View
224
Download
6
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Instructions for use
Title Pico della Mirandora and the Ancient Chaldaean Theology
Author(s) Ito, H
Citation 基督教学 = Studium Christianitatis, 22: 1-29
Issue Date 1987-07-15
Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/46460
Type article
File Information 22_1-29.pdf
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP
PICO DELIA MIRANDOLA AND THE ANCIENT CHALDAEAN TI{. EOLOGY
1-liroalgi lto
1. Pice ancl the Aiicie”t Tkeology.
Giovanni Pico clella }yt[iraiitdola (1.463-149t/1), in tlite draft of the fanious
speech on the clignity of m.an (Orat’io c/e honi’iizis clignitate), which was
ide嘩i丘ed {md pul)lished by Eugellio Garin,1 fiirstly argues the dignity an〔I
fi eedoni o/f inan, i]Irhose nature is inde’finite, ancl nextly praises the nioral
science, the dialec{’ic,, the natu}:al pliilosophy. ancl t’.he theology, by which
nian can reac,.h ’{/o C,rocl.2’ A,fter thes. e sections, xvhich alniost correctly
corresponcl to those oX: the ’ffnal-definl[ive vers]ion of, Orat’io, i. e., ’that pub-
Ii.shed first 1)y his i’iepliexv Ciian ,Francesco Pico in the pesthuinous ’1・Voi“lesi
the clraE{/, 1)einsv different ilorin the final-clefinitive veirsion Nvhich goes to the
cri’ticisn’i of those i・vho contenipt ’the philosophy, nunierates and discusses
two thiiittsvs. that are useful to s. tudy the philosoplrLy.
These, reverencl Fathers, are the consiclerations that have not only
inspired but con’ipelled n].e to the study of philosophy. But 1 have
cftlways t/hou.g.,ht that tx]Iro tlnings were especially visuful so to follow fully
i{/ as to prusue eagerly it. ”Che first thing Nvas to pledge nayself to the
cloctrines of iiLo niEui, range througliL all t/he niLasters of philosophy, to
hrLvestigate a!l books w/id to coi:Lie ’to 1{iirLoiLsLr all sclitools. lt seeniLs to i/iie
that for this xsror/k, it ’was necessary to 1〈now not only the Greek and
the Latin but also the Hebrew ancl the Chaldaean, and moreover, the
Arcabic, at whicli now 1, for the first tinie, began to sweat under the
guicle of Mithridates Gulielmo, niost/ experienced teacher of these lan-
guages, for all wisdoin has flowed froin the East to the Greeks cand
froin the Greel〈s to us. ln their “ray o/f philosophizin,cT,, our 1.atins have
a!ways feund it sLiffieient to stcftnd on th.e cliscoveries o’E foreigners and
to per’fe,c,t the works of ot.he]rs. Certainly, it ls necessary to seek the
(!)
sacred boolscs and the secret mis, teries firstly from the Chaldcaeans and
seconclly from the Greeks. The Arabians share the reinainin.cr arts and
all sorts of philosophies with the Greel〈s.’S
On the stucly of lan.crua,ges of the Kebrew, the Chaldaean and the Arabic,
Pico reports in two letters. Firstly, to Andrea Corneo dated ’from Perusia
on the !5th of Octol)er in lz186: “...a’fter 1 dicl zealously inany works 1/)y
the continuous and indefatigable studies night after night, 1 learnecl the
Hebrew and the Clialclaean, and n.oxv 1 also apply niy nLind to conquering,
the di’fficulties of the Arabic.”5 Ancl seconclly, to }vlarsilio Ficino clated /from
Fratta (on Noveniber in lt186 ?): “A’fter 1 gave great attention t/o the lmlebrew
language, night alユd day, f・r a wh・1e month,1ent三rely dev・亡ed myse.if t・the
stuclies of the Arabic and the Chaldaean.”6 The reason xvhy Pico w‘as eag’er
to learn these languages, as sLiggested in tl’ie clraft of Oratio, wtts tl’iat the
inaste/rlnt.r of ancient lan.guages coulcl brinsr to Pico the most ttseful rn,ethocl to
approch clirectly the sacred boolcs ancl the secret niysteries of the ancients.
In 1?ice’s. ch.ronology o/f the wisdom, its source was in the East, ancl all
wisdom followed from there to the Greeks and from them to the Latins,
And this chronology, as i.{] is we11 1〈nown, is also shared w.lth the nieinbers
of the Florentine Academy an〔1 their successQrs not only in工亡aly but also
in. other IE)uropean countries. ln the fifteenth ccntury in ltaly, ip acldition
to Plato ancl the Neoplatonists or Cicero ancl other 1?,.oman writers, the
legendary or semi-legendary sages, i. e., ITIerines ’i“rismegistus in the E.c.,ypt,
Zoroaster in the Chaldaeat, and Orpheus ancl Pythagorcas in the G]reece,
were revived as men of the Ancient Wisdom (prisca sapientia) or the A.ncient
Theology (pri’sca theologia), and also, with Pico, the old Judaic tradition,
Cabala was.ackowledgecl as the ancient cloctrines handed down originaly from
Ai;oses himself. Their works were supposed very ancient by Re’naissance
thinkers, but most of which in fact ’were procluced or conipiled in the ’first
foulr centurie$ of our era.
On the Ancient Theology in the 1{lenaissance, now we have quit/e ac few
studies, i. e., those of 1〈risteller, Garin ancl Yates on ITferntetica attributed
to 1”lermes Trismegistus,7 of Waiker ancl B)ucl〈 on Or/Jh’ica attribLited to
Orpheus,8 of Kieszkowski ancl Dannenfeldt on Oracttla chaldaica attributed
to Zoroaster,9 and of XValker (‘’tncl Schmitt on the Ancient Theology in
general,ie etc. Ancl on the Cabala, there are the great contributions o’f
Sholem ancl Secret/’i. Speal〈in.cr. of the Ancient Theology in Pico’s thought,
(2)
in addition to the references in these studies, there are anothe’r ones in the
boolis and articles abouit 1’ico・i2 ln this paper, it is aimed te reconsider the
problem of the Ancint Chaldaean Theology in his thought, which does not
seem to have been suffleiently examined.
2 Chaldaean Oracles as the Ancient Wisdom
In the final-definitive version of Oratie, Pico, using the passages seen in
the draft quoted abo、re, ans、vers those、vho take o∬ence at the great nu1皿ber
o’f his propositions on inany philosophers.
X,Vhat were t,he s,ain if o.nly t.he philosphy of the Latins were investigated,
that is, that of Albert, Thonias, Scotus, Aegidius, Francis, and lilenry,
if the Greek ancl iFiyrabian philosophers “rere left out-since all wisdoni
has ’flowecl froin the IL’ast to the G1一eel〈s and froin the Greeks to us?
In their way of philosol)hizing., our Laeins haxre always ’found it suf{ieient
to stand on the discoveries of foreigners and to perfect the work of
others.三
Pico proposecl 900 theses for the public clisputation in Rome, in which,
in fact, are contained naany kinds of ‘conclusions’, not only according to the
doetrines of the Latin phi.losopliers and theologians, the Arabians and the
Greel〈s (1’eripatetics and 1”laton.ists), but also according t/o the ppinions of the
Chaidaeans, the ancr.ientJ doctrineg. of the lg一’.gyptian 1-lernies ’i”ris]negistus and
the secret doctrines of the Hebrew Cabalistic sages.2 There would have
been those who thoug’lit that this disputation tenclecl rather to the parade
o’f his talent and the display of his erttdition than to the increase of learning,
as in the Oratio’ 1)ico hiniseif spoke of it.3 B)ut, if Pico’s atteinpt vvas beyond
his power, his intent is fully comprehensible to us, who lgnow the estiination
of the Aneient Theology among the Florentine Neoplatonists, wliose represen-
tative・was Marsilio 1一”icino.
On the beginninsr of the philosophy ai.nong the barbarians and its /60win.cr
to tlie Greel〈, Diogenes Laertius and Clement of Alexandra hacl stated.
’!’here are soi’ne who say that the study of philosophy had its besrinnin.cr
among the barbarians. They urge that the Persians have hacl tlieir
AIIagi, the Babylonians or .4Yssyrians their Chalclaeans, and the lndians
their Gymnosophists; an,(1 among the Celts and (}auls there are the
people called Druids or lmloly Ones, for which they cite as authori’ties
(3)
theハ姦9ゴα‘∫of Aristotle and Sotion in the twenty-third book of his
SzeCCSSSiolZ(ゾ!)/~~losof)hers. Also they say that Mochus was a phoeni-
cian, Zamolxis a Th.raciar’i, ancl .gYtlas a Libyan.’S
The philosol)h.y, this very useful niat/t.er, /florishecl ainong tlie disting. uished
nien of the 1)arbar’iang.. !Xncl. a.fter it ent/erecl into the C}reel{s.., “rhoin
b,acl procee’ded the Egyptian proph(.?ts, tlie tXssyrian C.haldaeans, CTallic
I)ru重ds, The Bactr童an Samanai.()1, t}1.e Celts who pl.ユilQso正,hized, the Peτs三an
Nlafgians, 〈…) lndian C,yinnasophists ancl other ba/rbarian })hilog.ophers.5
’1’he Caldaettnts, “rho are Hstecl i.n these catalogvies of ancient sages atid
philosophers, are a people of .Assyiria. ln the Z-lncient 7’”est?nent’s, they Eu“e
described as soethse/tyers c)f d,t“eainsg ancl II’leroclot.us says that t/hey tire pri’ests
Of G.0(:L7 王n ge11.eral they al:e tlitoutght tO have l)eei:.1. 亡he rしlling daSS ill
Babyionia 1/)efore the conciuest of Persian$. ’1’}iey Nvere clistingttished for {/he
arts,三a partlcular, the as亡ronoll/y a11.d astrolQgy a.nd童【ユantiq.uity the Chaldaea夏ユ
“;isdoin ineEint/ the 1〈no“rleclge’ of astrononi.y ancl astrelogy.8 rrhe “rorks callecl
the C1~α♂(/α6‘〃~0ノーa(・/e,s are sa三(:l t()be ba.secl on di、アine revelations and were ,
colleet’ed a.nd edit/ed 1)y Juliant,is at the sec,ond half of t/lie 2ncl century.{ ’1’hese
Oracles pre.sent t/he s.yn(’rletic ainalgazn o/f Platonig. na, Pyt/ha.goreanisi’n., Stoicisna
ancl (]nosticis, ni xvith 1/)eyslan elenientg.. ln their doct’rines, the t/eaching of
a sort of theLir.(.’,ry is 1?art’ici.i.larly w’orth of attention.iO ”1“he C/zctlc/aean ()iAacles
xvei;e reLtLarcled as sacred books by t/he Neol)latonists an.d tlney attached .gre,at
im.poirt/ange to t/hese books.. Porphyry, lainbulicus, Sy,rianus ancl Proclus
wro{:e thelr conmユen.tar三es(now all were lost)airtcl Pro・〕lus is sa三d to have
composed the book on the concorcl between the cloct/rines of Orpheus,
Pythag/o,ras and Plato t.u/td L’he Chczlc/aean Oracles. [1]he Byzantine 1)latoitist,
IN/1.ichael Psellus (1! c.) collected the fra///Tnients o/f the ()racles ancl xvrote tlkeir
C(:)mmentary EBIユCl eXpla瞭三〇n.i1〆X1.1d. the C‘ll(~‘~Ct(Vt O1^‘~Cles WaS riViVeChS
t/he 1]ooks of an.c.ient t.heolo{svy in. the 1’taliEtn llleR.aissance thought, ancl gainecl
tlieir ‘autiLentic’ autliLour, Zoroaster.
3 ,JustifieatieRi of the Clialdaean Theelosry
For Gemistos 1)let,hon, Zoroaster was not legenc} one who was iniagi.ned
to bL’i sa/g.e, .inagiciaiL, astrolog.er, t.h,eologian or plrLiloso1pher ancl t/o 1La¥Te
w三tten an三mlnense 1ユumber of works(2,000,0001ines or some lO,000,000
xvorcls’t)i, but ‘the olclest an].ontt those, of wl/ioni xve lcnoxv through t.raclitien,
(:s
who “Tas the interp]reter o’f the divine ancl naost o/f the othe’r noble thintts
for the Medes ancl 1’ersians and the majorit/y of the other ancient Asiatic
people’2 and ‘the inost ancient oii all philosophers ancl laxv-givers xvhose naniLes
are recorded, except for A([enos, the Egyptian iaw-giver’.3 Plethon tried to
int.rocluce a nexv tiirLive/rsal religion xvhi¢h wotild replce the Christlanity ancl
the lslain, being. based on the ancient theolos,ical and philosophical tradition,
which began with Zoroaster aricl was coniplet’ed in 1)lato. Plethon inserts
Pythagoras between Zoroaster ancl Plato and he says that the doctrines of
these three are in h.armony.
The philosophy of Plato was not original with hini but was derived froin
Zoroaster via the Pythagoreans. For according to a tradition chiefiy
representecl by 1)lutarc]i, Pythagoras studied Zoroastrianisin during his
sojourn in Asia ainong the }taagi, the successors of Zoroaster, and
Zoroaster lived 5000 years before the Trojan “rar. (…) Th.at Plato was
a student of Zoroastrianisni is clemonE trated by t.he extant Zoroastrian
oracles, which agree in every detail with the 1)latonic system.4
The extant Zoroastrian oracles’(τeL.凌πδ7ωρθ凌στρωぎτ‘κα~εなわ、‘.ta.9
e一(eCo’/tevcu ?,6rLcx), for Plethon, was none other than the Ca/c/aean Oracles,
1’le is thought to be tlie f’irst that relatecl the Calclaean Oracles to Zoroaster
ancl he esteemcl theses Oracles as the q.acred books which containecl the
inost ancient wisdoin revealed by Zoroaster. Three worl〈s of Plethon on
the CaZclaean Oracles have been handecl (lo’wn to us: Co?nme77tar)J on the
iVfagia7~te.xt’s(~1-Z∂roaster,5 BriげEユψZα716~々。η(~プ〃~e?nore obscureノ,α∬ages
in these texts,“ and Sitmmery of“the c/octrines of Zoroasl’er a7id 」’lato.7 ln
the interpretatS,on of the Oracles, Plethon was much. inflLiencecl by Psellus
(and by Proclus through hiin), but Plethon also argued them in his own way.S
As it is well 1〈nown, accoding to the report o/f A4arsilio Ficino, it was
Plethon NNrho sug.cr,estecl the fondation of the 1?iatonic Actacleniy of Florence to
Cesim,o de’ Medi¢i,9 and Ficin,o [ccepted P1etQn.’s icle’,{ of the contlnuity ef
the aneient thological ancl philosophical traclition.ie But] Ficino inoclified it
by adding 1-lerines TrismeL,,v,. istus to the cancient sages. li“icino, ii:t the 12th
book of Platonic 7’heolog.y, states that the ancient theologians (prisci thologi)
always united the stucly of philosophy witli the religious piety.
In the bes,innin.cr, the philosophy of Zoroaster, as Plato gives evidence
of it, was none ether than the wise piety and the divine reverence.
