler and Owen in Apuleius Reference Apuleius, Butler and Owen1914, 163). The reference to Zoroaster is taken from Diogenes Laertius, to whom the compiler clearly refers; see Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum 1.Proem.2. From this testimony, Osthanes can be considered “the most famous” of the magicians who were “heirs to the knowledge” of Zoroaster (Bidez and Cumont Reference Bidez and Cumont1938, 1:vi). Moreover, “Democritus was thought when visiting Mendes [a city in the northwestern district of the the Nile delta, so called from the name of the major god worshipped there] to have been a pupil of Ostanes, a Persian sage, who became a legendary figure credited with a corpus of medical and magical lore, DK [Diels and Kranz] ii, 210 ff” (Whittaker in Tatian Reference Tatian and Wittaker1982, 35, note a). Ostanes also appears in a Gnostic script cited by Hippolytus which speaks of certain divine powers and of men endowed with particular faculties generated in their image. See Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium 5.14.8.

304 Dardanus is “the mythical ancestor of the Trojans to whom were ascribed the introduction of the Samothracian mysteries and the invention of magic. […] According to Fulgentius he was the author of dimanera. […] Pliny relates that Democritus recovered his writings from his grave. Among the Christian authors, Arnobius, Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius mention him” (Waszink in Tertullian Reference Tertullian and Waszink1947, 576). See Pliny, Natural History 30.9; Clemens Alexandrinus, Proptrepticus 2.13.3.

305 “The Poetic Theology is mentioned in the Commento [sopra una canzona de amore] … and in parallel sections of the Oration and Apology (Opera 121, 327; Garin, Scritti vari, 150). Scattered evidence survives that would permit a detailed reconstruction of Pico’s methods in his Poetic Theology, which unlike earlier Renaissance works in that genre (like Boccaccio’s Genealogia deorum) was motivated by highly systematic goals” (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 70n35). These are Pico’s own words: “The sense of which, although it may be subtle and lofty, nevertheless conforms to things so well that it almost seems a wonder to me that both Marsilius and others, captured by the words of Plato, did not understand it; and witness to this is my awareness of it the first time I ever read the Symposium: no sooner had I finished reading his words in this place, than this truth appeared to my mind, which in our commentary on the Convivium and in our Poetic Theology we shall in fact explain more fully” (Commento, fourth stanza).

306 Cf. Pliny, Natural History 30.3–4. As for Aristotle, Gigante points out (in Diogenes Laertius Reference Laertius and Gigante1976, 2:458n26) that “a precise comparison with Pliny has been carried out by W. Jaeger”; the latter writes that Aristotle, “considering the wisdom of the Egyptians and the Iranian religion, rather than being perplexed in the face of their uncertain antiquity, attempted to obtain a calculation of the years as precisely as possible” (Jaeger Reference Jaeger1923, 131). Eudoxus (ca. 391–ca. 38 bc) was a “mathematician, astronomer, geographer, and philosopher associated with Plato’s Academy and subsequently head of his own school in Cnidus.” Diogenes Laertius “tells us that he studied geometry with Archytas [VIII. viii. 86] [and] perhaps it is for this reason that Diogenes lists him among the Pythagoreans [VIII. viii. 91]” (Dancy Reference Dancy, Zeyl, Devereux and Mitsis1997, 236). G. L. Huxley stresses “the importance of his doctrine of proportion [and observes that it lay] in its power to embrace incommensurable quantities […], for it amounts to a rigorous definition of real number” (Huxley Reference Huxley and Gillispie1970–80, 4:466). Eudoxus carried out long journeys in Asia and “spent more than a year in Egypt, some of the time in the company of the priests in Helopolis [and he] was said to have composed his Oktaeteris, or eight-year calendric cycle, during his sojourn with them” (Huxley Reference Huxley and Gillispie1970–80, 4:466). According to Le Bonniec, Hermippus of Smyrna (fl. third century bc), a follower of Callimachus who “wrote biographies of philosophers, writers and legislators,” was “a compiler belonging to the Peripatetic School” (in Arnobius 1982, 353). Hermippus was certainly “called ‘the Callimachean’ or ‘the Peripatetic’ [but] at that time the epithet described someone erudite in the field of literature or biography, without necessarily implying any connection with the Peripatetic School” (Montanari Reference Montanari, Cancik, Schneider and Pauly1996–, 5:439). Hermippus wrote two works, On the Seven Sages and On Pythagoras, and “was the author in about the year 200 of a book Peri Magôn / Περὶ μάγων, which gave Pliny – through Apion – and almost at the same time Diogenes Laertius, a series of extracts with bibliographical references of capital importance. If Hermippus has transmitted to us so many valuable indications about Zoroaster and his work, it is with the detachment of a collector of texts who worked separated from the clamour and preoccupations of the world, in front of the shelves of books in the Museum in Alexandria. As far as Zoroaster is concerned, this erudite compiler tries to do nothing but be as exhaustive, precise and objective as possible” (Bidez and Cumont Reference Bidez and Cumont1938, 1:21–22).

