FRANCESCO CATTANI DA DIACCETO AND BOETHIUS A NEOPLATONIC ... · ~ 53 ~ dario brancato - maude...

~ 53 ~

DARIO BRANCATO - MAUDE VANHAELEN

FRANCESCO CATTANI DA DIACCETO AND BOETHIUS:A NEOPLATONIC READING OF THE CONSOLATIO

IN 16th CENTURY FLORENCE*

In a letter written to Bernardo Rucellai1, the Florentine philosopher FrancescoCattani da Diacceto (1466-1522) presents a short commentary on the famous passagefrom Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy (3m9, lines 13-21), which describes theworkings of the Universe and of the World Soul in terms that echo Neoplatonicdoctrines2. The letter, which is edited and translated here for the first time, is not dated.

* We would like to express our gratitude to Giacomo Comiati, Christian Förstel, Dilwyn Knox,Nicoletta Marcelli, Cecilia Muratori, Stéphane Toussaint, and the anonymous reviewer for their helpfulcomments and suggestions. While the two authors have contributed equally to this article, Brancato’smain input covers pp. 53-60 and 71-84, and Vanhaelen’s main input covers pp. 60-70 and pp. 85-91.1 On Bernardo Rucellai, see Rita Maria COMANDUCCI, Bernardo Rucellai e l’‘Accademia neoplatonica’ diCareggi, «Rinascimento», XXXIII (1993), p. 223-251; EADEM, Il carteggio di Bernardo Rucellai.Inventario, Olschki, Firenze, 1996; Nicoletta MARCELLI, Rucellai, Bernardo, in Machiavelli: enciclopediamachiavelliana, dir. Gennaro Sasso, condir. Giorgio Inglese, vol. 2, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana,Roma, 2014, p. 457-461.2 On Diacceto, see Eugenio GARIN, Francesco Cattani da Diacceto e l’ortodossia ficiniana, in his L’umanesimoitaliano. Filosofia e vita civile nel Rinascimento, 3rd edition, Laterza, Bari, 1964, p. 133-146; Paul O.KRISTELLER, Francesco da Diacceto and Florentine Platonism in the sixteenth century, in his Studies in RenaissanceThought and Letters, vol. 1, Storia e letteratura, Roma, 1956, p. 287-336; ID., Cattani da Diacceto,Francesco, detto il Pagonazzo, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 22, Istituto della EnciclopediaItaliana, Roma, 1979, p. 507-509; Carlo DIONISOTTI, La testimonianza del Brucioli, in Machiavellerie.Storia e fortuna di Machiavelli, Einaudi, Torino, 1980, p. 193-225: 207-209; Stéphane TOUSSAINT,Introduction to Opera omnia Francisci Cattanei Diacetii patricii florentini, philosophi summi, nunc primum in lucemedita, Henricpetri et Perna, Basileae, 1563, fac similé par Stéphane Toussaint, Société Marsile Ficin,Editions du Miraval, Enghien-les-Bains 2009, p. I-XV, with updated bibliography up to 2009; EvaDEL SOLDATO, The Elitist Vernacular of Francesco Cattani da Diacceto and Its Afterlife, «I Tatti Studies inthe Italian Renaissance», XVI/1-2 (2013), p. 343-362; Marieke VAN DEN DOEL, Ficino, Diacceto andMichelangelo’s Presentation Drawings, in The Making of the Humanities: Early Modern Europe, ed. Rens Bod,Jaap Maat, and Thijs Weststeijn, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2010, p. 107-131; StéphaneTOUSSAINT, Francesco Cattani da Diacceto commentateur du Banquet, in Commenter et philosopher à laRenaissance, éd. Laurence Boulègue, Presses du Septentrion, Lille, 2014, p. 163-170; Simone FELLINA,Francesco Cattani da Diacceto: la filosofia dell’amore e le critiche a Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, «Noctua»,I/1 (2014), p. 28-65. An important new examination of Diacceto’s philosophy appeared shortly beforethis article was in press: Simone FELLINA, Alla scuola di Marsilio Ficino. Il pensiero filosofico di FrancescoCattani da Diacceto, Edizioni della Normale-Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, Pisa, 2017.

~ 54 ~


It was certainly written after Rucellai retired from political office in 1502 and foundedthe Orti Oricellari, an informal intellectual circle devoted to philosophical and politicaldiscussions3. Diacceto probably sent it when Bernardo Rucellai was in Florence, thuseither before Bernardo’s voluntary exile towards the end of 1505, or after he returnedto his home city, some time in 15094. In the opening section Diacceto also mentions twoother prominent members of the Florentine aristocracy, who were close friends to Ficinoand the Rucellai family, as well as members of the Orti Oricellari: Bindaccio Ricasoli, thededicatee of Diacceto’s De Amore and of Corsi’s biography of Ficino5; and ZanobiAcciaiuoli, a translator of Greek texts who, after having been briefly imprisonned for hisrole in the conspiracy against Piero de’ Medici, embraced the Savonarolan cause andentered the Dominican order in 1495. We know that Diacceto and Zanobi were incontact, since Zanobi lent Diacceto some books from San Marco Library6. Given thatZanobi left Florence in 1513 to join the newly elected Pope Leo X (Giovanni de’ Medici)in Rome, we can safely assume that the letter was written before that date.

During the troubled years that preceded and followed the expulsion of Piero de’Medici, Bernardo Rucellai, Zanobi Acciaiuoli and Bindaccio Ricasoli all played animportant role in the promotion of a Medici regime that would favour a Florentineoligarchy. Diacceto’s continuous support for the Medici and his links with theseimportant figures explain at least in part why he became so popular in the second halfof the 16th century, prompting the historian Benedetto Varchi to write a biography ofDiacceto, which underlines his connections with the Medici family and celebrates hismany philosophical and civic virtues7. Modern scholars tend to deplore Diacceto’s style

3 On the Orti Oricellari, see Felix GILBERT, Bernardo Rucellai and the Orti Oricellari. A Study on the Originof Modern Political Thought, «Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes», XII (1949), p. 101-131; Rita Maria COMANDUCCI, Orti Oricellari, in Machiavelli: enciclopedia machiavelliana, vol. 2, p.261-265 with further bibliography. 4 On the circumstances of Bernardo’s exile, see COMANDUCCI, Il carteggio di Bernardo Rucellai, p. XIII-XIV. According to KRISTELLER, Francesco da Diacceto, p. 313, n. 142, the letter was written beforeRucellai’s exile, but there is no sufficient evidence for this. 5 The dedication is in Opera omnia Francisci Cattanei Diacetii patricii florentini, philosophi summi, nunc primumin lucem edita, Henricpetri et Perna, Basilea, 1563, fac similé et introduction par Stéphane TOUSSAINT,Société Marsile Ficin, Editions du Miraval, Enghien-les-Bains, 2009 [=hereafter DIACCETO, Opera omnia],pp. 90-91. Here Diacceto laments Bernardo’s departure from Florence: p. 90: «Quam Bernardus Oricellarius,vir priscae eruditionis ac gravitatis, veluti quandam impiam novercam abominatus effugit, optimo quidem consilio,summaque animi magnitudine, cum re ipsa comprobaverit, illic esse degendum probo viro, ubi tuto ac sincere liceatphilosophari, ut divinus inquit Plato». Unless otherwise stated, all transcriptions are ours. Accents,punctuation, and capital letters have been regularized to follow modern standards. Abbreviations havebeen expanded; j has always been spelled as i; u/v and e/ae have been distinguished according to modernusage. For the sake of consistency the same criteria have been applied to modern editions of Latin texts.6 See letter of Zanobi Acciaiuoli to Roberto Antonio, 5 January 1498, in Francisci CATANEI DIACETII,De pulchro Libri III. Accedunt opuscula inedita et dispersa necnon testimonia quaedam eumdem pertinentia, ed.Sylvain Matton, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, 1986 [=hereafter DIACCETO, De pulchro], p. 359:«Franciscus tamen Diacetus noster tribus a me epistolis rogatus ut ad paucos saltem dies quatuor illos librosremitteret, Platonem scilicet, Plotinum, Aristotelem et Dionisium Areopagitam Graecos, ne respondit quidem adnostras litteras, cum tamen constat perlatas ad eum fuisse».7 See Benedetto VARCHI, Vita di Francesco Cattani da Diacceto, in I tre libri d’Amore di M. Francesco Cattanida Diacceto, filosofo et gentil’huomo fiorentino, con un Panegerico all’Amore; et con la Vita del detto autore, fattada M. Benedetto Varchi, Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari, Venezia, 1561, p. 182-183: «Conciosia cosa che se

~ 55 ~

ACCADEMIA XVII (2015)

as obscure and abstract, and consider that the philosophical influence of his work waslimited to a restricted circle of intellectuals8. Yet evidence suggests that Diacceto wascelebrated by his contemporaries for the clarity of his style and considered as anauthority in Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. For instance, in the biography ofDiacceto Varchi praises the philosophical profoundity and clarity of Diacceto’s Latinstyle, contrasting it with the impure style of his contemporaries9. In addition, as we willsee, Diacceto’s correspondance indicates that important intellectuals asked him to clarifyand explain difficult doctrines, and that Diacceto sought to provide clear and accessibleanswers to complex philosophical questions.

In the letter to Bernardo Rucellai, Diacceto presents himself as having acceptedfor the sake of friendship the arduous task of interpreting a difficult passage of Boethius,because he has been encouraged to do so by Acciaiuoli and Ricasoli10. Behind therhetoric of humility, typical of the epistolary genre, one gets the sense that Diacceto wasperceived by many of his contemporaries as an authority capable of interpreting difficultphilosophical texts - in this case a passage from Boethius that had eluded many medievalcommentators. In fact, as we will see, in his interpretation of Boethius Diacceto breaksaway from the medieval tradition and provides a Neoplatonic (rather than Platonic andChristian) interpretation of the Consolatio. He draws on Plotinus and Proclus’interpretation of the Timaeus, which were not known in the Middle Ages, and had beentransmitted in the 15th century by Marsilio Ficino, who was Diacceto’s mentor11.

In addition to Courcelle’s pioneering study, more recent work has contributed toour understanding of the reception of Boethius’ Consolatio in the Middle Ages and theRenaissance12. Right at the start medieval writers recognized the clear Platonic

Cosimo de Medici il Vecchio e di mano in mano i suoi successori e massimamente Lorenzo nonhavessono favorito le lettere e coloro aiutati, i quali d’essere litterati desideravano, M. Marsilio nonsarebbe stato M. Marsilio, e per conseguenza il Diacceto, per tacere di tanti altri, non sarebbe stato ilGhiacceto, e conseguentemente Firenze, anzi tutto il mondo sarebbe di sì chiaro lume con nostro, e suogran danno per sempre mancato». In the preface to Baccio Valori, ibidem, p. 169-170, Varchi furtherdescribes Diacceto as «uno specchio non solamente della vita civile, ma etiandio, anzi molto più dellaspecolativa». On Varchi’s biography, fruit of a close collaboration with Diacceto the Younger, see DEL

SOLDATO, The Elitist Vernacular of Francesco Cattani da Diacceto and Its Afterlife, p. 357-362.8 See Christopher S. CELENZA, Francesco Cattani da Diacceto’s De pulchro, II.4, and the Practice ofRenaissance Platonism, «Accademia», IX (2007), p. 87-98: 90, 98.9 VARCHI, Vita di Francesco Cattani da Diacceto, p. 191: «La prima è che egli usò nel suo comporre unostile, se non ciceroniano del tutto, grave nondimeno e filosofico molto e tutto lontano da quelle laidezzee barbarie colle quali scrivono ancora hoggidì per lo più i filosofi latini, senza leggiadria e gratianessuna». On the polemic between «Ciceronians» like Bembo and «Apuleians» like Beroso and Pio,see at least Carlo DIONISOTTI, Gli umanisti e il volgare fra Quattro e Cinquecento, a cura di Vincenzo Fera,5 Continents, Milano, 2003; Uberto MOTTA, Castiglione e il mito di Urbino: studi sull’elaborazione del«Cortegiano», Vita e Pensiero, Milano, 2003, p. 385-389, 391-395.10 For the text and translation, see Appendix below.11 Proclus’ commentary was not known in the Middle Ages, and was posterior to Calcidius. Plotinus’specific engagement with the Timaeus in the Enneads was not known until the Renaissance. OnCalcidius’ familiarity with Plotinus - a disputed topic - see John PHILLIPS, Numenian Psychology inCalcidius?, «Phronesis», XLVIII/2 (2003), p. 132-151.12 On the reception of Boethius in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, see Pierre COURCELLE, LaConsolation de la Philosophie dans la tradition littéraire. Antécédents et postérité de Boèce, Études

~ 56 ~


undertones of some important sections of the Consolatio and linked it to Plato’s Timaeus,which they could read in Calcidius’ Latin translation. They also realized, however, thatsome of Boethius’ doctrines were incompatible with Christian dogmas, such as Boethius’unquestioned accounts of Plato’s doctrines of transmigration of the souls and of thecreation of the world. They sought to deal with the problem by either condemningBoethius’ impiety or interpreting the text in a way that was compatible with Christiandoctrines13. But none of these readers had sufficient knowledge and understanding ofthe Neoplatonic tradition to grasp fully the mystical significance of Boethius’ verses. Asmodern scholars have shown, Boethius is heavily indebted to Plotinus’ Enneads andProclus’ Timaeus commentary, two texts that were unknown in the Middle Ages14. It isonly at the end of the 15th century that the Neoplatonic interpretation of the Timaeusbecame available to the West thanks to Ficino, who used both Plotinus and Proclus’exegeses to comment on the Timaeus. When it came to Boethius, however, Ficinolimited himself to recognize the author as «Platonicus», that is, one of the Latin writerswho had access to Platonic truth, without providing an extensive analysis of his work,

augustiniennes, Paris, 1967; Luca OBERTELLO, Severino Boezio, Accademia Ligure di Scienze e Lettere,Genova, 1974; Margaret T. GIBSON, Boethius, his Life, Thought, and Influence, Blackwell, Oxford, 1981;Boethius in the Middle Ages. Latin and Vernacular Traditions of the Consolatio Philosophiae, ed. MaartenJ.F.M. HOENEN and Lodi NAUTA, Brill, Leiden-New York, 1997); Lodi NAUTA, A Humanist Readingof Boethius’s Consolatio Philosophiae: The Commentary by Murmellius and Agricola (1514), in BetweenDemonstration and Imagination. Essays in the History of Science and Philosophy Presented to John D. North, ed.Lodi Nauta and Arjo Vanderjagt, Brill, Leiden, 1999, p. 313-338; IDEM, “Magis sit Platonicus quamAristotelicus”: Interpretations of Boethius’ Platonism in the Consolatio Philosophiae From the Twelfth to theSeventeeth Century, in The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages. A Doxographic Approach, ed. StephenGersh and Maarten Hoenen, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2002, p. 165-204; John MARENBON, Boethius, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, 2003; Lodi NAUTA, Some Aspects of Boethius’ Consolatio Philosophiae in theRenaissance, in Boèce ou la chaîne des savoirs. Actes du colloque international de la fondation Singer-Polignac,éd. Alain Galonnier, Peeters, Paris-Louvain, 2003, p. 767-778; IDEM, The Consolation: The LatinCommentary Tradition, 800-1700, in The Cambridge Companion to Boethius, ed. John Marenbon,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009, p. 255-278; Margherita BELLI, Il centro e la circonferenza.Fortuna del De consolatione philosophiae di Boezio fra Valla e Leibniz, Olschki, Firenze, 2011; FabioTRONCARELLI, L’ombra di Boezio: memoria e destino di un filosofo senza dogmi, Liguori, Napoli, 2013. Forthe reception of the Consolatio in Italy, see Robert BLACK and Gabriella POMARO, La Consolazione dellafilosofia nel medioevo e nel Rinascimento italiano / Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy in Italian Medievaland Renaissance Education, SISMEL, Tavarnuzze, 2000; Dario BRANCATO, Readers and Interpreters of theConsolatio in Italy (1300-1550), in A Companion to Boethius in the Middle Ages, ed. Noel H. Kaylor, Jr,and Philip E. Phillips, Brill, New York and Leiden, 2012, p. 357-411; and Claudio MORESCHINI, AChristian in Toga. Boethius: Interpreter of Antiquity and Christian Theologian, Van den Hoeck & Ruprecht,Göttingen, 2014.13 On this point, see COURCELLE, La Consolation de la Philosophie, p. 163-176; NAUTA, “Magis sitPlatonicus quam Aristotelicus”.14 On this point, see COURCELLE, La Consolation de la Philosophie, p. 163-176; MORESCHINI, A Christianin Toga, p. 108-131; Joachim GRUBER, Kommentar zu Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae, 2ndedition, de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 2006, ad loc. On Boethius’ indebtedness to Proclus’ Timaeuscommentary, see Alain LERNOUD, Boèce, Consolation de Philosophie III, metrum 9, in Plato revived. Essayson Ancient Platonism in Honour of D. J. O’Meara, ed. Filip Karfik and Euree Song, de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 2013, p. 376-395.