(5)
1-lermes, Tristnegistug., also, starts, all disctissi.ons ?.]y the vows aiicl ceasecl
them in the sacri/fice. The philosophy o’f Or.pheus and As,laophemus,
on the xvliole, turits to the dixriiie praises. Pytl:tagoras 1/)e..c../{an the 1}liilo-
sopl’i.ic stuclies by singing the sacred hyinns every inorning. Plato
adv.ised to 1/]eg.in with. God. in each things, not only by the cliscotirse
but ftc lso by the refl[ection, ancl he hiinself alsvays began “rith Gocl.ii
Proclus 1iacl already stftid that ali theolo,cr.ies of the Greel〈s were born of
the niystical clbctri.ne o’f Or.phetis t/ind ’firstly Pythagora, s learned tlne divine
initiations from Aglaophemus ancl seconclly Plato aecepted all knowleclge
o’f tlnem from the wori.〈s of Pythagoras and ()rpheus,i’2 and Ficino a/so states
ir.1 the 1>bteS OII PrOcltts亡haむthe.re w・ere ti▽e E:iuthori亡ieS Of the t’}ieology
arnon.{., the Greeks and its theology・ was }ytncled clown from Orpheus to A,c.vlao-
pheinus, froni hiin te Pyt/hag, oras, froi’n hini to Philolaus, froin hini to Plato.!S
Ficino, following. Proclus and Plethon, ’fixed the suc,¢ession of six great theo-
1・glans(sex summl the・1・giい・e・, Z・r・aster, Hermes Trism.egistus, Orpheus,
Ag.Iaophenius, Pythagoras and ll)la{/c),N althoLitth t,lrie nanie of Zoroaster is
not foi/i.ncl and Philolaus is inse]rtecl 1/}et“reeii Pythatttorcfts aiLd Plato iirL tlLe
/)7Aqface to ]lis translation c}f .the Col一/.)zts 猛η’ノnetticl.’ノ1~.15 Ficino argued that
the philosopy intist be ‘pia ph.ilosopliiE“ ancl the relig.ion i’nust be ‘docta religio’,
and pi/irsuecl the concord oii the Cliristion reli.,(,g,ion and th.e 1/’latonic philo-
sophy. ln this att’.enipt’, he clev.ised a hiftorict/il perspec{/ive on the theological
and philosophicai traclition by st,atin/.i’ tlnat tlne ancient doctrines of theolo.cr, ians
froin Zoroaster to 1)ythattoras, ’wlii.ch 1iad been founded on tlie 1-lebrews’
prophecy and revelation, t・ill ’{lo“recl in the philosophy oli Plato, and the Neo-
Platonists(Numenius, Ph三lon., Plotillus, Ialnblichus and Proeius)could borro.w
froin the teachinf./1. of Christ thr()ugh IIohn, r’t/iul, lvelierotheus and Dionysius
the A.reopagite・is C()nceming Zoroasεer, he occupies the first正)]ace ln l:}ユe go1-
den chain i’nade o/f the ancient theolot.,Tlans as ‘the inventor of the ancient theo-
1・9y’17 and‘・ne fr・m wh・m飛・wecl亡he wisd・m()f the anc三emt theol・)gians’18,
and Ficino quotes ancl interpretes 7..oroaster’s’ Cha/daean Oracles in his
N・vorl〈s.iP
For Pico, the existance o’ti the anclent theologians and their wisdoin xvas,
as it 、vere, a prern三se fron、 、vhicln he tr三ed to Pし1rsue th.e 、vider concor(1 0f
the philosophy and religion than. Plethon ancl Ficino hacl clone. 1”ico does not
insist that all sects of philosopy ancl t’he Cristianity aye in coinplete agreenient
but says that each of these partakes in one truth in the way of expression
(6)
peculiar to it, 1〈eeping on a inarl〈ed characteristic of it.20 ln the Oraiio, for
exaniple, 1)ico praises the inoral science, the dialectic, the natural philosophy
ancl the theology, through which inan can reach to God, citing ’the state一
皿ents o正the anci.ent fathers(the Apostle Paul, the patriarch Jacob, Job the
Just, Moses) and the statements of the ancient’ theology (the sacred rites of
tl].e Gree]〈s, the Delphic precepts, the words of Pythagoras, the records of
the Chaldaens).2r 1)ico does not seein to have been particular about the
chronology of the ancient theolog.ians. But the ancint and inipotant for h.im
must have been the .ftncient theology of 1+lermes Trismeg. istus, the doctrines
of the Chaldaeans and of Pythagoras and the occult mysteries of the 1-le-
brews.22 The cloctrines of the Chalclaeans are those of Zoroaster23 and the
occ癒myster量es Qf the Hebrews mean the Cabala, i. e., the mystical traditioR
of‘the true and lnore occu正t explanation of the Law, whieh Moses received
from Gocl with the written law in the five books.24 iPyccorcling to Pico,
Or.pheus, whose theology were foilowed by Pythagoras as the niodell on
which he fashioned and built his oNvn philosophy, is reacl ainong the Greel〈s
in a nearly complete text, while Zoroaster only in part, though, among the
Chaldaeans, in a more complete text, ancl both. are believed to be the fathers
and authors of the ancient xvisdoin.25 Therefore, xyhen Pico cou!cl obtain
the Chaldaean 1)ool〈s written in the origiga! language, it was natural that
he expressed his joy to Ficino, for the opportttnity to read directly the
ancinet wisdom came to Pico.
1 vLras forcibly taken o’ff froin other thing. s ancl instigated to the Arabie
and Chalclaic learning by certain bool〈s in both languages, xvb.ich came
to i.ny hands, no accidentally, but doubtless by the disposal of God, in
favor of my stuclies. Here the inscriptions, ancl yoLi will believe it.
The Chaldaic 1)ooks (if they are books and not rather treasures) are
the Oracles of Esrca, Zoroaster, and Melchior, Magi; in which those
things which are faulty cftnd defective in the Greel〈, are read perfect
and entire. ”1“heye is also an exposition o/f the Chalclean Wise-men
upon these Oracles, short and 1〈notty, but full of niysteries, there’is
also a book of the doctrines of the Chaldean theelogy, ancl upon it a
clivine at ncl copious discourse of the Persians, Greel〈s, and Chalcleans.26
For Pico it dicl not have to be doubtfull that the Caldaean Oracles
contained the ancient sacred wisdom of Zoroaster, and therefore, he gave
(7)
i.t much importance an.d /for t/h.e publlc disputation he proposed not/ only
‘conclusiones g. ecunduni opinioneni Clial.cleoyuin fl”heoEo,cr.ortun’ but also ‘con-
clusiones secuncluniL prop.rian/i opinionein cle int/ellif,,.,’.re’ r}tia dictorun/t Zoroastris et
expo, sit/ori.iin eii.is Clialdeorti}n’ writlit ot}:Ler conclusions ac¢ercling to his owiL
・1]i1・iO11.・n the M乏lgia, the Cabah:いh.e h.ymns・f Orplユeus, etc・貯
4 Zereaster as a rvlagus
In t’he passag.es quoted. above /froni 1)iog/;enes Laerutiuf. ancl Cle.mept of
Alexanclria, “rSt’h the Ch.aldaeans, tlie Gyinnasophists, t/he 1[)ruids, etc., the
Aaa/gian (?’IIc{17’oL, IN([a.gi> N・vere nuinerat/eci. ainong the barbariang. xvho /has bes,’an
the stucly of philosophy .for tlie i’irt t tinie.i ’i“he axGagian are those i/vho are
classecl as xvise ancl learned inen avnon/g the. IPersians2 Etncl ivho asseni.ble
re/ttsui’arly in a sacred place for prae.tice and consultation.S A.cco.rding to the
expressio]t of Pico, “as Porl)hyry says, in the PersiaiiL tongLie 7ncri,tt’us’ expresses
the same idea as interpreter and worshlpper o:ξthe di.、・ine w三th us。”4 And
Zoroaster has been coninionly thought/ to be a Atlag/ian, arch-represent,ative
of the Mag三,昌rather tiユan a sa鯉‘)’f the Ch乏“ciaeallLs as Plethon, Fi.cino and
PSco recl〈onecl g. o. Bui’ they also speal〈 of ‘t’.he ly(lagians following Zorocaster’S
.ftn(1 ccall Zoroast/er ‘t,he. ’fkrst fun.on.(.,/1.’ the /y([agians.’7 ”1’he A/lt}g.ic (ftat;・’elcx,
niag, ia), t’here’fore, nieE・ins the art {/)/f rvla.gians, i.e., the art by xvhich nien
’knoxxr aitd wrorsl/iip the divine,8 arxd ‘as it x・vere: a perfect and niost ILigh
wisdom’q’, tig.ing. ag.ain the expression oll 1)ico, ,and Zoaroaster is re’gardL’:cl t.he
authority of thig. art’. tXn.d tliis faet had been authenticated by ‘the divine
Plato’ (Ficino), in 一/一llcibiades L
And, when the boy IPersian prince] reaches fourteen years he is talcen
over by the .royai tL.itors, as they ca!l t.hein there: these are four inen
cho$en. as the 1110st hightl.y esteeme(二l a1憤ong tlユe Persians o.f nlature
age, nanieiy, t’he “,ises t’ one, the jus,t/est one, the niost teinperate one,
,ftnd the bravest one. 1’1)he ’first/ of these teaches hini the inagian lore
of Zoroaster, son of 1’loron.iazes; ancl that ig. tlie worsl’}ip of the gocls:
h.e teaches hini also i・vliat/ pertctins to a kinf,.x..ie
As Apleitis useCE this pag.sag.es for his Apologia of the )y4agic,i’ Pico
also qLiotes tliem as the st’atements whic.h can justify tlie rightness of )y([agic
as the utter perfectiori of naturai pliiiosophy and the higher ancl more holy
philosophy, which is distinguished froxn ‘rorpTeicy’, one which depends entirely
(8>
on the worl〈 and authority of demons and the moSt deceitful of arts.i2 ln
the’ Florentine Neoplatonism, as Ficino says, the philosophy of Zoroaster,
i. e., the Magic was none other than the sage piety and the divine worship.’S
According to Pico, Pythagoras, Empedcles, Democritus, and Plato all traveled
to study this art, taught it when returned and esteemed it before all others
in their mysteries.it With Zoroaster Pico refers te another author of the
Magic, Zamolxis, whom Abaris the Kyperborean eopied, quoting the some
Iines in Plato’s Charmides,’“r and numerates those who followed the }v([agic
of Zoroastex and Zamolxis.
In their footsteps Charondas, Damigeron, Apollonius, Osthanes, and
Dardanus thereafter persevered. Homer persevered, whom I shall some-
time prove, in my Poetic Theology, to・have concealed this philosophy
beneatli the wanderings of his Ulysses, just as he has concealed all
otlaers. Eudoxus and Hevmippus persevered. Almost all who have
searched through the Pythagorean and Platonic mysteries have per-
severed.i6
ln this enumeration of Magians, Pico’ sources are thought to be Apleius
and Pliny. The former says in the/lf)ology thaピ‘..Jf you will admitt any
small advantqge [in the Magic], 1 wM conse!it to be Carmendas, Damigeron,
Mose, Johannes, Apollobex, Dardanus himself, or whoever became famous
among the Maglans after Zeroaster and Hostanes,”i7 and the latter says in
the Natural Hirstory that “Eudoxus, who wished magic to be acl〈nowledged
as the nobelest and most useful of the schools of philosophy,... Hermippus,
a most studious writer about every aspect of magic, and exponent of two
milion ・verses composed by Zoroaster...”iS ln these lists of Magians, there
is one defference that Apollobex is replaced by Apollonius in Pico. ln th6
concerned place of the manuscripts of Apology, it is written ‘Apollo haec’,ig
ancl the editors correct it to Apollobex (Helm) or Apollebeches (Krueger)
following the description of.P王iny.2a Pico probably would have made a
rnistal〈e when he copied the name of Magian in the manuscript that was
not easy・to read, as Ficino ・had done.2’ There is a reason for Ficino dnd
Pico to have thought of Apolionius. Apollonius of Tyana wasi Neo-py-
thagore an’ 唐≠№? of the lst century who visited the Magians and had the
rniraculous powers,22 and he ’was regarded one representative of Magians
by Flcino and Pico. Fieino, in fact, refEers to the magical power which
Apollonius 1iad, i. e., the power by which Apollonius could see the fact which
(9)
happened at a distance.23
Thus it came to be clear that Zoroaster was not enly the first theologian
but also the first Magian, and from this fact we can re-interpreta,te the
great chain of the ancint theologians as that ef the Magians, both beginning
with Zoroaster and ending with Plato, although in the Magians, Zamolxis
ancl Apollonius play an important part.
5 ‘Language’ of the Chaldaean Theology
The Oracles are originally the answers xvhich the Gods deliver to the
priests or priestesses who questioned about the future, and these are spoken
in the way peculiar to the Gods, i. e., iR the words which sometimes seem
to be enigmatic for the mortals. According to Pico, Zoroaster, the authour
of the Chaldaean Oracles, also spoke in the enigmatic wac y (enigmatice)’,
and other ancient theologians clid so. ln the Oratio Pico says concerning
the conclusions on Orpheus.
But as was the practice of the ancient theologians, even so did Orpheus
protect the mysteries of his dogmas with the coverings of fables, and
conceal them with a poetic veil, so that whoever should read his hymns
would suppose there was nothing beneath them beyond idle tales and
perfectly unadulteratecl trifles. 1 have wished to say this so that it
might be known what a task it was for me, laow diflicult it was to
draw out the hidden meaning of the secrets of philosophy from the
intentional tangles of riddles and from the obscurity of fables, especially
since 1 have been aided, in a matter so serious, so abstruse, and so
little 1〈nown, by ne toil, no application en the part of other interpreters.2
For Pico the books of the ancient theologians were written in the
mysterious languages,3 and their doctrins were, in themselves, the mysteries.
It was well-known practice of the ancient sages, Pico says, either simply
not to ivrite on religious subjects or to write of them under some other
guize. For this reason these subjects are called mysteries, because the
things which are not secret are not mysteries (nec mysteria quae non occulta).‘
If Moses seems an unpolished popularizer rather than a pholosopher or
theologian or master of great wisdom, it is because he did not wish to make
public the occult mysteries, the secrets of the supreme Godhead hidden
beneath the shell ef the Law and under a clumsy show of words, and to
(10)
keep hidden from th.e people t.he thingg.. to be sharecl by the init.iate was
not t.he part of huinan clelil)eration but 6f clivine cbinniand,b This custoni,
the ancient philosoph.ei;s inost reverently ol)servecl it. Pythas,orcas, ’who did
not entrust anything to writing e: cept a very few thin.crs which, when dying,
he le’ft t/o his daug.. hter Dania, becaine a niaster of silence, ancl the Pytha-
goreans folloxvin.cr liiin kept this law religiously and the Platonists sore by
it.G ln ianiblichus there can be found an occult philosophy and the niysteries
of the East an.d P!otl重1.us speaks clivinely of things divin.e and, with王earned
obliquity of slpeech, far more than human/y of human things.7 And Plato
hiiii.self ILad sherecl xvith th.is custuni.