307 Al-Kindi (ca. 800–ca. 873) “was the first outstanding Arabic-writing philosopher [and] he appears to have been the first to introduce the late Greek syllabus of philosophical learning into the Muslim world. [This curriculum] was mainly, though not exclusively, based on the Corpus Aristotelicum and its Peripatetic and Neoplatonic commentators. [Al-Kindi] had a distinguished position at the Caliph’s court in Baghdad [and] for about a century he enjoyed a reputation as a great philosopher in the Aristotelian-Neoplatonic tradition” (Walzer Reference Walzer and Edwards1967, 4:340). “One of the items for which no title is given in the inventories” of Pico’s library is “possibly Alkindi’s treatise on Magic Arts” (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, 93; see no. 982 of the catalogue).

308 Interests in operative natural magic were shared also by Roger Bacon (1214/20–1292) (Wolter Reference Wolter and Edwards1967, 1:240–41). “By Roger Bacon, whom Pico termed a great patron of astrology [Rogerius Bacon magnus astrologiae patronus; see Disputationes in astrologiam in Pico 1971, Opera omnia 1:419, 490] was the Letter on Secret Works of Art and Nature and on the Nullity of Magic” kept in his library (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, 93–94; see no. 422 of the catalogue).

309 The influence of the doctrines of natural magic transmitted by the Arabs is seen also in William of Auvergne or of Paris (ca. 1180–1249), “French theologian and philosopher [who] taught theology at Paris, and was consecrated bishop of the city.” William also belongs to “the first generation of Paris masters to make a wide use of Aristotelian, Islamic, and Jewish thought”; he may be considered “the first great master of the new age [and] the first thinker to use with courage and insight the rediscovered riches of Aristotle” (Knowles Reference Knowles and Edwards1967, 8:302–3). However, “there is moreover in his works a dramatically non-Aristotelian notion of experience that harked back to Arabic and Hebrew lore on magic and the occult. The real ‘experimenters’ were for him natural magicians, whose ability to manipulate hidden forces in the natural world held out the promise of marvellous accomplishments.” This aspect of William’s work also constitutes “a theme of major importance for later scholastic thought, picked up with fervour by Roger Bacon and many of the so-called Perspectivists” (Marrone Reference Marrone and Craig1998, 9:726–27). In Pico’s library “there was the De universo by William of Auvergne, in which he treated of magic” (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, 93; see no. 620 of the catalogue). In the Apologia (Pico 1971, 1:169), Pico explicitly refers to William’s De universo: De hac ut dixi tractat Guilielmus Parisiensis in suo de universo corporali et spirituali (Kibre Reference Kibre1936, 93n42).

310 Cf. Plotinus, Enneades 4.21.40. “Friendship” (philia / φιλία, or more precisely philotês / φιλότης) and “discord” (neikos / νεῖκος) are terms introduced by Empedocles (see, e.g., frag. B 17, 16–20 in Diels and Kranz Reference Diels and Kranz1951–52, and §85). For the use of the expression sympatheia, see §230. According to Armstrong, this passage “and the following chapters make clear that magic was for Plotinus a manipulation of natural forces, attractions and sympathies resulting from the living organic unity of the physical universe [and that] his interest in it was philosophical rather than practical” (in Plotinus Reference Plotinus, Armstrong, Henry and Schwyzer1966–88, 4:260n1). It is significant to note that the Theologia Aristotelis, which follows in this point (6.13) the text by Plotinus, expands it, making the distinction Pico insists on explicit: “Now the works that arise from sorcery and magic occur in two ways, either by sympathy and the concord of similar things, or by opposition and variance through the plurality and variance of the faculties. But though they vary they complete the one living thing. Often things happen without anybody’s having performed any trick at all. The artificial magic is falsehood, for it is all mistaken and does not hit the mark. The true magic, which is not mistaken and does not play false, is the magic of the universe, which is love and mastery. The wise magician is the one who assimilates himself to the universe and practises its works in accordance with his capability, for he makes use of love in one place and makes use of mastery in another place” (in Plotinus Reference Plotinus, Armstrong, Henry and Schwyzer1966–88, 4:13–16; the parts in italics are those corresponding to the Greek text).