~ 57 ~


occupied as he was with the interpretation of the Greek Neoplatonists15. However,Ficino was probably the source of one of Lorenzo de’ Medici’s early Orazioni, a versifiedparaphrase of the Boethian passage that makes an explicit link between Boethius’ «levescurrus» and the Neoplatonic vehicle of the soul16. Diacceto’s letter to Rucellai remainsthe first Renaissance text to offer a fully developed Neoplatonic interpretation of thepassage, and to present the Consolatio as a mystical text that alludes to the human soul’scapacity to imitate the World Soul and communicate with the gods. Some Quattrocentointerpreters like Denys the Carthusian had also recognized the mystical significance ofthe Consolatio, and developed an interpretation of the text filtered through the ChurchFathers17. Diacceto is the first, however, to draw directly on Neoplatonic sources(Plotinus, Iamblichus and Proclus), and explore the new mystical possibilities that sucha Neoplatonic reading of the text could offer.

Diacceto also differs from the tradition before him in that he nowhere attemptsto compare Boethius’ Neoplatonic ideas with Christian dogmas, or engage with thetraditional debates surrounding Boethius’ accounts of the creation of the world or thetransmigration of the souls. In fact, as we will see, this is also an aspect that distinguishesDiacceto from Ficino: whilst Ficino underlined the similarities between pagan ancienttheology and Christian mysticism, Diacceto makes absolutely no reference toChristianity in his commentary on Boethius. He is rather interested in presenting the

15 See for instance Marsilio FICINO, Epitome in Cratylum, in Marsilii Ficini florentini […], Opera & quaehactenus extitere & quae in lucem nunc primum prodiere omnia […] in duos tomos digesta […] una cumgnomologia […], Henricpetri, Basileae, 1576, fac similé et introduction par Stéphane Toussaint, SociétéMarsile Ficin, Phénix Editions, Paris, 2000 [=hereafter FICINO, Opera omnia], p. 1313: «Hinc Boetiusprobat ex mente Plotini Deum ad seipsum omnia potentissime simul et suavissime rapere [Consolatio 3p11-3p12],sui videlicet amore boni quasi esca trahentem». On Ficino’s use of Boethius, see André ROCHON, La jeunessede Laurent de Médicis (1449-1478), Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1963, p. 600-613; COURCELLE, LaConsolation de la Philosophie, p. 275-331; BRANCATO, Readers and Interpreters, p. 377-381; MargheritaBELLI, Boetio filosofo grandissimo. Indagine sulla presenza dell’opera di Boezio nel corpus Ficinianum,«Accademia», X (2008), p. 43-73.16 In his first Orazione, Lorenzo de’ Medici renders into the vernacular parts of the Consolatio, giving afree interpretation of the text, in Lorenzo DE’ MEDICI, Rime spirituali. La rappresentazione di San Giovannie Paulo, a cura di Bernard Toscani, Storia e Letteratura, Roma, 2000, p. 5-8. As pointed out byROCHON, La jeunesse de Laurent de Médicis, p. 609, the translation of leves currus by curri leggier’ di purfuoco suggests that Lorenzo equates Boethius’ chariots with the Neoplatonic «ὄχημα»made of pure fire.Ficino, who had a major influence on Lorenzo in his youth, was the first to develop the doctrine on thebasis of Neoplatonic original texts. On Boethius’ leves currus and the Neoplatonic doctrine of the vehicle,see Matthias BALTES, Gott, Welt, Mensch in der Consolatio Philosophiae des Boethius. Die ConsolatioPhilosophiae als ein Dokument platonischen und neuplatonischen Philosophie, «Vigiliae Christianae», 34/1(1980), p. 313-340: 321-322 (reprinted in Dianoemata. Kleine Schriften zu Platon und zum Platonismusvon M. Baltes, Hrsg. von A. Hüffmeier et alii, Teubner, Stuttgart, 1999, p. 49-81: 59-60); Susanna E.FISCHER, Boethius Christianus sive Platonicus. Frühe mittelalterliche Kommentare zu O qui perpetua mundumratione gubernas, in Boethius Christianus? Transformationen der Consolatio philosophiae in Mittelalterund Früher Neuzeit, Hrsg. Reinhold F. Glei et alii, de Gruyter, Berlin-New York, 2010, p. 157-177:172-177.17 See Raymond MACKEN OFM, Denys the Carthusian Commentator on Boethius’s De ConsolationePhilosophiae, «Analecta Carthusiana», CXVIII (1984), p. 1-70. The text was written around 1465 inRoermond, Holland. It was printed in Cologne in 1540. There are no known Italian editions of thetext, and we can therefore safely assume that Diacceto did not know it.

~ 58 ~


Consolatio as the natural receptacle of Neoplatonic doctrines, and underlining theessential agreement between the Platonic tradition and Aristotle. Ficino himself haddrawn on specific Neoplatonic commentators to defend the concord between Plato andAristotle, but Diacceto does so in a much more systematic way, advocating the necessityto return to the ‘correct’ (i.e. Neoplatonized) Aristotle, and move away from thescholastic tradition. This trend, which becomes more pronounced towards the end ofthe century with Francesco Verino il Secondo and Iacopo Mazzoni, is partly linked toDiacceto’s university teaching. As is well known, Diacceto lectured on Aristotle’s On theHeavens and Nicomachean Ethics at the Florentine Studio between 1502 and 152018. Itis probably in that context that he developed a Neoplatonized interpretation of Aristotlethat was compatible with the Platonic tradition, and allowed him to teach the universitycurriculum without renouncing to his fascination for the Neoplatonic doctrines thathad been revived by Ficino. Diacceto wrote two Aristotelian commentaries and threeuniversity orations, which might reflect what he taught at the University19. In these textsDiacceto offers a Neoplatonic reading of Aristotle filtered through Plato, Plotinus, andThemistius, and provides a corrective to the peripatetic tradition20. The importance ofthis approach was posthumously recognized by the German humanist Theodor Zwinger,who published Diacceto’s Opera omnia in Basle in 1563. In the preface to the edition,Zwinger states that Diacceto is important for the agreement he has established betweenthe thought of Plato and that of Aristotle21, and underlines, in that context, the necessityof including both Aristotle and Plato in the university curriculum22.

18 On Diacceto’s teaching at the Studio, see Armando F. VERDE, Lo studio fiorentino, 1473–1503. Ricerchee documenti, vol. 2, Istituto nazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, Firenze, 1973, p. 218-222, particularlyp. 219: «Item postea die XVIII dicti mensis Octobris deliberaverunt quod dictus Franciscus teneatur legere lecturamphilosophiae ordinariam de mane sine concurrente, scilicet, De caelo et mundo aut Ethicam vel aliam lecturamphilosophiae moralis ad satisfactionem scholarium Studii et intelligatur conductus pro Studio Florentino».19 Diacceto wrote paraphrases of Aristotle’s On the Heavens and Book I of Meteorology, a Praefatio toAristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics (in DIACCETO, Opera omnia, p. 179-281, 281-318, and 319-323 [324]respectively) and three university orations (Praelectiones) only preserved in manuscript and edited inDIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 213-240.20 See for instance DIACCETO, Paraphrasis in Libros de Caelo, II, in Opera omnia, p. 225-227: «…sed mihividetur Aristoteles hoc loco nec ambitum stellis simpliciter auferre, nec asserere stellarum caelique corpus omnino esseidem, ut plerisque placet Peripateticorum. […] Quapropter mea quidem sententia facile cum Platone consentit,qui stellis proprium motum tribuit, quippe quae vitam propriam et ipsae vivant»; Praelectiones III, Oratio deanima, in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 234-235: «Aristoteles in secundo libro De anima, quem praesenti annosumus enarraturi, dixit “anima esse actum corporis naturalis instrumentarii potestate vitam habentis [De animaII, 1, 412a19-21]”. Unde nonnulli suspicari possunt de mente Aristotelis intellectum potentiae mortalem esse. Namde intellectu patibili, quam communionem per mixtionem Theophrastus appellavit, perspicuum est: si enim est actuscorporis, quo pacto functionem propriam habuerit? […] Ex his fortasse Alexander ex Aphrodisiade, alioquimaximus Peripateticorum, quique Alexandrum sequuti sunt crediderunt eam fuisse mentem Aristotelis ut volveritintellectum potentiae morti obnoxium esse».21 See Carlos GILLY, Theodor Zwinger e la crisi culturale della seconda meta del Cinquecento, Olschki, Firenze,forthcoming, p. 111-115 (available online: http://www.saavedrafajardo.org/Archivos/LIBROS/Libro0844.pdf): 112, who refers to DIACCETO, Praefatio, in Opera Omnia, fº *4v: «Nullius addictum iurare inverba magistri, Academiae dignitatem ubivis tuetur, Peripateticorum placita non negligit, et quod primum est,Platonem cum Aristotele vel in omnibus vel certe in praecipuis conciliare studet».22 GILLY, Theodor Zwinger, p. 114, who refers to DIACCETO, Praefatio, in Opera omnia, fº *4r: «His huncin modum declaratis, alterum quoque problema, quod quis obiicere posset, facili negocio solvitur, cur scilicet plures

~ 59 ~


Diacceto adopts the same concordist approach in his commentary on Boethius: heoffers a Neoplatonic interpretation of the text, but is at pains to show that Aristotle,when read through the lens of the correct interpreters, shares the same views as theNeoplatonists. The Boethian passage interpreted by Diacceto concerns the creation ofhuman souls, which God fixes to «light vehicles» («leves currus») and «sows» («serere»)in heavens and on earth. These lines often troubled medieval commentators for theirobscurity and their potential lack of religious orthodoxy. The passage, which is problablya Neoplatonizing elaboration of Timaeus 41d-e, not only required knowledge of theTimaeus, but a solid understanding of the Neoplatonic tradition. The passage wasunacceptable from a Christian viewpoint, since it alluded to the Platonic doctrine ofthe transmigration of the souls and God’s creation of the souls before they enter thebody–a doctrine condemned by the Church in 533 and which medieval commentatorson Boethius either rejected (Bovo of Corvey, Ps-Thomas)23, passed over in silence, ortried to adapt to Christian dogmas (William of Conches and Nicolas Trevet). Some evendenied the existence of the doctrine in Plato and Boethius, even though thetransmigration of the souls was accepted by Origen, not entirely rejected by Augustine,and well-established in the works of Macrobius, Calcidius, and Martianus Capella. Inthe Middle Ages, Boethius’ mysterious allusion to the «light chariots» was ofteninterpreted as a metaphor. William of Conches’ most daring interpretation wasp that thechariot referred either to the soul’s reason and intellect, or to the stars that help thesouls leave their body, whilst Nicholas Trevet equated it with the soul’s immortal power,whereby it could leave the body when it had been dissolved24. In the 15th century Denysthe Carthusian gave a distinctly mystical reading of the passage, interpreting the «levescurrus» as representing God’s benevolent escorting of the human souls, or as referringto the highest angels. It is interesting to note that Denys uses for the first time the word

Aristotelem quam Platonem nostra aetate sequantur. Causa duplex est, utraque tamen ex praecedentibus deducitur.Nam cum philosophicus ager a Platone purgatus sit, Aristotelicam porro culturam, hoc est, apertam, continuatamet facilem praeceptorum traditionem expetere videtur. Altera est, quoniam pietatis et verae religionis igniculi(quorum merito a veteribus Plato in summo precio fuit habitus, nec minus a nostrae religionis assertoribus celebratus,adeo tu paucis demptis Platonicos Christianos fieri posse non postremus inter Ecclesiae doctores affirmarit) tam clareet evidenter ex divinis oraculis colligi et intelligi possunt, ut Platonica Philosophia, vel quia imperfecta est, vel quiasuperflua, non magnopere egeamus, ne fumidis lucernis meridianam lucem illustrare velle videamur». 23 See, for instance, PSEUDO-THOMAS, Expositio in Boethii De consolatio philosophiae, in THOMAS AQUINAS,Opera omnia, vol. 24 (Opuscula alia dubia), Petri Fiaccadori, Parmae, 1869, p. 82: «Nota quod per levescurrus secundum intentionem Platonicorum intelligit stellas compares curribus. Dixerunt enim Platonici quodDeus omnes animas simul creavit et seminavit eas in coelo delegendo eas stellis comparibus a quibus poseta dilabanturin corpora; sed haec opinio non valet, scilicet quod omnes animae simul sint creatae: immo omni die de novo creanturet creatae corporibus infunduntur». Very little is known about the author of the text, which appeared inprint in 1473, but the structure and content are medieval. On this point, see Nigel PALMER, TheGerman Boethius Translation Printed in 1473 in Its Historical Context, in Boethius in the Middle Ages, p. 287-302. On Bovo of Corvey and Ps-Thomas’s interpretation of the Platonic passages of the Consolatio, seeNAUTA, “Magis sit Platonicus quam Aristotelicus”, p. 2-3, and IDEM, The Consolation: The LatinCommentary Tradition, 800-1700, p. 257-258.24 On the interpretation of Boethius’ leves currus in William of Conches and Trevet, see NAUTA, “Magissit Platonicus quam Aristotelicus”, p. 13-24, and IDEM, The Consolation: The Latin Commentary Tradition,800-1700, p. 259 and 263.

~ 60 ~


«vehicula» to describe Boethius’ «leves currus», without however making any directreference to the Neoplatonic tradition25.