1’lato hiinsel’f concealecl his doctrii}gs benetftth. coverings of allegory,
veils of inyth, inathematical imageg., an.d uninte.llis,il]le signs of ’fugitive
ineaning. As he himself says in his Letters, no one can fully unclerstand
his religious beliefs from anything he has written, and he has indeed
Proved thi.s to the incredulous.S
it is natural that Pico’s conviction that th,e doetrines of the ancient
theologians are concealed under the mystic veils of worcls 1)rought him to
interpretate the inysterious xxrordls and to shoxv their true ineanings. Andl
such an interpretation that Pico triecl to tal〈e, perhaps it only, woulcl have
inade possible his insistence that the opinions of’ several sects seemecl to
say the cli’fferent tliings but they t’tgreecl xvith each other about the nieaning
and his presentat.ion. cf “the conclusi6ns accorclinsv his osvn opinion” at the
public disputation. To ,..c.,vi,ve an example of Pico’s way of interpretation, in
the 10th of “the Cabalistic Conclusions, accorcliong to the own opinion,
whi.ch con’fu’m in・the higl].est clegree the Christian Religion from the very
bases o/f the 1+lebrexv sages”, it is statecl that “that xNrhich is said lmll〈}ytl}十1,
ainong t],ie Cabalists, is withovit doubt that which is callecl Pallas by Orphetis,
the maternal mincl by Zoroaster, the son of God by ITIerines, the wiscloin’by
Pythagoras, the intelligent sphere 1)y Parnienides,”q’ Ancl in. this sense, the
parts of the Oratio, svliere the clignity ancl usefullnes of the inoral science,
the dialectic, the natural philosophy ancl the theolo.gy are expounded through
citin.cr.. the statenients of the ancient fathers and the ancient theologians,ie
would have been fit for the introductory speech of the disputation.
(一11)
6 Pieo’s 1’hought aiiaf tlie Clialdaean Theology (!)
The subject of the lirst part of Oretio, as it is widely accepted, is a
praise of the dignity o’f inan. lt bigins with the sayings of Abclala the
Saracen: “There is noth.ing to be seen more wonclerful tlian man” ancl of
I’lerines Trisnieg, istus: “A great mi.racle, Asclepius, is inan.” Pico sayg.
that, having ivelglited the reasoti for these inaxitnrs, he is not c・ontent’ with
the many .arounds for the excellence o’f human nature repoytecl by many
n:ten: inan is the interval betxveen fixecl eternity ancl fleet’ing tanie, t’he boncl
of the }xrorlcl, on 1)avid’s teg.tiniony but litt/le lo“rer than the cangels, etc.
Pico wish t・explttin the rank wh三ch nnall acquired in t1ユe universal chain
of Being’ and because of which mai’i is envied not only by brutes but even
by the sta.rs and by ininds beyoncl this worlcl.i
In die saying. s of God to Adam, whieh woulcl be most famotis of tl.ie
passages on the idea of in.an in the ISt’enaissance thou.cr.ht, li)ico’s opinion is
clearly presentecl. Accor’ding to thog.e, man was not given neither a /fixed
abode nor a forni that is his alone nor any function peeuiiar to himself,
to the end that accor(ling to his longinp.’ and his jud,gement he fnay have
ancl posess Nvhat al)ode, xvhat forin, and xvhat functions he hinisel’f shall
clesire. Beiiitg dif’ferent froni other crer/ttureg. of xvliich natLires are liniLited
ancl constrainecl xvit’hin the bouncls of ]aws presc.ribed by God, man, select’s
aiiid decicles his oxNrn nature })y his freedonit of c}Loice. ”1’hus iiEian has
the poLver of clegenerate into the loxver ferims oi/i’ }ife, whi¢h are brut’ish ancl
also the poxver, out of his soul’s judgeinent, to reborn into the higher
fonns, which are divine.e
By such a view th乏ミt lnan’s nature is indefinite an.d he creates}ユ三mself
xxrith the free x・vill, ll’Sc,o is thougl)t to h,asLTe ,”/tdded a neiiv eleniteiiLt in the
discussions on nian’s excellence ancl disrnity in tlne ltalian Renaissane.3 Atiter
these passages, Pico goes to con’tirni his t]/iessis by the citation o/f sayings of
several sages, wliich is based on his another view mentionecl above, i. e.,
the eoncord amonts, the philosophical and theolog,ical doctrines o’f all sects.
It is man who Asclepitis of Ath.ens, arguing from his mutability of
ch‘ftracter ancl froin hiq, seEf-trans’forniing nature, on j,ist grouncls sac ys
was syinbolized by Proteus in the mysteries. 1’lence those nietainor-
p.hoses renowned ameng the 1-lel)rews and the P}t’thaL.voreans. For the
occult theo}ogy of the lrlebrews sometiiiies transforms the holy Enoch
(ユ2)
inte an an.cr.el of divinity wlaom they call ‘IX([al’ al〈h Adonay Shebftc bth’,
and som,et’inies transforins others into other clivinities. The Pythago-
reans clegracle iinpious nie’n i.nto brutes and, if one is to believe Empedo-
cles, even into plants.4
Tlie doctrine of the transmig. ration of human soul is seen in Orpheus,
Pythagoras, Empeclcies, etc.,fi and Pico uses this for showing that’. the m.an has
all natures of other creatures xvithin hini.self, in other worcls, inan is ‘iniero-
cosmos.’G Figurally speal〈ing, the plant, beast, heavely being ancl angel live
within man, and man is ,able to become anyone whichever he wishes. ln
this context, the quotation from the Chaldaean Oracles is found in the
1加♂4ノ》IZt∫,
Now Moses shifts to those whose function is to desire, the seats of
anger and wantonness, o]r lust. Theg.e he represents by the beasts and
the irrational sort of living tl)ing.s, s.i.nce they are common to us and
the beasts and, what is worse, often drive us to brutish life, 1-lence
comes that sa>)’ing of the Chaldeans: “The beasts ot一 the earth dNvell
in your bodジ’ An(l in Plato’s Rep?.tblic we leam.亡hat we have.various
kinds of 1,rvites clsvellin,gr Fvithiii us, so that it is not hard, if it] is lpro-
perly understood, to believe the paradox of the Pythag’o!’eans that
wicked }nen turn into brutes.7
Pico’s quotation.: “Vas tuum inhabitant bestiae terrae” is transmitted
in Psellus’ Commen.tary: “2’bv drrsZov (lnpeg z(?ovbg oZt x’!aovaev”, ancl he
coinniei].ts “the vessel” (ctrreZ’ov) ineans tlie huinan body and “the 1)east of
the earth” (t?/D,osg’ zOovbg.・) t.he clenions, w.hich 1{eep their substances froni
the passior]s within man.8 1?icino also quotes this Oracle in the 17th bool〈
of Platonic Theolog.」,, but/ there he interpr.etates that among the souls which
live as sanie as the beasts do, ones 一Thich dxvell in the souls inore purified li.ve
among the gods ancl the impure souls live timong the hercl of beastsP・ ’1“his
interpretation is different froin that of Psellus, and is similar to that of Picor
We ccannot conclude that this Calclaean Oracle had a great influence
upon Pico’s formation of the concept of man, for the idea ef the.transmi-
gration o’f soul is widely found in other thinl〈ers and Pico niust have thought
also of the sayings of thein. But the sayin,cr. of the ancient theologian
Zoroaster woul.cl have become a good evidence for him. Pico, in the Oratio,
states that in the saered wrltings of Moses ahd the Christians,皿an is de.
(13)
scribed soniethnes by the naine of all flesh, so.rnet,inies by・ that o{ ev・ery
creature, becatise n’ian hirnseJf inolds, fashions, ancl chanf,,./res hirnsel/f into the
forin of all fiesh and iuto the charaetet’ of ever>r creature. f-Xnd }ie encls
the opening part of the ()rat’io, sxrhere the dig.’nity and exceHece o/f the hunian
nat/ure are dicHssed, with the quotation froni the saying of the Chaldaean
theology.
For this reason th.e Persian. Evanthes, in describing the Chaldaeant’
?eology, write.s that man has no semblance that is inborn and his ven;y
own but niany that are external an.d foreign to hin’i; wlnence this
saying o/f the Chalclaeans: “.ltlanorish t/ha.rah sharinas”, that is, “iN([an
is a l〕eing of varied,・nanifokいユn.d inconstant nature.”10
7 PieO’s Thougllt a11〔韮. the Cha墨{laea鷺饗11eo墨。鼠y(2)
t“Ls we men.tioned above, 1)ico’s inte-rest to the M,agic is remarkable.
Pico esteenied the true Magic of Zainolxis tincl Zoroaster ancl clicl not liesitate
to say that “No g.cience of:fers gre-ater ag.stirance of Christ’s divinity than
]Nt’lagic and the Cal]ala.”i Accorcling to Pico, t,he Magian, as Plotinut dem-
onstrates, is the servant of nature alld no愈aco瞭lver.2 Thi.s Maglc, abouncl-
ing in the }oftiest ntys’teries, e]/iibraces the clee})est conte.rnplation o/f the nriost
secret things, and at last the knowledge o/f all nature. lt, in calling forth
into the light ,as if fron/i their h’iding-plac.es the poN・vers scattered ancT soxvn
in the xvorld by the loving,一kindness of God, does not so niueh work xvonclers
ttis clilig’ently serve a ’Nvoncler-xvorkins, nature.a ’1’his type of )y(ragic, xvli.ich
can be thought t’o t’tse t/he ‘syinpathy’ of think,s xvithin the xvorlcl, “Tas
widely accepte(1 ill tl】.e Renaissance, and it is this Mag三。 tlユat Pico distln一
.asuishecl sharply ’frojn the otheir unnatural ttind harnidlul )vla.g.,ie o’f deinons
and called “Natuyal Magic” (magia ntftt’uralis) wh.ieh w,as divine and sal’utary.
rrhe latt’er, kavinsr inore searching,iy e.Kaniinecl into th.e harniony of t’he
universe, which i/he Greeks xvith greater si.gnl{leance call ov,tttt・c20ELa,
a.nd having clearly perceivecl the reciprocal af’finity o’il nat’ures, ancl
applyinL,T, to e.ftch single thing tliLe suit’able and pec’uliar iiLdueenLeiiits
(whlch are callecl the lJ7’γεs‘of the l〕ユagic三ans)brln.gs forth. il・to the
open the miracles coneealed in the reces, se$ of the woyld, in the depths
of nattire, ancl in the storehouses and inysteries of Gocl, just as if she
herself were their maker; and, as the farmer weds his elms to vines,
(14)
even so does the magus wed earth the heaven, that is, he weds lower
things to tlie endowments and powers of higher things.‘
The orlgin of the doctri鷺e of‘sympathゾls founcl in the Mileslans, the
PytliLagoreans and tlie PIEttoiiLists, ancl the Stoics thiiiilc tl’iat just as ixLan’s
soul permeates into hig. body, the god as ‘logos’ permeates into the whole
universe. The universe is thougl].t to be an unity ancl organism, in which
the‘symPathゾexlsts and uni.tes a.II things within.the universe。5 As Cicero
reports, “the system’s coherence ancl persistence is due to nature’s forces
ancl net to divine power; she does possess that concorcl (the Greel〈 term is
sympal’heia) of which you spoke, but the greater this i,s ac s a spontaneous
growth, the less possible is it to suppose that it was created by diivlne
reft, son.”fi Ficino also tal〈es up this cloctrine ancl says in the Co7nnzentarpu
of 1)lato’s SJyntpositen’t that “the parts o’f this worlcl, like the parts of a
single aniinal, all hanging froni one tiuthor, are joined to eaclrL other 1)y the
mutuality of onq nature.”7 Just as in our bodies all parts rectuire something
froni ecach other, help each other and all su’ffer when one of thein su’ffers,
so in the sanie way the parts of huge aninial, i. e., all boclies of the world,
joinecl to.crether, exchange natLires with each other ancl are mutually ex-
changed.8 The Magian, acknowledtting this niutuality of ene riatura (unius
nature coinlliLmio), E ttracts one thing to another and in this sense the
rVlagic is assist’.arrt of iiat’Lcre .ratlier t’han ctrL’. ’rhis attraction had been
expressed “the incluceinent’s” 〈i!leeebrae), i. e・, “liJrre{” of the A/lagians in the
passages of Pico. Ficino also speaks of theni in his astrolegical and niedical
work, De witaかψ伽.
There is nothing so deformed in the whole living world that it has no
soul, no gi’ft of soul contai.ned in it. The congruities of these forms,
therefore, to the reasons of t/he soul of the world, are what Zoroaster
callecl the divine lures (clivinas illices), ancl Synesius a.crreed, calling the1n
nia.g. ic charnis (niagicas illecebrcas).9
Syneniug. of Cyrene, contem.porary of Augtttine, also believed in the
occult sympathies between natural objects ancl thought that the wise man,
having known the magtc sympathy which uni.ted all parts of universe, can
not only preclict/ the ttuture, but also, to a great extent, control it.
Ancl cloes not this exp!ain the spells of the ma,gi? For things, besides
(15)
being signs of each et.her, have xnagic power over each ether. The
xvise nian, then, is he “rho 1〈noxvs the relationships of the parts of the
universe. Fo.r he dra“rs one object under his cont/rol 1)y ineans of
another object, h.olding.. xvh.ftt is ,at/ hancl as a pleclgre for xvhat is for
away, and worl〈infg throu.gh souncls and material sLibstances ancl forms.ie
De the ‘spells ol” th.e nia{ri’ (,t.{ct.x(/t)v Z’v}・’;’sgr) of xvhich Synenius speaks
here are just tlite ‘illecel)rae’ Nvhich 1;ic.ino said? i‘Xnd clo the sayin,,(,.pt of
Syiienius a.(.Tree with IPico’s foritier expreEsioin.: ‘illecebrae quae inatt.oruin
i.brrsgS? ’1”he xxrord ‘ilieceblae’ is usecl as tl’ie niagi¢al a’ttraction. or incluce-
nient iiiL .41Lpleius,ii xvhile the Z・:)rtr’ nieaiLt o,rlgin.ally a virr>Tneck, ’btit it xvas
eniployed as instri.inien.t oi niag.ric (in particular, erotic nitas,ic) i.n the (}reece,
beccanie to inean t.he spell of charins in g,’eneral, t}nd so,nietinies indicatecl the
]iia.orician herself.U’ IXpolionius of Tyana, xvhoni Ficino and Pico nunaerated
ainon{/r the i.Xtlas,ians, also einploys it in t//he s’ense of irtia/,.,rical encliaiLti[itents.ia
And in the Cノ~ζ~lclaen()raclc)s, theん17靱are described乏ts noetic e正ltities
xvhich are thouL,,]ht by E?ather aiitd xvhich tliinl〈 t/heins’ elves, as tiLey aye niQved
by the ineffable ’XVill.i‘ Psellus says. in the Conunentary of .the Chalc/aean
Oracles t,hat the ZvrxEvr are the powers Nvh.ich were iLiLacle oii three triacls
after II:ather’s abyss and l ather thinl{s theni according t.o FatheJr’s intel-
Iigence]LNrh三ch puts ln i£self tb.eir c{luse k..1 the unity.僑 丁}.1e凌〃7ε~}、、7ere also
thought lnagi¢al na1皿es sent forth 1)y th.e supreme Fa1=her to the sPhere and
regardecl as the transinitter o£ mc’ssaL.T,es Eroin Father. tg}yccorc}ing to Lewy,
“as the lyns,’es a.ge re,garcled as localizecl in. the s.!.)heres, t.he conjura’Eion of
thier ine,lr’fable na.!.ne by t/1ie t/heurgtist presi/ippog.es his knoxving to Nyhich
pE・trtici.ilar sphere they cieg. eend ivhen invoked.”i6 ’1”his sicle of ntL.anings
ivhich t’he Zvr?’ssr had, Plethon see.tns to have em.phasized it in the Brief
Expl‘~ncltioノ~ of t墨ユe Cんα♂(/Ct〔~C171 01隔‘~ご♂(~5.