311 Cf. Porphyry, Vita Plotini 10.33–38; see Kibre (Reference Kibre1936, no. 1668).

312 Cf. Pliny, Natural History 20.1 and 37.59.

313 The traditional Latin text here reads cognitionem, but Bausi (Pico 2003, 192) suggests on good grounds the emendation cognationem (“affinity or kinship”), which matches the term συγγένειαν used by Synesius in De insomniis 2.2, the passage upon which Pico most likely relied.

314 Cf. Pape (Reference Pape, Pape and Sengebusch1914, s.v. iügx): “the wryneck [or wagtail], a small bird, which takes its name from its cry (iuzô / ἰύζω). Tied and made to turn on a metal circle, or on a wheel, it was considered by the witches of antiquity an effective love philtre (philtron / φίλτρον), particularly to bring back an unfaithful lover.” Thus also Scholia in Theocritum vetera 2.17. It is in its metaphorical sense that iügx / ἴϋγξ is used in fragment 223 of the Chaldean Oracles (Des Places Reference Des Places1971, 120), where “the iügges / ἴϋγγες play a very important role” (Reich in Pico 1968, 74n90). For the Chaldean Oracles, see §199 and note 259. In the Chaldean Oracles, therefore, the iynges can be conceived of as “noetic powers” (Lewy Reference Lewy1956, 132), which may be interpreted at different times as psychic faculties, or divine powers, that exercise the “function […] of a magical mediation between the Supreme God and the invoking theurgist” (Lewy Reference Lewy1956, 250). According to Lewy, the iynges “are, consequently, the thoughts of the Supreme Being: thinking through circular motion” (Lewy Reference Lewy1956, 132) and “besides their theurgical, they have also a cosmic function” (Lewy Reference Lewy1956, 135), for they are also “astral intelligences” or divinities (Lewy Reference Lewy1956, 137), which “form a triad with the connective gods [sunocheis] and the teletarchic gods” (Des Places Reference Des Places1971, 86, n1 to frag. 76), whose name literally means “lords of initiation” (Des Places Reference Des Places1971, 198n1). The procession of the iynges before the Father, according to the doctrine of the Chaldean Oracles, is summed up by Psellus (Hypotyposis 2–5 in Des Places Reference Des Places1971, 198, 4–19). According to Antelme-Édouard Chaignet, “the iügges of Damascius and of the Chaldeans” must be “nothing but systems of abstract ideas” (in Damascius Reference Damascius and Chaignet1964, 2:250 and note). Moreover, Lewy observes that “as the world is ruled by noetic entities, the ways of communicating with them are also conceived of as noetic [and] for this reason, the Chaldæans regard the science of treating of the cognition of the intelligible world as being of basic significance,” so “[t]his central theme of Chaldæan theosophy […] was of particular interest to the Neoplatonists” (Lewy Reference Lewy1956, 165). According to Des Places, it may be said that “the role of intermediaries, which Plato attributes to the demons, is in the Oracles that of the iynges.” According to Bausi, Pico uses the term in the sense of magic words, formulas or, more generally, as spells or charms, and “in this regard depends on Synesius, De insomniis [2.2]” (Pico 2003, 114–15). Davide Susanetti, commenting on this passage of Synesius, sums it up well: “There are three meanings of iügx: it is the name of a bird, of an instrument of erotic magic, and of a witch.” He adds that “in the Chaldean system the iynges are not material instruments, but noetic entities […], thought of the paternal intellect […], magical names, identical to the thoughts of the father […], intermediaries between him and men; words and formulae that may not be pronounced and which god himself gave to men to permit them to practise sacred rites and theurgical elevation” (in Synesius Reference Synesius and Susanetti1992, 96–97).

315 Cf. Horace, Epodes 2.9–10 and Epistles 1.16.3; Vergil, Georgics 1.2 and Eclogues 2.70; Ovid, Metamorphoses 10.100; Columella, De re rustica 11.2.79.

316 Cf. Ficino, Comentarium in Convivium Platonis de amore 6.10, and Pico, Conclusiones 2.9.13 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 498), and, furthermore, Conclusiones 2.9.5 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 496) and 2.9.11 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 498).