If one is to exclude Lorenzo’ poem, Diacceto is the first to develop the linkbetween Boethius’ «leves currus» and the Neoplatonic doctrine of the aerial vehicle.The Boethian passage is an allusion to a section from the Timaeus, where Plato says thatthe Demiurge «distributed each soul to each star, and having mounted them as if on avehicle, he showed them the nature of the Universe» (41e1-2: «ἔνειμεν θ’ἑκάστην [sc.ψυχήν] πρὸς ἕκαστον [sc. ἄστρον], καὶ ἐμβιβάσας ὡς ἐς ὄχημα τὴν τοῦ παντὸς φύσιν»). Forthe Neoplatonists, the vehicle Plato alluded to in this passage was the ὄχημα, that is,the astral body, also called vehicle, or chariot, which houses and protects the soul duringits descent into the realm of generation, and, through contemplation and rituals ofpurification, enables the soul to return to the gods26. They believed that this vehicle wasmade of a substance called aether, which was mentioned in Plato and Aristotle27. Forsome Neoplatonists like Iamblichus, theurgic rituals of purification of the vehicleenabled a few elected souls to aquire supernatural powers and have authority over thenatural world28. From a Christian point of view, this doctrine was highly problematic,

25 See DIONYSII CARTHUSIANI, Enarrationes in V libros de Consolatione Philosophiae B. Severini Boetii, in Operaomnia, vol. 26, typis Cartusiae S. M. De Pratis, Tornaci, 1906, p. 378-380, particularly p. 379:«Verumtamen Philosophia rursus videtur hic loqui iuxta morem Platonicorum, et sequi traditionem Platonis, quidixit universas animas rationales simul creatas, atque in stellis comparibus collocatas, ita quod tot fuerint conditaequot sunt stellae, et illinc eas deferri ad corpora tempore opportuno, per lumina tamquam vehicula, dirigentibus etexsequentibus superioribus causis coelestibus. Propter quod quidam hoc loco reprehenderunt Boetium. Ad quodpoterit dici, quod loquendo velut Plato, haec ipse spiritualius intelligit quam verba haec sonant, ut currus levesmystice exponantur pro sustentatione et deductione Dei benevola, ac gratiosis vehiculis atque auxiliis, sicut inPsalmo [LXVII, 18]: Currus Dei decem millibus multiplex; et in Isaia [LXVI, 19, 20]: Mittam ex eis quisalvati fuerint, ad gentes in mare, in Africam et Lydiam, in Italiam et Graeciam; et adducent omnes fratresvestros in equis, et in quadrigis, et in lecticis, et in mulis, et in carrucis. Per quae vehicula S. Hieronymus etiamad litteram intelligit angelorum praesidia. Constat autem, quod Boetius nullatenus sensit omnes animas simulcreatas, neque ita in stellis locatas. Quidam vero excusant Boetium pariter et Platonem, dicendo quod illa non fuitPlatonis opinio». 26 On the Neoplatonic doctrine of the vehicle of the soul, see Robert C. KISSLING, The ochema-pneumaof the Neo-Platonists and the De insomniis of Synesius of Cyrene, «American Journal of philology», XLIII(1922), p. 318-330; Gérard VERBEKE, L’évolution de la doctrine du pneuma du stoïcisme à Saint Augustin,Garland, New York-London, 1987; Eric R. DODDS, Appendix II. The Astral Body in Neoplatonism, inPROCLUS, Elements of Theology, ed. and trans. Eric R. Dodds, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, p. 313-321; Nicolas AUJOULAT, Le corps lumineux chez Hermias et ses rapports avec ceux de Synésios, d’Hiéroclès et deProclos, «Etudes Philosophiques», IX/3 (1991), p. 289-311; John F. FINAMORE, Iamblichus and the Theoryof the Vehicle of the Soul, Scholars Press, Chico, CA, 1985; IDEM, Iamblichus on Light and the Transparent,in The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods, ed. Henry J. Blumenthal and E. Gillian Clark,Bristol University Press, Bristol, 1993, p. 55-64; Maria DI PASQUALE BARBANTI, Ochema-pneuma ephantasia nel neoplatonismo: aspetti psicologici e prospettive religiose, CUECM, Catania, 1998; Eudoxie DELLI,Entre compilation et originalité. Le corps pneumatique dans l’oeuvre de Michel Psellos, in The Libraries of theNeoplatonists, ed. Cristina D’Ancona, Brill, Leiden-Boston, 2007, p. 211-230. 27 On the heaven made of aether, see PLATO, Epinomis 981c5-8 (which was considered a genuine Platonictext) and ARISTOTLE, On the Heavens 270b20-26. In Generation of Animals 736b37-38, Aristotle alsostates that the pneuma (understood in the Neoplatonic tradition as the vehicle of the soul) is made ofthe same element comprising the stars.28 See IAMBLICHUS, Response to Porphyry (De Mysteriis), V, 18, ed. and transl. H.-D. Saffrey and A.-P.Segonds, Les Belles Letters, Paris, 2013, p. 166.18-167.1.

~ 61 ~


since it legitimized the use of pagan theurgy and the possibility, for the human soul, toacquire supra-rational gifts that brought it dangerously close to God’s power. It hadbeen rejected by Augustine29- not without some hesitation - but fully endorsed byMarsilio Ficino, who proceeded to translate and paraphrase all the Neoplatonic textsrelated to that doctrine, and to equate this pagan vehicle with the fiery chariot that hadtransported some Biblical prophets onto heaven30. Surprisingly, perhaps, Ficino nevermentioned the Boethian passage when establishing a catalogue of all the ancient sourceson the vehicle of the soul.

This doctrine was also central to Diacceto’s works, and was clearly one thatfascinated many of his contemporaries31. Cristoforo Marcello, for instance, had devotedan important chapter of his De anima (published in 1508) to the nature of the vehicleand its relation to the soul32. An exchange of letters between the same Marcello andDiacceto around 1513 indicates that Diacceto developed a profound understanding ofthe various developments of the doctrine, from Plotinus to Iamblichus, and was wellaware of the problems it posed for the formation of human souls and their relation tothe intelligible33. As we will see below, following the completion of Diacceto’s De amore(which circulated in manuscript from 1508), Marcello sent Diacceto two lettersexpressing doubts about the nature of the vehicle of the soul - how could a body,Marcello wondered, go through the cosmos without undergoing alteration34? In

29 On Augustine and the vehicle of the soul, see Gerard J. P. O’DALY, Augustine’s Philosophy of Mind,University of California Press, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1987, p. 75-79. 30 On Ficino and the vehicle of the soul, see Brigitte TAMBRUN, Marsile Ficin et le Commentaire de Pléthonsur les Oracles Chaldaïques, «Accademia», I (1999), p. 9-48; Stéphane TOUSSAINT, Sensus naturae. JeanPic, le véhicule de l’âme et l’équivoque de la magie naturelle, in La magia dell’Europa moderna. Tra anticasapienza e filosofia naturale. Atti del convegno (Firenze, 2-4 ottobre 2003), vol. 1, a cura di Fabrizio Meroied Elisabetta Scapparone, Olschki, Firenze, 2007, p. 107-145; Maude VANHAELEN, L’entreprise detraduction et d’exégèse de Ficin dans les années 1486-89: Démons et prophétie à l’aube de l’ère savonarolienne,«Humanistica», IV-V (2010-2011), p. 1-17.31 On Renaissance interpretations of the doctrine, see also Daniel P. WALKER, The Astral Body inRenaissance Medicine, «Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes», XXI (1958), p. 119-133;Robert KLEIN, La forme et l’intelligible, Gallimard, Paris, 1970, p. 89-119; Daniela DE BELLIS, I veicolidell’anima nell’analisi di Niccolò Leonico Tomeo, «Annali dell’Istituto di filosofia, Università di Firenze»,III (1981), p. 1-21.32 Christophori MARCELLI, Universalis de anima traditionis opus, VI, 46, Gregorio de Gregoriis, Venetiae,1508, fº 285r-286v. On Cristoforo Marcello (1480-1527), see Margherita PALUMBO, Marcello, Cristoforo,in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 69, Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, Roma, 2007, p. 525-528.On the chapter of De anima devoted to the vehicle of the soul, see Stéphane TOUSSAINT, Edition et traductionannotée de Cristoforo Marcello ‘De anima’, Livre VI, chapitre 46, «Accademia», V (2003), p. 81-98.33 Four letters (two by Marcello and two by Diacceto) are in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 276-307. The firstletter from Marcello to Diacceto is dated 2 September 1513, but the three other letters are undated. 34 See Marcello’s letter to Diacceto, in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 276: «Primum igitur quod me diutiusanxit est quod in primo De amore libro percurrens tangis et, dum una variis de rebus tumultuarie loqueremur,asseverabas, corpus scilicet quoddam de natura aetheris, calidum et lucidum, vehiculum mundanae animaeappellatum, per totum universum diffundi, quo recte mundus connecteretur et suam reciperet unitatem, Iamblichoet Iuliano imperatore authoribus».

~ 62 ~


response Diacceto offers a careful study of some of the issues that had preoccupied theNeoplatonic commentators, such as the composition of the vehicle, its relation to thesensible and the intelligible worlds, as well as its links with the immaterial part of thesoul. He also underlines the agreement between Plato and Aristotle by drawing on theNeoplatonic interpretations of Themistius and Proclus35. What is also striking is thatDiacceto never equates the doctrine of the vehicle of the soul with Christian mysticism,as Ficino had done, but draws solely on pagan philosophical sources. Evidence suggeststhat Diacceto believed in the efficacy of the theurgic rituals described by Iamblichus,whereby the soul’s vehicle could be purified and lead to the soul’s ascent into heaven36.However, Diacceto never alludes to the comparison Ficino had established between thepagan experience of theurgic vision and Christian contemplation such as, for instance,St. Paul’s rapture into heaven37.

In the opening section of the letter to Rucellai, Diacceto explains that he firstintends to give a general explanation of the doctrines mentioned by Boethius, thenprovide a close reading of the passage, since, he says, Boethius «has arranged merely inverses what Plato said in the Timaeus» («utpote quae de Timaei penetralibus eruta aBoetio duntaxat in numeros congesta sint»). Diacceto identifies four points in Boethius’text worthy of an explanation: 1. What Boethius means when he says that the soul is «themiddle of things» and is «triple»; 2. How the soul moves itself and the heaven; 3. Whatthe «vehicles» Boethius mentions in the Consolatio refer to; and 4. What the expression«sowing of the souls» means. Diacceto answers these questions by providing first asummary of fundamental Neoplatonic principles; he then gives a general account of thecreation of the World Soul and the individual souls. Finally, he provides a close readingthe passage itself.

In the first part, Diacceto explains that the World Soul is the middle of thingsbecause it is situated between the intelligible and the sensible realities, and has thereforea double nature: its essence is eternal, but its actions are temporal. In other words, unlikeGod and the intelligible substances, which are beyond Time, the soul acts within Time;however, unlike the material and physical realities, the soul is not mortal, since itsessence is eternal. Unlike the intelligible substances, which exist and think by virtue ofbeing intelligible, the soul receives being and cognition by participation, that is to say,

35 See, for instance, letter to Cristoforo Marcello, in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 287: «Neque hoc ab Aristotelealienum puto. Nam in secundo De generatione animalium [II, 736b29-737a1] naturam quandam asseritanimae tributam esse, quae proportione respondeat elemento stellarum. Cui quidem sententiae in primo De animaThemistius quoque adstipulatur [De anima B, 19, 34-35]»; p. 292: «Nam caelum esse ignem exploratissimumest apud Platonem, quod et Aristoteles summa ope demoliri tentat. Proclus autem in his commentationibus quasedidit in Timaeum [IV, 111-15], multis verbis ostendit sententiam Aristotelis de quinto corpore cum Platoneconsentire».36 See DIACCETO, De pulchro II, 4, p. 110. On this important point, see Daniel P. WALKER, Spiritual andDemonic Magic from Ficino to Campanella, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, 2003[1958], p. 30-35 and CELENZA, Francesco Cattani da Diacceto’s De pulchro, II.4, p. 94-96.37 See Marsilio FICINO, Platonic Theology, XIII, 4, 16, ed. and trans. Michael J.B. Allen and JamesHankins, vol. 4, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass-London, 2004, p. 206: «Tali quodamigneo curru Magi atque Platonici Heliam Paulumque raptos in caelum fuisse dicerent, ac demum post mundiiudicium corpus, quod nostri glorificatum nominant, similiter raptum iri».

~ 63 ~


it does not exist or think by virtue of being a soul, but receives its being and faculty tothink from higher realities. The soul is its own principle of motion, which means that itis not completely motionless like the superior principles, but it is not moved by aprinciple of motion like the inferior realities. Finally, the soul is not completelyindivisible like the superior principles, nor is it completely divided like the bodies: onepart–the most divine part of the soul - is indivisible, while the rest of the soul–the inferiorpart of the soul that is in the body - is subject to division. The dual nature of the soul,as the middle between what is intelligible, perfect, and what is sensible, imperfect, meansthat the soul has its own way of interacting with the realities that are above and belowit. It is therefore triple, combining intelligible properties (eternal, motionless,immaterial) with sensible properties (temporal, in motion, material) in a third way thatis proper to the soul. Here Diacceto refers the reader to what Plato says in the Timaeusand the Phaedrus regarding the tripartite nature of the soul. Diacceto also paraphrasesthe Timaeus when he explains that the soul has two motions: one motion whereby itmoves from itself to the other realities, and which allows it to perceive multiplicitythrough unity and identity, and one motion whereby it moves from the other realitiestowards itself, and which allows it to perceive unity through multiplicity and difference.

Diacceto then interprets the second question: how the soul is the principle thatgives motion to the heavens, which corresponds to Consolatio 3m9, lines 16-17 («Insemet reditura meat mentemque profundam/Circuit et simili convertit imagine caelum»).Here Diacceto follows the Plotinian interpretation of the Timaeus filtered throughFicino’s exegesis. His main source is Enneads II, 1, 4-5, where Plotinus draws extensivelyon Plato’s Timaeus to describe the eternal creation of the heavenly cosmos from theWorld Soul, and Ficino’s commentary on Plotinus’ text. According to Diacceto, the soulfirst produces the heaven («caelum»), which he defines as a substance that is «not reallya body and almost a soul» («caelum inquam, quasi non corpus et quasi animam ubiqueipsam referens»); a substance that Julian and Iamblichus described as transparent,shining and warm, which penetrates all things while remaining uncorrupted, and whichPlato and Plotinus call «pure fire» («est enim (ut Iamblichus Iulianusque asserunt)substantia quaedam tralucida, illustris, calida, quovis intacta penetrans […] quempurissimum ignem Plotinus Platoque vocant»)38. It is by virtue of this substance that theheaven is given life and motion («ergo caelum per quam virtutem productum est, pereandem et motu donatum»). What Diacceto means here is that the heaven is createdthrough emanation from the World Soul; in fact, the heaven is that which emanatesfrom the World Soul; it is the World Soul when it has flown outward of itself. In hisinterpretation of the same passage, Ficino said exactly the same thing, but used the word«spiritus» instead of «caelum»: he described the heaven as the «spiritus» that emanatesfrom the World Soul39. Thus both Ficino and Diacceto consider that the heaven is made

38 PLATO, Timaeus 39e10-40b8; PLOTINUS, Enneads II, 1, 4; IAMBLICHUS, De Mysteriis III, 14, p. 99. 4-12; JULIAN, Hymn to Helios 134 a-b.39 FICINO, Opera omnia, p. 1595 (ad Enn. II, 2, 4): «Hoc flatu, hoc animae primae verbo (quantum Platoniceloqui licet) factum est coelum, imo eiusmodi spiritus est ipsum coelum…[spiritus] est ipsius animae verbum iamextra prolatum»; p. 1596: «Caelum vero est anima ia extensa».

~ 64 ~


up of a combination of soul and body–the body being here the tenuous, fiery substancethat Diacceto defines as «caelum» and Ficino calls «spiritus»40. This is what theNeoplatonists after Plotinus defined as the vehicle of the World Soul or astral body: inhis commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, Proclus established that the World Soul’s first andprimary body was its «vehicle», an immaterial body comparable to light, which is thespace in which the cosmos exists41. What is striking here is that Diacceto - like Ficino -equates Plotinus’ contention that the heaven is made of pure fire (which derives fromthe Timaeus)42 with the Neoplatonic doctrine of the astral body that was developed byhis successors: according to Diacceto, what Plato and Plotinus call «pure fire» is theshining transparent substance described by Julian and Iamblichus. Thus Diaccetofollows a tradition that had been developed by Plotinus’ successors, and which consistedof reading back into Plotinus the doctrine of the astral body, even though this doctrinehad only been fully developed by Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus. In an often quotedpassage Plotinus stated that «the souls, when they have peeped out of the intelligibleworld go first to heaven, and when they have put on a body («σῶμα») here go on by itsmeans to earthier bodies, to the limit of which they extend themselves in length»43.Although Plotinus does not say what this body is made of, one can infer that it wasmade of fire, since it is in the heaven. Plotinus’ successors considered that the «body»Plotinus was talking about was the aethereal vehicle, which protects the soul during itsdescent into the material world44. Both Ficino and Diacceto followed this tradition andsought to underline the fundamental agreement between Plato, Plotinus and hissuccessors, because they believed that each of these philosophers had expressed thesame truth, albeit in different ways.

To explain how the World Soul gives life to earth, Diacceto states that there is asecond, inferior soul, which is the «instrument» of the first soul. Together with the

40 See FICINO, Opera omnia, p. 1605 (ad Enn., II, 2, 1): «Est autem anima scilicet secunda ex qua fit proximemotus, ita quasi continua corpori, ut ex ea et corpore animal unum, scilicet caelum, efficiatur… itaque corpus coelicogita quasi spiritum ab expirante anima prosilire». 41 See PROCLUS, In Timaeum III, 227 B ed. E. Diehl, Teubner, Leipzig, 1904, vol. 2, p. 281.12-14:«ἀλλ’ αὐτὴ [sc. the World Soul] προελθοῦσα συμπαράγει τῷ πατρὶ τὸν ἑαυτῆς οἶκον, μᾶλλον δὲ τὸὄχημα ἑαυτῆς». For the interpretation of this passage, see PROCLUS, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus. IV.Book 3, Part II: Proclus on the World Soul, ed. and trans. Dirk Baltzly, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 2009, p. 274-275, n. 608, with further bibliography. See also FICINO, In Timaeum 38, inOpera omnia, p. 1462: «Sed praeter lumen hoc oculis manifestum latet alterum in tota coeli substantia lumenstellisque superioribus atque Luna. Utrumque ab intellectuali animae mundanae virtute dependet. […] Videturpraeterea lumen esse animae mundanae spiritus et imago vitam eius sensumque et vires per cuncta animalis huiusmundani membra diffundens».42 Cf. PLOTINUS, Enneads II, 1, 4-6, which draws on PLATO, Timaeus 39e10-40b8 where the heavenlygods are said to be made for the most part of fire.43 PLOTINUS, Enneads IV, 3, 15, 1-4, ed. and trans. Arthur H. Armstrong, vol. 4, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, Mass.-London, p. 82-83: «ἴασι δὲ ἐκκύψασαι τοῦ νοητοῦ εἰς οὐρανὸν μὲν πρῶτονκαὶ σῶμα ἐκεῖ προσλαβοῦσαι δι’ αὐτοῦ ἤδη χωροῦσι καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ γεωδέστερα σώματα, εἰς ὅσον ἂνεἰς μῆκος ἐκταθῶσι».44 Further passages from Plotinus suggest that he did believe in the existence of a pneuma, which playsa role when the soul separates from the body: see FINAMORE, Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle ofthe Soul, p. 2-4.

~ 65 ~


heaven, it forms the whole celestial living being, and is called «nature» by Plotinus («estenim anima secunda, prioris potiorisque animae instrumentum, ex qua et caelo caelesteanimal sarcitur: hanc naturam Plotinus appellat»). What Diacceto means here is that thesecond soul, after forming the whole celestial being, proceeds into matter and gives lifeto the physical world. In another text Diacceto explains that Plotinus’ «nature» is a«second soul» and the instrument of the divine Mind, responsible of giving life to thematerial world45. In the letter to Rucellai, Diacceto uses the word «sarcitur» to describehow the soul and the heaven are interwoven through the whole universe, a word thatalludes to Plato’s Timaeus 36e2, where the World Soul is said to be «woven togetherthroughout the heaven» («οὐρανὸν πάντῃ διαπλακεῖσα»). Plotinus used the same wordwhen speaking of the «ultimate power of the soul which begins at the earth and isinterwoven through the whole universe» («δι’ ὅλου διαπλεκεῖσα ἐστιν»)46, to show thatcelestial things are products of the World Soul, whereas sublunar things are productsof lower souls47. Plotinus elsewhere calls this lowest part of the soul «nature», becauseit is responsible for giving life on earth48. When Boethius states that «the heavens mirrorthe soul’s very self», Diacceto explains, he means that the heaven is in circular motionbecause it is produced by the soul, which is itself self-moving. This doctrine echoes thepassages from Plato’s Phaedrus (245c1-246e2) and Laws (X 896e-897a) that Diaccetomentioned earlier in the letter, where the life-giving power of the soul is identified withits self-motion: by giving life to the universe the soul also sets it in motion. Diacceto isalso at pains to show the compatibility with Aristotle: he states that, like Plato andPlotinus, Aristotle attributed circular motion to the heaven49. What is striking here is thatDiacceto omits to mention the famous passage from De anima, where Aristotle rejectedthe Platonic doctrine of self-motion and mounted a strong criticism against Plato’scontention that the circular motion of the World Soul causes the heavens to move incircles (Timaeus 36b-d)50.

45 See letter to Cristoforo Marcello, in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 302-303: «Volunt enim [sc. Platonici]naturam esse divinae mentis instrumentum. Naturam vocant secundam animam, ab anima rationali pendentem,per quam anima rationalis materiam agitat et versat. Haec rerum omnium seminibus gravida est, quaecunque suntin materiam explicandae; alioqui nequicquam instrumentum appellaveris […] Anima igitur explicatura idearumsimulachra in materiam totidem virtutum quot ipsa habet rationes divitem facit naturam corporis eius quod primovita donat». 46 PLOTINUS, Enneads II, 2, 3, 1-2, ed. and trans. Armstrong, vol. 2, p. 48-49: «τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ μέν τιςδύναμις ἡ ἐσχάτη ἀπὸ γῆς ἀρξαμένη καὶ δι’ ὅλου διαπλεκεῖσά ἐστιν».47 Enneads II, 1, 5, 5-8. See also Enneads IV, 8, 2, 31-38.48 Enneads III, 8, 4, 14-16, ed. and trans. Armstrong, vol. 3, p. 370-371: «ὡς ἡ μὲν λεγομένη φύσιςψυχὴ οὖσα, γέννημα ψυχῆς προτέρας δυνατώτερον ζώσης».49 See e.g. ARISTOTLE, On the Heavens I, 3, 268b11-269a19.50 ARISTOTLE, De anima I, 405b31-406a6 and 406b26-407b11. THEMISTIUS, Commentary on Aristotle’sDe anima I, 3, 15-18 uses the same argument as Diacceto (the soul, by virtue of giving life to theheaven, also gives it motion) to refute Aristotle’s position. On Neoplatonic attempts to refute orreconcile Aristotle’s position in favour of Plato, see Sebastian GERTZ, Do Plato and Aristotle Agree on Self-motion in Souls?, in Conversations Platonic and Neoplatonic: Intellect, Soul, and Nature. Papers from the 6thAnnual Conference of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, ed. John F. Finamore and Robert M.Berchman, Academia, Sankt Augustin, 2010, p. 73-86.

~ 66 ~


To interpret the third question–what Boethius’ leves currus refer to–Diaccetoprovides a full description of the Neoplatonic vehicle of the soul, which he had alreadyalluded to earlier in the commentary. He interprets Boethius’ «light chariots» as referringto the astral body that each individual soul wears during its descent into the materialworld. Just as the World Soul possesses an astral body, he explains, so the rational soulstake up their own vehicle, which is eternal and made of the same substance as theheaven. Diacceto underlines again the essential agreement between Plato and Aristotle:he states that the Platonic vehicle of the soul corresponds to Aristotle’s fifth element -the heavenly substance, which is distinct from the four elements that make up thesublunar world, and which is also the substance that the pneuma of each soul is madeof51. Here Diacceto quotes a passage from Themistius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Deanima, which explicitly equated the Platonic vehicle with Aristotle’s fifth element52.

Diacceto mentions the possibility, expressed in Plotinus and Iamblichus butopposed by Proclus, for the soul to discard this body through contemplation when itreaches the intelligible realities. Here Diacceto is alluding to a debate amongNeoplatonists about the nature of the astral body (whether it is immortal or mortal), andits ultimate fate when the soul returns to the intelligible world53. Whilst Porphyry andothers considered that the vehicle dissolved in the cosmos during the soul’s reascent,Iamblichus and Proclus considered that the vehicle (or at least one of the soul’s vehicles)remained immortal. They disagreed, however, on whether the vehicle remained attachedto the soul at all times, or whether the soul discarded it - and this is the point that is ofparticular interest to Diacceto. According to Proclus, the individual soul, during itscyclical descent into the material world, takes up three vehicles: the luminous (innate tothe irrational soul), the elemental (attached to the irrational soul), and the material,shell-like vehicle (corresponding to the body). The first vehicle makes the soul part ofthe cosmos, the second one makes it part of the world of becoming, and the third onemakes it a thing of the earth54. During its reascent to the divine world, the soul firstdiscards the shell-like vehicle, which perishes with the body, then the elemental vehicle,which remains in the world of becoming. But the soul is always accompanied by the

51 On the fifth element and the heavens, see ARISTOTLE, On the Heavens II, 269a19-32. In Generations ofAnimals II, 3, 736 b 30-737 a 1, Aristotle states that each soul possesses a pneuma made up of asubstance that is analogous to the element which belongs to the stars. 52 See THEMISTIUS, Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima II, 2, 36.6-8, ed. R. Heinze, Reimer, Berlin,1899, p. 19, where the commentator establishes an equivalence between Plato’s ὄχημα (Timaeus 41e)and Aristotle’s πέμπτον σῶμα (Generations of Animals II, 3, 736b30-737a1): «παρὰ Πλάτωνι μὲν τὸαὐγοειδὲς ὄχημα ταύτης ἔχεται τῆς ὑπονοίας, Ἀριστοτέλει δὲ τὸ ἀνάλογον τῷ πέμπ τῳ σώματι».PROCLUS makes the same point in In Timaeum V, 312 C, ed. Diehl, Teubner, Leipzig, 1906, vol. 3, p.238.20-21: «ὄχημα ἄλλο πνευματικόν, οἷον καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης ὑπέρλαβε». Ficino alludes to theThemistius passage in Opera omnia, p. 1801, and Diacceto makes frequent allusions to it in the textscited at footnote 20.53 The different positions are discussed in PROCLUS, In Timaeum V, 311 B-C, ed. Diehl, vol. 3, p. 234.9-238.26. On this aspect, see IAMBLICHUS, In Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta, ed., trans., andcomm. by John M. Dillon, Brill, Leiden, 1973, p. 371-377; FINAMORE, Iamblichus and the Theory of theVehicle of the Soul, p. 11-27.54 PROCLUS, In Timaeum V, 326 E and 330 E, ed. Diehl, vol. 3, p. 285.12-14 and 298.27-299.4.

~ 67 ~


luminous body, which is innate to the irrational soul and thus immortal55. In contrast,Plotinus considered that only one part of the soul descended into the material world,whilst its superior part remained in the intelligible world. During its descent the inferiorsoul acquired its fiery body in the heaven («οὐρανός»), and it is also there that the soulprobably discarded it on its way back to the intelligible56. Iamblichus in turn consideredthat during its journey back to the gods the rational soul separates off from the irrationalsoul and its vehicle, which both continue to subsist together in the cosmos, waiting forthe soul to return down again from the intelligible realm57. It should be noted, however,that for Plotinus and Iamblichus, the soul’s separation from the body is not a spatialseparation, but an inner detachment from earthly realities, when the soul discards whatis alien and meets its very self58. For Iamblichus, the soul’s reascent and detachmentfrom the body can only be enacted through theurgy, which in turn allows the soul toenter into contact with the gods59.

Although Diacceto does not dwell on this point here, evidence suggests that thesequestions were central to his thought, in the same way they had been for theNeoplatonists. In the correspondence with Cristoforo Marcello mentioned above, thenature of the vehicle of the soul was one of the main issues under discussion. In hisletters to Diacceto Marcello re-considers some of the questions he had already examinedin his De anima and makes three objections related to the existence of the vehicle: first,if the soul possesses a body made of an aethereal substance that is disseminated in thewhole universe, how can this body penetrate the whole universe, since Aristotle saidthat a body cannot enter into another body?; secondly, if our soul possesses a similarbody, how can it penetrate the cosmos without being subject to change, alteration orcorruption? Finally, what is the fate of the soul’s vehicle when the soul goes up and

55 See PROCLUS, Elements of Theology §206-209, and In Timaeum V, 311 E, vol. 3, p. 236.31-237.1. 56 PLOTINUS, Enneads IV, 3, 15, 1-4 quoted above at footnote 38. Plotinus states that the soul leaves thebody in Enneads IV, 3, 24. 57 IAMBLICHUS, In Timaeum fragments 81 and 84, ed. Dillon, p. 194-195 and 196-199.58 PLOTINUS, Enneads, VI, 9, 11, ed. and trans. Armstrong, vol. 7, p. 344.39-41, where the soul’s unionwith the Divinity is described as the point in which the soul will arrive «not at something else but atitself» («τὴν ἐναντίαν δὲ δραμοῦσα ἥξει οὐκ εἰς ἄλλο, ἀλλ’ εἰς αὑτήν»); IAMBLICHUS, De Mysteriis I,5, éd. Saffrey-Segonds, p. 11.11-15, where it is said that the prayers awaken what is divine in us («τὸγὰρ θεῖον ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ νοερὸν καὶ ἕν, ἢ εἰ νοητὸν αὐτὸ καλεῖν ἐθέλοις, ἐγείρεται τότε ἐναργῶς ἐν ταῖςεὐχαις, ἐγειρόμενον δὲ ἐφίεται τοῦ ὁμοίου διαφερόντως καὶ συνάπτεται πρὸς αὐτοτελειότητα»); III,3, éd. Saffrey-Segonds, p. 80. 3-5, makes clear that sleep is an instance where the soul is detached fromits links with generation, even if it is still in the body («ἐν δὲ δὴ τῷ καθεύδειν ἀπολυόμεθα παντελῶςὥσπερ ἀπό τινων παρακειμένων ἡμῖν δεσμῶν καὶ τῇ κεχωρισμένῃ τῆς γενέσεως ζωῇ χρώμεθα»).59 On Iamblichus’ description of the soul’s inner detachment from the material world through theurgy,see De Mysteriis I, 12; II, 11; V, 12; on the purification of the vehicle through prayer, see De MysteriisV, 26, éd. Saffrey-Segonds, p. 178.5-7, where prayer is said to purify the etherial and luminous pneumafrom links with generation («[sc. ἡ εὐχή] ἀπορρίπτει τοῦ αἰθερώδους καὶ αὐγοειδοῦς πνεύματοςπερὶ αὐτὴν ὅσον ἐστὶ γενεσιουργόν»). On this point, see Gregory SHAW, The Role of Aesthetis inTheurgy, in Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism, ed. Eugene Afonasin, John M. Dillon andJohn F. Finamore, Brill, Leiden-Boston, 2012, p. 91-112.

~ 68 ~


down the hierarchy of beings60? In response, Diacceto develops more fully the ideasmentioned in the letter to Rucellai: first, he says, there is a second soul, which is theinstrument of the first soul, and forms the Universe together with the astral body;secondly, regarding the fate of the vehicle of human souls, Plotinus and Iamblichusconsider that the soul can discard even its astral body through contemplation, whereasProclus and Syrianus consider that the vehicle of the soul always accompanies the souland that, during the ascent into the intelligible world, it is reunited with the vehicle ofthe supreme Soul, just as the soul is united with the supreme Soul. The nature andlocation of the soul’s vehicle depends, he says, on the life the soul chooses - a life ofcontemplation will purify the soul and its vehicle and lead them closer to the intelligibleworld61. Like Plotinus and Iamblichus, Diacceto considers that the soul’s ascent anddescent are not spatial but inner detachment from physical realities, achieved throughpurification62. He does not say explicitly here whether he believes, like Iamblichus, thatpurification is to be achieved by theurgy, but, as we mentioned above, evidence suggeststhat he did believe in the efficacy of religious practices very similar to Iamblichus’theurgy. However, what is particularly interesting here is that Diacceto offers his ownopinion on the matter: according to him, the vehicle of the human soul cannot gobeyond the spheres of the elements that constitute it, so it stays in the cosmos. In otherwords, the soul, when in contemplation, very soon discards the vehicle (probably at thecosmic level) and proceeds alone into the intelligible world. This is the only solution, hesays, to the problem raised by Marcello - unless, he adds, one accepts against Aristotlethat a body can penetrate another body and the soul’s vehicle can go through the cosmicrealm63.

60 Marcello’s letter to Francesco Diacceto, in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 277: «Nam quum corpus unumaliud penetrare non possit–ut et Peripateticus quarto Auscultationis physicae libro [Aristotle, Physics IV, 6, 213b 6-9] et omnis ratio comprobat–, si per totum vehiculum illud diffusum sit, quomodo coelos et elementa pertranseatinquirendum»; p. 279: «Animarum deinde nostrarum, cum ab omnibus Platonicis admittantur, quaenamvehicula, an coelestia sit vel ex coelo et igne commixta, ut Synesius voluit, dubitavi iamdiu et modo ad te tanquamab auriga scire concupio. Primum nanque si coelestia, quomodo in coelis resident ubi manent? Quo pacto moventurdum ascendunt animae sive descendunt? Non enim est rarefactibile aut condensabile coelum, quia nec alterabile».61 Letter to Cristoforo Marcello, in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 289: «Anima nostra ab initio sibi paravit corpuscaelestis naturae–vehiculum appellant–cui primo vitam tribuat. Plotino ac Iamblicho placet animam eo dignitatispropter contemplationem accedere ut etiam quandoque corpus huiusmodi dimittat. Syrianus autem et Proclus negantposse fieri ut aliquando anima vitam corpori non exhibeat; proinde contendunt id numquam vitam non participare.Anima nostra contemplandi munera generandique simul obire nequit, sed interim quidem contemplatur, interimvero generationi dat operam. Quemadmodum igitur si quando tota in contemplationem incumbit, cum mundointelligibili cumque mente principis animae conspirat, sic et eius vehiculum cum principis animae vehiculo, pro suitamen astri ingenio, conspirare dicendum est». See PROCLUS, Elements of Theology §196.62 Letter to Cristoforo Marcello, in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 289: «Contemplatio quidem ascensus vocatur,declinatio vero in caduca corpora, descensus».63 Ibidem: «Ego vero, ut aliorum opiniones omittam, crediderim animarum nostrarum vehicula, si quandoascendunt animae, hoc est in contemplationem se attollunt, supra sphaeram eorum mixtorum quae generantur etcorrumpuntur non ascendere. Non enim in illorum sententiam concedo qui volunt caelum continenter obsolescere acsubinde sarciri, quemadmodum asseruit Heraclitus; quod etiam sensisse Platonem nonnullis placet. Nam si vehiculaanimarum nostrarum in altum attolluntur, fieri nequit quin alterum alteri det locum, proindeque rarescat autdensatur. Hoc autem corrumpi est; nam iam velimus asserere fieri posse alterum corpus alterum pertranseat, a quoquidem nonnulli, nec postremae auctoritatis, non abhorrent».

~ 69 ~


To interpret the last point - how God «sows» the souls on heavens and earth -Diacceto provides an account of the souls’ descent into bodies largely based on Plotinus’Enneads IV, 8. Medieval commentators had associated Boethius’ «sowing» («serere»)with Timaeus 41d5-8, where the Demiurge is said to «sow» («σπείρω») each soul to itsstar. Diacceto uses Plotinus’ interpretation of the same passage from the Timaeus toexplain why the souls choose to leave the divine realm and enter the physical world. Itis the desire to govern the body, which weakens the souls’ need for spiritualcontemplation, that causes them to take up an earthly body and forget their initial,divine state («Ergo paulatim generationis amore delabentes, eo declinant ut, assumptoterreno corpore, sui oblitae, vix fati ditionem dissimulent, plerunque tamen fato potiusobruantur»). However, through their desire for contemplation they get progressivelytired of life on earth and yearn to leave the material world («Levantur autem hoc fasceubi, cupiditate contemplandi accensas, vitae sensilis omnino taedet»). Through love andthe practice of philosophy, Diacceto says, the souls can start to undertake the journeyback to the intelligible, and obey to the laws of fate («Suntque philosophia et amor, quibusexpeditum sibi parant iter, discuntque fato obaudire»). In other words, philosophy andlove enable the souls to remember their journey down to earth and to submit to the lifethey chose, which they must complete to be able to undertake another cycle64.

In the second part, Diacceto presents a close reading of Boethius’ passage, whichdraws on the doctrines described in the first part of the letter. Diacceto mostly readsBoethius through Plotinus’ interpretation of the Timaeus, because he considers thatBoethius, Timaeus Locrensis and Plato have expressed the same ideas («Haec quidemsunt quae Boetium, id est Timaeum Locrensem Platonemque sibi voluisse arbitror»).However, he underlines, whenever he can, the similarities with Aristotle. According tohim, Boethius has described God’s creation of the souls - both divine and human - as theresult of the mixing up of the three principle substances outlined in the Timaeus (Being,Same, and Difference), providing the soul with two motions, one directed towards theSupreme Intelligence and one directed towards itself. This second motion, he says,which Plotinus calls «reason», corresponds to Aristotle’s «passive intellect» («alterum[sc. motum], quam Plotinus rationem, Aristoteles intellectum potentiae vocat»). Similarly,Diacceto underlines that the double motion of the heaven and of the soul described byPlato and Boethius corresponds to Aristotle’s distinction between generated and eternalmotion. Finally, according to Diacceto, when Boethius says that souls are «sown throughthe heaven and on earth» (3m9, line 20) he means that the souls must fulfill the life theychoose («Propterea dicit in caelum terramque serere: quoniam ubi vitae optionem fecerunturgente necessitudine, functiones illius implendae sunt»). If they opt for a celestial lifethey must complete the revolution of the god (Saturn, Mars etc.) they have chosen («Sicaelestem vitam elegerint, vitae caelestis periodus absolvenda, sive illa Saturnia sit, siveMartia, sive cuiusque alterius dei»); if they opt for an earthly life, they fall into a body,which entraps them in the material world, until their love for the intelligible world lead

64 Timaeus 41e and 90d. Cf. Letter to Marcello in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 290: «Etsi igitur animae, siquando generationi adhaeret, decernendae vitae datur optio, electae tamen periodum implere necesse est. Vnde et legesfatales edoctae dicuntur descendere. Discit autem philosophiae beneficio fato obaudire, quo bono maius nullum adiis hominum generi aut concessum aut concederetur, quemadmodum in Timaeo scriptum est».

~ 70 ~


them away from earth («Sin vero ad solidum corpus declinaverint, sibi tantisper illicpermanendum, donec, amore intelligibilium accensae, in patriam remeent a qua sensiliumamore diu aberant»). As stated by Orpheus, he concludes, it is the love for the sensibleworld that entraps the souls, and the love for the intelligible that frees them.

In the closing section of the letter, Diacceto reminds his reader that the knowledgeof divine matters cannot be acquired by «words and rational arguments», but bypractice: «It is through similitude with life and repetition that divine matters finally,with great effort, shine forth within the soul, like the transparent air, which never shines,not even in the presence of light, unless the clouds are dissipated» («Neque enimdeclarari verbis, neque rationibus satis percipi possunt, sed vitae similitudine, diuturnoqueusu vix tandem in anima effulgent: instar tralucidi aeris, qui secus nunquam vel praesentelumine, nisi discussa caligine, fit illustris»). It is life experience that enables the soul toacquire through repetition the wisdom necessary to grasp divine matters, rather than thestudy of philosophical treatises: by imitating the World Soul and purifying its vehicle,the human soul can ultimately reach the gods. Diacceto states here his belief in a formof religious philosophy, which brings within the human soul a vision of the divine truthsthrough everyday practice. In that respect he is, as Celenza put it, a lover of wisdom, whocultivates philosophy as a way of life through dialectics and theurgy65.

Despite its popularity among the Platonici, Diacceto’s Neoplatonic reading of theConsolatio was to remain for a long time an isolated case in the history of the receptionof Boethius. This is largely due to the limited diffusion of the letter to Rucellai, whichcirculated solely in manuscript until the publication of the Opera omnia in 1563. Inaddition, throughout the 16th century the commentaries on the Consolatio, such as thatby Murmellius and Agricola (1514), were mostly addressed to grammar school students,who were more preoccupied with philological matters than with the new mysticalreading of the Consolatio offered by Diacceto66. One would have to wait until 1656 forDiacceto’s interpretation to be acknowledged, when French canon René Vallinpublished a full-scale commentary that drew extensively on the same Neoplatonicauthors Diacceto had used. Somewhat ironically Vallin describes Diacceto as aninterpreter who «went beautifully crazy» over the passage of the Consolatio he hadcommented on («pulchre ad hunc locum ineptiens»), thus dismissing Diacceto’s visionaryreading, which saw the World Soul as the essential link between the intelligible andsensible worlds, and the force that diffuses into the human soul the power tocommunicate with the gods67.

65 CELENZA, Francesco Cattani da Diacceto’s De pulchro, II.4, p. 98.66 See NAUTA, A Humanist Reading of Boethius’s Consolatio Philosophiae. The most widely readcommentaries in the 16th century were those by Pseudo-Aquinas and Jodocus Badius Ascensius, forwhich we refer to Paul WHITE, Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance,Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013. 67 BOETHIUS, Consolationis Philosophiae Libri V, vol. 2, ed. René Vallin, Franciscus Hackius, LugdunumBatavorum, 1656, p. 59: «Quae cum omnia recte animae rationali conveniant, hoc tamen loco Boetium deAnima Mundi agere certum est: tum quia Platonis mentem de eadem anima differentis exprimit, tum quia nemoest qui extrema haec verba “et simili convertit imagine coelum” animae rationali humanae accommodare possit, licethoc conetur Franciscus Cataneus, pulchre ad hunc locum ineptiens». On Vallin’s commentary, see BELLI, Ilcentro e la circonferenza, p. 224-237.

Appendix: Edition and annotated translation of Diacceto’s letter to Bernardo Rucellai

Note to the Text

The text is preserved in four manuscripts and in the printed edition of Diacceto’sOpera omnia. Three of the manuscripts (M2, P2, V2) have already been described bySylvain Matton68.

L = Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, San Marco 328. Parchment, ff. I,116, III, mm 293 x 207, second half 14th century-beginning of 16th century. Content:Macrobius, Saturnalia (fº 1r-116v); Epistola ad Bernardum Oricellarium (fº 117r-118v)69.

M2 = Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, II.IV.34 (previous shelfmarks: Magl.XII.47; Strozzi in fol. 151), fº 287v-294r.

P2 = Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, lat. 8696, fº 139r-147v.V2 = Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ross. 423, fº 24r-32r,

with autograph marginal notes at fº 27v. At fº 1r one reads «Franciscus Cataneus hoc [!]libellum scripsit»70.

Op. = Opera omnia, | FRANCISCI CA- | TANEI DIACETII PATRI- | CII FLORENTINI

PHILO- | SOPHI SVMMI, || NUNC PRIMVM IN LUCEM | EDITA. || In quibus praeter multijugamin omni Philosophiae genere doctri-|nam & pietatem, Academicorum quoque cumPeripateticis con-|sensum, & (quod à multis hactenus desiderat�fuit) utrorumq; | cumChristiana religione conuenientiam in plerisque | dogmatibus. Lector eruditus depre-|hendere poterit. || Acceßit Index rerum & uerborum memorabilium | copiosißimus. ||BASILEAE, | M. D. LXIII. [colophon] BASILEAE PER HENRICHVM | Petri, &Petrum Pernam, Anno | M. D. LXIII. p. 324-329 [fº Dd 6v- Ee 3r]

As the collation of all surviving witnesses and the tables presented below suggest,Diacceto’s letter to Bernardo Rucellai underwent at least two stages of revision beforeappearing in print in the 1563 Opera omnia. The first version of the text is preserved inL, which includes readings that are distinct from the rest of the tradition. This firstversion underwent substantial revisions (P2 and M2), such as additions, omissions,lexical changes, alteration of the original word order, which were probably made by theauthor himself. Diacceto then revised the text a second time (V2 and Op.), making oneimportant correction and six minor stylistic ones.

~ 71 ~


68 See DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. VIII-IX, IX-X and X-XI respectively.69 See Berthold L. ULLMAN, The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati, Antenore, Padova, 1963, p. 156, n. 29;Berthold L. ULLMAN and Philip A. STADTER, The Public Library of Renaissance Florence: Niccolò Niccoli,Cosimo de’ Medici and the Library of San Marco, Antenore, Padova, 1972, p. 67, 98, 230, n. 891, p. 286M 276, p. 314; Coluccio Salutati e l’invenzione dell’Umanesimo. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, 2novembre 2008-30 gennaio 2009, ed. T. De Robertis, G. Tanturli, and S. Zamponi, Mandragora, Firenze,2008, p. 356, n. 74.70 The manuscript is considered to be «possibly an autograph» by KRISTELLER, Francesco da Diacceto, p. 304.See also IDEM, Un uomo di stato e umanista fiorentino: Giovanni Corsi, «La Bibliofilìa», XXXVIII (1936), p. 242-257; Sabrina TADDEI, Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Rossi 423, in Leon Battista Alberti. Labiblioteca di un umanista, a cura di Roberto Cardini, Mandragora, Firenze, 2006, p. 338-340. A palaeographicalcomparison between the marginal notes present in V2 and Diacceto’s handwriting (see letter to Bernardinoda Bibbiena: Florence, Archivio di Stato, Mediceo avanti il Principato, 124, fº 300r) confirms that the marginalnotes in V2 at fº 27v are autograph, and thus that V2 has been proofread by Diacceto.

~ 72 ~


L P2, M2, V2, Op.Expositio Francisci Diaceti Florentini FRANCISCUS CATANEUS (CATANEUSPlatonici in versis illos Boetii libro 3º de om. P) DIACETIUS Bernardo OricellarioConsolatione videlicet de creatione anime S.P.D. (S.D. P, V; SALUTEM N)ipsius mundi secundum opinionem que estsumpta e Timaeo Platonis: Tu tripicis mediam naturae cuncta moventem. Franciscus Diacetus Bernardo Oricellario civi Florentino S.P.D.fratre Zenobio Zenobioni monita nisi monitatum rei magnitudo cum rei magnitudoBlandiar mihi blandiarfrater Zenobius ZenobiusEsseque esse quoqueMetiantur Dimediaturquaecunque agit quaecunque peragitquae circa corpora divisa sensui subiicitur quae sensui subicitur circa corpore divisacongruere potest Congruerecorpora divisibili corpora divisibili liquido patetsecundum quod in se ipsa secundum id quod in ipsamoventur ab altero ab altero moventurquae sunt partibilia quae sunt particulariasitu distant distant situMutuatur intellectu mutuaturparitque opinionem opinionemque parithaec igitur anima quando haec quoniametiam in Politico et in Politicosimili pacto inferiores simili pacto et inferioresdivinorum animorum divinarum animarumtribuisse Aristotelem in secundo de in secundo de Generatione animaliumGeneratione animalium tribuisse Aristotelemper contemplationem propter contemplationemde animarum descensu de animorum descensuin corpora idem in corpora item etsectatrices desint sectatores desint (desinit OO)vitae sensibilis vitae sensilisquod etiam Plotinus quod et Plotinusterrae ac caeli caeli ac terrae

1. The first version The text preserved in L differs in many places from that of the other witnesses.

The nature of the variant readings listed below suggests that the text of L is a copy of afirst version of the work (O1), which was then substantially revised by Diacceto:

~ 73 ~


ad te conversas ~ reverti ad te conversas ~ reverti Da pater augustam menti conscendere sedem etc.

atque sensibile atque sensileresolvis per consona membra per consona membra resolvisindividua dividuaque dividua individuaqueTorsit Retorsitnam anima si quidem animanec caelum virium ab anima profluentibus nec caelum viribus ab anima profluentiummovetur et ipsum movetur autemab ortu scilicet scilicet ab ortuhoc est erraticarum id est erraticarumDixit Asseruitproinde inquit Boetius proinde addidittum vim exhibuit vim exhibuit tumtum magni anni curriculo semel saltem in tum in corpora elementaria magni anni corpora elementaria delabendi curriculo semel saltemDialis Martiasive cuiusvis sive cuiusquead solidum usque corpus ad solidum corpusa qua sensibilium a qua sensiliumet Platonem Platonemquenon est aut quamobrem non est quamobremsatis rationibus rationibus satisnunquam secus secus nunquamFINIS om.

In addition to these variants, two convergences between L and two other witnesses(M2 and Op.) can be discarded as polygenetic errors:

L P2, M2, V2, Op.vobis dedi vobis dedidi (dedi M2)Cuiusmodi quoiusmodi (quovismodi M2; cuiusmodi Op.)

L also includes minor interlinear glosses made by the scribe to clarify the meaningof difficult words in the text.

2. The second versionThe text of the second version (O2) is in P2, M2, V2 and Op. P2 and M2 represent

a first stage of this revision; V2 and Op. represent a second stage, because they containfurther corrections made by the author which are not in P2 and M2. Since we haveevidence that V2 was proofread by Diacceto himself (given the presence of marginalannotations in Diacceto’s hand), we can safely assume that Diacceto was responsiblefor the revision.

~ 74 ~


A group of seven variants divide P2 and M2 from V2 and Op.:

L, P2, M2 V2, Op.Ponatur Supponaturnaturae collimitium naturae mediumet substantia separabilis et a materia abiunctasecundum functiones secundum vero functionessed ut etiam (etiam om. P2, M2) sed etiam harmonice coagmentariharmonice coagmenteturquo se referret, hoc est ipsam intelligentiam quo referret ipsam intelligentiamDeclarari Tradi

P2 and M2 present three conjunctive errors, and therefore belong the samesubfamily a:

A separative error in P2 rules out any direct filiation between P2 and M2:

P2, M2 L, V2, Op.Dicione Dicionemsed ut harmonice sed (sed ut: L) etiam harmonice Elabendi Delabendi

P2 L, M2, V2, Op.quandoquidem est participium quandoquidem est principium

The text in M2 is very corrupt, and includes a number of separative errors:

M2 L, P2, V2, Op.Quovismodi quoiusmodi (cuiusmodi: L, Op.)secundum omnium sensilium omniumNaturam EssentiamSublati SubalatiDivinae Diurnaeprior natura prior natura estorbem retorsit in orbem retorsit

3. The revised second versionAs mentioned above, the second version (O2) was revised, as indicated by V2 and

Op. We shall call this subfamily b, because V2 includes a separative error that rules outa relationship of direct filiation between V2 and Op.:

~ 75 ~


V2 L, P2, M2, Op.est enim intellectus est enim intelligentia, intellectus

V2 also includes three scribal errors (which escaped the attention of Diacceto)

V2 L, P2, M2, Op.idoneas aeque IdoneasqueQuequae Quaequesi vero ad solidum sin vero ad solidum

The text in V2 is otherwise generally correct, and even makes two minorcorrections:

V2 L, P2, M2, Op.quem a superiore quem a superioriquae si aut minus expressa quod si aut minus expressa

The text in Op. contains a number of variants, most of which are probablyalterations made by Theodor Zwinger, who was responsible for adding headings in theOpera omnia71, and might also have corrected the text (not always felicitously, as thereading potentioremque suggests):

Op. L, P2, M2, V2Argumentum. Boetii carmina de Anima natura motuque explicat.Potentioremque PotioremqueProspicimus Perspicimusatque et triplicis atqui et triplicispostque inquit postquam inquitsuperna illa illa supernaIllustris illustris. Vale

71 See DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. XVI.

~ 76 ~


72 See DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. XVI-XVIII.73 FICINO, De sole VII, in Opera omnia, p. 969.

Op. L, P2, M2, V2enim non satisfecerim enim vobis non satisfecerimambiguique ingenium ambiguique ingeniisecundum vero rationem secundum vero actionemin Phaedro ut in PhaedroDesinit DesintAequus EquusCompleactitur ComplectiturHinc propheta ille apud Platonem decimo Hinc propheta ille apud Platonem in decimomundus intelligibilis causa mundus intelligibilis causa est

It remains to note that there is no case of horizontal contamination between thedifferent families of the tradition (such as, for example, in the De pulchro)72. The onlyinstances where two witnesses (M2 and Op.) agree against the rest of the tradition canbe discarded. As can be seen from the table below, the reading «Recasolani» is likely tobe the result of polygenesis, because the same form («Recasolanus») is found in Ficino’sDe sole73; and the reading et instead of etiam is probably a transcription error:

The text of Op. is also corrupt in many instances, perhaps as a result oftypographical errors:

Op., M2 L, P2, V2Recasolani Recasolensissed et Plato ipse sed etiam Plato ipse

The following stemma explains the relationship between the witnesses:

The present edition is based on V2, which, as mentioned above, was annotated byDiacceto. Four errors in V2 are corrected on the basis of the other witnesses: idoneasaeque > idoneasque, quequae > quaeque, intellectus > intelligentia, intellectus, and si vero> sin vero. Abbreviations have been expanded, j has always been spelled i, and u/v havebeen distinguished according to modern usage. All forms with e (simple or caudata:penitebit > paenitebit; quę > quae) have been spelled ae. To be consistent withRenaissance spelling practices, we have also written in one word imprimis, respublica(ablative: republica), revera (but impresentia > in praesentia); for the same reason, wehave kept such spellings as duntaxat, plerunque, quanquam, quaecunque, tanquam (unlesswhen m bears morphological significance: utrumque), Boetius (instead of Boethius),negocium, dicionem, conditio, exuperat (see De pulchro I, 3, p. 22: negocietur; I, 4, p. 23:conditionis; I, 3, p. 20: existere); we have restored regular spelling in dimittant (insteadof hyper-corrective dimictant), accommodavit (for accomodavit, see De pulchro I, 5, p. 27:accommodentur), pedisequae (for pedissequae), arcana (for archana) catena (for cathena;see De pulchro II, 1, p. 84), iuxta (for iusta, see De pulchro II, 1, p. 85), consummata (forconsumata; see De pulchro I, 6, p. 26: consummata), supremi (for suppremi), dialectica (fordialetica). Finally, punctuation and capital letters have been regularized to followmodern standards.

~ 77 ~


FRANCISCUS Cataneus Diacetius Bernardo Oricellario S.D74

Arduum profecto ac magni negocii opus per te a Zenobio75 Acciaiolo nobispropositum est, et quod magnos alioqui viros saepe anxios habuerit habiturumque sitolim, quoties in examen revocetur. Non enim plebeia quaedam minutulaque a vobisexiguntur, sed quae in arcanorum thesauris Pythagoricae Platonicaeque sapientiae sepositasint, maximarum plena questionum, plena solutionum. Ego vero, mi Bernarde, non inficiaseo parum abfuisse quin negligenter vobiscum egerim, et ni76 monita BindaciiRecasolen|sis77, [24v] non minus officiosi quam gravis amici, me excitassent, certe autcoram de his disseruissem aut leviter ieiuneque delibassem. Deterrebat enim me cum78 reimagnitudo, pleniorem potioremque79 mentem postulantis, tum epistolae ipsius ingenium,utpote ad huiusmodi aperienda enarrandaque ineptum. Nam videbar, si agerem perepistolam, aut prolixitatis aut obscuritatis crimen subiturus, quorum utrumque viropenitus non ineleganti vitio dandum est. Sed ubi me ipsum recepi, longe vicit gratia etauctoritas vestra apud me. Quomodo enim vobis80 non satisfecerim, qui secus mihinunquam satisfacio? Quid vobis a me non modo non impetratum, sed dissimulatum, autvelim, aut debeam, qui me totum iampridem vobis dedidi81? Si me propositos nodosabunde esse solvendo arbitramini, quin ipse quoque auspiciis vestris mihi82 blandiar,putemque alios iure pro rato habituros, quicquid iam vobis probatum fuerit?

Nec me paenitebit non dico minuti, | [25r] ut Zenobius83 inquit, sed diligentissimiexquisitissimique interpretis officio fungi. Non solum enim Boetii carmen, sed etiam84

Plato ipse est explanandus; nec intactum quicquam nobis de composito praetereundumest, sed singula verba pensitanda discutiendaque sunt, utpote quae de Timaeipenetralibus eruta a Boetio duntaxat in numeros congesta sint85. Ergo operae praetiumfuerit imprimis declarare quomodo anima rerum media triplexque sit, quo pacto seipsam caelumque moveat, quoiusmodi86 vehicula, quae sementis animarum. Quibusexpeditis, obvia cuique facilisque erit (ut opinor) propositae quaestionis intelligentia.

~ 78 ~


74 FRANCISCUS… S.D.] Expositio Francisci Diaceti Florentini Platonici in versis illos Boetii libro 3ºde Consolatione videlicet de creatione animae ipsius mundi secundum opinionem quae est sumpta eTimaeo Platonis: Tu tripicis mediam naturae cuncta moventem. Franciscus Diacetus BernardoOricellario civi florentino S.P.D.L.; Cataneus] om. P2; S.D. ] SALUTEM M2; S.P.D. P, Op.;Argumentum. Boetii carmina de Anima natura motuque explicat add. Op.75 Zenobio] Fratre Zenobio L.76 ni] nisi L.77 Recasolensis] Recasolani M2, Op.78 cum] tum L.79 potioremque] potentioremque Op.80 vobis] om. Op.81 dedidi ] dedi L, M2.82 mihi] om. L83 Zenobius] Frater Zenobius L.84 etiam] et M2, Op.85 sint] corr. ex sunt L; sunt M2, Op.86 quoiusmodi] cuiusmodi L, Op.; quovismodi M2.

Esse aliquid omnino seiunctum a corporibus in praesentia ponatur87; esse quoque88

nonnihil corporeum et circa corpora sensu usurpamus. Hoc sensile, illud intelligibileappellatur. Inter utrumque autem est aliquid veluti medium, ambiguique ingenii89, quamquidem animam Plato nuncupat, partim intelligibili, partim sensili co|gnatum. [25v]Intelligibile quidem tum secundum essentiam, tum secundum actionem aeternum est.Quis enim aut Deum ipsum, aut quae sunt omnino Dei tempore dimetiatur90? Contravero utroque temporarium sensile: fit enim exercetque tempore proprias functiones. Atvero anima secundum essentiam aeterna est (non enim obnoxii generis est a generationeemancipata), secundum vero actionem91 temporaria (peragit enim tempore quaecunqueperagit)92. Quod quidem omnino temporariae, omnino sempiternae naturae medium93

est. Hoc autem ita se habere argumento quoque esse potest quod deterior quidem estintelligibili insectilique substantia, potior autem ea quae circa corpora divisa sensuisubicitur94. Nam et a materia abiuncta95 est et in se ipsam convertitur quandoquidemintelligit se ipsam, et insecta manet vivitque in se ipsa, quorum nullum congruere96

substantiae circa corpora divisibili liquido patet97. At essentia cognitioneque | [26r]participat, neque enim primo est, ubi substantia intellectualis longe prior. Quod hincpatere potest quoniam non quemadmodum anima in corpora propensa est, neque primoet quatenus anima intelligit, ubi non omnem animam attingere penetrareque entiaperspicimus98.

Est itaque anima potior non ente corporibusque, deterior autem eo quod reveraest ens; secundum substantiam aeterna, secundum vero99 functiones tempori obnoxia.Impartibilis quidem secundum id quod in ipsa100 divinissimum est, sectilis (ut inquitPlotinus) quatenus secundum extrema a divinissimo abest vergitque in corpus. Ubi seipsam movet, ut101 in Phaedro atque in decimo de Legibus ostenditur, plenior iis quae abaltero moventur102, humilioris substantiae quam quae omnino immobilia sunt. Si seriemspectes consensumque notionum, profecto totum asseras; sin vero partitionem

~ 79 ~


87 ponatur] supponatur L, P2, N88 esse quoque] esseque L.89 ingenii] ingenium Op.90 dimediatur] metiantur L91 actionem] rationem Op.92 peragit] agit L.93 medium] collimitium L, P2, M2.94 quae… subiicitur] quae sensui subiicitur circa corpora divisa L.95 a materia abiuncta] substantia separabilis L, P2, M2.96 congruere] congruere potest L.97 liquido patet] om. L.98 perspicimus] prospicimus Op.99 vero] om. L, P2, M2.100 id, quod in ipsa] quod in seipsa L.101 ut] om. Op.102 ab altero moventur] moventur ab altero L.

functionis, ex eorum conditione quae sunt particularia103. | [26v] Ecquis igitur haecanimadvertens animam esse rerum mediam diffiteatur, ubi ab insectili substantiadeclinat, exuperat autem eam quae corporibus addicitur?

Atqui104 et triplicis ingenii est, ubi suo quodammodo tam sensilia quamintelligibilia complectitur: rationes quidem eorum, quae materiae sunt mancipata, sinemateria; corporum, sine corpore. Simul eorum quae distant situ105, quoniam sensilium106

omnium exemplar et causa est. At intelligibilium, qua sunt impartibilia, divisim; quamaxime una, multipliciter; qua vero immobilia, non sine motu, quoniam velutisimulachrum superioribus participat. Has quidem tam discrepantes naturas viharmonicae rationis ita Opifex mundi conciliavit, ut in unam animae essentiam107

coaluerint. Atque id est quod inquit Timaeus Locrensis atque Plato in Timaeo: animamscilicet tertiam esse substantiae speciem, ex individua natura, atque ex ea quae circacorpora | [27r] dividitur, coagmentatam. Quod non differt ab eo quod in Phaedroquoque dicitur: animam persimilem esse potentiae aurigae ac subalati108 coniugii, cuiusalter equus109 sit bonus et pulcher, alter contrarius et ex contrariis.

Atqui in hac duplicem motum deprehendas: alterum, quem Plato appellat diversi,alterum vero quem eiusdem. Hoc enim dum se ipsam complectitur110, caetera quoqueomnia dignoscit, ita quidem ut semper eodemque modo veritatem intueatur: proptereaet eiusdem dicitur, quem a superiore111 intellectu112 mutuatur. Illo vero contra ex rerumnotitia in sui agnitionem accedit, quo quandoque etiam declinat ad sensileopinionemque parit113, qui animae, qua anima, suus est. Proinde hunc quidem sinistrum(quoniam a particularibus ad communia, ab effectibus in causas, a rebus in animam)illum vero dextrum (quoniam contra progreditur) Plato nuncupat.

Haec quoniam114 vergit in corpora, caelum primo produxit: caelum inquam, quasinon corpus et quasi animam | [27v] ubique ipsam referens. Est enim (ut IamblichusIulianusque asserunt) substantia quaedam tralucida, illustris, calida, quovis intactapenetrans, vitae intelligentiaeque particeps, cuius lumine caetera corpora foventur etmanent, quem purissimum ignem Plotinus Platoque vocant. Ergo caelum per quamvirtutem productum est, per eandem et motu donatum.

~ 80 ~


103 particularia] partibilia L.104 Atqui] atque Op.105 distant situ] situ distant L.106 sensilium] secundum M2.107 essentiam] naturam M2.108 subalati] sublati M2.109 equus] aequus Op.110 complectitur] compleactitur Op.111 superiore] superiori L, P2, M2, Op.112 intellectu] om. L.113 opinionemque parit] paritque opinionem L.114 quoniam] igitur anima quando L

Est enim anima secunda, prioris potiorisque animae instrumentum, ex qua et caelocaeleste animal sarcitur: hanc naturam Plotinus appellat. Movetur autem caelum abanima, non solum ut fine, sed etiam ut efficiente, nam et vitam huic exhibet; huius autemvita motus est (quemadmodum etiam multis in locis Aristoteles inquit) et ad animaeimitationem in circulum movetur, ut totidem virtutes assequatur quot assequitur animarationes. Quod et115 in Politico innuens Plato: caelum, inquit, movetur fato et ingenitacupiditate. Ex quo apud Plotinum legas: caelum propterea circulus est, quandoquidemeius anima circulus. Simili pacto et116 inferiores animae rationales se habent: nam et pereandem ideam et ex eisdem generibus, ex quibus divinae animae compactae sunt,quanquam diversae, diversa | [28r] ratione; singulas tamen totum esse idoneasque117

totam generationem perficere, Plotinus asserit, quando totius inanimati curam gerunt,ut Plato inquit. Hae suum quaeque118 corpus, caelo proportione naturaque respondens,quod vehiculum appellatur, divinarum animarum119 instar, sibi asciscunt. Quod etiamcuivis animalium animae in secundo De generatione animalium tribuisse Aristotelem120,testis est Themistius. Nam quaevis anima rationalis ubi secundum essentiam aeternaest, corpore utitur et ipso sempiterno. Si enim quatenus anima alicui vitam exhibet,quando semper anima est, vitam quoque semper exhibeat oportet; si igitur ita se habetet id cui vita tribuitur semper vivet, quapropter et semper erit. At id corpus duntaxatomnino aeternum est quod caelesti conditione participat. Haec quidem Proclus asserit,quanquam Plotinus et Iamblichus contendant rationales animas eo quandoque dignitatisper121 contemplationem accedere ut, mundo intelligibili superato, | [28v] dimittant etiamomne corpus. Sed de his alibi disserendum. Satis autem nobis est in praesentia,quemadmodum omnis anima rationalis ex eisdem generibus constituitur, sic et eiusdemconditionis corpus sibi quamque assumere, quo sibi ipsae undique consentiant.

Caeterum de animorum122 descensu in corpora itidem123 et de fuga ad superos,quod tangunt extremae quaestionis partes, tum multa apud alios, tum praesertim apudPlotinum legas: quae quidem omnia recensere, ut longi laboris, sic quoque non citrafastidium importunumque esset. Dicam tamen pauca, quae magis in rem faciant, nehanc partem intactam reliquisse videar. Opifex mundi (ut Plato inquit in Timaeo)animarum multitudinem stellis suam cuique seriem accommodavit, quae suae stellaeingenium moresque saperet. Series autem quaevis in infimam usque regionemprotenditur, nec ubi cuiusvis caelestis dei pedissequae sectatoresque124 desint125. Atque

~ 81 ~


115 et] etiam L.116 et] om. L117 idoneasque] ex L, P2, M2, Op.; idoneas aeque V2.118 quaequae] ex L, P2, M2, Op.; quequae V2119 divinarum animarum] divinorum animorum L.120 in secundo… Aristotelem] tribuisse Aristotelem in secundo de generatione animalium L.121 per] propter L.122 animorum] animarum L.123 itidem] item et L124 sectatoresque] sectatricesque L.125 desint] desinit Op.

haec fortassis est illa Homeri aurea catena, | [29r] qua caelestia delabuntur in terram,contraque terrena in caelum rapiuntur. Hae quidem ingravescente generationis stimulooptionem faciunt vitae illius quae sibi magis cordi est. Etsi enim electae vitae periodumimpleri necesse est, nulla tamen vi coactae, sed sponte sua eligunt vitam: non quiacontemplandi munera generationi post habeant, sed quoniam contemplatio disperditur,dum cupiditas regendi corporis invalescit, ubi contemplandi generandique munerasimul obire nequeunt. Hinc propheta ille apud Platonem in126 decimo De republica: oanimae, inquit, diurnae127, non vos daemon sortietur, sed vos daemonem eligetis. Ergopaulatim generationis amore delabentes, eo declinant ut, assumpto terreno corpore, suioblitae, vix fati dicionem128 dissimulent, plerunque tamen fato potius obruantur. Namtunc primum leges fatales ediscere occeperunt. Levantur autem hoc fasce ubi, cupiditatecontemplandi accensas, vitae sensilis129 omnino taedet. Suntque philosophia | [29v] etamor, quibus expeditum sibi parant iter, discuntque fato obaudire, quemadmodumPlato inquit in Phaedro. Quod et130 Plotinus ostendit in eo libro cui de Dialectica titulusest. Ascendunt autem per Capricornum ad supera, quemadmodum per Cancrum adima descenderant. Alter enim Lunae domicilium est, quae praeest generationi; alter veroSaturni, cui contemplatio patrocinio est. Quod quidem significavit Herus ille Pamphilusapud Platonem in decimo De republica, ubi ait vidisse se geminos caeli ac terrae131 hiatus,per quorum alteros animae remearent in caelum, per alteros vero deorsumpraecipitarentur.

Sed iam tempus est, ut metrum ipsum aggrediamur. Est autem huiusmodi:

Tu triplicis mediam Naturae cuncta moventemConnectens animam per consona membra resolvis.Quae cum secta duos motum glomeravit in orbes,In semet reditura meat mentemque | [30r] profundamCircuit et simili convertit imagine caelum.Tu causis animas paribus vitasque minoresProvehis et levibus sublimes curribus aptansIn caelum terramque seris, quas lege benignaAd te conversas reduci facis igne reverti132.

Tu, inquit, o mundi Opifex, connectens animam inter intelligibile et quod re veraest, atque sensile133 et quod perpetuo labitur, mediam, proindeque triplicis ingenii, ubisuperiora, tanquam imago, inferiora vero veluti causa in se ipsa complectitur; animam

~ 82 ~


126 in] om. Op.127 diurnae] divinae M2.128 dicionem] dicione P2, M2129 sensilis] sensibilis L.130 et] etiam L.131 caeli ac terrae] terrae ac caeli L.132 Ad te… reverti] subsequentem versum addit L: Da pater augustam menti conscendere sedem.133 sensile] sensibile L.

inquam, a qua cuncta motionem mutuantur (quandoquidem est principium134 motus, utPlato inquit: sicut et mundus intelligibilis causa est135, qua constantiam cunctasortiantur).

Resolvis per consona membra136. Nam ubi essentia, idem, diversum permixta sunt,hoc est, ubi anima sic conflata est, ut eiusdem merito intelligibilia prosequatur, diversiautem ope iuxta vergat in corpus (utrumque enim munus pari ratione animae | [30v]obeundum est), rursus, quo rite in unum omnia coalescerent (quando non satis erat illapermixtio), harmonica ratione digesta sunt. Non solum enim oportet animam ex dividuaindividuaque137 natura coagmentari, sed etiam harmonice coagmentari138, atque id estiterum digerere per consona membra. Nam permixtio prior natura est139 quam talispermixtio. Quod quidem Plato expressit in Timaeo: postquam140, inquit, idem etdiversum cum substantia commixta sunt, et ex tribus unum conflatum, rursus id totumin ea quae decuit membra dissectum est. Ergo postquam permixtio illa consummataest, Opifex cum animam in longum dissecuisset, utramque sectionem in141 orbemretorsit142. Nam duplicem motum ei tribuit: unum quo referret143 ipsam intelligentiam (siquidem144 anima intelligendi munere participato fungitur: est enim intelligentia,intellectus145 ipsius mundique intelligibilis actus, quo ille se ipsum suopte ingenio simulassequitur); | [31r] alterum, quam Plotinus rationem, Aristoteles intellectum potentiaevocat, qui animae omnino suus est. Uterque autem est orbicularis, cum se ipsam utroquepercipiat anima, quanquam non statim ratione, sed tempore. Atque id evenit rectaratione, quod enim statim assequi nequit, id repetita vicissitudine assequitur. Quo fit, utmentem ambire dicatur, caelumque simili pacto convertere, quoniam nec caelum viribusab anima profluentibus146, simul potiri valet. Movetur autem147 ad animae imitationemduplici motu: eiusdem scilicet ab ortu148 in occasum, contra vero diversi ab occasu inortum. Quod etiam Aristoteles fatetur, cum asserat generationem, aliter atque aliteragenti, id149 est erraticarum motui, ei vero qui supremi est orbis, quoniam eodem modo

~ 83 ~


134 principium] participium P2.135 est] om. Op.136 resolvis… membra] per consona membra resolvis L.137 dividua individuaque] individua dividuaque L.138 sed… coagmentari] sed ut… coagmentetur L, P2, M2; etiam om. P2, M2.139 est] om. M2.140 Postquam] postque Op.141 in] om. M2.142 retorsit] torsit L.143 referret] se referret hoc est L, P2, M2.144 si quidem] nam L.145 intelligentia, intellectus] ex L, P2, M2, Op.; intellectus V2.146 viribus… profluentibus] virium… profluentium L.147 autem] et ipsum L.148 scilicet ab Ortu] ab ortu scilicet L.149 id] hoc L.

semper agit, generationis perennitatem addictam esse. Caeterum quemadmodumdeclaravimus et caeterae animae pari ferme ratione se habent, quod Plato significavitcum et in eodem cra|tere [31v] et ex reliquiis eorundem generum constare asseruerit150.

Proinde addidit151: Tu paribus animas causis, vitasque minores provehis. Animasinquam quae deterioris conditionis quam animae divinae sunt, cum quandoque corporisamore contemplationis obliviscantur, quod illis propter generum praestantiam evenirenequit. Cumque Opifex singulis vim152 exhibeat, tum153 asciscendi sibi affine corpusquod caelo proportione respondeat, tum in corpora elementaria magni anni curriculosemel saltem154 delabendi155, propterea dicit in caelum terramque serere: quoniam ubivitae optionem fecerunt urgente necessitudine, functiones illius implendae sunt. Sicaelestem vitam elegerint, vitae caelestis periodus absolvenda, sive illa Saturnia sit, siveMartia156, sive cuiusque157 alterius dei. Sin158 vero ad solidum corpus159 declinaverint160, sibitantisper illic permanendum, donec, amore intelligibilium accensae, in patriam remeenta qua sensilium161 | [32r] amore diu aberant. Ex quo apud Orpheum legas: Clavesomnium habet Amor sive illa superna sint, sive inferna.

Haec quidem sunt quae Boetium, id est Timaeum Locrensem Platonemque162 sibivoluisse arbitror. Quae163 si aut minus expressa, aut nimis dura vobis videantur, non estquamobrem164 admiremini aut arguatis me obscuritatis. Nam debetis animadverterequod Plato inquit in Epistolis: non sic divinis, quemadmodum caeteris scientiis evenire;neque enim declarari165 verbis, neque rationibus satis166 percipi possunt, sed vitaesimilitudine diuturnoque usu vix tandem in anima effulgent: instar tralucidi aeris, quisecus nunquam167 vel praesente lumine, nisi discussa caligine, fit illustris. VALE168.

~ 84 ~


150 asseruit] dixit L.151 addidit] inquit Boetius L.152 vim] tum vim L.153 tum] om. L.154 in corpora… saltem] semel saltem in corpora elementaria L.155 delabendi] elabendi P2, M2.156 Martia] Dialis L.157 cuiusque] cuiusvis L.158 sin] ex L, P2, M2, Op.; si V2.159 corpus] usque corpus L.160 declinaverint] declinarint M2.161 sensilium] sensibilium L.162 Platonemque] et Platonem L.163 Quae] Quod L, P2, M2, Op..164 quamobrem] aut quamobrem L.165 declarari] tradi L, P2, M2.166 rationibus satis] satis rationibus L.167 secus nunquam] numquam secus L.168 VALE] om. Op.; add. FINIS L.

Francesco Cattani da Diacceto to Bernardo Oricellari

Zanobi Acciaiuoli169 asked you to suggest to me this rather difficult and major task - a task that has often troubled those who were otherwise great men, and will causetrouble in the future, each time someone re-examines the question. For what isrequested by both of you is by no means a common and trivial matter, but one that lieshidden in the recesses of the secrets of Pythagorean and Platonic wisdom, one that isfilled with the most important questions, and filled with answers to these questions. Asfar as I am concerned, my dear Bernardo170, I do not deny that I nearly acted negligentlytowards you, and if the advice of Bindaccio Ricasoli171 (who is no less an obliging thanan excellent friend) had not spurred me on, I would certainly have either discussed thematter in person, or touched upon it in a light manner without making any effort. As itwere I was discouraged by both the magnitude of the task, which requires a broader andworthier mind, and the epistolary genre itself, which cannot reveal and explain a matterof this amplitude. Indeed I thought that, if I used the medium of a letter, I would makethe mistake of being verbose or obscure, both of which should not be the defects of aman with judgement. As I was withdrawing myself, however, I was completely won overby the grace and authority you showed towards me. How, indeed, could I not satisfyyour will, when I never satisfy my own will in any other way? Why would I or should I,not only refrain from satisfying your desire, but dissimulate [what I know] from you,when I have for so long devoted myself wholly to you? If you consider that I am morethan suitable to solve the difficult questions that you have placed before me, why shouldI not also be flattered [to work] under your auspices, and think that others will rightlyapprove everything that has already been approved by you?

I will not regret accomplishing the duty of an interpreter that I would not callmeticulous, as Zanobi does, but highly diligent and precise. For one must not onlyinterpret Boethius’ poem, but also Plato himself, and we cannot let anythingunexplained about the composition, but ponder and discuss every single word, giventhat Boethius has merely arranged in verse what he has unearthed about the Timaeus’secrets. It would therefore be worth saying in the first place how the soul is the «middleof things» and is «triple»; how it moves itself and the heaven, of what kind the «vehicles»are, and what the «sowing of the souls» is172. Once we have explained the meaning ofthese expressions, the proposed question will be, I think, obvious and easy tounderstand to everyone.

~ 85 ~


169 On Zanobi Acciaiuoli (1461-1519), an Italian Domenican friar and translator of ancient Greek textswho was in Florence until 1513, see Abele L. REDIGONDA, Acciaiuoli, Zanobi, in Dizionario biograficodegli italiani, vol. 1, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Roma, 1960, p. 93-94. 170 The dedicatee is Bernardo Rucellai (1448-1514), prominent member of the Florentine aristocracyand founder of the Orti oricellari. 171 On Bindaccio Ricasoli (1444-1524), close friend of Ficino and dedicatee of Diacceto’s De amore, seeGiulio NEGRI, Istoria degli scrittori fiorentini, Bernardino Pomatelli, Ferrara, 1722, p. 110; Paul O.KRISTELLER, Supplementum Ficinianum, vol. 1, Olschki, Firenze, 1937, p. 124.172 BOETHIUS, Consolation of Philosophy 3m9.13-21, quoted in full in the second part of the letter.

Let us suppose for now that there exists something that is totally separate from thebodies; we know through our senses that there also exists something corporeal andconcerning the bodies. The latter is called the sensible; the former, the intelligible.Between these two, however, there is something that is like a middle point, and whosenature is double. This Plato calls the soul, which is in part connected to the intelligibleand in part to the sensible. Yet the intelligible is eternal according to both its essence andits action. For who would measure according to time either God Himself or whatbelongs entirely to God? In contrast, the sensible object is temporal according to both[its essence and its action]: it comes into existence and it accomplishes its own functionstemporally. As to the soul, it is eternal according to its essence (for it is not of an inferiorgenre and is not subject to generation), but temporal according to its action (for itaccomplishes all things temporally). It is the middle between the nature that iscompletely temporal and the nature that is entirely eternal. That this is the case can alsobe proven by the fact that the soul is inferior to the intelligible and indivisible substance,but is superior to the substance that is divided according to bodies and subject to senseperception. For it is separate from matter; it turns towards itself, since it knows itself;it remains undivided and lives within itself. It is very clear that none of thesecharacteristics is congruent with the substance that can be divided according to bodies.However, the soul possesses essence and cognition by participation. For the soul is notin the first place, since the intellectual substance is by far superior. This can be clearlydemonstrated by the fact that the intellectual substance is not inclined towards thebodies in the way the soul is. Nor does the soul think in the first place and qua soul, sincewe know that that the entire soul does not reach and penetrate the beings.

Therefore, the soul is superior to non-being and the bodies, but is inferior to whatis truly being; it is eternal according to its substance, but subject to time in its functions.It is indivisible according to what is most divine within itself; it is divisible (as Plotinussays) in as much as, in its lowest parts, it is far away from that most divine part, andtends towards the body173. Since it moves itself, as shown in the Phaedrus and Book Xof the Laws174, it is superior to the things that are moved by another [principle], but isof an inferior substance compared with those that are completely motionless. If oneconsiders the series and the arrangement of notions, one would certainly talk of a whole;but if one considers the division in function, one would start from the condition ofindividual things. Who would take this into account and then deny that the soul is themiddle of things, when it is inferior to the inseparable substance, but superior to thesubstance that is united to the bodies?

Its nature is indeed triple, since it embraces both sensible and intelligible objectsin a manner that is proper to itself: the reasons of material realities, in an immaterialway, and those of corporeal realities, in an incorporeal way. It embraces simultaneouslythe reasons of the things that are distant from one another, because it is the model andthe cause of all sensible things. In contrast, when it embraces the reasons of theintelligible realities, which are undivided, it does so in a divided way; those that are one

~ 86 ~


173 PLOTINUS, Enneads IV, 1, 1.174 Phaedrus 245c1-246e2; Laws X 896e-897a.

in the highest degree, in a multiple way; those that are motionless, with motion, becauseit participates in the superior realities as an image of them. The creator of the world hasbrought together these opposite natures by virtue of harmony, so that they are all unitedwithin the unique essence of the soul. This is precisely what Timaeus Locrensis says andPlato states in the Timaeus: the soul is the third species of substance, as it is the resultof the union of the nature that is indivisible, and the nature that is divided according tobodies175. This is also what is said in the Phaedrus, namely, that the soul is exactly likethe power of the charioteer and the two winged horses, one of which is of noblecharacter and the other is the opposite and comes from the opposite stock176.

Consider, however, that there are two types of motion in the soul, one that Platocalls the motion of the Different and one that he calls the motion of the Same. By virtueof the Same, when the soul embraces itself, it also discerns all the other things, so thatit sees the truth always and in the same way. For this reason it is called «of the Same»,which it receives from a superior intellect. By virtue of the Different the soul proceedsfrom the knowledge of things to the knowledge of itself; through the Different itdescends on occasion into the sensible world and engenders opinion, and the Differentis the proper of the soul as soul. As a result, Plato calls the latter «left» because itproceeds from the particulars to the universal, from the effects to the causes and fromthe inferior realities to the soul, and the former «right», because it proceeds in theopposite direction177.

Because the soul is inclined towards the bodies, it first produced the heaven, Imean the heaven which is not really a body and corresponding in almost all its parts tothe soul itself178. For there is, as Iamblichus and Julian say, a substance that is transparent,shining, white, which penetrates everywhere whilst remaining uncorrupted, whichpartakes of life and intelligence, and by the light of which all the other bodies arewarmed up and receive a lasting existence179. This is what Plotinus and Plato call «purestfire»180. Thus it is by this virtue that the heaven is produced, and by the same virtue it isalso given motion.

For there is a second soul, the instrument of the prior and superior soul, and it is fromthe combination of that soul and the heaven that the celestial living being is sown together181.

~ 87 ~


175 Timaeus 35a1-8.176 Phaedrus 246a-254e. Cf. FICINO, In Phaedrum XVI, 4, ed. and trans. Michael J. B. Allen, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Mass.-London, 2008, p. 8: «Principio quidem noster princeps bigas habenismoderatur, deinde equorum alter bonus et pulcher et ex talibus, alter contrarius et ex contrariis».177 Timaeus 34c-35c. 178 See PROCLUS, In Timaeum V, 227 B, ed. Diehl, vol. 2, p. 281.12-14. See also Marsilio FICINO, De VitaIII, 3, ed. and trans. Carol V. Kaske and John R. Clarke, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies,Binghamton, N.Y., 1989, p. 257: «Ipse vero [sc. spiritus] est corpus tenuissimus, quasi non corpus, et iamanima. Ita quasi non anima, et quasi iam corpus».179 IAMBLICHUS, De Mysteriis III, 14, éd. Saffrey-Segonds, p. 99.4-12; JULIAN, Hymn to Helios 134a-b.180 PLATO, Timaeus 39e10-40b8; PLOTINUS, Enneads II, 1, 4. 181 A direct allusion to PLOTINUS, Enneads II, 2, 3, 1-3. In the process of creation of the cosmos by thesoul, Plotinus explains that the life on earth is given by an inferior soul, defined as an image of the firstsoul: Enneads II, 1, 4-5.

This is what Plotinus calls «nature»182. But the soul sets the heaven in motion not onlyas its final cause, but also as its efficient cause. For it also gives it life, and the life of theheaven is motion (as Aristotle also says in many places)183 and is moved in a circle byimitating the soul; as a result, it obtains as many virtues as the soul possesses reasons.Plato also agrees with this in the Statesman: he says that the heaven is moved by fate andan innate desire184. Hence you should also read in Plotinus that the heaven is a circlebecause its soul is a circle185. In the same way even the inferior souls are rational: [theyare created] through the same idea and from the same genres which constitute the divinesouls, although they are different and are created in a different way; however, Plotinusstates that individual souls form a whole and that those that are suitable accomplish thewhole generation, when, as Plato says, they take care of the inanimate Whole186. Eachof these souls (in the same way as the divine souls) takes up its own body, which has thesame proportion and nature as the heaven, and which is called «vehicle»187. Aristotletoo has attributed this vehicle to the soul of all living beings in the second book of theGenerations of Animals, as testified by Themistius188. For each rational soul is eternalaccording to its essence and thus makes use of a body that is in itself eternal too. For ifthe soul that gives life to something is eternal, the life it gives to it must also be eternal,in which case that to which life is given lives eternally, and for that reason it will also beeternal. But this body is completely eternal only because it partakes of the condition ofthe heaven. This is what Proclus says, although Plotinus and Iamblichus argue that therational souls sometimes reach such a degree of elevation through contemplation that,once they go beyond the intelligible world, they leave even their entire body189. But wemust talk about these matters elsewhere. Suffices it to say at present that, just as everyrational soul is composed of the same genres, so each of them takes up for itself a bodythat presents the same condition, so that they are in agreement with themselves in alltheir parts.

But equally on the souls’ descent into the bodies and on their re-ascent towardssuperior realities (the first and last parts of the same question), one can read manyexplanations in many authors, and particularly in Plotinus:190 describing all of themwould be a laborious task and would thus be rather fastidious and inopportune. I wouldnevertheless say a few particularly relevant things, lest I seem to have neglected this

~ 88 ~


182 PLOTINUS, Enneads I, 1, 3; III, 8, 4 and IV, 4, 13-14. 183 See e.g. On the Heavens I, 3, 268b11-269a19.184 Statesman 272 e.185 Enneads II, 2, 1-2. See also Diacceto’s letter to Pietro Quirino Eremita in DIACCETO, De pulchro, p. 327.186 Phaedrus 246b6-7; see also PLOTINUS, Enneads III, 4, 2 and IV, 3, 7.187 Timaeus 41d4-42a1. 188 See THEMISTIUS, Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima II, 2, 36, 6-8.189 See PROCLUS, Elements of Theology §§ 206-209 and In Timaeum V, 311 E, ed. Diehl, vol. 3, p. 236,31-237, 1; PLOTINUS, Enneads IV, 3, 15, 1-4 and IV, 3, 24; IAMBLICHUS, In Timaeum fragments 81 and84, ed. Dillon, p. 194-195 and 196-199.190 PLOTINUS, Enneads IV, 8.

matter. The creator of the world, as Plato says in the Timaeus, has attributed to each soulits own series of stars, so that each soul knows the character and customs of its star191.But each series extends up until the latest region, and there are plenty of attendants andfollowers for each celestial god. And this might be what Homer calls the golden chain,which allows celestial things to go down to the earth and earthly things to be taken upto the heavens192. Under the growing stimulus of generation they opt for the life that iscloser to their heart. For even if they must achieve the cycle of the life they have chosen,they are however not forced by anything, but spontaneously choose their life, notbecause they esteem the gift of contemplation to be less worthy than that of generation,but because contemplation is weakened when the desire to govern the body grows, atwhich point the gifts of contemplation and generation cannot act simultaneously. As aresult, the prophet [Lachesis] says in Book X of Plato’s Republic: «O souls of one day,it is not the daemon that chooses you, but you who choose your daemon»193. Therefore,when they fall because of their love for generation, they turn away [from their initialstate] so that, after having taken up an earthly body, oblivious of themselves, they tryhard to ignore the rule of fate, while in fact they are most of the time subservient tofate. It is then that, for the first time, they began to learn the laws of fate194. But they arerelieved from this burden when, illuminated by a desire for contemplation, they growcompletely tired of life on earth. Thanks to philosophy and love they prepare forthemselves an easy road and learn to obey to fate, as Plato says in the Phaedrus195. Thisis also what Plotinus shows in his treatise entitled On Dialectic196. They ascend towardsthe superior realities through Capricorn, just as they had descended to the inferiorrealities through Cancer. For one is the house of the Moon, which presides overgeneration; the other is the house of Saturn, which governs contemplation197. This iswhat Er Pamphilus meant in Book X of Plato’s Republic, where he says that he saw twoopenings in the heaven and in the earth: through the first two the souls would return toheaven and through the other two they would be cast down198.

~ 89 ~


191 Timaeus 41d.192 On this topos, which derives from Iliad VIII, 15-28, see PLATO, Theaetetus 153c-d; MACROBIUS, InSomnium Scipionis 1, 14, 15; FICINO, Platonic Theology XIII, 4, 15; DIACCETO, De pulchro II, 1.193 Republic X, 617e.194 Timaeus 41e and 90d.195 Phaedrus 248d.196 Enneads I, 3.197 On this topos, which interprets the double openings in heavens and on earth mentioned in RepublicX, 614c as the gates of Cancer (assigned to the Moon) and Capricorn (assigned to Saturn) respectively,see PORPHYRY, De antro nympharum 10-11; MACROBIUS, In Somnium Scipionis I, 12, 1-3; PROCLUS, In Rempublicam, ed. W. Kroll, vol. 2, Teubner, Leipzig, 1901, p. 128.13-24; FICINO, Platonic Theology XVII,5, 2.198 Republic X, 614c.

But it is now time to turn to [Boethius’] verses themselves, which are as follows:

The soul which stirs all things You intertwineIn threefold nature as its middle part;You distribute it through harmonious limbs.The soul, thus split, then concentrates its courseWithin two orbits, as it journeys backUpon itself, encircling the mindThat lies deep down. The soul turns round the heavens,Which mirror in this way its very self.Through causes of like nature You send forthBoth human souls and those with lesser lives.Installing them aloft in weightless cars,You sow them through the heavens and on the earth.Your genial law prompts them to turn to You,To journey back when guided by their fire199.

You, he says, o creator of the world, intertwine the soul that is in the middle,between what is intelligible and really is, and what is sensible and in a constant state ofdecline, and therefore of a triple nature, since it embraces within itself the superiorrealities as their image, and the inferior realities as their cause, I mean the soul fromwhich all things receive their motion (since it is the principle of motion, as Plato says,just as the intelligible world is the cause whereby all things obtain their changelessness).

You distribute it through harmonious limbs. For since Essence, the Same and theDifferent are mixed together, that is, since the soul is composed of a mixture of thesethree elements, in such a way that, by virtue of the Same it follows the intelligible realities,and by virtue of the Different it equally tends towards the body (for both functions mustfall upon the soul equally), all things are then again distributed in a harmonious way sothat all things merge into a unity as is fitting (when the mixing together was not sufficient).For not only must the soul be composed of the divisible and indivisible, but suchcomposition must also be harmonious, and this means to distribute again throughharmonious limbs. For there is a mixing that is naturally prior to this [second] mixing.This is what Plato has expressed in the Timaeus200: he says that, after the Same and theDifferent have been mixed together with the Substance, and a unity results from themixture of these three elements, then this whole is again divided up into an appropriatenumber of parts. Therefore, after the mixing together has been completed, after theCreator cut the soul lengthways [into two parts], he bent both parts into a circle. For heattributed two motions to the soul: one motion whereby the soul turns towardsIntelligence itself (for the soul receives the gift of intelligence through participation, for

~ 90 ~


199 BOETHIUS, Consolation of Philosophy 3m9, lines 13-21, trans. P. G. Walsh, Oxford University Press,Oxford, p. 56. The passage from Boethius’ Consolatio quoted here by Diacceto is the same as the textof the modern edition on which Walsh’s based his translation (BOETHIUS, Philosophiae consolatio, ed. L.Bieler, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 94, Brepols, Turnhout, 1984), apart from the spelling ofconnectens (Bieler: conectens).200 Timaeus 35a-36b.

intelligence is the act of the first Intellect and of the intelligible world, whereby theintellect reaches itself simultaneously by its very nature); a second motion, which Plotinuscalls «reason» and Aristotle calls «passive intellect», and which is the very motion of thesoul. Both motions are circular, since the soul perceives itself in both these revolutions,although it does not so at once, but temporally. And this occurs for a good reason, forwhat it cannot perceive at once, it does so temporally, through repetition. As a result, itis said that the mind moves around in a circle and that the heaven moves around in asimilar fashion, because the heaven cannot possess simultaneously the virtues that flowforth from the Soul. But imitating the Soul it is moved in a twofold motion, that of theSame (that is, from East to West), and that of the Different (from West to East). This isalso what Aristotle says, when he states that generation is attributed to the agent thatmoves itself in different ways, i.e. to the motion of the planets, while eternity of generationis attributed to the mover of the first circle, because it always acts in the same way201.However, as we have said, all the other souls are also disposed in absolutely the sameway, which is what Plato meant when he said that they are mixed up in the same mixing-bowl, from the remnants of the same genres202.

Then Boethius added: Through causes of like nature You send forth /Both humansouls and those with lesser lives. By souls, I understand those that are of an inferiorcondition to that of the divine souls, since they sometimes forget contemplation throughtheir love for the body, which cannnot occur to the divine souls on account of thesuperiority of their genres. And because the Creator produces for each soul the force ofboth receiving a body that is akin to itself and that corresponds in proportion to theheaven, and falling at least once in the elemental bodies during the whole period of its[first] revolution, for this reason Boethius says that he sows them through the heavensand on the earth: when the souls choose a life out of pressing necessity, they must fulfillthe conditions of the life they chose. If they choose a celestial life, they must completethe revolution of the celestial life, whether that of Saturn, Mars or any other god.However, once they have fallen into a material body, they must remain in that bodyuntil, alight with their love for the intelligible realities, they return to their homeland,from which they remained far away for a long time, because of their love for sensiblerealities. Hence you should read in Orpheus: Love holds the keys to all things, whethersuperior or inferior203.

This is assuredly what I think Boethius, that is, Timaeus of Locri and Plato, meant.If you think that these verses have not been sufficiently clear or are too difficult, youshould not be surprised, or accuse me of being too obscure. For you must considerwhat Plato said in the Letters204: in divine matters things do not happen in the way theydo in other sciences. For they cannot be explained with words, nor can they besatisfactorily perceived by means of rational arguments, but it is through similitude withlife and repetition that they finally, and with great effort, shine forth within the soul,like the transparent air, which never shines, not even in the presence of light, unless theclouds are dissipated. Farewell.

~ 91 ~


201 On generation and corruption 336a-b.202 Timaeus 41d.203 Cf. Orphica LVIII. 4-7.204 Letters II, 314a-b and VII 344a-c.

Date post:	30-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuanh
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

FRANCESCO CATTANI DA DIACCETO AND BOETHIUS A NEOPLATONIC ... · ~ 53 ~ dario brancato - maude...

Documents