They Call ‘SpellS>the in.telleCtS linlced 亡0 正lilll and the Separated FOr互鍛S,
which they also call tlne ‘in.flexible upholders ol: t/he i“vorld’. ”lrhey cfill
spells because of the erot,ic attachrRent of things in, tli.is “rorld to thei.u-
selves Nvhich the nanie ef the Zv}’tr’ (spell) inclicates.i7
王tseems to エne that as the‘lllece1)lae of Synesius, wa$ the Ztノ;”1’ε~・, so the
‘divine iu.res (ciivinas iHicesV of Zoroaster, of xvhich l/?.icino spoker, nieant the
sanie Z’u7i’eg. iXncl Pice accept”ecl tli.e traclit.lon of this interpretation of
Z・vrAi’es”, iLvhich startecl iiroiit the Greek bv(ragician,s vla 2.roroaste.v allcl endecl
(16>
with Plethon and Ficino, and when Pico mentioned the Zvr’reig of・Magiarts, he
inust have been reineinbered that this terni was found in the Chaldaean
Oracles, the sacrecl books of Zoroaster, s,reat theolot.vian and first Magian.i8
NOTES 1
i E. Garin, ATottl.“.’・ie intorno a Giovanni. Pico, <<Rivista cli storia della filo-
so丘a》,1\「,1949, PP・210-212;La!)r~ノ〃(1ヂじ‘♂‘z,t: tlo〃e cle~/,《oノ.IU’~o cleノ)一(ノ〃tilt~.∫(li.ait~一
t(ttCJ》, in his Z}‘‘‘rtt/tUi’t.‘ノ?’/osoLX7(ra ‘le/ノ~〃~‘~s‘:ゾ〃t・eノ〃。 itczlit〃10, F三1’ellze, 1961, PP.
231-240. ’J)he iiianu,script of this di’aft e: ists in the Florentine National 1..ibraly
(lf”o”do /)a/atiito 86”5t). ln this ll”onclo li’alat/ino tS’8,(), the concerned text starts
on fol. 143 r and ends with fol. !53 xr, accorcling to tiie recent ntiiner’ation, but
it can be noticed that the folios are partly out of order (Cf. L. Gentile, 1 cocltlci
l”’ala.tiiti. clella /〈’. /}’iblioteca. Araxionale C”entJ’ci/e cltl ft’ii’eii=・,e, voL 2, li:onia, 1899,
p.394; P. O. Kristeller, (}70’こ、,eノ〃l i Zギ(/’o ‘!ellct A.lii’tc〃clola‘‘ノtdノノi.s’δ冶’”’ces, ill
ム’・Pei’c‘c’i/ ke〃sier’σ‘1~α(ノ’u(12〃tiノ)ico de/la A4iiu〃4・/tl〃el/a stOl’iCl,‘lell’lo〃t.αノ1・’一
simo, Convegno jnternazionale (Dv,lirandola: 15-18 settembre 1963), 2 vols., 1;i-
renze, 1965, vol. 1, p. 113>.
On the differenee between the clraft and the fin.al-definitive version of
Ol’cltio, and on thelr relat三〇n to the two versions w.hlch are su霧gested in Pico,s
letter to Gerolamo Benivieni dated ’from Fratta on the 12tli of November in
!486 (ed. L. Dorez, Lettcti’es ine’cltltes cle Jtit’tn 1’ic c/e /ti A・!ii’ciitclo/e, 1482-!’f9-9・ ,・
<<Giornale storico delltt letteratura italiana>>, X>.(V, 1895, p. 358), see iny article:
irN」ol’e oit Senie 1・fei4sions qf’ (;’tlo’vtiniul 1’ico’s Oi-a.tilo, <<1-IQkkaido ”1”etsugakkai
I〈aih.ou (’1”ransi/L.ctions of the 1)hilosophical Association of 1’lokkaido)>>, Sapporo
(Japan), )4〈XXIV, 1987, pp. 1-11.
2 Fonclo 1’a,ltttil?to 88S, fol. 143r, 1. 1-fol. 146r, 1. 14; La prinza redaxione,
ed. Garin, pp. 233-238.
3 Co”w]teittationes !banitis J)ici A・1’incwictttlae..., 1]}iiigeter iinpressit Bene-
dictus 1’lectoris Bononiensis, Bononiae, Azmo saltitis MCCCCL)i〈XiXl)k〈VI, die
vero .Xl rvlartii. Cf. }’lain, n. 129927; 1’anzer, vol. 1, p. 1>」32; 131/V1C, vol. 4, p. 843;
IG・.1, n. 7’731; Goff, 1’一632; E, Valenziani, Les iitctt,iiables cle /’ic cle la. A,lii’tzndole:
Coitt・t-ibttti.oit c) ttite bibliog’」”a,/)he, in i’1. B6darlcla (ed.), /)eitseSe hteinaiti,ste et tracli-
tioit clw“e’tieivte att. .Xile et iYiffe sie.cle, Paris, !950, p. 334.
In this paper, I consult E, G.a血’s critical editiQn(G. Pico della Mirandola,
か6ん・〃vi/z∠5‘τゆノ護.晦飾μ・ψ‘5,∠)e e〃te et utt.o c’5ぐ’・icet]・び・〃・~, Ed三zi・ne l・c・zi・1・aユe
clei Classici del 1)ensiero italiano 1, Firenze, 19.42) and use il). L liorbes’ trans-
lat’ien based on Getrin’s edit’ion (Ort’ttion on th.e Dignity qf’ A・/an, in E. Casslrer,
P・O・K・i・t・11・・,」・H・R・nd・11,」・.(・d.・.), T1…Rθ・ais“san・re.Ph il・・〃り・げM乙ノ1,
Chicago-Lonclon, 19. 48, pp. 223-254). The sections of the draft mentiond eor一
(lr?)
respond to pp. IG2-130 ef Garin’s edition (tr. Forbes, pp. 223-237).
4 ‘‘Haec sunt, Patres colelユdissh1}.i, q.uae I..ne ad pl.111.osophiae studiし!m non
a,tniinarunt adeo secE conLpulerunt. tt/uarn cluicleni tit tarn plene con$equerer
cluain prosequebar ardenter, cluo in pyin’}is conducere seni.per e.xis.tiniavi; 1)yi-
1nunユid fuiξ, in null.ius verba三uratus, seci. se per onユnes}.)hil(,sopi.蓑ae n.1agistr()s
funclere, onines scecitis exctitei“e, onines .fa!ni,;iE/ts ag,noscere. ’X・’Wldi ad hoc niunus
necessariain es’ se rxon g.reeE,te ynodo et iatinae, sed hebraicae ctuoque Eitque cha1一
claicae et; cui nune primum sub IN,lithriciate Gulie!mo hELrum lins,uarui’n pre-
ceptore perit/isshno insudare coepi, arabicae lir1guae congnitlonevn. li:errne
eniin ornnis sapientia a barbaris ad grecos., a s,recis ad nos n){inavit. l/ta nos-
trates seinpe.r i’n pliilosopliandi rati.one pe.regyinis inventis stare, et a}iena ex-
coluisse sibi dt=xe,trunt satis; sacras oinnino litteras et in}rsteria secretiora ab
hebreis prii’nurn atclue ch.aldeis, tur}’i a gyecis petere nece$sariuin. 1〈eliquas
artes et olnllifar三arn P}iilosoP至.1ialn cLI1’l/X grec三丁目arεしbes.Pa.rtiしzntur,”(1南〃ζ!‘ノ./)la.t~〃0
885, fo1..146r, 1.!5-fo1..146v, }. i2; Lζ1 /♪ノ・it〃‘‘ 1・ピ‘Zα副~θ〃(ノ, e(:1. G.[kril), PP。238-239).
IIIn tkis part’., tlie passa.c.res: “primtnp ic’1 ftiit.,. omiites familltts E.tgnoscere”
are also seell三n tlユe final.一cle丘n三t乏ve versi・n・f Or、atio, 1’)ut i.n an{:}ther c・ntext,
i.e., in tlie iines on tt’)e Etns“・’er t.o those xvi’)o are og,:Ilendecl by t’he ntrpneroLis
muititude of thing$ proposecl by IPico (ed. (1}i・n“ln, pv. 138, 140; tr. Forbes., p.
242)and t}.ユe passages: ‘‘Ferme en呈n貰onm重s.,。sib三cli.lxerun之satis》’are seen
ill the 丘na茎[de薮nit三ve verSion in the lilles ()n the τeasQns thELt P三cO w三sl.iecl紅)
1)ring befere the publ.ic the opinions not ei’ .a singie alone but yather of ev’ery
scl’iobl” Cecl. Garin, p. lti2; tr. Forl)es., p. 2・’‘/1,/1). (])ther passas,es ca.nnot be fotind
in the final-definitive version.
5 Joannes 1”i’cus A,’iirtr’tndtilanus, Ol)era. onvttla, Basi}eae, !57.‘.) Erpt. ri’orino,
19711, p. 378.
6 /bicl,, p. 367. rrhe naine of 1;lavius. !)v,lithridates is also seen in tl’}e saine
letter to Ficino (lr/?tlc’L, p. 368) ancl in the letter to aii uiLknown friend clat’.ed
from F’ratttt on the !0tli of lbLsl’c,)vember in lt186 (/bi‘i,, pp. 384一…386).
7 P. O. 1〈iristellei;, iit・flt’u’h’i/io .Ficilito e ,ILttclo’vico 1;.akx’i・tti’c//t/: C‘oittiAibtito tz//a,
‘Z〃2磁川ノ‘/・〃・・〆‘/ee・・’一melich〔~〃‘・/痘〃・’ISC〃ノ’・〃~t・,《A.1・nal.i deH.a R, Scu・1.a N・r-
male Su!/)erl.oire cH 1’isa. ’i.Lettere, Stoyla e ll.loso’fia>>, Sei一. E.1, ’X,]III, 1938, pl//). Lt37-262
1in ldem, kS’tttclies i?i Reittzis.y(vice Thot{.(.)’ht anc/ Let’tei“s, li’Loma, 1956, pp. 2t・!)1一一L),i7];
1:1. Gatr’1n, AYot(t tt.tt・//’et-iit.c’,rttl.snto, in fl’:esttl t“ttanistici .stt・//’et“metdstn,o, <<eiLrclvio di
.Filoso魚》,:1〈onna,!955,1)1:),7一一20[ln 1⊂{em,ゐαctt/tttj“ct .飾s・fi(:(1.‘躍./〈.in・t.s・.・~〃~e〃tθ,
pp.143-154ユ;.ldern,.△!ag『~‘1(~‘ど‘1..st~’(,gia ne//ct Ct‘/ti‘~て‘ ご1(!/R.ilttZSCiノノ~e’”t.θ, in 亙dem,
AI’eclioe’i.,o e A’ittczscime/tlo: Slttc/i e i’icei“ck.e, li’lonia-Btkri, 195tl, pp. lili一一!57; lde.m,
E1・〃螂~5〃1.o c〈{’tti~α‘teo/og・~α,《Rivista Ci”ttiCEt di stor重αclel.1.a登bs〔,丘a》, XXVII工,
!973,pp.331.一一/3,34;]lf/lem, J’osti//e sull’ei+m(,tis’mo ne/Rinast’imenf’o,<<R.inasclment/o>),
S,ar. II, X.’X,i l., 1976, i;p.. 2.・,15-2.49; ldeni, Lo ::odiaco de//a ’vita: La. .Po/ent’i(ra
sl(〃,as〃・θ/o9!t・1 ‘.Z‘~/7、’・eec)7it’θa/ (2〃ζτ〃.ノ¶oee〃t(,,2a ed。, Ro訂1a-B)ar{,1982, i)P・6!一一..92;
(18)
Idem, ZI ritol・ノzo dei,f含/osoLfi all彦ichi, Napoli,1983, pp.61-78;F. A. Yates,α07㌔
clanσBノマ〃~oα〃(i the l/(llツnetic 7■1「α(’ltltio〃, Ch.icago-London,1964;Idem, t.he 1:ゾεノ㌔
ノnettlc Ti’a.‘1∠〃。〃 ~〃 Rei~cuZS’5(1,〃(re 3ご~β〃(=e, i.n C. S, S三ngleton(ed.), Al-t., Sc~{1~1.〔=L7
a〃cl I’」.Ilst・oi一:y 〃~ 〃z(I R(/)〃【ttlssctizc(ノ, Bal.timore, !968, PP.255-274. Cf, also K二. H,
i)annenfeidt,∫五3〃〃.(:~〃。αEソtilo,soPhtlca, in P, O. Kristeller(ed,), Ca,talos,it.s T’・αノls-
lat~oiltt〃ぼ彦Co〃〃ノte〃tclノ・io’w~, vol..1,.Washington,1960, PP.137一一151;C. Vasoli,
L’取β~te〃ce‘de la ti’aclitilo〃ltet・〃ie’til(/tte et ccxba/istiqtte, i.11 R. R。 Bolgar(ed.), C]/as-
5∫ραZ.bzfltt.(~〃。(.ts o〃 1/V(ノ5如’〃 T1~o‘嶋加.1:.1.. Z).エ650-1870, Cambridge,1979,
pp.6レ75;R. Marcel, XLa/blt~‘〃(:~ぐZ,∫ゾ2’・〃’郡Tノ・ils〃1.(}g’tlste c)1‘t Rご〃ai∬‘1〃‘=c), in
L’f,rtt・〃ta〃is〃ie.1)響α〃gais‘躍‘14δ’.ft cle lαR6〃α’∬αノ~ce, Paris,1973, pp.!37-154;A.
しGraftOn,1)i・otest.α〃t lfei’stts.P1・oノ)het: Lsαutc Cα5α~tbo〃。〃∫∫び1一〃tes tl’1・iS〃’〔唇~5々‘3,
《Journal of.tl〕.e「弾arburg and th.e C(,urtauId Instit:utes》, X.LVI,1983, pp.78-93.
81).P. Walker,01・/)h.e~es th(子7.”heo/o.g.xi‘〃~α〃‘Z R6〃a.iss‘〃tce f)lato〃‘5’,《」Ournal
of the Warburg and C()urt:auld Institutes》, XVI,1953, pp.100-120;Idelu, Le
cha〃t.θψ蜘〃e‘1‘,i A・fai:s’ile翫〃’, i1・盛.・ftt.si〈1~’(!(it /’odsile tl.tl. XVJe Sie.cl(ちParlS,
1954,.pp./7-33;A. Buck, Z)‘〃・0’・f)he~tS一二・f:,tos itl.‘1(tl’t:t(elie/itib’clze〃 .1〈eitatlss(z〃ce,
Krefelcl,1961. Cf. also l3. Wind,.1ゐag’(ut,ハ.勾~’・〃・~・es~〃th.e Re〃・u7∬・1〃ce,1”lv. ed.,
New Yorl《,1958;」. Warde鷺,0ノ・伽〃3α〃‘Z Fictlito, in ldein(ed.)Of/)1tetts=”rhe
],fetai〃oil》み。.sesご~/「aAllb.,tl,,1’oronto-Buffa】o-Lonclon,1982, PP.85一ユ10.