317 Isaiah 6:3: “plena est omnis terra gloria eius” (“all the earth is full of his glory”); cf. Hab. 3:3: “operuit caelos gloria eius, et laudis eius plena est terra” (“His glory covered the heavens, and the earth is full of his praise”). The phrase “Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria majestatis tuae” (“The heavens and earth are filled with the glory of Thy majesty”) appears as a chorus for the mass of the first Sunday during Advent in St. Germain’s Hispanic-Mozarabic Missal (PL 72.423a). It became a normal part of the Sanctus of the mass and was repeated numerous times by St. Gregory, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and others.

318 Cf. Heptaplus 7.

319 The part of the Oration devoted to Jewish tradition corresponds to the last section of Pico’s Conclusiones, which contains his cabalistic theses.

320 For the phrase “our own,” see §186.

321 See §250 and 4 Esd. 14:3–6. The so-called Books of Esdras (in the Protestant tradition 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras) are considered apocryphal. 1 Esdras belongs to the biblical canon of the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy. It is not included in the Protestant Bible and Hebrew Tanakh. 2 Esdras is considered a Jewish apocalypse. It is preserved in the biblical canon of the Ethiopian and Russian churches. For many Christian groups it belongs to apocryphal literature. The early Hebrew and Greek versions are lost, but they circulated in different translations. 2 Esdras was published as an appendix in the Latin Vulgate edited under Pope Clement VIII.

322 Hilary, Tractatus in psalmos 2.2 (PL 9.262–63). According to Bausi, this sentence is quoted also in the “Apologia, 5, in Commentationes, f. EE 4.5; Opere complete, 7, 20” (Pico 2003, 118).

323 Origen, Commentary on John 19.296–97 and PG 14.552–53. Cf. “Apologia, V (Commentationes, f. EE iii v – iiii r = Opere complete, VII 18)” (Pico 2003, 124). See also De principiis 2.12; Heptaplus, proem, 12.

324 The “books of Moses” are the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, so called because their authorship was attributed to Moses. They are called in Hebrew “hummach” or “Pentateuch” from the Greek, and comprise Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. See Conclusiones 1.28.16 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 352–53) and Heptaplus, proem 2.7.

325 Cf. Conclusiones 1.28.33 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 358–59) and 2.11.49 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 540–41). This is an allusion to oral tradition and therefore to the Cabala as the true revelation received by Moses on the Mount. See 2 Esdras. In the episode of Zerubbabel, truth is defined as the primary force of the universe. See also Sefer ha-Bahir 1.137–8: the “Torah of Truth” revealed to Moses.

326 Jesu Nave is Joshua, son of Nun, who became the leader of Israel after the death of Moses, according to the narratives in Num. 27:18 and Deut. 34:9. Cf. Jos. 1:1; Sir. 46:1 (Pico 2003, 119). Part of the tradition of wisdom literature, its principal thesis is that wisdom is identified as the Law, revealed only to the God-fearing, who obey the commandments. The name Jesus translates the Hebrew name Yehoshua, whose root bears the meaning of “salvation.” In the Christian canon (Luke 3:29; Col. 4:11), two other men appear with this name, translated as “YHWH is salvation.” Several of Pico’s cabalistic conclusions seek to prove this meaning to demonstrate the fulfilment of Christian dogma by which Jesus was the Son of God.

327 These are the kohanim, direct descendants of Aaron the high priest, brother of Moses. See also §141, “sacerdoti summo Michaeli” in reference to the archangel, whose name in Hebrew translates as “Who is like God?” (Num. 13:13; Dan. 10:13). Pico identifies Michael with the sefirah Keter (Crown), which he interprets as the symbol of the priesthood, itself a reference to the cabalists, who are thus the spiritual descendants of Jesu Nave (Sirach).

328 Cf. Conclusiones 1.28.3.

329 Cf. Sirach 24. Most of these notions (divine retribution and mercy, the mysteries of the universe, etc.) are contained in the work. Later Greek versions, as well as the Latin Ecclesiasticus, also mention the origin of sin, the afterlife, and other matters related to the Christian dogmas, which Pico mentions in §254. See Origen, De principiis 3.14 (Sir. 16:21). See also Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (Divine Names 597b, 684b–c, where reception and transmission of divine commandments are direct knowledge of the divine) and Plato, Epist. 8 (1092a), on the lifestyle of priests. At last, Pico has enumerated the main themes of Esdras.