9B. Kleszko・vski, Z1./・la.tθ〃is〃’oご1~/〈tl〃a.scit〃e’吻it・zlicvto({/a, cl・ttriJta‘1・ψ
ol’a(70々cal‘1α~ぐ:’ノ,《Giornale cri{:ico della fil.oso行a ital三[ILIrLa》, XV,1934, pp.189-198;
Ideni, Stttcl~ sul /,/(~‘o/tis〃~o ‘1e/ R~〃asci〃~‘ワ~to 〃~ 1!‘↓/’〃, :Firenze, 1936, PP.1/3-
127;K..lff. Dannenfeldt, Th(r/”se’‘(10-Zo1・・‘lst1・i(T,〃0’・Ctcles i〃‘加./~‘1〃(1.iSS・〃nce,
《Sk.ldi.es in the Rerlalssance》,’IV.,1957, PP.7-30. C£also’lclein.,0ノ・cr.Clt!cz Chal-
cla~c・・, in Kr撤e1ユer (e(1.), Cata/osx~t,S T?一a〃,S’/at’i・〃~t〃1・t’・t C・〃徽~ノ〃・zノ・i・ノ・~‘〃, voL 1.
PP.157-164.,
1。D. P. XVall〈er, Tlte/’J-isca 7.7~.eolog’ia加Fノ・t’1.・lc{!,《J「ournal of the Warburg
anci Courtauld Institutes》, XVIIII,1954, pp.204:一259;Idemりワhc.4.〃cile〃t 7’heologt’::
Stit.clies~〃C/ti’istia〃」’1・τt・〃ils〃1../>・o〃~..th・I Fi11ン・・(〃’th to〃te l・li.o’ht’ee〃tlt Ce〃々鱒~
London, 1972; Ch. 13. Schmitt, Pヒ〃・(~〃〃ial IJ’lzi/osol」h・:y .f)一〇〃t ∠・tlgosti〃。 St(!uCO
to L(タ~/}〃㍑,《」.ourmEtl of亡he Histor5・of Icleas》, XXVI,1966, pp.505-532;Icleni,
Pi-isctt伽oZθ9!αePh.il・so/)hia /)e1”e〃ノ~tls:/)tt‘・ t’(~〃~.∫‘lel R’inasci〃~θ〃t・μαZ~α〃・
c/aIOi・o/b1一々’〃Cl, ill G, S. Tarugi(ed.,),/l f♪(ノ〃Sil(!l’01護.alila〃。 del/~ガ〃Ctsci〃te〃’o
‘Itll t(t〃ψo〃ostj・o,1/i.renze,1970, pp.211-236=Cf. also G di Napoh, Jf co〃。(ltto
・1’《/’IJ.ilos・♪伽力・・’…〃〃is》ζ1~.・・lgrosti〃。 Ste~.‘ω刀・・Z 9’tacb’o fiel/a te〃~.‘雌αノ層~〃Cl.SCi一
’〃e〃如Z(ノ,in Filoso.fia e Cttltt.〃・a∫〃 UjnJ)i・ia ti’a Atfediloe’x,o e R〃’α∫‘加8/zt.o, Atti
clel quarto convegn・({i stu〔hlmbrl(Gl・1)1)io 22-26…ag.gi・1966), Perugla,1967,
Pl).459-489 [in I⊂le n}., S〃‘‘1∫ stfl R〃z‘τ5ご~〃teltto, NapQli,1973, 1)p,245-277]; Ch,
Trinka叢.ls,ゐ~Ot.〃・乃’α9‘e Cl〃d ゐ~le(ヲ〃e∬: H’.’!〃‘〃tit:’α〃cl l)tl・漉ノtlltツ~〃fta,1~Ctn
匹7〃mallisf.7フ101t、9’hち2vols., Lon〔Ion-Ch三cago,1970, PP.683-760,
エ1 G..Scho玉em, 乃〃一 σρ8ビ1~‘1~ノξr ζ7ρア岬ノb乳〆謙718 ♂ρプ ビ乃7囑〆st!iche77 1ぐabba/a, in
(19)
Essaツs pl・esen彦ed to.乙L)o Baecle, London,1954, PP・158~193;F・Secret,エ:ノast7“ologie
et/es leabba/ist’es疏’一Lst~(rns‘}l la J〈e〃aissa/lcEI,《La Tour Saint-」.acque》, IV,1956,
45...一56; IdeLn, L’tlnt.(〃7リノ曹‘f’‘’之∠θ〃〔’ (le//‘.‘ K(τみδ(・t/‘/l 〃e/ I~~〃(’ISC~〃t(Vl.io, 《Conviviurn》,
XXIIV,1956,1)p.5!1一一514;Idem,ゐ(15 clebtt.t cltt. leczb~ノα∠~5〃lc (ゾv・e;ttl(t〃(タ〃E5pα潔・ilc!
et so〃 hi,sto~ノ.『‘ぞζ≧/‘t’/セ〃α~.ss‘1〃。.’(ノ,《Seξar(至》, XVII,1957, pp.36.一...娼;王clem, ILes
κζエbl?‘:i./i,ste,s ‘・ノ,1・6〃(ノ〃s ‘!‘ノ/(’1 /ぜくr〃α~55ζ〃’(:・〔.’, .Paris, 1964; 1.dena, .Le 2わん‘〃・‘7ん(ノ膨 tes
I〈’ahb(i/~St・(fS (:ゾli・(5〃6〃s‘1(ノ/‘1,ノ《(!〃Cl.~s,b’c〃’ぐ(~,.Paris-La正iaye,!965, Cf. also J.. L.1}]}au,
γ.Vle Cんノ・〆h-liθ〃/>~tef)i’e/z’Jtio〃財1’/he C)aba/ci~〃功‘ノノ{lt’〃aisstvκce, New Y《)ユ’k,ユ944.
Iz P. Kibre,7.Vl.(ノゐ~bi・at・き,‘ゾ.’ /一)i{:ro‘/(〃αA・f~ノ・‘〃~cl‘,/a,醤ew York,1936;E.
Gar三n, G~θ・v‘.~〃〃~ f:「icθ ‘/e//ttハ./~ノ肛‘1ノ’‘1(ノ/a. .U1!‘’t e ‘/0〃ノ‘1〃t’t, Firenze,1937; :1:dem,
(7!θ幽ひ(〃〃li /「ico ‘~(ノ〃‘1 ノ~.f.~’噂(〃~‘/θ/a, Parlna, 1963 [in l(:1ena, ./ぐ~ti・Cl.〃.tl ‘lil ♂〃1t.c〃tis〃,
Fiyenze,19. 67, pp.!85-2!8]; Idem, L〔~〃~t〔〃・!)ノwkl.xT~lc〃’~ clel.Pe〃.s’ie;’θ ‘々 (穿~θ・1.,‘1.ノ〃~i
∬’~co, il・IL’・Pe~’・t c i/ P・7磁・’一・c/~1(y~θ・こ.1‘〃〃〃l f’ic・, voi.1., pP,3-3!;E. Ang漁e,
(ジio’v‘1””~ 1:「~(”o ‘/(ノ/la A・f’ii-cui‘1θ1‘‘’ 5i”‘:ソ’(ftiti”~(ノ ノ闇tfligt/o.s(ノ㌦〆7/θ.sOyfico, Bari, 1937; E.
±N・lonnerja.hn,(露0宏‘1〃ノ4」’1~(.・()cle/tctハ./’i1’c〃~‘lo/‘・. Ei〃 Z36∫〃’ζ~9 X~t’ノ”ノ・/i~♂0∫(ψ/~~sc/teノ~
つr”/teo/og『~c~ ‘~〔~s ど友τ”6〃isc/~.(fll, Ut〃〃‘’1.〃~s〃’〃.s, i“Xxlesbaden, 1960; P. 0. Kristeller,
君’19’ん’.Z『ヲ~.〃。.yθ/)ノlclilS(ゾ’〃~.L’Jt‘i./i‘z〃R{~〃cli,SS‘~ノ1(.’e, Stanξord,1964, PP.54-70;:Edein,
(亨~θ・1’,‘τ〃〃~ !)~ビ‘ノ c/e//(.‘ ハ.ftli-a〃‘/o/cz αノt(/ 1z~s LSOt・‘i『c(e.s’, in 1ノ()Pe’”t:z (ノ tl/ 1)e〃.siel’o ‘Z~
(}”io・va.tl・〃~!ケ(ro, vol.1, Il P.35…133;G. d量Napo1.i, G~o、vt〃,〃iノヤ(lt‘,‘/(ゾ~cz il・f~,.α〃‘1()/a,
e /a,f)1“ob/e〃1・zttlC・1‘/(/IUJ”il〃α/・ノ‘~・ノ/SIC・如〃ρθ, Ro1ユ}a,1965;1’.L de Lubac,.乃’‘]‘/e /a
がM〃一‘uz(!(♪/‘r:!ltit.‘1(~5(’!t clisc’ttss~o〃, Parls,圭974;.W, G.. Craven, G~σ・こ.1・.〃~〃i 1)ic・o‘le~どα
Afil一・.Zlt(ノ・/a,・Sl:).り〃加~rゾ酪」.8-‘~:ハ伽/Cソ闇〃lrnxtfノノW副~ω^S‘~.!‘ ・1./L’enais.W~・:亀・ノf’lti一
~oぶθ./>/~(タヂ,Gen6ve,1981;F. Secret, Zヤ(70 (.1{s”α i・V’tli-c〃ic/o/a,(ノ9’々~〃~之~ (ゐゾ~tl (.マ‘iba~tl’t’
(:フ廊‘~α〃‘z,《Coエ}vivium》, XXV,1957,1)p,31.一47;/3..Kieszkowski,.ILes 1・‘ikf)θi・ts
(::ぞ〃〃”e/l/i{ノde/ 」’:、.方‘右9θ (.ttノ:「~ビ cle ~‘‘ 盛ノ~t“(’L/tC~θ~(~(‘/㌔’.1:}1’t’,s/eノ〃5./(zム6δθ8‘/e~α
1,)i~ノ〃θ〃1(}9’‘81! Jatiθ〃ζ‘/ぴ),《R”lnascinaento》, Ser.託1,1.~「,1964, PP,4.1一..91;F. A. Yates,
(ytl・びα〃〃~/’ico‘♂じZんz A・∫tlt一‘〃td()ttt tZ〃‘♂A.コ「α8『ilc, in L’θ/》C!l一‘.1. c!it/♪‘ぞ〃siL’i’o ‘/tl(タ~o・t.ltl.〃〃~
」『ico, vol.1, pp.159-196;G. de1.1’Acqua-L, MUnster,.1.,一cl.〃♪θ〃~ζ〃Gtl侃ul〃〃∫
翫ρ・/門脈vlr・;一〃do/tJ, co〃tt/cuノ〃伽5・瑳ebノ以三1・L’・Pct・・t・e!/ノle〃sieノ’・di
Gi~o・1..,ζ〃〃tiJ I一「ic・θ, voL 2, PP.149一一!68;F, Secret, Noご‘・1.・‘ノ〃(∬ノ,ノ・6(..’tlsi/o〃.s.st〃・Fl‘.1.’vitt.S
A・fiit・/tt-i(/atesノノ1.Clitノでcle l)ilC cl{e/‘.tハノ.ごノ・α〃面ん(4 t~・(tclttct’euJ・‘1ピ‘W〃.〃1.ell.ttUli・cs‘le
κ‘ibbcエ/‘ノ, in ゐ,o.1)‘~rαe i/♪(ノ〃.siel-o(lil(y~θ’1,1(11t〃i オ「ic;o, vol.,2, p.169-!87;E..、V…nd,
Poi層~t,s (ノ。ノ~.s~/i~ β/~~ts (八「(ノti〔lrs ‘ノノ’ tf~(ノ 01ア/~.i‘ノ 《(:1i(ノtt’~.Sct/,s 砂「 八「~お『/~1》〉, ilユ ゐ,‘ノ!ン〔ノ~一‘τ (ノ i~
1)e~~.si(ツ・θ ‘/~ (;i(1ノ・し,ご〃~〃i ∫ギビ。, voL 2, PP.197一.203 [i.エ1 1’deIn, !’そagc〃1. Af)vstef・~L’.1’ll〃 〃ie
Rご〃t’ti.∬‘〃~(ノ(ノ, Pp.276-28!]; R.、V. Niey.er. fi’i‘.噛θ cle//‘z A.1.tli’‘1〃‘10♂‘‘ 〃〃‘/ 乙/‘ノ,・Oi一~L’〃1.,
《A.slt/ttiche Stttclien》, XV則!×1X,1965, pp.308一..336;C..Wlrzubski,(;io’v‘τ〃!e~
Zヤ(/’O’s CO〃t/)ct〃~‘♪〃 tθ /〈a.bbtt/~st.!ビ ・S:yノ〃bθ/i.s〃’, i1ユ E)’tttd~e.s!〃 iY[yst~C~.S〃1.‘〃td ムと‘~一
/i.g『!・〃伽∫・:fノ~!・’c/1.θG. S/i.0/・:ぞ〃1,」.erusalem, 1967, PP.357-362;王・一1. Gre三v,.ll:)ie
ビ/,ノ・isi/l‘.・ノ~‘・&’~)ba/aイ‘.・s(.:∴ノ哉・o de//a 1∀かご〃κclo/t.1,《Archiv fti i‘KultL=rgeshichte》,
LVH,1975, pp.!4!-161,
(20)
2
i Oratio, ed. Garin, p. 142 (tr. Forbes, p. ‘7」44).
2 Conclttsiones DCCCC pt{b/ice dis/)tttandae, lmpressum Romae opera Vene-
rabilis viri 1:’.’ucharii Silber ali.as Franck, Anno ab incarnatione Domini
TN([CCCCLXXXVI clie s.eptima Decembris.. Cf. ITIain, 12999; B. ]X4. C., vol. IV,
p. 197; 1?anzer, vol. 11, p. 489; Valenziani, o/). cit., p. 335. The recent critical
edi亡i・n is王3. Kieszkowski’s(Cθ〃。/it.sio/tes激・67.’7teses Z)CCCC, Ro〃1(leα〃〃・
1486/)ttblice読5ノ)’tkl/1‘lae sed〃。〃‘icl〃1.(1>’Stt(!, G.enさve,1973). But cf. Jose V. de
Pina Martln,s correction of tlユis edition(,Je(tit l)ic de/‘e A・/ftli’attclole.しrn Poノ・tl・a.it
tlnc・〃〃~‘‘1び1’hu.ノノzct〃~st・∴Un・ノ6・1κ∠o〃b”Ds i・ct’・e cles ses C・ノtcltcsiθ〃es, Paris,1976,
1)p. 43-82),
3 ecE. Garin, pp. 132, 134; tr. Forbes, p. 1)L39.