330 “Bark,” as in the outer layer of a tree, translates cortex (“bark,” “husk,” or “crust”). The term was used by mythographers and allegorists (e.g., Boccaccio’s Genealogiae deorum gentilium) as a synonym for the rather more common Neoplatonic terms integumentum and involucrum (see §262) to refer to the literal meaning that covers or protects the deeper meaning of a text. See Conclusiones 2.11.63; Expositiones in psalmos 11.4.

331 Cf. Heptaplus, proem 8–10.

332 Matthew 7:6: “Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.” The language of election is also to be found elsewhere. According to Bausi (Pico 2003, 120), see Epistle to Barbaro §53; Apologia V (Commentationes, fol. EE iiii r = Opere complete 7.18); Heptaplus, proem; Commento 3.11. See Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchies 145c, on initiation into sacred mysteries. The Latin margaritae (“pearls”) is often repeated in other cabalistic works by Christian followers of Pico, who specifically use the term “margarite” in translation into Italian. See Camillo (Reference Camillo and Bolzoni1991, 49–50).

333 The state of perfection is the final stage in the tripartite path to mystical enlightenment. See §70 and also Heptaplus 7.

334 Pico refers here to the esoteric way of transmitting the true religion and accepts the idea that religion in its material garb is for the people, whereas the truest knowledge of God is meant only for the initiates. Paul provides the Christian biblical model of mystical experience with the two visionary episodes recorded: his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:22, 26; Gal. 1:15–16) and his celestial rapture (2 Cor. 12:1–10). Hence, Pico refers to him as one of the elect (“vas electionis,” §69). See Bausi (Pico 2003, 120); 1 Cor 2:4–7; Conclusiones 2.11.8 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 522–23); Heptaplus, proem 10.

335 1 Corinthians 2:6–7: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought; But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory.” See also 1 Cor. 2:13 (“Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”) and Rom. 1:17 (“For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.”). See Origen’s De principiis 3.3. To communicate the mysteries only to the worthy is a recurrent topos from ancient times.

336 On Pythagoras’s quasi-divine nature, attributing to him miracles that recall those attributed to Jesus, see Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 28.146. The reference to Pythagoras as Hyperborean Apollo hints at prophecy, as Apollo was associated with oracles. In fact, Pico misquotes Iamblichus, who actually attributes to Pythagoras the authorship of a single work entitled The Sacred Discourse. See Diogenes Laertius 8.42; Pico, Heptaplus, proem (Pico 2003, 121).

337 This passage recalls the image of Jacob and the ladder (§§73–74). Moses instructs us to prepare for a heavenly vision through the study of philosophy (§102).

338 Since ancient times, it has been widely believed that there were two writing systems in Egypt: demotic, or the common sort, and the sacred writing, or hieroglyphs, known only to priests and scribes. For ancient sources, see Horapollo, Hieroglyphica; Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 1.74, 3.4; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.4.20. For fifteenth-century sources, see the translations by Lorenzo Valla and others of Horapollo (reintroduced to Italy in 1419 by Cristoforo Buondelmonti, who was certainly the source for Cyriac d’Ancona’s famous voyage to Egypt in 1435). See also Poggio Bracciolini’s edition of Ammianus Marcellinus. Others who discuss hieroglyphs are Leon Battista Alberti in De re aedificatoria and Francesco Colonna in Hypnerotomachia Poliphili. Cf. Pico’s Heptaplus, proem; Conclusiones 2.11.70f (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 550–51); Commento 3.11. See also Castelli (Reference Castelli1979); Camillo (Reference Camillo and Bolzoni1991, 48); Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride 354c (Pico 2003, 121).

339 Plato, Epist. 2 (312d–e); Pico, Heptaplus, proem (Pico 2003, 121–22).

340 See Conclusiones 2.11.34 and 63. Bausi notes that this quotation is taken from a letter written by Aristotle to Alexander the Great and translated into Latin by Gellius (20.5). The topic of the letter is devoted to books transmitted through oral wisdom. Pico thought that Aristotle transmitted his metaphysical philosophy through oral teaching (Pico 2003, 122).

341 See §83 and, on the transmission of Scripture from Moses to Jesus, Origen (De principiis 4.1–6; Contra Celsum 6.6; Comm. in Matth. 14.630). See also Commento 3.2, a passage that mentions the teachings transmitted by Jesus to His disciples through mysteries. Disciples did not write down these teachings; rather, they transmitted them orally only to the elect. For a recent perspective on this matter, see the introduction in Pesce (Reference Pesce2004).

342 See Conclusiones 2.11.34 and Dionysius’s Celestial Hierarchies 376c. Compare Commento 3.11; Heptaplus, proem (Pico 2003, 123).

343 The Greek text inserted here is the same as has been provided in all modern editions of the Oration. Bausi, however, argues quite convincingly for the interpolation of a longer quotation from Pseudo-Dionysius, which reads: “ἐκ νοὸς εἰς νοῦν, διὰ μέσου λόγου, σωματικοῦ μὲν ἀυλοτέρου δὲ ὅμως, γραφῆς ἐκτὸς” (“from mind to mind, […] through the means of verbal expression and thus corporeal, but at the same time more immaterial since it is free from writing,” Pseudo-Dionysius Reference Pseudo-Dionysius and Luibheid1987). Bausi bases this conjecture in part on the fact that the phrase sine litteris (“without writing”) seems to have been taken from γραφῆς ἐκτὸς (“free from writing”), which belongs to this lengthier citation (Pico 2003, 165).

344 See §101. The link established between the intercession of the veil that protects the human mind from the heavenly glories and that of the word (“intercedente verbo”) that transmits them in a manner intelligible to the intellect illustrates the difference between epopteia and receptio. See Ecclesiastical Hierarchies 1.4 (PG 3.367c) and Bausi (Pico 2003, 123).

345 Most contemporary scholars concur with Reuchlin, who attributed to Pico the initial use of this term in a Latin work on the subject (De arte cabalistica 1.13p–q). Within erudite Jewish circles, the systematic study of the Cabala in a philosophical vein corresponded exactly with the development of humanism in Italy. See Garin (Reference Garin and Vivanti1996) and cf. Heptaplus 1, 7; Conclusiones 2.11.72 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 552–53).

346 Cf. Reuchlin, De arte cabalistica 2.24d.132: “Kabbalah means ‘a receiving.’” More interesting still is the earlier account provided in De arte cabalistica 2.6e.61: “Thus, in the ancient writings: ‘Moshe kibbel’ – ‘Moses heard’, and received the law at Sinai. So Kabbalah gets its name: receiving what is heard.” “Moshe qibbel” is the beginning of Mishna Avot 1.1 (see Albeck Reference Albeck1988), where it is written that Moshe received the Torah on Mount Sinai and that the Torah was then transmitted to other sages in Israel. Cf. Commento, incipit to the final stanza.

347 Cyrus II the Great, founder of the Persian Empire (reigned 559–530 bc). On the conquest of Babylon in 539 bc, see Isa. 44:28–45:1 and 45:13 (the latter also for Cyrus as a liberator and messiah). It is Ezra who attributes to Cyrus the decree to rebuild the Temple (Ezra 6:3).

348 This is a reference to the “Babylonian exile” under Nebuchadnezzar (reigned 605–562 bc), who exiled the Jewish leadership from the city in 597–596 bc and 587–586 bc (1 Ezra 1:1–11). See Soggin et al. (Reference Soggin2002, 300–31) and Liverani (2003, 203–20). Accounts of the exile are found in several biblical texts (2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Daniel, Jeremiah). The prophet Ezekiel lived among the exiles, and it is he who preached to the Jews a restoration in the near future. See Heptaplus 7.

349 Zerubbabel, the grandson of the exiled king of Judah (1 Chron. 3:17–19), returned to Jerusalem with the first group of Jews. Upon returning from exile, Zerubbabel became governor of the province of Judah under the Persian ruler Darius I (522–486 bc). He and the high priest Joshua restored the Temple (520–515 bc); however, Zerubbabel is not mentioned in the account of the dedication provided in Ezra 6:16–18. Another messianic figure (according to Ezra 2:2), Zerubbabel was a descendant of David, thus figuring in the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3.

350 Ezra 1–6 gives the account of the restoration of the Temple, which was the centre of Jewish spiritual life until the final destruction of the Second Temple in 70 ad. From Ezra 7–10 comes the account of the return of a group of Jews to Judah under Artaxerxes (465–424 bc), who had permitted Ezra to reestablish the Torah with the help of priests (kohanim) and Levites.

351 Cf. Conclusiones 1.28.45 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 362–63).

352 2 Esdras; the archangel Uriel appears in a vision to Esdras, who transcribes the angelic revelations in seventy books. 2 Esdras, which is a Jewish apocalypse, appeared in the Vulgate. It is written that scribes worked forty days in order to write down the hidden oral tradition from the seventy sages, who correspond to the number of the seventy members of the Sanhedrin. 2 Esdras 14:21–24 records that only Esdras’s accounts were written down; cf. Heptaplus, proem 2. See Bausi (Pico 2003, 125). The seventy sages of the Sanhedrin are mentioned in Hilarius, Tractatus in psalmos.