‘i Vitcte f)hilosophoi’ttnt, l/, prol. (tr, by R. D. 1+licl〈s, London-Cambrigge,
Mass., !938, vol. 1, p. 3). Cf. also Stral)o, Giogi”ct!」hia, .XVI, L, 39.
tn Strontttta, 1, 15, .1’.G., V1II, col. 778 A一一1’)’.
C£ 1)an., 2, 1一・12.
Cf. ∫=1.~stoノーiac!, 1, 181.
At th.e t’smes. of Cicero, the ‘Chaldaeans’ came to be used as astrolog-
ers. Cf. 1)e cltl・vt:itation.e, il, 2・: “And in tha, t same nation the Chaldeans-a
naine xvhich. they derived not froin their art but their race-have, it is thought,
of long-continuecl observation of the constellations, perfected aby n}eans
science、vhich. e三ユables th.eln to fortell ~vllat any王nan’s lot、v三11 be and for、vhat
fate he was bom,”(tr. by W. A. Falconer, Cambri〔lge, Mass.一London,1927, p.
225.) Cf. also Ideln,7.”usc~t/c〃’(lc・!/)isf)tttatio〃es,1,95;Gellius, Noctes‘‘‘〃。α8,1,
7,XIV,2;Ll.Icretius, De”c’1■t〃t’〃‘‘々‘ノ層α, V,727.
90鼠he Chct/‘.1‘καノ’0/w∠c’s, cfjn particular, W. Kro11(ed.), De oi一α‘妬5
ダC/~.(il‘laicis, Bi’eslali,1894[rpt, Hildesheim,196L)1;E. des Places(ed.),0’一(zc/es
(rlta/clal’qttc’s α・こ.lec ~t.il.(ゾ~.oi[v de(ノθ〃t〃t.c・lita.i”(e.sα〃cic’〃s, Paris,1971;t-1. Lewy,
C/tal‘ICiec〃’0!・・zc/e“’ct〃clγ.”hei〃召」’:躍)轍「~5〃’, A・1・顧‘α〃4以‘ωノ1,is/it i〃伽ゐα‘6r
Ro’〃α〃β〃ψ!ノー。’, Cairo,1956[new ed. by M. Tardieu, Paris,1978:1.
10 Cf. Lewy,(ノ!), ciム, pp.:)54-257,462-466;E. R. Dodds, The G’・eeleα1置‘t the
ゐρ’ραζ∠o~’α~,Berki.y,1951, pp.283-311。
1正 ’万ξη7’”アζぎτ(Dv Zαλδ‘じかκ励ρητδり(R G,, CXXII, coll.1124 A-114913;e(i.
Des Place, PP.162-185,);曼rπ・τ6πωσ‘9・εci:ラαλαζ・んδη9τdivπαρ庚Xαえδα~・邸そρZα〆ω・
δoγ,tt(をτωン(ecL Kro11, pp.73-76;ed. Des Place, pp.198-201.);,,E’tf.(1εσts’κεψαλαご話δηg
κα~σ6りτ(:,μ侭τ伽παρ凌 Xαλδαど{,ζgδoアμ6τ(ti・p(f). G., CXX1工, co11.1149C-1153B;
ed. Des Place, PP.189-191.> Cf. Lewy, oρ.4ム, PP.473-485.
31
On Zoroaster, cf, i.n parti.cし11ar,工Bidez all.d F、 Cumon.t, Lesハ・fag’es飾ム
(2,1>
諺π~藤。Zoノ嗣。召5鵬Ostanas et.μ)伽卿cl’ψ1診51・z〃認伽アz g1.’eCCft‘e,2vols.,
Paris 1938 [rpt, Paris, 19731,
2 !V6!如ル(fe.」1’1・!oct’gSi>,1, ed. C, Alexandre, in Pleton, Ti-a,ilte des Lo~s, Paris
l.958 lrpt. Afllsterdani, 1966; Pa]ris., 1982], p. 30.
3//ρδ~・τ・沁漏ρ’t..1ρ‘στρτ詠融/...τεωρ1・伽τ・δ物〔1λa’,o‘加‘をリτ蛎ψα~・,!’XG.,
CLX, col. 984,f-X [ecl. f“Llexanclre, o/). cit., f’X.ppeiiclice VIE, p. 297; }’)’ide7.一Cuinont,
o.p. cit., vol. 2, p. 259], Cf. iVo’,t.c(ti: o’vrr,ocut,,5b, illlEl, ec{, (;. ?一itlexanci.re, p. 25L).
4/ノ、・δドt.’1’~・δπ§ρ’....:’ρごστ・τεえ姻/..Tεωρ海ノτθδ=’zθλ‘.ψ~θり‘}ンτごλがψε∫9,RG.,
CI..).〈, col. 98xl t’X一一}/3 [ecl. fX}exandre, oP. cik, i‘Xppendice XJ’1, p, 297; Bic/Eez-Cuinont,
of). {rit., vol. 2, p. 2591. ll iise rs/ll. Xr. t//Xnatos’ transla{’.ion cited ln his article
(/’/etho’.s C’a./trndat” a.ttcl f」ittti‘g.x・t, <<1)i.i;nbayton ()a!〈s Papers>>, /llXJ, 19i18, p. 28!).
3 沸/‘.ギ7ζκ〔ヤ λ(∫7’‘‘ゼ τ6)レ ‘壱πう ro6 Z‘OPθ‘をστρθひ 3./.ζ{’X(c)ン δξηγηθ6ンr‘じ, ecL J.. Opso-
poeus, Oi’actt/ct. matt’ric’a Zoi’oa“’ti’is citnt .sc/to/iis .f’let’/ionis et/ .1”’sel/il nttnc fJiJt]m.tim.
e.cliti, 1’aris, 159. 9., pp. 16-5!; extracts in ,f-IL!exandye (ecl.), o,fx ctlL .t“Lppendice ll[,,
r)p. 27tl,一一2s/.
6.8ραzε2‘をres“δごασ‘壬φησぢτ伽どyτ・融λ(ノア・~{ltg/;τ・5τθζ宇‘1・・i‘.ピφεστ6ρω~・λεγ(’画ω・,
ecL Kieszl(・wski, in Sttl(1~s~t・/ k/atoiiis〃’.・‘1〔ノ/Ri〃・7ぶぐ轍ノ〃彦・~〃/~tz/~・・, PP.161-162.
7κωρσαστρεどθナソτεtra’~1!え‘じτω蹴δンδθア擁τωリσリrκεφαλα〆ωσご~・ノ≧G., CLX,
coll. 973一一9. 7E,1,; ecl. Ale.xanclre, o/). {rit,, pp, 2t61>L-269.
S’ On Zorottster ancl the Crha/c/ae.(vt Orac/es. in Plethon, cf, II’.)“idez-Cuniont,
of). ctll’., vol.. 1., pp. 158一一!63, vol. 2, 1/}i’), 25. 1.一…263; AiiE{tos., op. cit., pl/). Lt70-303; 1}.
Masai, Ii’le”tho〃‘:τt~(/!f)/a.t‘〃~~s〃1.(ξごleハf厩1・α, Paris,!956,/30-1.4.3;C. M. Wood-
h・use,(7日目11{1’・~Ge〃iist’os/’/ctlto〃:7.てhe Last‘ゾ’加//el/‘y〃es, OxfQrd,1986, PP.
tii8-6!,
9 Cf. the Pra.f7cice to Flcno’s translation of Plotinus, in Ficinus, Ope.iu
ontntla, 2 volg.., /[3;,is, ileae, 1576 [rpt, ’11’orino, 19591, p. 1537.
iO ()n Ficino’s relation to 1{F’let,lnon, cf. li’. {[). 1〈risteHer, tl’ihe Scoltzst’ic Bacle-
g, i’otifid o.f .ri・fla.rstl/io I icino, <<’1’r(一iclitio>>, ’1’E, 19tltl・, p. 259 [lln ldein, LS”tttt’lies iti lr{e一
ノz(/lissa.〃ビ〔ノ 「1.コノ~o存gゐ’α〃‘1.Lettei”s, p.36】: :ldenユ.,7.γ~Ci f’:ソ~~/oso./)ノzごy qfハ.:ノ銘1・s〃~‘フ /7T~ciノ㍑フ,
tr. by XL (L’onant/, /tNliew York., IEti3 irpt (1}louces#er, 1)t(last., 1964.1, p. 15; iclen.i,
R/・掬〃i.s〃ω硫α〃’〃’θ‘ノ、.fi‘〃一(1〃t.i〃θc/(1.‘・θ〃〃・θ・ζ蹴磁Stl 1:’1αtθ〃e・ノ.鳳.ノ’istote/(ちin A.
Pertusi(ed.〉, V・’〃(ぞミ~・.・・’・Z’0ノ・~・〃~t.(ノ!)’α7.Tc〃・ご1・瓢:t・.1!峨.・θ・ノR~〃asci〃~‘ず〃to, Fire1・ze,
1966, PP. 1!3-115; 1〔{e1’ll, ∬3y之ζ〃’〃〃e aftcl l・V{~st.c’ltフ~ !ゼζ.xt.o〃~s〃1.~〃 ”t.(1 /逐ノ㌃‘~‘1〃th
(〕(:ワ1々〃な~~ in I(玉e茎工}, R‘~〃‘z~SS(1〃(1’te C(♪〃ビ(え/♪‘.醍ズハ.1ヒ.〃~ ぐ〃icl Ot’hei-Z}i.b’st’t.“・,s, .Ne、v York,
1972, pp. 105-108 [in 111clem, ed. 1]y A,1. Mooney, 1{.etictissanc/’e T/i.ott.{,/rht and ft.s
kYott・i+ees, 1 e“, 5rorlx’, /979, pp. 161一一一163]; 1/). G・arin, .P(iiA la stot”ict cle//a. ctt/tt.{.i’ct
fi/(/}so.fica. c’le/ 」〈’inascintento, (〈lllivit. ta ¢rltica clella filosofia>>, Xlll, 1957, pp. 6一一IL7;
A.:Keller/凸.〔.,θ∬3謬・〃‘‘~〃e LS”c/io/c’ti“s・〃κZ「f.〒he~ノ・/《c・cel)ttlo〃~〃/Z・め~《ll.ournal of
t/he XVarburg and Courtai.ild lln$tlt.utes>>, XX, 19.57, 1.)p. 363一一37e; XVoodhouse,
OP・ C・i.t., 1)p.. 37.2-374.
1・7冷碗卿ノ・/at・’nica cle力刀ノ刀・7’ta/itate a71カη・7一・ZO17, X.II,1, ed. R. Marcd,
)ノ扁り一(
vol. 2, Paris, p. 1.970, pp. 157-158.
12 T々(tologil(t./)lato/ltlc‘~,1,5, ed. H. D. Saf[rey and L, G. Wester三nk, vo1.1,
1“aris, !968, pp. Lt5-26.
13 ed. H:..D. SafErey, hl Idem, No’‘es!》/ato〃iCitltl/lcls‘ie八4Zctl’s”‘~Fi‘カ~(’lans
un nza2ntscril/ (le Pi’oclus (C’od. Riccarclian’tts 70), <<Bibliot})d4que cl’1-lumanisine
et Rent lssance>>, XXI, !959, p. 168.
i4・ C/f. 7”h.eo/ogia p/cttonica, VI, 1, ecl. Marcel, xrol. !, Paris, 1964・, p,224/;
XVH,1, ed. Idem, vol.3, Paris,1970, p.148;Co〃~1〃‘ノ〃t(17・iaノ〃./ヲ泌rゐ〃〃i’∫’lafo〃is
de. simmio boiio, XVII and XXVI’ C ed. IVI. 」. B. Allen, Berkeley-Los An.creles-
London, 1975, p. 181 and p. 2z17; Et)ist/ae, Lib. 1, OPera omnia, p. 634,; Jbid.,
Lib. VIII, p. 871.
15 Cf.ノ11璽~〃〃e〃々〃2~~刀/〃〉〃llll・ハ4〔~ノービ1〃▼~〆(1.”1’iSノ~~e≦1’isl’i,0./)el’a o〃η~ia, P.1836.
R.14arcel regarcls this ltacl〈ing of 7.oroaster as important, and he attributes
Iiicino’s later insertion of Zoraster into the ancient theoi.ogians to the influence
froin Proclug. rather than to the knowledge of Plethon’s doctrine (Cf. A,lai’sile
Ftlcrin (i(4,?. 3-14.‘.1)9), Paris, 1958, pp. 603一・612). 1, however, would accept 1〈ri-
steller’g. explication that Nvhen the trans]ation of Coi’vnis /t2”eivneticu7n. Nv,”,ts pub-
liEhed 〈!4/63), Ficino hacl not yet known the e:ist.ance of the Oracle (this
opinion ig. reported by Dannenfeldt/, The 1?seuclo. 一Zoi’oastria’n Oi-ac/es’ in the Re-
naissance, p. IE, note 3-4). Cf. alg.o, 1. 1〈lustein, Adlai’si/e Fici;n et <</es ()racles
(痴〃吻ノ’‘・》,in(}. C. Garfagni1}i(e⊂L),品z1-sil~・Ficino‘~i/1・〃・ノブ~・‘1i P/at・ノle:
Sttfdi e cloeuinenti, 2 volg.., l/?irenze, !986, p. 331. note 2, Ancl on the founder
of the ancient theology, in the /’rctftu]cr o’f tl’ie trans],ation of 1?lotinus it is said
tha, t the holy philosophy was born at the g.anie time both among the 1)ersians
“rith Zoroaster ancl arnong the IE’)t.gyptians “Tith 1’lerines ’lrrif niegistus. But
I?icino is seeind to generally agree “ith the priority of Zoroaster ((]’lf. notes
17 ancl 18 below).
i6 Cf. De i’e/igioi・ie chri$一1’iana, X}.(II, O/)era om7iia, p. 25. On Ficino’s idea
of the theol.ogical an〔l philosopl.擁cal con60rd, cf. K二risteller, 7フ]e 」Phi’lo,so/♪ゐツ
ζゾ’ハ4々r∫ノ/~o FiciJ~o, PP.23-29; Icl e ni., 」∫ノ)‘ワ1∫~‘~ro .fi/osoノたro ‘1i A4a7・sノ〃。 Ficiノ~o,
1?irenze, 19. 53, pp. 13-2; l/cletn, 1(enaissan.ce ConeefJl/ qf’2talan, in ldem, .1{enaissance
Co?ice/)t oLf’ A・fai? and Othei’ F.ssaD.nsr, pp. 54-55 [in 1.clem, Reitaissance Thought’
allcl Jts 30~’ノー‘rr∫, pp● 204-205] ; Schmitt, ./)(~ノーe/1/1ノ‘11 ∫)ll~/‘ノ∫o♪ノ,.O, _1>一〇ノ,1. A.g・oぶ’iフ~o
StE’flκCO lo Le~ノ)刀ノπ, PP.507-511; Icleni, 1ら瑠おビμ 〃ieo/o,9ブtx ‘~/,hiloso/」hia メ》‘ワマen〃ノs”:
rlue. tejni cle/ 」〈’inascili”ent’o ・ita/iano e. la loi’o .fbrtinia, pp. 217-219; ’1’rinkaus,
o/). cix., pp. 734-753: F. Purnell., Jr,, ”1’”lte 7”heijie o.f’ .1’lti/o.sopltic. Concoi’d ancl tlte
S・・〃・‘・磯ズF~ci71θ’s飾1・・iis2)?, inハ・fa?・si/~・Fi‘』i~~・ei/i’渤・・~・‘ii J’lat・71c):Studi
e docuinent.i, pp. 397-415.
i7 7’heo/o,g.rit’i f」/atoniec’t, X’V’l/, 4, ed. Marcel, vol. 3, p. 173.
!8 11bid., 1,V, ltL, ed. rvfarcel, vol. 1, p. IC)6.
i9 E. g. in the Platonic Theo/o.,ffy, there are ・found 17 citations from the
〈23)
2ま ‘)ノ+tlt.〆θ, ed. CTarin, pp.112-/30(tr. ISorbes, pp,228-237).
22 (1],L ./bid., ed. (}arin, p. lx14 (tr. ll?orl]eg., p, 245).
23 Cf. Jbid,, ed. Garin, pp, 126, 1.L8, (tr. IFc)rbes, p. 236).
2’t /bid., ed. (:}airin, p. 8.0 (tr. 11:0rbe.s., }p, Lt50).
25乃~‘1.,ecl. Garin,正).160,162(tr. F・rbes, P.253>.
26 (:)!)‘ワ’t.’1 θ〃1刀’i(1,P.367, 1:use I)annenfelclt/,s tran:’lation cited in his article
(7..7加A…κ1・一Zoノー。‘1st.ノ・加10/zl・・.・/・:・.st 1〃〃J‘e R・!t〃・.~~畑ノ~(:・‘・, P.15). Cf. AJ. Festu9三さre,
&〃‘:1!θハ.fiノ・‘〃~‘1〃ζ〃~‘’,《Archives d’histoire doc重rinale et iitt6raire du Moyen
Cha/daean O1・a(ゾcr∫.
20Cf。01顧。, ed. Garin, P.1・iO(£r, F・rl)es, P.142). On the l・heo1.・gical
ai}d pl’iilosopl.1ical concorcl i!ユ Picc), cf・Gtkyin, /♪1ボθ ‘ICf〃(‘ハ/~ノ’t’〃i(/o/ct; 1/~!‘t (ノ
‘1θ〃’ゴ〃tli, :p.p.73..一..89; 1〈riste生圭er, !ぐ(・〃t’lis,S’Cl〃‘「‘t (/Jθ〃ζ・‘ノメ〉! 砿ズム..fとt〃, 56・...一61 [i11 .1:clenユ,
R・・〃・’liSS(〃7‘マ・Thθ~lgゐtで1ノκ1.々.s・曾θ~〃w5, PP.205-2091;Scl.11.niu.,./.)・fl”t’.t〃〃ノ・:i./飾/伊
sθノ・1り・ノ1・・〃1 tY1Sl・θs〃〃θS〆・・〃・.・θ/θゐ妙鷹PP.51!-513;IIIcEem,./う’漁1!1’‘・θ/卿‘1
8/・IJi/・∫砂11.11‘1/・・?ノ・(~〃〃~s:ζ/~!e〆.(ノノノ~〆‘/e/Jei〃‘ZSC’i〃~‘・〃t.・〃‘ぬ〃~θe/t.r.1・’‘oノ.b〃1〃1・’1,
ド1)P,219-220;1)eLubac,1:「~‘,‘it/!/(・1. A./1h’andθ/e: Etttcles et‘lisc/’itssio〃s, PP.90-113,
243-260 et passsiln;「!”1・ini{εしus,ρ1).‘.・〃.,753-760, Cf、 also Craven,0/>・ciム,89-111.
、
Age>>, Vli, 1932, pp. 170-171.
27 Cf. Cone/us・iones, ed. K二ieszko、vski, PP. 49-50, 77-78.
4
i Cf. Noteg. 2, ・4 ancl 5 al)ove.
2 Cf. Cicero, .1)‘~ clii..・〆ノlt’1!!oノ~‘♪, 1, 46,
3 Cf. /bid., ’1, 90. Cf, also, ’lcleni, !l)t.’ /e,g’ibits, II, 26; ldern, rTusc/ana.e Dis-
/)tttationes, 1, !07; V’ltruvius., 11)t’ aedi.x(icia, “LJ’ll’1’ C prol., !.
4θ’¶・7万・,ed. G.ai:.ln,1:)ほ4.8(tr. F・rbes, P.247). Cf.1)・rpl)yry, Z)餓細~ノleti‘z,
IXr, 16; ?,Xpul.eiuE, f!po/o,g.1’ia, XX’V’.
5 C.f. ll)logenes ILaerutius., ’T”il’acr /)hi/oso./)ho]vnn, II, 2; Pliny・, lfistot‘it? naltt-
ra/is, XX’X’ C 3; ()lenieng. of i’XI.exanclria, .SVt’roinata, 1, 15; Cyrillus, .i-lcl’vcrsits
.Ji/iamtm, IHII; Ap. uleius, /;r/o」’ida, XV. C,f. a.Sso Bidez et Cumont’, ol). ciL, vel. 2,
pp. 34,一35.
6 C.f. ilfa/rtt,一(’t 20”i’ea’ r・rf,v 一, ot) /(t),oot[’o’一L,oot., f/;’/t{’;’anv S・ttnrrifis’vr・a’, ed. J. Opso-
poeus, pl}. 25, 38 lleci. f’iylexancire, pp. 27,4, 2781; ll?’}cino, (2itinqife /)lattpni’cae .s’af)i一・
eni’iae c/a7.ie, XII[, ed. Atlarcel, .gXppenclix to 7’i/ie.o/o.g.ria p/atoniea, vol. 3, p. .34!.
7 Cf. Ficino, ’7’7ieo/og.」’・ia /.}/anl’onit’a, X.’.III, 2, ecl. ?L,1.areel, vol. 2, p, 21tLl :. Ibici.,
Xlvill, 1, vol. 3, p. 14,8; Pico, (:)i“atio, e,d. (.}arin, p. !5e (tr. Forbes, p. 247).
8 Cf. Apule三us,ノl/)o/‘饗〆‘~,26.
9 O一 rat’io, ed. (1)arin, p. 148 (tr. Forbes, p.. 247).
ie .・’VcihiadcJs L 121 E-122 A (tr. “r. R. }vl. Lamb, London-Cambidge, }Vlass.,
1955, p. 167).
ii Cf. Apuleius, Apologia, 26,
〈24>
i2 C’f. Oratio, ed. Garin, p. 148 〈tr. Forbeg,., pp. 146一一14,7).
i3 Cf. 1/”icino, ’/’”/tcolos.ia /)latoiiict’x, .XII, !, ecl. IN([arcel, vol. 17L, p. 157.
M Cf.0ノ’tt〃θ, ed. Garin, p.150(tr. Forbes, p.247.) Cf. a}so Pliiity,〃istθノ・~α
nattti’a/is, XXX, 9; Cicero, Z”ttsculaitae. clisl)id’al’ioiies, 1’XJ, 4・5; ldeni, De. finibus,
V, 29. Pico, also in /’/e7)la/)/us states that “Ali the (1]rreeks “,ho 1]ave been
consiclerecl the inog. t excel}ent took tlie Ltgypt/ians as teachert: Pythagoras,
Pltto, Empedocles ancl Democritus” (Prooemium, ecl. Garin, p. 170. tr. D. Car-
m三cl.lael., in Pico(lelia Mi.iranc.iola,0〃lhe D㎏層〃il;),¢f’A4a〃,0ノ~掛1〃gαノicl〃1.e
One ancl /ile/)tal)/tts, lndianapolig.一Y! eNy tsX. ork-1〈ansas City, 1965, p. 68). On [)e-
rnocritlls, cf. ])iogenes 1.aerutiug., llit’ae /)hi/osoPh.oinytt”i, IX, 34; 1)1〈, 68A /6=
Aelianus, ’Va」“ia historia, IXf, 20; ll)1〈, 68 IX 40=1-lippolytus, 」(e.f}・tlatio Onoiittin
k/aerasitfni, 1, 13; ll)1〈, 68 A 2=Sttidas; Cl,einens of Alexandria, Sl’roinata, 1, ro.
en 1)lato, cf. Diogenet Laerutiug., lli2acf /)hilosol)horttin, II.1’, 6-7; ()lyrnpioclrus,
C‘,〃~〃’{.ワ〃tV’i~’〃i’〃~!”lato〃is/1/ciゐiad‘~〃’,1,2;ノNnOnylnUs,1)ノ・θ/催10/1iC!〃‘T,1.V. On
Pytlla蕩oras, clf. Diogenes Laer吃1tius, Vπα6!)hiloso!)hoノー~〃]~, VIII,2-3;DK,14,11.
1…lippolytus, ReY’〉.ttat’io Omniu」n 」’faei”esium, 1, 2; DK, !4・, 4=Dioclrug., XII, 9;
Cleniens, of Alexanclria, Stroinata, 1, IJ”; 1)lutarch, 」)e aniinae 7)i-ocreat’ione
in ”Tiinaeo, 2 1’A,foj’alia, 68, 10121’3.]; Porphyry, llll)e ’vita. f):),t’hct..o’oi’ica, 12; lambli-
chus, De ’viia /)ytha,g’of-ilca, IV, 19; Aptileius, Al)olosria, 31.
i5 Oratio, ecl. Garin, p. 150 (tr. r?orbes, p. 248) Cf. Plato, Charmides, 156 D-
157B; Ficino, Theolog’ia fJ/atoniea, XIII, 1, ed. Marcel, vol. 2, p. 198. On
7...ft]nolxis ag. pupil of Pythagoras, cf. 1’lerodotus, 」’Jtlsioi’iae, IV, 94一一95; Diogenes
I一.aei;utius,, 1?ritae /)hi/osoi)hoi’uni, VIIIII, L/i; 1?orphyry, 1)e ’vita /):ythagorica, 14;
Iamblichuf, 1)e 2,ita /).“,thag/’oJ’ica, XXX, 173.
i6 Oi’axilo, ed. G,arin, p. 150 (tr. Forbes, p. 248).
i7 Apo/osria, 90, eci. R. 1-lelm, 5th ed., Leipzig, 1972, p. 100. Cf. Pliny,
」一fistoria nafui’alig, ×>i(X, 5; XXX, 8; ××〉,(, 9; Diogenes IJ.aerutius, Vitae f)hi-
loso/)horui?i, ll, 2; VIII, 16; Porphyry, J)c.} x,ita f)“,thasro?一iea, 21; la!nblicl].us, De
・vit’Clノ)yノ~αg・oノ・~ビa, XX.III,104;Tertullianus,」)e‘1〃カ〃cl,57;Amobius, Dilsf)lttCt-
t’uio7te.s’ acl’vai:s’us .g’entes, Jr2.
・8∫ノ1舘.・癩〃α〃’ア・a/is, XX.X,2(u・. W. H. S.」.・rnes, v・L 8, L・ndon-Cam-
bri(:lge, Mass.,1963, p.281). Cf. Diogenes Laerutius, Vitaa pノ~・ilosol)hor・tt〃’,1,&
On Ulyf ees, cf. 1’liny, f’fi.storia natu7’a/is, 〉〈.XX, 2.
i9 ()f. A/)o/ogia, ec{. cit., p. 100; ed. IP, Vtt{llette, 2nd ed., Paris, !96e, p. 107.
20 Cf,必方∫101ゴ‘1〃(lt〃ノ‘altJs XXX,9.
21Cf. Flci.no, D・~/a7.tdibttsノ〃e.dicinae,0/・el・a・〃〃~鶴1, P.758, Cf。 als・
Marcel, A4hrsile Ficin, p. 608.
22We can know l/1is lifeεしnd teachings from Pbilosotratus,五ヴのズA/)ol-
lonitts o/’ T:yana, On his relation to the lvlagian and Magic, cf. L. Thorndicle,
A∫五∫’θノ=“)oLf’ Adag’i:c and E畷)er~〃zental&勿~ce, Vo1.1, New York-London,1923,
pp. 242-267.
(25)
23 7.%ピ10/忽如.カん7〆。ノ~~(’(1,・XVIII,4, ed, Marce1., voL 3, P.195. Cf.ノゐ〆d,, Xi:llf,
4.,vo至.2, p。235; (}‘フ〃〃〃8〃tcw▼~tt〃~ ノノ~ (7θ〃・こゾ・と.・〃〃〃 .1.「/c・lt.θ〃’is, ‘1ビ ‘7〃10ノ『(~, .VI,!0, ed,
1’q. Marcel, 1?aris, 1956, p. 22!; .ll>e ’vik’t ti’i7)/’ici, 1.ll/, 3, S, 2tl, OPei’a otiiiiict, pp.
535, 541, 562.
Becaug. e ef the ftune of fXpollonius as a !//fagifin, C.}ian ’ll?ranceg, eo 1?ico is
th.ought’ to have cledicated the whole chapter ‘t’Xclverg. us i.na,c.,“ic,a fXpollonii
ll’yanaei’ in the 7tli boolc (lll e subersititosa p.t;aenotat/ione ack・’ersti.g, niag. iani) o.f
/1)e rei’um 1)i+ae.not’a.nione 〈O!)era. om?iia, Bas, ll.eae, 1573 [rpt, 1一’li}clesheim, a96911,
pp. 667…一674). Cf. 1). 1’. X,VE・i}icer, Sf)i?’it’tta/ a.ncl 1)e.inonic A,fag,rie .f)’oin /t”icino to
Campane//tt, ILondon, 1958 [rpt. Nendeln, !969; London, 1975], !46-!48.
:・)一
1co〃。/rtS~ωπ∫sectti~cli〃〃ノ・ノーθ/・ノ『〆ω〃θか〃~・」1{」)ノ~イ‘・i〃tcr//i.g’c・1〃.盈‘1ictoノブ耀
Zoroasiris’ et e.ar?ositoritm eiits Ct’ta/t.’/(’oi’ttm, 10, ed. Kieszkowski, p. 78. Cf. Ficino,
Th(,o/o.g.ria. )t」/atoii・iccr, 1.1, 7, ecL IN,larctel, vol. !, 1]. 92.
2 〈)t’a/io, ed. G’・arin, p. !62 (ty. /lll“erbes, pp. 253-254),
3 On the langtia.ffeg. of Jnysteries, ef. in particular, XVind, Pagen A・ls,ste?’・ies
カ~ the A’cワICI iSS‘/〃lce, pP. 1-25,
’i.〃ρ/・!.砂/〃s,Pr・・emiし玉m, ed(〕.ε頃n., p,172(tr. carmichae1, P.68).
5.砺‘1.;0”al.ノ。, e(L Garin, P,1.56(tl二.:F・rbes, P.250).
G !”2rtt./)ta,/)/tts, 1)rooei’nlLirn, ecl. Garin, ’p. 17L) (tr. Cern:Lic.1’)ael, lpp. 68-69). Cf.
0ノ・aXiθ, ed. G乏:lrin, P.1.56(tr. F()rbes,1:〕.250);.1:tunbl.ichus, De’villaメ・S,thagoi・ica,
XXiLJHI’ll, !t3・6.
7 Oiwi’io, ed. Garin, pp. 140, 11.rf{・2 (ti一. 1{”erbes, p. 243).
8 」’」(ef)ta/)/us, Prooertii’{Jn/i., ecl, C}arin, p. 172 (tr. Car」nichael, p. 69). Cf.
Oratio, ed. (111;・arin, p. 156 (tv. ll?orbeg., p. ILt50); }1’lato, .11{).Pisit{/a U) 315 ll].)・一一E,
C」 Conc/u.s’iJoiies Caba/is’1’i{’e, s(」ctt」iclit/lt o/)iiiione?n, tra.J ilPsis !/:llebi’eoi’it?tt sa./)tl-
trntttin .f)niclamtrntis Ci‘istia?tant 1〈e/tlkf,.’rionai]t ma:r.iijit? con.fit’i?iaiitvs, !0, ecl. Kiesz-
kowski, p. 84. II /lio}low 1)e 1”’.lna “,iartin’s correction (o/). cilt., p. 79).
iO Oratio, ed. Gayin, 1)p, 121-130 〈tr. 1’,;orbes, pp. 2j・28-237). Cf. note 3, 21
above.
6
i Oi’atio, ec}. C)f・arin, p. p. 102, 10一{, Ctr. 1/?orbes, p. p. 223-21)Ltl).
2 ./hic’1., ecl,(二}ar三n, PP。1.04,106 (tr./1ror】こ)es, PP.224-225).
3 C.’f. ()raven’s poleinlc {,igainsi/ i‘li’ie geneirally acc,epted interpretation of
Pie.o’s, f,uitl’nropo}ogy” (op. eit’,, pp. 21..一・t15).
4(りノ・a t’io, ecL Garln, PP.106,エ08(tr. Forbes, PP.225-226),
5 0n the EgyP£ians, cf、}{er⊂)d(:)tしls , .」一fisti”i(u,,:1:{.,123; ()n Pytllagoras, c£L
biogenes 1..aertiug., ’Y,’・itae. .I」hilosoPhoi’tti”, XJIIi.1 4-5; 1)orphyry, L)e ・vita f)[〉,thago-
rica, 30. On Empeclocles, cf. ’il)lx”., 31 B 117=IL)iogenes ’Laertius, XJIIIII, 77; DI〈,
31 B 127=一Aelianus, Varia historia, 1 II, 7, Cf. also eor!)us hernzeticu7n, X, 7-8;
(26)
tasc/e,pitl,s一, 1.?..
6 ’1)here are tl’ie debates abou.t Pico’$ acceptance o/f the traditional concept
of‘homo=microcosmos’. Cf. Gar三n, G1θ・こ.,‘〃〃~iJ P1(.・o‘1〃‘‘M!ノ・‘〃~clθlt’i. V~‘αc
dot〃僧i〃‘τ, P。27;Ideln, Zノ”〃’α〃(ISIII〃。 i/alia〃。. Fi/osoノ距’e・乙ゾ1tT.‘ゾ・乙,〃〔ノノ~‘ノ1!く~〃asei一
?nento, 2 a ed., IN’.onia, 1958, p,. 124; ldein, ILa <<cligniftTs hoininis>> e /a /etteizttit7’a
加!ノ’漁:’a,《Rinascita》,1. C n・.4,!938, P.!04:;Kriste11.er, Eが蔀’〃!ヲhi~・sopheノ・s Of
the fra./ian 」{enaiss’ance, pp. 66-67; ldeni, /{eiiaissa.vice Conce!)t qf’ A4aii, p. 16;
Monnerj’ahn, ol). (rit’., pp. 24, 27; ll)i Napl.oli, Giox’anni. !’ico del/a A4tli’ando/a e
la. pi’ob/eJnati:ca dottiV.na/e de.1 stto lein!)o, pp. 399-405; ldem, Cont’e.inf)us inu」idi
e Dignitas hojniiiis ne/ fe・inasciiJiento, in 1’ils Stitdil sit/ feinasciinen/o, Napoli, 1973,
PP.60-62;E. Colomer,ゐ~諏,油。 c・(・os脚~ノ~N〆cco/θCitsaフ~・eGio’van?~i.1’ico,
in L’oi)ei’a e i/ ?ensiei’o di (;io2.,aii7ii /)ico, vol. 2, pp. 85-90; II)e Lubac, of). eit.,
pp. 86-S7, 167; Craven, oi). cit’., p. 3!. My・ view on this probleni is presented
in an artiele: f’ico de//a A,’tii’anclo/a. nil oleei’u niJng’enno hoiise.i. no 」nondai (7”h.e
!)i’ob/ein o.f’‘iratui’a httijtcvia.’ in f’ico de//a A・!’iinyanclo/a), <<I!inrigaku-Nenpou (A.nnals
of Ethies)>>, ’1’okyo, XXXVI, 1987, pp. 19-35.
7 Jil’ev)tap/zts, IV, 5, ed. Garin, p. 280 (tr. Carmichael, p. 123). Cf. PlatQ,
fCes!)ztbblica, 588 D.
S ’lt’e“75rvi’ocg.x r6[}v za’?.{;a’)’ie(Dv gS’o’t’6)v, P. (1’., CX>CII, 1!40 A Ced. De Place, pp.
176・一177). Cf. De 1’lace, ok. cit’., pp. 104, 145; lr.ewy, o/). cix., p. 265.
9 「1.ソ~eo/ogia!)/tzto/1i‘1’‘1, XVII,4, e(:L Marcel, voL 3, p.173:‘‘ぎδりγ疫ρ‘叶γεfoリ
0矛ρεgZO・りδ“・ε吻α・σ‘り. Id eSt l Tuum・・aS beSti.ae tenrae ha1〕itant.”Here the
Greek text di’ffers /froin that of Plethon, xx/hi.ch laeks ra’p, on the Qtliter hand,
the lai/er edi.ti.on gives the same as l!?icino’s (ecL Joliannes Lodoicus Cl)iletanus,
Paris,1538, rpt. in rこieszko、vsk三,・S”t〃di s~.’/1)んτ’oノ~’∫〃’oイ‘ぞ~l IRi〃‘’rsci〃te〃!o~〃1’ia/ia,
p.1.57),An(I a:h.e Lati11簾mslation contained in M~~g~α.~(.iclastv!)lii/osof)hicのclicta
・ina.t,’roinyttnJ, e:t Zoi’oast’ei” existing in tl]e Bib/ioX(,’ca. A・fedicea lr.at”’enkwiana (Lau?i
36, 35) is di’fferent from those of .1,?icino and Pico: “Tuum enim vas ferae
terre habitabunt” (ed. 1〈ieszl〈owsl〈i, in ol). cit’., p. 159). rlShis translation has
been attributed to 1], icino but xvas recently proved that it xvas not his. Cf.
Klustein,砂. cit.,331-338;Kristeller,ハ.’11cu’siltl・搬’・~・α〃4 H~51y・ノー短点・F卿
Flundi’ed Ye.a?一s, Appenciix I II, in Atfarsililo Ficino e il 7’ito7-no di .1.]llatone: Studi
e documeNti, p. 86.
iO Oratio, ecl. Garin, p. 108 (tr. lforbes, pp. 226-227). ”Phe citation from the
C’a/daean Oi’ac/es “rritte.n in the 1+lebre“r ]anguage appeared for the first time
in the Basel’s edition (1557), while iri tlie. clraft o/E the ()i’aX’ilo, the 1i)’.gyptian
letters are xvritten, xvhich ftc re the t.ranscr.iption froin the lulebre“r letters, as
C. Wirszubsl〈i pointecl ou.t (1’?lavius }vlithridates, Se.r」no cltr f)assilnone do)nini,
‘工煎oduction’, Jerusalem,1.963, p.38). Wirszubski a1.so gives the Latinむans.
lation of the passage: “homo est animal naturae variae et vage et mutantis se
huc et illuc”t I could not .五nd this in the modern collectiop of C/zaldaean
(27)
Oracl{es. After a, H, xv・e xvoulcl have to thinl〈 tha, t Pico poseg. sed tl]e text o. ’f
Oracles more spacious than d.lat.we now lcnox・y, as l)annenfelck su99ests(7..1/1.・・
Pseudo-Zoi’a.oash’ian Oi’ac/eh’ ・in the Renai,ssaiice, p. !6), altl’iough x・ve c:annot
conciude that this passage w・as containcl in the Oracles writt’en in t})e Cha2-
ciaean ianguage, of “,hich PicQ reported in a letter to Ficino.
7
k C)07tc/ttsio?ie,s A・/ft.’T.g.ri(’e secitnclu”t o/)inionem pi’o/)i’iam, 9, ed. Kieg, zl〈owsl〈i,
p. 79.
2 0ノ・atllo, e(L Garin, pユ52(tr. Forbes, p.248). Cf. Plotinus, E刀neades, IV,
4, 43.
3 Oratio, ed. G・ftL rin, p. 152 (tr. F’orbes, p. 2-48).
4 fbi(1., ed. (1}arin, p. Z52 (tr. li”orbes, pp. 2.(18-2tl・9).
5 Cf。 e,g. Plato, T’〃燃r〃s,301);Al.exan(:ler of Aphroclisias,1)eハ:∫油〃。〃(…r,
lt12; 1:.pictetus, 1[)isseta.tio”es acl ./17’i“iano dtl.f,.restae, 1, ltl,; Phi.!o of tis.lexandria,
Da o/)iYieilo inundi, 117; S,. ext.ug. 1:,.]nplrlc,ug., .,’ld2.iej’sits ’i」icrthejnal’icos, 1[×, 78. On
tl]e s. yinpa(/hic theory of the .Stoics, cf. in particultn:, 1〈. P,.einhardt, Kostnos
〃〃d 恥ワ〃/♪‘~〃’.ノ‘~,工〉[iincl.}en,至.926.
61)aノ~‘吻ザtl 4ω’・z〃〃,1H,28(tr. H。 Rackham, Landon-Cambridge, Mass.,
1933, p, 312). Cf. Plinius, f’fistoria natztra/is X’X, 1.
7C・nlJlle?lttlノーil〃)1ガ〃C・ητ,it,ガ〃〃~P/a励t’s, cle a〃~01一(~, VI,10, ed. R. Marce1,
Paris, 1956, p. 220 (tr. S. R. Jayne, Columbia, !944, p. 199). On the }vfagic in
I’?icino (and 1’ico, ), cf. XXialker, tSlpi」’itifa/ and 1)enionic .,1・fagic, pp. 3-29; Yates,
(;ioi-dai20 /3i’ttno and the /’Jeivneti(/J 7’ii“crcliXio」i, pp. 62一一116, 126-11)L9; Zainbelli, il’
f)i’ob/ema c/e//a. ma.,(.’ria natttra/e na/ /〈linascimento, (〈.1〈.ixrista critica dl g.toria deHa
fil.oso撫》, XXVIIII(1.973), pp.279-285;1(lem,./i’/at.ollCi,ノ7~(.ゾ〃θで・/α〃~‘zgブ‘♂, in E.
Iilora and E. 1〈e$sl.er Ceds.), Stttdia ht{)iianitati,s’. Ei’nasto (}’i’assi :uin /ewO, IVItln-
chen, !{73, pp. l12!-lgl,2; lc!ein, JLt.? pi’ob/ein{r cle /tt ’nia.s.ici 7’iaxi{i’el/c’ aSt. /a J{lenais一
.Stl〃αも{n M19’iCl,‘~st.ノー・/θ91?:1‘げ‘ゾ1宮〆。〃‘切・’/fCinasc・〆〃κWθ, Convegno P・lacco-
italiano (NJars.avia: 25-27 setteinl)re 1972), XX・”roclraxv・一XXJarszax・xrt,i-1〈rak6xv一(lldai’ig. k,
1974, pp. 60-66; (1}. Zanler, !r.a nteclieina as’h’o/og.rica e, /a stta teoi’ia. 1}・ftirsi/io
Ficino a i stioi ci’it’i(.’i eont’ejn/)oi’anei, 1’Roina, 1977; ’XX」.一1). rVluller-Jahncke, 1・’bn
.Fi(・i〃0驚.tt/1.詔γぴソ)tz l Z)t./1・八五~9ん」胃β‘害1一砂r’‘/‘・∫f〈{e〃ais∫θJice一∫’/iti〃Cl?lis〃iu,s’1〃~Ubei蘭一
Z,〃ビた,in A. FaiVre an〔:l R, C Zimmermamn(e(:is.), Ii}θ(’ノ~‘」」1‘1‘ワ『A・ra〃〃w,紹~た:刀‘ワ’一
〃~e〃scht:ぞ 7等ノマuditiθ〃 ノ〃’ て¢,iss‘~ノiSみ‘も々/1‘.ゾJe〃 Foノソ.〆ビゐ1・~〃, i3erlin, 1979, P峯:}.24-5!; }).
Hacl・t,ゐ’《・,1〃~θ’層〃~♂~s’iCi(’2~》,ノ:ltt./trθノ’ノLg・int?tle/a〃θ〃・〃‘ノ・~《温.~8’i(17励〃’a/is》:
1「)1・・lt・〃,」’/ot〆〃, M‘1・一s’〆んゴケ‘.プ〃,《Re・・ue pM・sophique de圭a France et c£e P6tran-
ger>>, CLX. X’II, 1982, pp. L83-292.
8 Coinnie.nXarittni in C’on’vievt,iitin・ Platonis, XJI, 10, p. 220 (ty. pp. !99-200).
9 1)e ’vita c:oe/itits coinl)a.?’anda, 1, O/)e?一a onviia, p. 53! (tr. Ch. Doer, 77ie
Boole. oY” Ltfv, lr’ving, Texag., 1980, p. 87).
iO /lspc’ .c’・vvzvt’co.,, 2 (cited by Thorndike, oP. cit., p. 542).
(28)
….1C.「.ハ4e!a〃i・i:Pゐoses, III,16;A.カθ娘ノごら34;G7.
i2 On the e’vrt: o.f E’.he G・reek Magic., cf. in particular, IX,1/. Detienne, Les
J≧〃・‘li〃 ‘1,〆1‘10ノ~’5, Paris,1972, PP.160.一.167.
13 Cf,})1..}ilostoratus, V痴ノ1./)θ〃。/lii, VI,1α Cf. also Thorndike,01λ‘払,
pp. 265-267.
i4 Cf. 1.ewy, o/). cit., pp. 132-137, 24・9-25?.
i5 ’Ettr7’rT)aeg. ra)v za’2tSa’)’it(Dv, ,o”rpr([)y, ?. G., CXXII, 1149 A-B (ed. De 1?lace,
Pp. !85・一186).
ig Le“ry, o/). (;ilt., p, 134/.
17君ραzε2・c’ r・9’δζασ‘吻・π9τ伽ε・τ・なλ・γ敏・・6…頓σαφ・στSI)e)9 ?.εr・μ6・ω・,
ed. 1〈ieszl〈owsl〈i, in Sludii su/ p/ax’onistno de/ /einasciinej’ito in fta/ia, p. 161. }.
use Woodhouse’s translation in砂. cit., p.53. Cf。 Plethon,ハノαγ融λ6γごατ6り
凌πδτoδZω、o廊τ、θoひ澱アωレξξη7η0翻τn・, ed.」. Opsopoeus, PP.4:6-49;Wood-
house, ol). cilt’., p. 58.
iS C)n other relations betxveen 1/)ico’s thought ancl the Cha/daean Oraclcs,
cf. Dannenfeldt, The 」’seudo-7woroastrian Oi’ac/es in t’he Renaissance, pp. 16-17.
(29)
Recommended