353 In the New Testament, the term often designates the council of priests and scribes that opposes Jesus and His followers (Matt. 26:59; Mark 14:55, 15:1; Luke 22:66; John 11:47; Acts 4:15, 5:21, 6:12, 22:30, 23:1, 24:20). Sanhedrin derives from the Greek συνέδριον (synedrion), denoting an assembly of leaders. In the New Testament, Josephus Flavius, and rabbinical literature, various institutions are described with this same name in various historical periods. Different theories exist regarding exactly what it was and how it functioned. See, for example, Hoenig (Reference Hoenig1953).

354 4 Esd. 14:45–48; cf. Heptaplus 1.

355 Cf. Conclusiones 2.11.1–3 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 518–21).

356 These books are thoroughly messianic; there is even an early interpolation at the very beginning of 2 Esdras naming Jesus as the Messiah. Furthermore, the seventh and final vision that Esdras has under visitation of the angel Uriel explicitly states that Esdras composed seventy books of esoteric revelations. It is interesting to note that one of the characters in the canonical Book of Ezra is probably the namesake of Mithridates. Another possible source for the association of the Cabala to the figure of Ezra lies in the works of Abraham ibn Ezra.

357 The three archangels Pico mentions in §135 represent dialectics, natural philosophy, and theology. It is at this point in the first redaction of the oration that Pico underwent what Tognon refers to as an “intellectual conversion” (in Pico 1987, 65n16) to the Cabala. Cf. Heptaplus 3 and 5.

358 Pope Sixtus IV was a renowned bibliophile. A fresco painted by Melozzo da Forlì (Hospital of Santo Spirito, 1478) depicts the pope appointing the humanist Bartolomeo Sacchi (Platina) as Librarian of the Vatican. Regarding his complex relationships with Jews and Judaism, one must of course remember that it was Sixtus IV who authorized the establishment of the Inquisition in Spain in 1478. The initiative’s primary function was to adjudicate on matters of faith concerning the conversos, or converted Jews.

359 Giambattista Cibò (Innocent VIII, pope 1484–92). It is the same Dominican-led tribunal set up by Sixtus IV that will pursue Pico under Innocent VIII. See Reuchlin’s account of Pico’s escape to France and pursuit by the Inquisition in De arte cabalistica 1.13q.

360 It is not certain which books Sixtus IV wanted to be translated into Latin. The author of the translations was likely Flavius Mithridates. See Bausi (Pico 2003, 126–27) and also Onofri (Reference Onofri, Miglio, Niutta, Quaglioni and Ranieri1986, 69–70); Cicognani’s commentary to Pico (1941, 124–32); Wirszubski’s introduction to Flavius Mithridates (Reference Mithridates and Wirszubski1963, 66–69); Piemontese (Reference Piemontese1996, 261–62).

361 Cf. Heptaplus 3.

362 We cannot be sure which books these are.

363 Pico died in 1494, at only thirty-two years of age. See Pico, Apologia V (Commentationes, fol. EE v v = Opere complete, VII 25); Heptaplus cabalistica proem.

364 Reuchlin, De arte, 1.13s–t.91: “Nor can I boast with Mirandola of having, like Ezra who once ordered the seventy to write out volumes on the secrets of the Kabbalah, spent vast sums collecting books.” Four of these books are at the Vatican Library (Vat. Hebr. 189, 190, 191; Vat. Chigi A. 6.190). See Tamani (Reference Tamani and Garfagnini1997, 516–18) and Busi’s and Campanini’s introductions to Mithridates (Reference Mithridates, Bondoni and Campanini2004) and Mithridates (Reference Mithridates and Campanini2005), respectively. See also Wirszubski’s introduction to Mithridates (Reference Mithridates and Wirszubski1963, 50–63); Lelli (Reference Lelli1994, 206–10).

365 Cf. Commento 3.11. Pico writes about his desire to know the cabalistic tradition and the need to study Hebrew and Aramaic, without which it is impossible to obtain a grasp of the Cabala. See also Pico, Apologia V (Commentationes, fol. EE v r = Opere complete, VII 22) (Pico 2003, 128). On the Latin translation of these books, see Tamani (Reference Tamani and Garfagnini1997, 516–18). It is likely that the translations made by Flavius Mithridates for Pico are different from those made for Sixtus IV (Pico 2003, 129). See Heptaplus, proem 2.

366 The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament but was elaborated in later writings. However, certain passages provided the material on which it was formulated. See Matt. 28:19: “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”; 2 Cor. 13:13: “the grace of Jesus, the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit.” See also Conclusiones 1.28.19 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 352–53) as well as 2.11.5–7, 20, 30, 33–34, and 45; cf. Heptaplus 5–6.

367 See 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:16, where Paul affirms the existence of Christ before Creation. See Conclusiones 2.11.14–16 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 526–27); cf. Conclusiones 2.11.43 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 538–39).

368 Conclusiones 2.11.32 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 532–33), 2.11.38–39 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 536–37), 2.11.46 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 538–39), 2.11.51 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 540–41); Heptaplus 6–7.

369 Cf. Conclusiones 1.28.4–5 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 346–47).

370 Cf. Conclusiones 2.11.19, 21–26, and 40 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 528–31, 536–37).

371 Conclusiones 1.28.10 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 350–51) and Heptaplus 7.

372 Purgatory and Hell are not mentioned in the biblical texts but are developed in later Christian writings.

373 Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 to provide a faithful Latin translation of the Bible. It took twenty years to complete, largely because Jerome took the unprecedented step of translating the Old Testament directly from original sources rather than the Greek Septuagint. His translation became the accepted text and was thenceforth called the versio vulgata or “common translation” (Vulgate). Pico plays on this terminology in his distinction between the common understanding of the Mosaic texts and the secret cabalistic interpretation known only to the elect. See Pico, Conclusiones Cabalisticae 2.11.72. According to Bausi, this idea drives all the seventy-two theses on the Cabala. In his Commento (3.2), Pico claims that the Cabala is the “greatest source of our Faith.” See Bausi (Pico 2003, 129).

374 Cf. Heptaplus, proem 2.

375 Augustine, Confessiones 7.9.13.

376 Cf. Heptaplus 7.

377 Antonio Vinciguerra (1440/46–1502), secretary of the Venetian Republic, is listed in the Apologia as a contemporary practitioner of magic (Pico 2003, 130). On Antonio Vinciguerra, see Della Torre (Reference Della Torre1902); Beffa (Reference Beffa1975); Bacchelli (Reference Bacchelli2001, 64n184).

378 On Dactylus, see Widmanstetter (Reference Widmanstetter1555, cc. axx2v–3r). See also Scholem (Reference Scholem1979, 20–22, 40). Dactylus is probably to be identified with the Vitalis Dactylomelos who, in January 1500, completed the translation of Averroes’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, contained in the Latin codex 6507 of the National Library in Paris. See Bacchelli (Reference Bacchelli2001, 65n185). Cassuto (Reference Cassuto1918, 317–19) argues that Dactylus was one of Pico’s Hebrew teachers.

379 Conclusiones 2.11.17 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 526–27).

380 “Ancient wisdom” translates prisca sapientia.

381 See Iamblichus, De vita Pytagorica 28.145; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.8; Conclusiones 2.11.10 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 524–25). See also Reuchlin, De arte cabalistica: “His philosophy, however, I have only been able to glean from the Hebrew Kabbalah, since it derives in origin from the teachers of Kabbalah, and then was lost to our ancestors, disappearing from Southern Italy into the Kabbalistic writings.” This would become the widespread interpretation throughout the sixteenth century.

382 Conclusiones 2.11.55 (Farmer Reference Farmer1998, 542–43); cf. Heptaplus, proem.

383 Reuchlin, De arte cabalistica 147. The association between Orpheus and Pythagoras is already present in Herodotus 2.81.

384 Cf. Gellius (1990, Noctes Atticae 12.6.1).

385 Cf. §233.

386 See Reuchlin, De arte cabalistica 3.52f: “[T]he subject is quite complicated and not understood by outsiders as yet, and scholars in the Latin world in particular know nothing at all about it, except the little work published some time ago by Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Paul Ricci, and even in the present day that little work is insufficiently understood.” He goes on to complain of slanderers (calumniatores), whom he compares to Pharisees.

Book contents

Part II - Text

Summary

Information

Part II Text

LATIN TEXT

TRANSLATION

Footnotes

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

Accessibility Information

Book contents

Part II - Text

Summary

Information

LATIN TEXT

TRANSLATION

Footnotes

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

Accessibility Information

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive