From the time of Constantine the Great, when the letters written above were inscribed upon his tomb, until the time of the Lord Emperor John Palaiologos, when Gennadios Scholarios explained them, there are one thousand one hundred and one years. From Christ to the death of the Great Constantine, the years are numbered at three hundred and twenty-nine.
GENNADIUS SCHOLARIOS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE: INSTRUMENT OF ABDICATION.
See above, col. 264.THE SAME: MONODY ON THE CAPTURE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
See the same place.GEORGIUS, BY COGNOMEN GEMISTUS OR PLETHO.
NOTITIA.
(From Allatius, *De Georgiis*, in Fabricius-Harles, vol. XII.)Georgius, by cognomen Gemistus, who is also called Pletho, which means the same thing (a)—either because of his love for Plato, as Manuel the Peloponnesian, rhetorician of the Great Church, asserts in his treatise against him concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit: "But thou art indeed a master of this matter, as one already imbued with the soul of Plato, and instead of Gemistus thou callest thyself Plethon"—or, as Trapezuntius believes in his *Comparison of Plato and Aristotle*, that he was so named because, just as we are taught that some of the ancient Fathers were called to the highest things by a change of names, in the same way he changed his name to Gemistus so that we might easily believe he had descended from heaven and more quickly embrace his doctrine and law. He lived for the most part in the Peloponnese, and he visited Italy at the time when the council was celebrated in Florence under Eugenius (b), along with Bessarion, Gaza, and others; he himself relates...
(a) As *gemistos* comes from *gemizo* (to fill), so *plethon* comes from *pletho*; it has the meaning of abundance and fullness. It is said that the name Plethon pleased him more than Gemistus because it approached as closely as possible to the name of Plato, whom he uniquely loved and admired. (FABR.) (b) Under Eugenius IV, in the year 1438.
in response to the objections of Georgius Scholarius regarding Aristotle. His homeland was Byzantium, in the days of Manuel Palaeologus and the sunset of a declining Greece, a man remarkable both for his prudence and his character and learning A. He wrote many things in Greek, partly to confirm his own dogma, partly to refute the opinions of others, whom all the wisest men, when they themselves could not be present, consulted like an oracle. Gemistus, writes Georgius Chariander, a man most eminent in every branch of the sciences, took the surname Plethon, because he approached most closely to Plato, the prince of philosophers. And Antimachus, in Dialogue 2 of his book on the poets of his time, says: "When I myself translated the histories of this great man from Greek into the Latin tongue, I said this of him in the preface: I speak of Gemistus, whom not only Greece, but the whole world almost has admired for his varied and manifold knowledge of divine and human things, because by the consensus of all Greeks and Latins he approached most closely to Plato, the prince of philosophers, and to Aristotle." And Cardinal Bessarion, in his book *Against the Calumniator of Plato*, book VI, chapter 1, called him an emulator and defender of Plato’s opinions B. Gyraldus does not dissent: Plethon was held to be a philosopher of the first rank, and indeed an excellent one, which can be seen both from his own manifold and varied works, which are read among the Greeks, and from the testimony of the most distinguished Cardinal Bessarion, and from monuments.
Gesner reports that his works were in the keeping of Diego Hurtado, the Emperor’s orator to the Venetians; and he enumerates them thus: A book *To the King*. One book *On the Virtues*. A *Paraphrase on the Demonstrations*. An *Epicedion for Queen Helena*. A *Book on the Generation of the Gods*, which I saw in manuscript at Bologna at St. Salvatore. *Against a book for the dogma of the Latins*, namely concerning the Holy Spirit. *Natural Demonstrations concerning God*. *The Order of Months and Years and a Review of Days*. The *Magic Oracles of the followers of Zoroaster*, which were also printed at Paris in Greek and Latin separately in 1538, in 4to, on two sheets without the name of the Greek interpreter, who is Georgius Gemistus. Diego Hurtado also possesses certain historical and geographical works of this author, such as the *Chorography of the Peloponnese and Thessaly*. A booklet *On those matters in which Aristotle does not agree with Plato, and that Plato’s opinion is better*, printed at Venice at the press of Scotus, in 8vo, together with the paraphrase of Bernardinus Donatus of Verona; I saw the booklet against the arguments of Georgius Scholarius, *Antitheseis* for Aristotle, at Bologna at St. Salvatore, but it was imperfect. Epitomizers add: In the Imperial Library at Vienna is kept, in Greek manuscript, a 4to *Epitome of Sicilian Histories* by Gemistus Plethon. By the same author, a booklet *On the Generation of the Gods*, manuscript in the same place, and all very confusedly and indiscriminately [See above, vol. VIII, p. 80, note]. We, if we are able, will examine these more clearly. And we shall begin our discourse with those things which have been published by the press.
*On the Deeds of the Greeks after the battle at Mantinea*, arranged in two books, also rendered into Latin by M. Antonio Antimachus [Basil. 1540, 4to], not once, nor in one place, who in the preface to Matthaeus Antimachus, his father, reports that this author pleased him so much that nothing could please him more; and he says that he is held in such high regard not only for his style and conciseness, but also for such artifice, such calmness, and such an abundance of material, that after Herodotus and Thucydides, it would not be undeserved to compare him with the most ancient writers of Greece. Manuscripts were held in the library of Joannes Surius. Verderius. (Allat.) Add. Venice in codex 406 of the Marcian library, concerning which see the author’s *Introduction*, p. 269. (Harl.) C (c) Petrus Crinitus, *On Honest Discipline*, book 1, cap. 10: "There were perhaps with Bessarion Nicaenus, a man excellent in philosophy, Theodorus Gaza and Plethon Byzantius, who was called by the surname Gemistus, three men at that time, as is established, noble in learning and genius." (d) Bessarion’s letter to Nic. Saguntinus, which contains the praises of Gemistus, which Morellus brought to light with Greek and Latin mss. in the library, volume 1, p. 212 sqq., from cod. Ven. Marc. 333 Gr. and Lat. (Harl.) (e) Works of Georgius Gemistus, but they do not add which, Jo. Mabillonius testifies to have found in manuscript among the Greek codices of the Augustinian Fathers at the monastery of St. John de Carbonario, page 110 of the *Italic Itinerary* [but see above, to vol. V, page 797, no. 22. HARL] and Bernhardus de Montfaucon, *Diarium Italicum*, page 311. (f) The title is: *From Diodorus and Plutarch concerning the events after the battle at Mantinea, in chapters*. After Antimachus, Zacharias Orthus, professor at the Gryphiswald academy, also translated it into Latin, Rostoch. 1575, 8vo. The interpretation of Antimachus appeared at Basel 1540, 4to, with his oration on the praises of Greek letters, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ precepts on panegyrical oratory, nuptial, natal, and epitaphs, pp. 64-79; Demetrius Phalereus on parts and clauses, on periods, on composing letters, and on characters of speech, pp. 80-92; and Polyani’s preface on the military art, pp. 93-96. In the preface Antimachus narrates that he set out on a journey to Greece for the sake of learning Greek letters and lived for five years under the discipline of Moschus the Lacedaemonian. He also promises a version of Demetrius *On Interpretation*. I hope, he says, soon perhaps to have Phalereus, an author clearly the most polished in speech, in Cicero’s opinion, to be read entirely in Latin regarding interpretation or elocution. Concerning the Spanish version of these books of Gemistus, see below, p. 740. (g) I think Allatius wrote 1575, and the number 1552 was a mistake by the printer, since the same follows immediately again. Certainly for the year 1575, this booklet of Plethon from the library of Joannes Sambucus appeared in Greek at the press of Plantinus in folio, published together with two of his orations in both languages at the end of Stobaeus’ *Eclogues*.
[160:777] It was published in Greek and Latin with the annotations of Hieronymus Wolfius , and in Latin with the interpretation of the same Wolfius in 1590, 8vo. Vincentius Marinerius also translated it into Latin, as he himself writes in a letter to Franciscus Daza edited in the year 1636. It is read in manuscript with me twice, and in the Bavarian Library, codex 224; Venice, St. Mark's, scamnum 32, number 22; and very frequently in the Augsburg collection, and it was read in the library of Antonius Augustinus, codex 255 (ALLAT.). The Bavarian library codex is today numbered 289, and in its title the author of the booklet is designated by the express name Pletho; and also in codex 260. See the illustrious Hardt in *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., year 1805, part 10, p. 381; and part 8, p. 133. At Augsburg, in a codex mutilated at the end. See Reiser, *Indic. Miss. bibl. August.* p. 82, n. 19; and p. 90. At Venice, in the Marcian Library, codex 519, there are several more of Pletho's works, namely: on fate, beginning *Πότερά δέ ώρισται*; funeral oration for Helena Palaiologina; without title, beginning in the *Oracula Magica Zoroastris*; on the management of Peloponnesian affairs. See the Paris catalog. In Madrid in the royal codex 109. See Iriart, *cat. codd. gr. Matrit.* p. 429. In Paris, in the public library, in seven codices: 462, 952, 1739, 1773, 2003 seq., 2576, and 2933; see *Cat. nss. reg.* vol. II. In Moscow in the synodal codex 311. See Matthaei *Notit. codd. gr. Mosquens.* p. 204, n. 42. — At Florence in the Medicean Laurentian Library, codices: 17, n. 3, plut. 56; 33, n. 12, plut. 57; 55, n. 6, plut. 58; 13, n. 12, plut. 74; and 24, n. 4, plut. 80. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur.* vol. II, p. 317, 387, and 481; and vol. III, p. 201 and 214. At Vienna, in the Caesar codices 66, n. 4; 78, n. 5; and 92, n. 4. See Lambecius VII, p. 251, 295, and 372 seq. Montfaucon indicates many codices of various works of Gemistus Pletho available in different libraries in *Bibl. biblioth. mss. in Indic.*, which you should consult. Concerning the Basel edition of 1552, 8vo, see Maittaire, A. T. vol. III, part 11, p. 611. (HARL.)
5. Two orations, of which one is on the management of Peloponnesian affairs to Emperor Manuel, the other to Despot Theodore [i], a persuasive discourse (*symbouleutikē*) on the same subject, with the Latin interpretation of Guilielmus Canterus [j], Antwerp at the Plantinian press 1575, in folio. They are found in manuscript in the Bavarian Library, codex 200, and elsewhere (ALLAT.). Both are in the Bavarian codex, written by the hand of Andreas Darmarius, which is today numbered 260, in which indeed the oration to Emperor Manuel is said in the text to have an anonymous author; but the illustrious Hardt in *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., year 1805, part 8, p. 152, attributes it to Gemistus, and writes that Andreas Darmarius correctly noted on the upper margin: *Gemistus Pletho*, and adds the same. See D. in the preface ibid. to the first part of the year 1805, p. 4 seq. At Florence, in the Laurentian codex 18, 9 (which begins: "Most divine Emperor, regarding those Italians who rule in the Peloponnese") and 10, plut. 56. The prior oration, although without a title, is in codex 24, n. 6, plut. 80; and, with the author's name added, in codex 33, n. 6, plut. 57, which is different from the former; it begins: "Most divine Emperor, the matters in detail concerning which I desired to learn from you," and is an epistle, still unpublished, and deals with Peloponnesian affairs, especially the Isthmus. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. gr. Laurent.* II, p. 318; III, p. 215; and vol. II, p. 385 sq., where he notes that the latter, different from the former, also exists in the Caesar Library at Vienna, according to Nesselius, part IV, p. 43, § 4. (HARL.)
4. Appended is the description of all of the Peloponnese by longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates, taken from Ptolemy, but I have no doubt that those items which vary were corrected by Gemistus, if the manuscripts are to be trusted. And that Pletho was most delighted by these lists and his remarks on the greatest authors, will be manifest to everyone from those things which will be reviewed below.
[160:778] 1574, in 4to, translated into the Latin tongue by Georgius Chariander, and at Venice in Greek at the press of Scotus with the paraphrase of Bernardinus Donatus of Verona in 8vo, Venice 1532, 1540, 8vo. It was also published in Greek at Paris in 1541, in 8vo (or 12to. Cf. Maittaire, A. T. ind. vol. V, p. 82) with the dialogue of the same Bernardinus [m] on the *Difference between Platonic and Aristotelian Philosophy*. It exists in manuscript in the Venetian library, scamnum 17, n. 14, and scamnum 27, number 54. Also at Augsburg, in the Index of manuscripts; in the Ambrosian Library at Milan; and in the Bavarian codex 261 (ALLAT.). Concerning the Augsburg codex, see Reiser, *Indic. cit.* page 90. — Bavarian codex is today numbered 242. — Venice, in the Marcian library, codex 517. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Marc.* p. 278. Moscow, in the synodal library, codex 311, n. 43; and codex 270, n. 3; ibid. n. 6, is the oration of Emperor John Palaiologos to the philosopher Gemistus; it begins: "I heard from some that you have written against Aristotle." And n. 7, Gemistus' response to certain questions. It begins: "As for that, 'a man is sitting'." See Matthaei *not. codd. Gr. Mosq.* p. 168 and 204. Florence, in the Laurentian library 18, n. 4, plut. 56, as Bandini suspects in *Cat. codd. gr. Laur.* II, p. 316 seq.; for there the work lacks the beginning; with the author Georgius Gemistus’ name added, ibid. in codex 24, n. 2, plut. 80; see Bandini loc. cit.
C Paris, in the public library, codices 1806, n. 3; 2006, n. 2; 2041, n. 2; 2376 (in which many more of Pletho's works are found) n. 10. (HARL.) Tom. II. — Paris 1599, in 8vo, with the Sibylline Oracles. [conf. above, vol. I, p. 310 seq. § 7 and 8; and the notes there. HARL.] The title of the work is found conceived in various ways; for some write: Πλήθωνος διασάφησις τῶν ἐν λογίοις τούτοις ἀσαφέστερον εἰρημένων, Pletho’s exposition of those things which are uttered more obscurely in these oracles. Others: Μαγικά λόγια τῶν ἀπὸ Ζωροάστρου ἐξηγηθέντα παρὰ Πλήθωνος, Magical oracles of those who followed Zoroaster the magus, explained by Pletho. (ALLAT.) Conf. above, vol. IX, p. 428, n. 17. — In the Munich codex, formerly 182, now 48. See Hardt in *Aretini Beytragen*, etc., year 1803, part VI, p. 18. — At Augsburg, in one of Pletho’s codices, some chapters of the theology of Zoroaster and of Plato, with the titles of the rest; in another, Magical oracles of those who proceeded from Zoroaster, with an exposition by Pletho. See Reiser, *Index* cited, p. 66 and 90. Florence, in the Laurentian library, codex 33, n. 9, plut. 57, especially codex 24, n. 3, plut. 80. See Bandini, loc. cit., tom. II, p. 386, and III, p. 214. At Venice, in the Marcian library, codex 406, *Compendium of Zoroastrian and Platonic dogmas* (which Tryllitius edited from the Augsburg codex, Witteberg 1719). See *Catalog of Greek codices of Saint Mark*, p. 198, and especially the celebrated Morelli in *Biblioth. ms. Gr. et Lat.* I, p. 274, regarding the inserted segment which appears to pertain to another script of Gemistus, and an unpublished addition, placed at the beginning of the little work in the margin like a scholium by Gemistus, who wrote out that codex with his own hand. Paris, in the public library, codices 426, n. 6; 1603, n. 14; and 2376, n. 14, *Compendium of Zoroastrian and Platonic dogmas*; but there also in codex 2832, n. 5: Pletho’s *Exposition of the magical oracles*; and n. 6, of the same, *Exposition of the Chaldean dogmas*. (HARL.)
7. I also read in a catalog, I know not which: Georgius Gemistus Pletho, *Historia della monarchia de los Persas*, translated into Spanish by D. Pedro Davii, in 4to, Valladolid 1604, I, 19 (n). And these are indeed published. D
8. Other things remain unpublished, and are of no little importance. Namely, I have noted elsewhere excerpts, or things worthy of note, etc. (ALLAT.) I have already occupied myself more fully above at vol. VIII, p. 79 seqq., note dd. In Munich, in the Bavarian codex 48, formerly 183, more works of Pletho are found: 1 (from Appian’s *History of the Macedonian kings*; (o) 2) from Strabo; 3) from Theophrastus, *On the History of Plants*, which are not found in the editions; 4) from Aristotle’s *History of Animals*, an unpublished excerpt; 5) from the same Aristotle’s *History of Animals, Physiognomica*, unpublished; 6) from Diodorus Siculus’ *Histories of the Assyrian and Median Empire*; 7) of Xenophon; 8) from the first book of the *Roman Antiquities* of Dionysius of Halicarnassus; 9) from the same, Book 1, *On the gods whom Aeneas brought from Troy to Italy*; 10) from Prodicus in the book *On Hercules*. There follow 11) *Excerpts concerning the happy success of the Arabs under King Umar and the Emperor Heraclius, and concerning the kings of the Romans*, which, whether they also have Pletho as author, whose other little works follow immediately, is not clear to me. Conf. Hardt, in *Aretini Beytragen*, etc., year 1803, part VI, p. 12-17. Ibid., in codex 59, at the end, from Strabo’s *Geography*, *On the figure of the inhabited earth*. See Hardt, loc. cit. year 1804, part I, p. 42; and conf. above at vol. IV, p. 574 sq. and p. 575, § 4; and ibid. p. 669, n. 26. — Venice, in the Marcian library, 379, *Pletho's Excerpts from Strabo*, which the celebrated Morelli examined and expounded diligently and copiously in *Biblioth. mss. Gr. et Lat.* I, p. 244 seqq. Idem, ibid. p. 269-274, carefully follows everything which codex Marc. 406, written out by the hand of Georgius Gemistus Pletho himself, contains, his excerpts from ancient authors and other matters of his own. These are almost the same things which we noted from the Bavarian codex, except that in the Marcian codex there are also found, concerning those things which were done among the Greeks after the battle of Mantinea, and also a note on the ancient Greek militia, without a title, which the celebrated Morelli thinks is by the same Pletho. This little work, which we indicated from the Bavarian codex n. 2, indeed lacks the author's name in this Marcian codex, but it is written in Gemistus’ hand. At Madrid in the Royal codex 10, besides the things which I have already mentioned above in the note at vol. VIII, p. 81, there are Pletho’s *Excerpts from Theophrastus’ books on the history of plants, and from Aristotle’s books on animals*. See Iriart, loc. cit. p. 28. Vienna in the imperial codex 87, n. 2 sqq. Excerpts 1) from Diodorus Siculus; 2) from Arrian, *on the expedition of Alexander the Great*, book V, p. 228 seqq. ed. Gronov.; 3) from the same Arrian’s book VII, p. 283 seqq.; 4) from Prodicus in the manuscript of Xenophon, *on Hercules*; 7) from Arrian, loc. cit., books IV and V, p. 158 and 203, *on the labors of Alexander*; 8) *on Thessaly*, from Strabo; 10) from Polybius’ *History*, Book I, *Prooemium*; 11) *Note on the preceding prooemium*; Supplement p. 551 seqq. — At Leiden in the public library among the Vossian codices, see above at vol. VIII, p. 81. Paris, in the public library, *Description of the world from Strabo*, in codices 817, n. 14; 1191, n. 28; 1415, formerly Colbertin. *Description of the world*, excerpts from geographic books, 1603, n. 15; 1739 n. 2-9 and 24; 2426 n. 9. *On the figure of Italy* from Polybius in codices 462, n. 8; and 2376, n. 15, in which there is also the *Chorography of Thessaly*, in which he excerpted Strabo. *On the Assyrian and Median empire*, from Diodorus Sic. in codices 1747 and following; 1802, and 2902, n. 13. (HARL.)
(n) In the *Bibliotheca Hispanica* of Nic. Antonius, tom. II, p. 150, the title of this book appears more fully as follows: *George Gemista, or Pletho, the later history of the Monarchy of the Persians until Alexander the Great, with some lives of famous Greek Captains translated from the Latin of Aemilius Probus*, Valladolid 1604, 4to. This is the Spanish version of Gemistus’ books *on the deeds of the Greeks after the battle of Mantinea*.
(o) From Appian’s *Syriaca*, an excerpt *on the Macedonian kings of Syria*, ms. in the imperial library. [See above at vol. V, p. 250.] In the same are also contained Pletho’s excerpts from Aelian *on the properties of animals*, and from Procopius etc. [from Procopius, in the imperial codex of Vienna 87, n. 19. See Kollar, *Supplement to Lambecius*, p. 561].
in Hermogenes' art of rhetoric. It was in the library of Antonius Augustinus, codex 225. [Conf. the illustrious Hardt, in *Aretini Beytragen*, etc., year 1803, p. 1, p. 42]. And in the Royal Scoriac [library], *On Virtues, rhetorical prooemia*, [and] *Aristotelian questions*. Concerning virtues, rhetorical prooemia, and Aristotelian questions. [See above, vol. VI, p. 76, §§ 6 and 7.] *Against Strabo* regarding certain things incorrectly enumerated by him in *Geography*. [See the illustrious Morell, l. c. p. 236 sqq.] In the Palatine [library] at Heidelberg, codex 177, and in British and Gallic manuscripts, and elsewhere: 'From Strabo’s *Geographica*, concerning the figure of the inhabited earth, corrected by Gemistus Plethon (p).' In the Vatican [library], the Royal Scoriac VI B’, 10; and VI ζ’, 6. Venetian [library] of St. Mark, shelf 21, no. 17, and the Ambrosian [library] of Milan. [Conf. to no. 8, and above, vol. IV, p. 669, n. 26, and Kollar, *Supplem. ad Lambecii Comm.* p. 556 sqq. n. 16, codex 87, which contains many of Plethon’s works. HARL.] — *On the Isthmus*, Venetian [library] of St. Mark, shelf 32, no. 22 (Allat.); at Vienna in the Imperial codex XC, no. 4; *On the Isthmus*, and no. 7, *Chorography of Thessaly*. See Lambecius VII, p. 347 and 350 sqq. — At Florence in the Laurentian library, codex 53, no. 6, plut. 57. Gemistus’ epistle to the emperor Manuel Palaeologus regarding Peloponnesian affairs and especially *On the Isthmus*; which epistle is different from the same Plethon’s oration to the same emperor concerning Peloponnesian affairs. See to no. 3 and 8. (HARL.)
11. *Allocution*. It was not similar, O most divine one, [to] the ends of the enemies. At Milan in the Ambrosian [library].
12. *Certain musical chapters*, by Plethon. Bavarian codex 183 [which is now numbered 48, see Hardt, l. c. year 1803, part VI, p. 17]. — At Venice in the Bibl. Marc., codex 406. V. Morell, *Bibl. ms. I*, p. 273 sqq., who notes that some things were taken word for word from Aristoxenus and Quintilian; but that in the margin at the beginning someone else had written *Plethon*. Harl.]
13. *Prooemium to the discourse of the emperor Manuel Palaeologus, a funeral oration for his brother* (r). *Pre-meditation for the emperor Manuel’s funeral oration for his brother. P. The prooemium [is] pathetic, and as one would be most fitting for a brother.* A funeral oration for Helena Palaeologina, in the Vatican and Altempsian libraries. Another for the empresses Hypomone and Cleope. In the index of manuscript codices: *Monodia for the renowned lady Hypomone* (s). *Monodia for the renowned lady Hypomone. In which also, not long after, was read: Plethon’s Monodia for Hypomone and Cleope, the empresses.* Plethon’s Monodia for the empresses Hypomone and Cleope. From these, excerpts which treat of the immortality of the soul are in my possession, and were in the Saregic library, as Justus Rycquius reports in his *Centuria nova*, ep. 29. *Funeral oration on the death of Queen Cleopa Palaeologina, in which the immortality of the soul is discussed.* In the Augustan [library], an index of manuscripts, and the Lollian [library]. And in the Royal Scoriac library: *Funeral oration for the empress, and on the immortality of the soul*, 11, no. 5.
14. *Epitome of Sicilian histories* (t), if the title does not deceive, which however the Gesnerian epitomators acknowledge. In the library of the Emperor of Vienna, Austria. Possevinus in his *Indices*.
(p) This writing [the original] possessed; and Lucas Holstenius wished to publish it in [his] *Syntagma of Greek Geographers*. See Lambecius, lib. I, p. 114 (p. 241 sqq. Kollar.) (q) It exists also in the Imperial library. Lambecius VII, p. 165 [p. 350 sq. ed. Kollar, no. 7, codex 90. Conf. Morelli, *Bibl. ms.* I, p. 270, and p. 247. Harl.] You will learn from the ninth book of Strabo from Labbe’s *Bibl. nova mss.* p. 120. [Add. to no. 8.] (r) Published with the prooemium in Greek and Latin with the oration itself of Manuel Palaeologus for his brother Theodore the despot, vol. II of the *Auctarium novum Bibl. Patrum*, page 1037, Paris, 1648, fol. [Conf. Lambec. VII, p. 535.] (s. funeral eulogy) of the empress Cleopa Itala and Monodia for the blessed lady Hypomone. See Iriart, *Cat. codd. Gr. Matrit.* p. 459. In codex Bavar. 29 (formerly 162). *Oration for the empress Hypomone*. See Hardt, l. c. year 1803, part IV, page 28. *Two funeral orations of Gemistus Plethon and Mich. Apostolius, in which the immortality of the soul is set forth.* Now for the first time from the [Wratislavian] manuscript edited by G. G. Fülleborn, Leipzig, 1793 (but truly 1792), May 8. It is an *Oration on the death of Cleopa, who died in the year 1433*. See the illustrious Fülleborn, pref. p. 6 sq. and in *Censura in Jen. A. L. Z.* 1794, no. 218, p. 29 sqq., certain places of Plethon are amended. (HARL.) (t) It is suspected to be understood, already mentioned above, num. 8. Not to be omitted also is the double writing of Gemistus found in the Imperial library, passed over by Allatius: *Astrological method of finding the place of the sun and moon and the position of the stars according to the canons which he himself composed*, which are themselves also subjected [to the text], together with an *Introduction to Genethlialogy*. The same one’s *Chronological Canon from Nabonassar to the emperor Michael Palaeologus*. See Lambecius, VII, page 196 [sq. p. 449, ed. Koll. no. 6 and 7 codex 90]. FABR. To these add the book *On the generation of the gods*, Paris, in the public library codex 2045, no. 3, beginning: "First concerning the..." Plethon's com...
Amentary, without the author's name, in codex Bavar. 29, see Hardt, in *Aretini Beyträgen*, etc., year 1803, part iv, p. 31? HARL.]
18. However, when Gemistus wrote that book on the *Difference between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy* [see at no. 5], he did not merely examine the difference between the two, but rather, by keenly exaggerating all kinds of invective, he was not afraid to offer insults to a primary man; he stirred up against himself the hatred and pens of most excellent men (u); for they could not suffer an innocent man to be so foully and enormously torn apart. Among them was the most gentle Bessarion, whose truly golden and pious opinion was put to Michael Apostolius: *Οὐ λοιδορίαις τοῦ ἀντιδίκου, ἀλλ' ἀποδείξεσι, καὶ λογικαῖς ἀνάγκαις τῷ φίλῳ συνηγορητέον, τόν τ' ἐχθρὸν ἀμυντέον.* "Not with insults against the adversary, but with demonstrations and indissoluble arguments must one assist a friend, and take vengeance upon an enemy." A pamphlet in defense of Aristotle against Plethon, though he was his teacher, was composed: *Πρὸς τὰ Πλήθωνος πρὸς Ἀριστοτέλην περὶ οὐσίας* (Against the remarks of Plethon on Aristotle concerning substance). It begins: *Εἰ τις ἁπλῶς τε καὶ ἅμα.* And Theodorus Gaza, most instructed in the knowledge of philosophical arts and not inferior to Plethon himself, responded for Plethon; Michael Apostolius responded to Gaza; Andronicus Callistus responded to Apostolius, and Bessarion the cardinal himself, by a letter sent on this matter, repressed the rash attempts of Apostolius and compelled him to recant. Georgius Scholarius, also stinging Plethon with common zeal and the gifts of intellect in which he excelled, defended Aristotle—with the intention of showing that the doctrine of Aristotle is much more excellent (r) than the Platonic. Plethon, bearing this too anxiously, not with dissimilar carts of reproaches—from which Bessarion had always restrained himself even against Plethon—replied to Scholarius, whose ignorance he attempts to show with insults in many places, and, tenacious of his own judgment, he assiduously extols Plato, and casts Aristotle from on high in his booklet, which he entitled: *Πρὸς τὰς Σχολαρίου ὑπὲρ ᾿Αριστοτέλους ἀντιλήψεις* (Against the objections of Scholarius in behalf of Aristotle). It begins: *Ἐγὼ μὲν οὐκ ὀψὲ ὡς γε σὺ φῂς, ἀλλ' ὅτε τὸ πρῶτον*—the epilogue or conclusion of the book itself. It begins: *Ἃ μὲν οὖν τῆς βίβλου ἐν ἀρχῇ ἡμῖν προυτέθη*. Florent. in the Laurentian library, codex 18, no. 6, plut. 56. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laur.* 2, p. 317, which is imperfect, a small book, and for this reason was written by the same hand in the margin: "Seek the omitted parts, etc." The parts that follow must be sought; though, as they say, destroyed by Scholarius, they can scarcely be found. Yet in this work questions are treated concerning metaphysics, concerning God, and concerning eternity. Vienna, in codex 91, no. 4, where the conclusion of Plethon's work *On Laws* is found. See Lambec. VII, p. 364, and note 2 there. Separately therein in codex 179, no. 2. See Lambec. V, p. 466 sq. Ibid. in codex 87, no. 17 of the author (whether of Plethon, whose many works are listed in that codex?) a brief critical annotation regarding the time of the Nativity, Passion, and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ: it begins: *Ἔτος ἦν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ καὶ στάσεως κόσμου.* 48 of the same (as Kollar thinks in *Supplem. ad Lambecii comment.*, p. 559 sqq., where he reviews that codex more fully). An excerpt *On Dreams*, from Macrobius's commentaries on the dream of Scipio, chapters 3 and 4, by Maximus Planudes in Greek verses. From the Nanian codex 291 Mingarell. in *Gr. codd. apud Nanios*, p. 488; he extracted a passage of Plethon in which, concerning Dictys and his narrative on the Trojan war, and on a recent version (from the Latin into the Italian language), as if he had received it from the Anconitan, singular things are related. (HARL.)
(u) On this literary controversy of the philosophers of the fifteenth century, it will be useful to consult the learned *Diatribe* of Boivin, inserted in the fourth volume of the *Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres*, which were published in French at Paris in 4to, and at Amsterdam in 1719, 12mo. Among other things, page 485 sq., he brings forward in French a letter of Nic. Secundinus given at Viterbo 5 Jan. 1462, to Andronicus Callistus, in which he extols his writing against Apostolius and Gaza with great praises: he detests the insults and calumnies of Apostolius. [Conf. above, vol. XI, p. 291 sq., especially Zenus in *Dissert. Vossiana*, tom. I, p. 542, sect. 7, concerning this letter to Andronicus Callistus and his codices; Paris among the Royal codices (witness Labbe in *Nova bibl. mss. libror.*, p. 401), in the Naudeana library, and in the work of Frid. Sylburg in *Cat. codd. gr. Palatin.*, Frankf. 1701, 4to, p. 40, he discusses it more broadly; finally, from Reiser's index of manuscripts of the Augustan library (p. 85, where he also reveals that certain works of Plethon exist in the same place) he mentions the Letter of Andronicus Callistus to Nicolaus Secundinus. The Letter of Bessarion to Nicol. Secundinus, which contains the exceeding praises of Gemistus, the celebrated Morell published to the light from the *bibl. ms. Gr. et Lat.* I, p. 212 sq., from the codex of the *bibl. Marc.* 533, Gr. with a Latin interpretation. The Letter of Mich. Apostolius to Bessarion; his letter to Andronicus, son of Callistus, and to Mich. Apostolius; then the Letter of Nicol. Secundinus to Andron. Callistus, and others are in Florence, in the Laurentian library, codex 33, no. 8, plut. 58. Bandini will provide more, *l. c.* II, p. 482 sq. The Letter of Bessarion to Mich. Apostol. in Greek with the Latin version of Boivin in the *Mémoires*, etc. *Geschichte der Kön. Akademie der schön. Wissensch.* at Paris, translated from the French into German by Luisa Adelg. Vict. Gottsched, part II, p. 577 sqq. HARL.] Then, p. 488 sq., two Bessarion [letters] to Callistus, one short and another more prolix to Apostolius, namely that very one from which Altanus brought back that golden counsel, and most worthy of that sweetest cardinal; most worthy also, that it be read frequently by the Apostolii of our age who are not ashamed to denigrate and lacerate most excellent men for their own fame. [Add what I wrote in *Introd. in Dist. L. Gr.* II, part 1, p. 549, in the note.]
(v) And more conformable to Christian dogmas, and the more easily to be reconciled with them. Bessarion's and the remaining cited letters are also at Madrid. See Iriart, *Cat. cit.*, p. 156. (Harl.)
A ...must be sent. It is read in the Augustan library (x) [See Reiser, *Index mss. bibl. August.*, p. 901], the Altempsian, the Ambrosian at Milan, and the Venetian St. Mark’s, shelf 27, no. 51 (y) in my possession; it was in the Royal [library], as the aforementioned Ryckius relates regarding the Epistle. Gesner records that he saw it at Bologna at St. Savior’s, but it was imperfect. When I was staying at Heidelberg, I surrendered this treatise—which was ancient for its author's age, and elegantly and accurately copied, and which I had received as a gift from Nicolaus Alemannus—to Gotthard Voegelin, a sufficiently celebrated printer, at his own urgent request, so that he might publish it alongside another work, *On the Difference between Plato and Aristotle*, and, if possible, also in Latin with the most elegant type; whether it has been published, to this day (z) I do not know. *On Fate*. In the Augustan library (a), the Ambrosian at Milan, and the Holy Apostles at Naples among the regular clerics, from which work it was copied; by the kindness of the most pious and to me most friendly Neophytus Rhodinus, it is kept with me as well.
B ...at Vienna, in the Imperial codex 90, no. 2, Bessarion’s *Epistle to George Gemistus Plethon*; and no. 3, *Plethon’s two responsive epistles to the aforementioned Epistle of Bessarion*. See Lambecius VII, p. 346; Kollar. The same at Florence, in the Laurentian library, codex 23, nos. 3 and 4, shelf 58. See Bandini, *loc. cit.* II, p. 81. In the Royal codex 34, many things are found that pertain to this; see above, *ad vol.* XI, p. 191, note 9, regarding this Madrid and other codices; and p. 192, regarding the *Epistle of Michael Apostolius to Plethon*. Among other things, in the Madrid codex are *Bessarion’s Four Questions to Gemistus Plethon*: 1st, *On the Self-Subsistent*; 2nd, *On the Communicable and Incommunicable*; 3rd, *On the Synonymy or Homonymy of Beings*; 4th, *On Fate*. There follow Gemistus’s four solutions, responding to just as many of Bessarion’s questions, the first of which begins: "Οὐ πάντα οἴεσθαι χρὴ τοὺς ἄνδρας" [Not everything ought to be believed about these men], and the fourth, or *On Fate*, begins: "Οὐχ οἷόν τε" [It is not possible]. The fourth solution is followed by another epistle of Plethon to Bessarion, in which he strives to solve each of the latter's questions, mentioned earlier, for a second time. Iriarte wrote more about them in *Cat. codd. Gr. Matrit.*, p. 136 *sq.* At Leiden, in the public library among the Scaligerian manuscripts, are the alternating epistles between Bessarion and Plethon. See *Cat. bibl. Leid.*, p. 341, no. 51. At Paris, in the public library, codices 462, nos. 4 and 5; 1739, nos. 16 and 17; 2376, nos. 8 and 9, are *Bessarion’s Questions and Plethon’s Solutions*; and codex 2966, no. 5, is *Plethon’s Reply to things that Bessarion had objected to him*. (Harl.)
21. *The order of the years and the enumeration of the days*. At the Escorial, in the Royal library II, no. 5. (Allat.) See Fabricius *ad* no. 23, note f (Harl.)
22. *Physical demonstrations on God*. "Πᾶν τὸ ἐνεργείᾳ ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔχει τινὰ κατὰ φύσιν ἐνέργειαν" [Every thing-in-act necessarily possesses a certain activity according to nature]. (Allat.) See the note *ad* no. 17. (Harl.)
23. *On legislation, and three books of laws*: of which the top two, *On the Months and Years*, and *demonstrations on God*, are entirely segments. This is also indicated, it seems, by Gaza, ch. 1, *On the Months*: "καὶ Πλήθων δὴ ἐφ' ἡμῶν ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐπιφανῶν χαλεπὸν ἡγούμενος εὑρεῖν τὸ ἀνάλογον τούτοις εἴα ἐπιζητεῖν. Κᾆν τοῖς περὶ νομοθεσίας δὴ λόγοις περὶ ἡμερῶν καὶ μηνῶν, καὶ ἐνιαυτοῦ ὑφηγούμενος, οὐκ ὀνομάζει, ὡς Ἀττικοὶ ἦγον τοὺς μῆνας" [And Plethon, a man of our time among the notable ones, deeming it difficult to find the analogy to these things, let alone inquire. And in his discourses on legislation, while setting forth things about days and months and the year, he does not name how the Attics kept their months]. And indeed Plethon, a man of this century, judging it a laborious task...
to inquire by what means they mutually correspond, ceased his inquiry: in his commentaries on the institution of laws, although he gives precepts concerning days, months, and the year, he does not say a single word about the way in which the Athenians conducted their own months. We transcribed the first part in our treatise *On the Measure of Ancient Times*—and especially of the Greeks—chapter 12 [see note 21], when we were answering Gaza on behalf of Plethon, whom Gaza criticizes piecemeal in his booklet on the months. Plethon’s books are clearly of a genius equal to the treasures of all antiquity and the theology of the ancient philosophers; rare, however, and it is uncertain to me whether they are preserved entire anywhere B, though they are unworthy of lying hidden for so long, and worthy of the light, and of being leafed through by the hands of all.
The publication of these C, and the fact that most people were not well disposed toward him for other reasons, brought upon him the offense of many, who, having inveighed sharply against him, not only held the man up to mockery and heaped curses upon him, but also affirmed that he had fallen away from the Christian faith—by the proof of the doctrine of these books, and no other—and warned other followers of the Christian religion to abstain from similar books and from the man, and to guard themselves against his dogmas, which were no less pernicious than the doctrine of Muhammad; in which matter Georgius Trapezuntius in his *Comparison of Plato and Aristotle*, chapter before last, book III, and Manuel, rhetorician of the Great Church, against Plethon on the procession of the Holy Spirit, showed themselves to be more unjust to him than others, and than was right, following also the opinion of the patriarch Scholarius: *“Just as at that time there were certain ones of this kind, who had shared in logic, either for a short while, or not at all,”* etc. Just as at that time there were certain people in whom there was little or no logical art, but who were, however, inconsiderate followers of the most empty rumor spread by the plain devil, just as the populace is wont to cling to a man of no account as if to the lightest chaff. But the great and grand in holiness and truly most blessed patriarch Gennadius, known as Scholarius, attained such a point of perspicacity—not only in secular but in our divine doctrine, to such an overflowing degree—that he was a perennial river of both wisdoms, proved by the testimony of all, as is manifest to those who have anything of logical disciplines in their breast, from his commentaries. This most holy man, having examined the affairs of our fine Gemistus, and having perceived the perniciousness and dullness innate in his double-dealing, passed sentence upon him in this fashion: Although a few days ago Plethon attempted to restore many of the gods of the gentiles, this was a vice of his dull design and intellect, and we have written many things in his madness, lest any of the simpler folk, believing in the fame of his empty wisdom, should incur danger. For he was infected with mathematical disciplines—but those which were from the trivium—from which he had perceived no fruit. He devoted himself to eloquence, but in the most impious and most foolish writings; and this is expressed by the best proverb of the Latins: “A pure Grammarian, a pure Ass,” so rude and differing in no way from the vile and vulgar class of men in judging between truth and falsehood. Wherefore anyone could refute him with ease, and he could not even answer a boy, provided the boy lied for the sake of trying him. On account of this, that man was carried away into such great error. Theodorus Gaza likewise, book *On the Months*, chapter 16: *“What might the hieromeniai be? Plethon ventures to say, as if he were legislating something different from the things accepted by us. For us, however, there is by no means any need, especially since the argument is not about this now.”* Moreover, which days were celebrated and holidays, it was not indecorous for Plethon to list, as one who establishes different feast days than those accepted by us. To us, however, that is by no means necessary: since the discourse at present is not about these, and he elsewhere often covertly carps at the man; let others judge whether deservedly. I would say that Plethon excelled in eloquence, in the sharpness of his talent, and in all disciplines, and gained for himself much and great equipment from the assiduous reading of writers: hence, in digging up from the hiding places of the philosophers, and especially from the Platonic opinions, and handing them down in writing, he turned his mind—addicted more than was right to memory—and with stubborn zeal he even gnawed with a biting tooth at the opinions of those who thought otherwise, not in order to propagate his own wicked dogmas anew—which he himself learnedly refutes—into the minds of men, as if fixed there by themselves, but that from so vast and lamentable shipwreck he might gather the torn and drifting planks into one, as it were, into a secure and safe port; and from this the majesty of the Christian religion and the truth might appear more clearly, because the most holy heads of our religion before and after Plethon D...
A did not accomplish this with blameless labor, diligence, and remarkably profitable study, nor has anyone accused them of impiety. For what forbids making known to the ignorant, without offense to the Christian cause, the mysteries and ceremonies of the ancients, while at the same time approving them? But he wrote a hymn, and a most elegant one, to the sun. I confess it. Did he praise the sun as God, did he refer it to the gods as God, and did he stretch out supplicant hands to it as to God? Fables. He expressed the admirable power of the most splendid planet, and its benefits poured out upon the human race, as a restless servant and faithful minister to Almighty God at every nod. He asserted that a religion other than the Christian would emerge after not many days. Does this degenerate into paganism? Has this been a renunciation of piety? In this age also, by the most prudent and pious men, while the depraved morals of men are seen daily rushing toward the worse, so that they show no form of piety, no Christian goodness, it is continuously asserted that the faith and the Christian religion have been changed into one form and another, and will finally collapse into something foreign, and one laments with a sad countenance. What have morals to do with religion itself? What has practice to do with dogmas? I do not see the end of the faith. I do not approve. To the very end of the world, a life like that of men will be produced; is it therefore the case that approved and Christian morals will always persist, and will not degenerate into vices far removed from Christian piety and religion? This is true, that Plethon's intellect, even if it was criticized by adversaries, nevertheless his manner of life was never condemned, even by those who argued against all his works. From this you may argue that such a crime could not be attached to such a man, unless through base villainy. Therefore, while Trebizondius, Scholarius, and others inveigh against Plato as the most pernicious of all writers, Plethon, being most addicted to Plato, could not escape the charge of inconstancy, nor that of calumnies. These things concerning religion. What about his doctrine and eloquence, which Scholarius—though he does so almost alone—longs for in him? That I may not seem to deal with the matter in words, I will draw testimony from his enemies. Bessarion to Apostolius: "A wise man, and in very truth a man of great talent." Sapiens, and great, to tell the truth, that man was in the dexterity of his intellect. Trebizondius, in the cited place: "Gemistus is not less than Plato in eloquence, not inferior to him in knowledge." And: "Gemistus—for some of his writings exist and are found at Rome—writes so ornately and elegantly, so briefly and distinctly relates the figments of Plato, so defends the opinions of paganism, so, I would believe, attacks our own in those books, that no one B unless most learned could mutter against him." And: "He is most serious in discourse, most cunning in doctrine, and by far superior in his cause; for he does not invent new things, but recalls old ones with new arguments." And Theodorus Gaza, cap. 1, concerning the months: "Καὶ Πλήθων δ' ἐφ' ἡμῶν ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐπιφανῶν· And Plethon, a man of this age, celebrated." And: "Καί τοι τἆλλα τὰ περὶ τὴν φωνὴν ἔπεσθαι προθυμούμενος Αττικοῖς, καὶ σφόδρα περὶ τοῦτο σπουδάζων· Although in other matters which pertain to language he desires with great vows to emulate the Attics, and in this he bestows diligent effort." I shall conclude with the testimony of Michael Apostolius, who once was mad with love for Plethon: "Ἀνδρὸς οὐ μόνον τοῖς νῦν ζῶσιν αἰδέσιμου, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτῷ Ἀριστοτέλει, καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς παλαιοῖς, εἴγε κατ' ἐκείνους ἐγένετο ὁ ἀνὴρ. A man to be venerated not only by those who live now, but even by Aristotle himself, and all the ancients, had he been of their age." Was there then a lack of wisdom or eloquence in Gemistus, which his adversaries themselves claim and assert with full throats? And in truth, the opinion of Scholarius and Manuel was not born from judgment, but from rage and a lust for calumny. For Plethon is a man with a style indeed accurate, elegant, pressing, full of Attic juice, grave in his sentences, vehement in his arguments, but in learning and the collection of ancient things sometimes obscure and difficult; yet not on account of the Graces and Venuses, which he sprinkles everywhere to annoy one’s diction: so that he is not undeservedly compared with the ancients, and is preferred by many to the writers of his own age. I, for one, when I read something of his, admire the juice of most ancient antiquity and the style that is plainly Attic, whatever little justice others may show him. In the Barberini library, cod. 265, is held: Πλήθωνος νόμων συγγραφῆς βιβλίον α' Plethonis De legibus liber primus. There are only six chapters. In which someone—I know not who—has noted: "This much from that divine volume of the politics, or of the laws of Gemistus, has reached us; the remainder the sacrilegious Scholarius consumed with flames; and he indulged so much in old hatred and enmity that he did not even spare the common utility, raging against the books when he could not against the author." (ALLAT.) In the Munich codex Bavar. 48, towards the end, there is a Fragment from Plethon, which the celebrated Hardio in *Aretini Beytrægen*, etc., year 1803, part VI, p. 18, seems to be a Fragment of the book *De legibus*, and in which various illicit couplings, and the penalty established for each, are recounted. (HARL.) C ...περὶ τῆς ἐκπορεύσεως τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. De processione Spiritus sancti contra Latinos, or by this inscription: Ἀπόδειξις ὅτι ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, καὶ οὐδὲν ὅλως ἀδύνατον ἕπεται. Demonstratio, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and that no absurdity follows therefrom. P. τὸ ὑπὲρ Λατίνων βιβλίον, τὸ ἐς ἡμᾶς ἦχον (e). Which, when he had sought arguments to prove it from the foundations of pagan philosophy, did not even satisfy the Greeks themselves concerning the schism, but from these Manuel Pelopannisius, rhetorician of the Great Church, who lived under Patriarch Pachomius (f), as is related of him in the Historia...
Ecclesiastica, refutes the arguments of Plethon in a book published on this subject, the beginning of which is: "Not yet having judged men, do not leave the ignorant alone"; in this little book he accuses him of impiety and paganism no less than others do in their books on the laws. I shall append here the words of Manuel, since they are not so readily available to everyone—though not all of them: "For behold, the most godless Gemistus, in his own composition, sets himself up as a judge on matters of which he clearly lacks any precise grasp. Yet he secretly mocks Christian wisdom, while endeavoring to dogmatize on the impious myth-making of the Greeks. For, he says, where the powers are different, the essences themselves would also be different. And the foolish Plethon, wishing only to disparage our affairs, takes the very saying of the Gospel literally and thinks to lead the discourse to the contrary, raging wildly against the divine wisdom of we Christians. And simply to say it, the entire such composition appears to have been compiled against us with malice; its rottenness and dullness are evident to anyone possessed of reason and education, but to his followers, and especially to those who follow his words irrationally and brutishly, or rather servilely, it will be considered something as a refutation." Observe, I ask you, the most impious Gemistus in his commentary, setting himself up as a judge in matters of which he possesses no precise comprehension at all. Here he secretly and contemptuously attacks Christian wisdom, and contends to peddle to men the execrable myth-making of the pagan gods as if it were dogma. Whose faculties, he says, are diverse, and whose essence is also diverse. And: Plethon, of captured mind, wishing only to disparage our things and hold them up to mockery, seizing upon the very saying of the Gospel, thinks to snatch the discourse into the contrary, raging profusely against the divine wisdom of the Christians; and, to use one word, he seems to have written his whole commentary against us with guile, the weakness and stupidity of which is clear to everyone imbued with logical doctrine; but to his followers, to those who follow his words without reason, in the manner of beasts, or rather of slaves, it will be deemed to offer something in opposition. A The book is available in manuscript in the Vatican, Augustan, and Ambrosian libraries, and elsewhere. (ALLAT.) Regarding the Vatican and other codices, see those cited by Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca bibliothecarum manuscriptorum* under the entry "Gemistus" and "Georgius Gemistus." Regarding the codex of the Augustan library, see Reiser, *Index mss. bibl. August.*, p. 90. Paris, in the public library, codex 949, n. 6, 2045, n. 2—Moscow, in the synodal library, codex 511, Gemistus' *Book on behalf of the Latin dogma*, beginning: "That which is on behalf of the Latins." See Matthæi, *Notit. codd. Gr. Mosq.*, p. 204, n. 44. The same is in Madrid, in the Royal Library, codex 115, n. 128, and a note ascribed to Constantine Lascaris teaches that it was written against Argyropulus' book *On the Dogma of the Latins* (concerning which see above, vol. XI, p. 464 sq.). See Iriart, *Cat. codd. Gr. Matrit.*, p. 459; and in Turin, Royal Library, codex 161. See *Cat. codd. Gr. Taur.*, p. 245. In Florence, in the Laurentian Library, 18, 11, 8, plut. 56, is the book mentioned by Fabricius in a note at the beginning of this §, but inscribed: "Gemisti's book on behalf of the Latins to Nicaenus, and Nicaenus' apology, and the same Plethon's contradiction at the end." Against the book of Nicaenus for the Latins, with the same Nicaenus' responses, and at the end Plethon's own contradiction. That book on behalf of the Latins, which has come down to us, begins: "To defend one's own opinion." Nicaenus' apology or responses are transcribed in the margin. See Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr. Laurent.* II, p. 518. (HARL.)
25. Others appear to be kept in the Augustan library; the manuscript index [see Reiser, *Index* cit., p. 85] of Venice, St. Mark's, which was Bessarion's, bench 32, n. 22 [see above at n. 2 and 8], and in Naples in the monastery of the Augustinians of Saint John of Carbonaria [see above at vol. V, p. 797, n. 22, and Montfaucon, *Diar. Ital.*, p. 311]; B in the Ambrosian, a *Prosphonematicus* (h) which, whether it is the same or different from some of those listed above, I do not know.
26. Lilius Gyraldus in his second dialogue on the poets of his time states that he also played at verse. He died having attained a very great old age, as one born a hundred years, if we believe Trapezuntius (i). Hermonymus Charitonymus and Gregory the monk performed for him a sufficiently ample funeral with an encomiastic oration. Both exist in the Augustan library [see Reiser, *Ind.* cit. p. 90]. He left sons, Demetrius and Andronicus, as is made clear from an epistle by the same (j) after Plethon's death to his friend Cardinal Bessarion yet unpublished. [This epistle exists in Vienna in the Caesar codex 276, n. 9, and 237, n. 1. See Lambec, V, p. 567 and 452, Kollar; and in Venice in the Marciana Library, codex 333, see *Cat. codd. Gr. Marc.*, p. 152, especially the illustrious Morell in *Bibl. ms. Gr. et Lat.*, p. 212; who, since he demonstrated that everything in this Allatius edition is most corrupt, I did not wish to repeat that epistle of Bessarion here, just as Allatius had edited it. HARL.] At the end of the epistle, a distich and a tetrastich were added in honor of the same Gemistus, both uncultivated, barbarous, and lacking in meter; however, as an indication of the spirit, which we should not cheat, such as it is, we shall transcribe both here. We cannot all do everything:
Γαῖαν σώματι, ψυχῇ δ᾽ ἄστρα Γεώργιος ἴσχει Παντοίης σοφίης σεμνότατον τέμενος.
Terram corpore, animo stellas Georgius possidet, Universæ sapientiæ venerabilissimum templum.
And,
ANOTHER NOTICE
ADORNED IN FRENCH
From the Preface of the most distinguished D. Alexandre to Pletho's *On the Laws*, passim.
George Gémistus, better known since by the name of Pletho, was born in Constantinople (1) around 1355 (2), of a family which, it is said, was not lacking in distinction (3). The reasons that forced him to leave that city are unknown. We only know that at a poorly determined period of his life, probably toward the end of his youth, he had to seek asylum in Adrianople, then the capital of the Ottoman Empire: he attached himself there to a certain Jew, Elisha, very influential at the Sublime Porte, who occupied himself with occult sciences and ended up being burned alive (4). It is undoubtedly after the disgrace and death of this Jew that he moved his residence to the Morea, where he established himself at Mistra—the ancient Sparta, the chief town at that time of a Greek principality under the government of one of the Palaiologoi. He spent almost the rest of his life there, occupied with literature and philosophy, in which he seems to have held a school, and invested, at least in the latest period, with high judicial functions (5).
One can assign to the beginnings of this period his treatise *On the Virtues* (6), where a sound doctrine reigns, foreign to the ideas of his old age; perhaps also another work cited as his, which we have not been able to procure: *Physical (or Natural) Proofs of the Existence of God* (7), and the *Prayer to the One God* (8). It is also here that we would place, but without enclosing ourselves within very precise limits, the majority of his historical, geographical, and astronomical works (9). These
books, for the most part simple compilations, bear witness to a laborious education rather than a great power of conception. But the genius that conceives and creates was not at that epoch a necessary condition in order to be admired, especially in Greece, in this country fallen into dissolution, where the remains of a dead literature were abandoned to the grammarians and the theologians. Moreover, the real qualities of Gemistus, his extensive instruction in all genres, his profound knowledge of classical antiquity, the very elegance of his style, though a little artificial, and that flower of Atticism of which he made a parade—a type of grace so sought after by the Greeks of the Lower Empire—are sufficient to explain the great reputation that he obtained among his compatriots.
He increased it through some works which announced the direction of his spirit toward political ideas. Thus, around the year 1415, we see him address a memorandum to the Emperor Manuel, and another to Prince Theodore (the younger), son of the emperor and new despot of the Morea, on the affairs of the Peloponnese (1), that is to say, on the interior organization of this country. In it, he traces with a firm hand bold plans for reform, social rather than administrative, and does not fear to offer himself to put them into execution. Another memorandum to the same emperor on the fortifications of the Isthmus (2) must be at just about the same date, as well as an admiring and emphatic development of the funeral oration pronounced by that prince in honor of his brother—a eulogy of a eulogy, rhetoric upon rhetoric—where the rhetorician does not even seek to disguise the courtier (3).
As a man of letters, as an erudite, as a scholar, his superiority over the majority of his contemporaries was incontestable; and it is by all these titles that he had the honor of counting among his disciples the illustrious Bessarion. This great man, whose high destiny nothing then announced, still young and having no other ambition than that of preparing himself for the monastic state, had come to settle in a convent of the Morea. He was fortunate, as his panegyrist Platina (4) informs us, to be able to profit there from the lessons of so skillful a master. We therefore find Pletho at this epoch, that is to say, around the year 1420, in full possession of his renown, although he had passed the maturity of age, if not yet of talent; he must have been over sixty years old. Let us hasten to say, to the praise of the master and the pupil, that these—let us confess it—even including astrology, some already printed, the majority unpublished and scattered in libraries (one can consult on the subject of them Allatius, *De Georgiis*, already cited; Fabricius with the notes of Harles, *Bibl. gr.*, vol. VIII, p. 80, and vol. XII, p. 87 seqq.; the catalogs of the great libraries, notably that of Saint-Marc in Venice, by Morelli, p. 245 sqq. and 269 sqq.; Kollarius, *de codd. mss. Georgii Gemisti operum*, in the supplement of Lambecius, p. 553 sqq. A small piece that we find indicated by M. Miller, p. 379 of his catalog, among the lost mss. of the Escurial under the title: "Funeral oration for the warriors who died in the Peloponnese, by Gemistus Pletho," was undoubtedly only an extract from Thucydides, copied and perhaps commented upon by Pletho: it would thus return to the class of his historical compilations. As for his works on Zoroaster, we shall have occasion to speak of them later.) manuscript at the Paris Library in no. 66 (suppl.), appeared following the *Eclogues* of Stobaeus, ed. of Canter, Antwerp, 1575, in-folio; they have not been reprinted. At the beginning of the first, Gemistus congratulates the emperor on having finally reconquered, by the valor of his sons, the entire Peloponnese. This can only be understood as the submission of the last Italian and Catalan lords of Achaea (*Ducas*, chap. 20, p. 102, ed. Bonn), a fact which relates to the last voyage of the Emperor Manuel to the Morea, in the year 1415, after the death of his brother Theodore, in order to consolidate there on the throne of this principality his own son, Theodore the younger (*Ducas, ibi*). Indeed, from that time on there remained for the foreigners only the cities of Clarence in Elis and Patras in Achaea, which were to be recovered by the Greeks under the following reign (*Chalcocondyl.*, book V, p. 240, ed. Bonn). It was also during this voyage that the emperor completed the fortification of the Isthmus of Corinth, and there is much question of it in the two Memoranda of Pletho, which must not for that reason be confused with the third Memorandum, of which we are about to speak.
(1) These two Memoranda, of which the first is found in manuscript at the Library of Paris in no. 66 (suppl.), appeared... (2) This piece, still unpublished, is found in the library of Florence, *cod. XXXIII*, no. 6 of the catalog of Bandini, and in that of Vienna, *cod. XC*, no. 4 of the catalog of Lambecius. As for its date, it is marked by its subject. The fortifications of the Isthmus, begun by order of the Emperor Manuel in 1405 (Phranza, book I, ch. 35), were finished under his eyes in 1415 (Chalcocondyl., book IV, p. 183 seqq., ed. Bonn); or it seems that this Memorandum must have been addressed to the emperor with the two preceding ones or shortly thereafter. See the previous note. (3) It was, in effect, during the voyage of 1415 that the Emperor Manuel pronounced the funeral oration for his brother (*Chalcocond.*, book IV, p. 216), and that Pletho could think of composing a eulogy of this discourse. Both pieces are printed in the *Auctarium novum Biblioth. Patr.*, t. II, p. 1037. (4) Platina, *Paneg. in laudem Bessarionis*, with the *Lives of the Popes*, Leipz. 1512, in-8º, p. 2 sq.: "*Postremo autem, ne aliquid tanto ingenio deesset, Platonem (leg. Plethonem) quem alii Gemistum (leg. Gemiston) vocant, doctissimum præceptorem et quem omnes secundum a Platone vocant, in Peloponneso, quo se contulerat doctrinæ causa, nactus, mathematicis accurate imbuitur.*" This word *nactus* seems opposed to the opinion of those who have written, like Tiraboschi, t. VI, book I, ch. 2, § 13, that Bessarion had come expressly to the Morea to take lessons from Gemistus. He perhaps came there with no other goal than to serve his apprenticeship in the religious life under the direction of Dositheus, bishop of Sparta, who soon, recognizing his wonderful dispositions, turned them toward literature and the sciences (Platina, *l. cit.*). For the rest, if one desires curious details on the stay of Bessarion in the Morea, and on the extreme poverty of this great man at the beginning of his life, one must look for them in a discourse that Syropulus attributes to him, Sect. v, c. 11.
A relationships left in the soul of Bessarion the impression of a deep and lasting gratitude. Later, despite the elevation of his fortune and the political demands of his position, he never ceased to acknowledge the sage of Sparta as his master and to maintain a philosophical correspondence with him: living, he had honored him with his respects, he continued them even after his death, and he protected his memory against the attacks of his enemies.
In 1428, Gemistus received another great homage. Emperor John Palaeologus, traveling in the Morea, consulted him on the most important political affair that occupied the minds of that time, that of the reunion of the two Churches. It is known that the court of Constantinople, henceforth powerless to defend itself against the ever-increasing encroachments of Muslim power, no longer expected help except from the side of the West; but the protection of the Latins had to be bought at the price of a conversion, and this price could only be debated in a council. The emperor had sent ambassadors to Italy to negotiate the convocation of a general council, where he himself would attend with the chiefs of his clergy. Gemistus, without approving this project, agreed that one could, nevertheless, by dint of prudence and skill, draw from it some of the fruits that one hoped for. But he dissuaded the emperor from delivering the Greek Church to the mercy of the Latin Church by reuniting them both in one and the same assembly without having well stipulated beforehand the manner of counting the votes, and without having ensured for both parties an equal influence in the deliberations: an excellent piece of advice, had it been practicable! We believe that in the mind of Pletho it hid a well-settled opinion on the absolute impossibility of any attempt at reconciliation.
At the council, he was part of the commission of six members chosen from among the Greeks and charged with supporting the discussion for them, that is to say, only with preparing the work of each session, with attending it in the name of their Church, and with bringing the tribute of their insights there; for the right to speak in general assembly was reserved especially to two among them in their quality as bishops, Bessarion of Nicaea and Isidore of Russia. The emperor had expressly wanted it so, whether out of respect for canonical rules, or instinct for proprieties, or precaution against the theology, always a little suspect, of the lay doctors. We see, however, Gemistus taking the floor once in the council, perhaps by way of a simple observation, and closing one of the sessions with a very judicious remark. A singular contrast between his official role and his personal sentiments, if it is true that in Florence itself, during the duration of the council, he held the discourse that is attributed to him: "that before a few years one single religion would be taught everywhere and universally adopted, a religion which would be neither that of Christ, nor that of Mahomet, but another little different from that of the ancient Greeks." Here it is no longer Gennadius, it is an adversary, and, it must be said, a violent enemy, George of Trebizond, who attributes this language to him, attesting to having heard it himself: suspect testimony, yet credible when one compares it to the extreme license of opinions that reigned then, and to all that we know and will know later of the religious ideas of our author.
With such a disposition of mind, one can guess how he employed his stay in Italy. Aside from his necessary participation in the work of the council and the councils to which he was often called, we believe that he occupied himself much less with the affairs of his Church than with the care of his own reputation. He was very much launched into the society of men of letters and people of the world, and especially very far into the favor of Cosimo de' Medici.
A to whom he explained the philosophy of Plato, still entirely new to Italian ears. Such was the impression made by these conversations that, according to Ficino [(1)], Medici conceived from that moment the project, later realized, of his Platonic academy. Finally, it was at this time that, at the request of several persons and probably of Medici himself, he composed his little treatise on the *Differences between the doctrines of Aristotle and those of Plato* [(2)], the first signal of the controversy between the two schools, and of the movement that was to shake at first, and two centuries later to overthrow, the scholasticism of the Middle Ages.
Is it then, or only upon his return to Greece, that in his classical enthusiasm he imagined changing his name from Gemistus to that of Plethon, which in Greek means the same thing? He found two advantages in this: first, the new name sounded better to an Attic ear [(3)], and then it resembled that of Plato [(4)]. It was a petty vanity; it was overlooked in a time when such changes were beginning to become common [(5)]. This name, adopted with enthusiasm by his disciples and admirers, made the other forgotten almost immediately. His enemies alone laughed at it or parodied it [(6)]; some had the weakness to feel indignant at it, as one more step toward paganism [(7)].
...society, no doubt in order not to let the secret of your ignorance be discovered... But I have frequented them, I have known them, and I have been able to get an idea of their philosophical opinions.” He then names some of these men, and among others Pomponius Laetus, one of the most learned men and most adventurous spirits of his time, a true pagan of the fifteenth century, who boasted before the Popes themselves of wishing to undo the work of Christ. Now, this Pomponius Laetus or Sabinus is no other than Peter of Calabria [(a)], whom Plethon praises in his reply to Gennadius on the subject of Aristotle [(b)]. Syropulus, sect. v, ch. 2, represents him dining at the cardinals' house, to the great scandal B of the schismatic Greeks, and speaking about philosophy at the table.
Flor., 1492, fol.: “Magnus Cosmus, senatus consulto patriae Pater, quo tempore concilium inter Graecos atque Latinos sub Eugenio pontif. Florentiae tractabatur, philosophum Graecum nomine Gemistum, cognomine Plethonem, quasi Platonem alterum, de mysteriis Platonicis disputantem frequenter audivit. E cujus ore fervente sic allitus est protinus, ut inde academiam quamdam alta mente conceperit, hanc opportuno primo tempore pariturus. Deinde cum conceptum tantum magnus ille Medices parturiret, me electissimi medici sui filium, adhuc puerum, tanto operi destinavit,” etc.
...περὶ Ἀριστοτέλους πρὸς Πλάτωνα διαφέρεται. This little work, printed several times in the sixteenth century (see Fabricius, t. XII, p. 89, ed. Harles), has become very rare. As it marks an epoch, it has a great interest for those who occupy themselves with the history of philosophy, and would deserve to be reprinted with the principal pieces of the controversy between Plethon, Bessarion, Gennadius, and several other Greeks of that time, which Mr. W. Gass ought certainly to have done in his work *Gennadius und Pletho*, already cited several times, where he has published less important pieces. This one is fundamental, because it was the origin of the whole quarrel. Its date is certain: Plethon composed it in Florence while sick, as he informs us in his reply to Gennadius, p. 115, ed. Gass. One cannot, moreover, do better than to consult, on this philosophical war, the important memoir of Boivin the Younger (*Mém. de l’acad.*, t. II, p. 775). Although this subject has been treated or at least touched upon by all those who have written on the history of philosophy or on that of the Renaissance, principally in Germany and in Italy, we do not see that they have added much to the work of the French academician.
[(3)] The word Γεμιστός, full, is not Attic; the first example one cites is from Athenaeus, who employs it as a culinary term, in the sense of stuffed. Γεμιστῷ itself, although employed by Aeschylus and Euripide, and very common in later writers, seems of suspect Attic usage; it sins against analogy, which would require γεμιστέον. On the contrary, πλῆθος, in the passive sense, and its participle πλήθων, are of ancient and poetic usage.
[(4)] “Plethonem quasi Platonem alterum,” Ficino, *loc. cit.*
[(5)] The mania for leaving a name of barbarian origin to take a more classical one, usually of the same meaning, began to spread in Italy in Plethon's time. It is wrongly that some have given credit for this invention to Pomponius Laetus: it is true that he was more attached to it than anyone else, and that he had made of it a law in his little Roman academy. As erudition gained ground, this fashion spread from Italy to France, and especially to Germany, where it lasted longer than elsewhere.
[(6)] ...Vienne, no. XLI, tom. VII of the catalogue of Lambecius, in the margin of the title: *Τοῦ σοφωτάτου Γεωργίου τοῦ Γεμιστοῦ, περὶ Ειμαρμένης*, an enemy's hand added this note: *Θαυμαστόν· οἶμαι δὲ τοῦτον εἶναι καὶ Πλινθύδιον καὶ Πλήθωνα.*
[(7)] Matthieu Camariota, in his work against Plethon on Fate, at the beginning of book 1, pretends that it is the demons who suggested to our author the idea of taking this new name as more pagan: *Τῷ ὄντι, ὡς εἰκός, καὶ Πλήθων, Ἑλληνικώτερον δῆθεν, ἐκ Γεμιστοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν αἰτήσας.* Manuel Holobulus, in his unpublished refutation of the treatise of Plethon on the Holy Spirit, cited by Allatius, *de Georgiis*, in Fabric., tom. XII, p. 89, ed. Harl.: *Ὡς τῇ τοῦ Πλάτωνος λογικευθεὶς ἤδη ψυχῇ, καὶ ἀντὶ Γεμιστοῦ Πλήθωνα ἑαυτὸν κεκληκώς.* George of Trebizond, ...
[(a)] The identity of Peter of Calabria with Pomponius Laetus or Sabinus cannot be doubtful. It is recognized by Thomas Blount, by Baillet, by Apostolo Zeno, and today by all scholars. This bastard of the illustrious house of Sanseverini, born at Amendolara, in Upper Calabria, always persisted, through a noble pride, in refusing the tardy recognition of his natural family. He could therefore hardly carry in his youth anything but his baptismal name and the name of his country. The Latin names he adopted later are due in part to the fashion of his time, in part to his pagan opinions: it was what he called "unbaptizing" himself. On the projects and remarks of Pomponius Laetus, all biographers are in agreement; but perhaps they have adopted too lightly many anecdotes on this subject; see Chaufepié, *suppl.* to Bayle, and the sources he indicates.
[(b)] *Τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ Πέτρος ὁ Καλαβρός, κ. τ. λ.*, infra, col. 982 B.
A Pletho, after the council, returned to Greece, and no doubt immediately to Mistra, where Filelfo shows him to us, in 1441, in the exercise of his magistracy. One cannot doubt that, in the intoxication of his Italian successes, he then took up again with more ardor and perseverance his great work on *Legislation* or *The Laws*, destined, according to him, to produce a moral and religious revolution in the world. Certainly, it was now or never, at an age where there remains hardly any future other than in posterity, the moment to put the finishing touch to this book which, in his view, was to consecrate his glory and ensure the triumph of his opinions. But we see him interrupted in this work by other occupations, and especially by the attacks that his "raising of shields" against Aristotle drew upon him. Boivin the Younger remarks with reason that the dispute over Aristotle began among the Greeks alone, and that the Italians took no part in it, being then too unfamiliar with the doctrines of Plato, whose works, recently imported into the West, had not yet been translated.
From this controversy, we hear almost nothing more of Pletho: only in 1450 did he compose a short funeral oration in honor of the dowager empress Helena, widow of the emperor Manuel, just as in 1433 he had composed one in honor of the princess Cleopa, wife of Theodore the Younger. His last little work appears to be the short compliment which he also addressed, no doubt around the year 1450, to the prince Demetrius, the new despot of Sparta, on his reconciliation with his brother Thomas, despot of Achaea. B C D
A These fragments suggest the weakening of age. Nevertheless, one may believe that, until the end of his life, he did not cease working on his work on the Laws, since it is certain that, even in this great and prodigious old age, he always retained the free use of his faculties (1). We see him until his final years exercising his judicial functions peacefully at Mistra, surrounded by public consideration, the object of a sort of cult for a chosen circle of disciples who pressed around him. He was taken by a short illness, leaving two sons, to whom Bessarion wrote to console them. The Church gave him a tomb, and he was honored with several funeral orations, of which two have reached us (2). The year of his death is uncertain. Did it precede or follow the fall of the Empire? For it is known that after the capture of Constantinople, the Morea, tributary but not subject to the Turks, still preserved for some years its Palaiologan princes and a shadow of national existence. Thus, this great misfortune, while afflicting the old age of our philosopher, had changed nothing in his position, and what we have said of his final years is explained by both hypotheses. Let us therefore attach ourselves to the only authentic document we have (3) to fix the end of his life. George of Trebizond, in his book on the comparison of Plato and Aristotle, directed in large part against Plethon, makes him die almost a centenarian (4), three years before the time when he was writing. It is this time that we must establish.
Apostolo Zeno, in his curious researches on the biography of some Italian scholars of that time (5), supposes that the work of George of Trebizond was written at Rome and became the main cause of the disgrace which made him leave this city in 1453. But that is not possible: for in an autograph note cited by Zeno himself, he attributes his misfortune to another cause, to his commentaries on the Almagest (6), and in the very work which occupies us, he makes allusion to more recent facts (7); he himself cites two other of his writings, composed notoriously at Naples during his exile (8); he represents himself as poor, infirm, persecuted, overwhelmed with grief and misery (9), which he would not have done before his disgrace, being secretary to Pope Nicholas V. It results finally B from a more attentive examination of this work that it was destroyed. C D
ENCOMIUM OF PLETHON.
From a more attentive examination of this work, it appears that it was composed at Naples, when the author was thinking of leaving that city for Venice, where, in fact, he came to live after the death of King Alfonso, his benefactor. Now, the date of his arrival in Venice is known: a certain document fixes it to 1459. It is, therefore, between 1453 and 1459 that we must fix the composition of his work. Also, towards the end of his third book, he makes an allusion to Demetrius as still being on the throne of the Peloponnese, and this prince ceased to reign in May 1460. Plethon, who died three years earlier, would therefore have ended his life between 1450 and 1456. An anonymous note in a Munich manuscript fixes his death in the month of June 1452; there is no valid objection to be raised against this, and if it is true that he died nearly a centenarian, we were right to place his birth around the year 1355. His mortal remains, exhumed from the tomb where they had rested in Sparta, were in 1475 transported by one of his admirers to Rimini, where they sleep, probably forgotten, under the slabs of the church of Saint Francis.
HYMN OF HIERONYMUS CHARITONYMUS TO THE MOST WISE TEACHER, LORD GEORGIOS GEMISTOS.
(ALEXANDER in Append. ad Plethonem De Legibus.)The incurable nature of this suffering, A and the overwhelming quality of this misfortune, which has occurred so suddenly and contrary to hope, imposes silence upon me, having poured as it were a certain stupor and amazement upon my mind. Yet, the high and divine quality of the man's wisdom, and the unbearable nature of this loss, make me, just now, more talkative than a cicada and more speechless than a fish, so bound am I by such a passion B and such perplexity, as if in a labyrinth while possessed by this misfortune, breathing…
A nor at all able to recover. For the suffering comes into my memory, and floods my mind with its waves, just as if I had chanced upon a terrible storm and surge. Homer, indeed, represents Strife as initially moving from a small beginning, but proceeding little by little until it is fixed upon heaven and walks upon the earth; and it has fallen to my lot myself to suffer something similar. Like a flame, the suffering increases in my soul, and would not stop before it reaches heaven. Such things, then, have I myself suffered; by such a misfortune am I possessed. And I think that this terrible event has reached you all as well. Therefore, what voice, what lamentation can I find that is equal to this suffering? O irreparable misfortune, O unbearable loss, surpassing every limit of consolation! Alas for the common bereavement that has overtaken the human race. The common pride, the precious and much-envied ornament of nature, the greatest and most wonderful glory of our kind, is now gone. No longer is Sparta renowned, no longer is Lacedaemon happy, no longer is the Peloponnese envied. B O that terrible day, which witnessed such a disaster! Where now is the shoreless ocean of true wisdom? Where is the beauty, and the magnitude, and the strength and brilliance of language surpassing human capacity? The common treasure has been plundered. The power of words is extinguished. Alas, the most beautiful of all good things has been taken from us, the brilliant happiness of our race, the guide of high wisdom, the father of eloquence, the crown of virtues, the common delight and pride of all, the mystagogue of the ineffable and divine. For he was allotted such a portion of divine knowledge on earth, and if one were to deem him worthy of that title, he would not, I think, fall short of what is fitting. For whatever divine and human things have been brought forth from there, and whatever pertains to counsel and whatever to action, and whatever is in military matters and whatever in political, natural, and practical matters, he was ignorant of nothing; he knew all, he investigated all, and he understood the arguments of all; and nothing was so secret that it did not become clear immediately to him, once it had come into anyone's mind at all. His wisdom was held in wonder by Greeks and barbarians alike, not just by one or two or a few, but by every age and city and race and nature; and of these, most especially by those living in the West, who had sufficiently experienced the man’s wisdom. For when a wonderful gathering of wise and learned men took place there, and a great contest of words was set forth for the investigation perhaps of the dogmas of the Church, what could one say, how they admired the man for his wisdom and virtue and the power he possessed in his words? He who shone more brightly than the sun in their midst; and some deemed him a common teacher, a common benefactor of men, a common ornament of nature; others called him a Plato, and still others, a Socrates. For nothing was lacking, as all would say, of their wisdom. Now of these two men, C one is left behind by the other in excellence. For he was one who had examined all wisdom, both divine and human, and by writing many things he had expounded them, and he was wonderful in both. He who refuted a certain triviality of the philosophy of Aristotle, which had previously been celebrated by some as a kind of divine thing. But indeed, even the superior of the sun-drenched wise men of the present day, by no one else than his own, happen to be. For of those who have appeared in the world, this wonderful man stood out as the leader of the human race; for while some possessed a certain high wisdom, and others perhaps demonstrated some other way of life, and some were educated in one area of discourse and others in another, his wisdom was not only in harmony with his deeds, but it pervaded all things that pertain to discourse—whatever pertains to contemplation, and whatever to action, and whatever is apprehended by the mind, and whatever is known through harmony and figures and numbers and the cycle of the heavenly bodies. Therefore, nothing was lacking of all that pertains to the accurate apprehension of existent things. Could we then admire the man for these things only? We would be depriving him of many great things. And indeed he practiced temperance so that he would not easily cede pride of place to any of the others. And in what way did he lack excellence in greatness of soul? He who was never defeated by anyone in his life, did not desire vain glory, did not zealously pursue wealth, did not look to any such things, but thought of all of them as nothing. And indeed, such was his justice that Minos and Rhadamanthus, when compared to him, would appear as trifles. No one was ever offended D by his judgments, but considered them as a divine sentence. Both the defeated and the winner departed cheering and revering him, although this does not usually happen to others; and this, I think, is reasonable. For he alone, or with very few, had a pure grasp of the laws, and he refined them, if any did, to the very limits. For even if these were ever lost, he would have exposed them more accurately than Solon and Lycurgus. Such was his canon of justice; and these things were not so much the grace of words as the truth of facts. But furthermore, as to prudence, the first and most perfect of virtues, who practiced it as he did? He who was the best at guessing and announcing to all things not yet come to pass, in no way differing from Calchas, who knew "things that are, things that will be, and things that were before." And to know and choose the necessary things, and how each thing might turn out, who was sharper? But indeed, if it were possible for all the wisdom that has existed since men were born—if I perhaps appear paradoxical to some in saying this, to one ignorant of his wisdom—if, however, it were possible to collect and gather it into one, as much as is divine and comes to men, and as much as is known by the mind, and comes by learning, and is imagined by thought, of things that are, will be, and have been, and all that pertains to speech and all that pertains to action, he knew all and all
A human mind, the high wisdom, the eye of this All, the most divine and great teacher. Let them be closed, alas, O Muses; let words pass away; let books fall silent, or rather, let them be blotted out. For the most divine and great teacher lies silent. B Yet we endure to live at all, and to breathe, and to see the sun, having such a witness to our bereavement. For whose sake we would gladly have surrendered everything, and each of us would have endured the loss of the most vital limbs, if only by purchasing this one man we might have immortalized him for the common world, for the fatherland, for the race, for nature. O wretched fatherland of mine—if in other respects unfortunate, as being bereft of all good things, but in this one man alone envied and praised by all—you have now lost even him. But what is more grievous and what is least of all endurable: what else did we have to boast of, being human and honored by reason? Have some lost wealth? But this is a precarious possession; for it is unstable and a slave to fortune. It is a cause of vice rather than anything else, and it falls to the lot of the base among men; it appeared dangerous to those who have a mind and who need wisdom, lacking which, wealth and other things among men are useless, just like a ship without a pilot. Have others lost strength? But if one were willing to examine this precisely from the start, this is nothing great. For if we are to honor men because of strength, we shall inadvertently render ourselves far more contemptible than the irrational animals, which in strength far surpass men. Furthermore, even if we were to grant this, being perhaps compelled, one might excel someone in strength or wealth; but by no means two, since even Heracles did not; and if two, not, I suppose, four; and if these, perhaps not ten, and furthermore a whole city, and besides this a nation, and much more, all of them. But it is possible for someone to be wiser not only than one or two or ten, but than a city and a nation, and even than all who are on earth. And such is he who now lies before us in mourning; for he alone provided works superior to words, as I have shown, he having preceded with the works, and I with the words. So, not even those who lose strength seem to lose anything great thereafter, since it is easily captured by disease and weakened by age; but wisdom is the only thing of all [things that is] indestructible. If we ever prevail over the most C valiant beasts, we do not prevail by strength, but rather by wisdom. Have others lost a king? But this is not even a serious matter; for most of them are, for the most part, base, and the subjects often desire to be rid of them, and they are often the cause of many horrors to their subjects, and often, having lost what they had, they have whom they might acquire instead. Glory, indeed, is a haughty thing, but it is in every way unstable, and it is glory for one to whom it has happened to overlook it. Beauty is indeed much sought after, but it is in every way short-lived. And health is indeed a precious thing, but it is easily shifted. If, then, these things are such as they are, yet it is difficult nonetheless.
A Since we are—or what shall we suffer, or what consolation shall we devise, having lost the common good, the inviolable treasure, the unexhausted fountain of wisdom, the beauty of graces, the hearth of virtues, the glory of our race? Where are the arguments, and the graces, and virtue, and wisdom? Gone, alas, is that spectacle worthy of being seen by men, to the sight of which all used to run; but now they will again be struck with terror at the unbearable nature of this loss, just as if they had happened long ago to gaze upon the Gorgon, according to the myth; and I think they will even be turned to stone by the magnitude of the affliction, like Niobe of old; or they will be turned into trees, like the Heliades, mourning their own calamities; if not that, they will at least be altered in nature, having exchanged their own for that of birds, and will indeed cease staying much longer in Sparta. We suffer nothing more tolerable than those tormented in Hades. We differ in nothing from those who have lost their sight. For just as if someone were to remove the sun from the established world, the life remaining to the human race would become difficult and grievous and full of much gloom, and each would deem life unendurable for himself, so now, for us who have been deprived of that man’s lofty wisdom, it has come to pass that we are left in darkness and ignorance and unawareness of good things; and our remaining life will be altogether inglorious, as we have lost the common ornament and the teacher of teachers, whose work night and day was to pour out benefactions upon all in abundance, except, B however, for me. But you, O noble one—for I shall speak to you as if you were present, and forgive the boldness, for not out of insolence but out of despondency has such a thing been dared by me, and perhaps out of reliance on your own philanthropy, since you were accustomed to bear all things most patiently—you, then, it is true, have never been harsh to anyone, nor were there any to whom you were ever grievous, except perhaps to some because of the endurance and magnanimity you showed toward me; for that is how I would name it. For I set forward all things in supplication to you, and there is no one whom I did not overlook and not put to use for this purpose, being worthy of the name and title of a human being, so that I might also be deemed worthy to enjoy the wisdom that is in you; I was not seeking leaders of the race, nor those excelling in rank, nor anyone else through whom I expected to succeed; yet I gained nothing in the end from those many and infinite entreaties. And yet you received everyone most readily, and never sent anyone away. For this reason, perhaps, some were annoyed, though they loved what is good, and loved me as well. I, for my part, for the truth shall be told, rather admired your endurance and your most noble way of resisting everyone in this manner, rather than feeling aggrieved at your refusal. Even if you, perhaps, were silent, putting forward only old age, though in other matters you were resisting most strongly. But no argument or time will ever persuade me that you did this out of spite (for against a good man, no one ever becomes envious regarding anything), but perhaps it was due to age, or perhaps to the instigation of certain spiteful people. Nevertheless, I always dreamed that I would succeed in my hope, and that I would not fall from my expectation altogether. But now I have fallen completely and utterly from my hopes. We who are lovers of discourse will be scattered to the ends of the inhabited world; for your hope held us together until now. And perhaps we shall experience many terrible things, pursuing the studies of which I myself spoke much to you, so that I might not suffer these things! And many will ask us about you, and will hear, alas, a most unwelcome voice. But why these things, and until when? It was necessary, in truth, O noble one, for those who have chosen to praise your wisdom to possess some great power in discourse, and of those who have attained to discourse [— Plato and Socrates, for one would hardly reach such merit; or rather, no one would ever have the power to reach such merit, though they might come closer. But we have only shown our zeal.] But I, O those present, being very much overcome by the affliction, have established a lament sufficient for myself; to others, perhaps, there will be concern for consolation, if it is at all admissible. But you, O divine one, if you have any concern for us who are here, may you not cease from both visiting and conversing with us, but may you also appear to us in dreams and speak, O most divine and wisest of teachers.
THE MONODIA OF GREGORY THE MONK UPON THE WISE TEACHER GEORGE GEMISTUS
C Alas, who, O those present, could worthily mourn the unbearable calamity that has now been brought upon us? Not because of barbarians having overrun from somewhere and having plundered the Roman lands and taken as many captives as possible; D
FUNERAL ORATION FOR PLETHON
A those who led him away, nor those who were persuaded by arguments, nor any other of the irreparable things that have occurred, but that he—the most divine of all men, the wisest of all, and he who was adorned with every virtue—has passed from among men, alas, today, leaving behind for us an unbearable grief. O terrible suffering, which overcomes all lamentation, which obliterates every misfortune, and which rejects every consolation! O irreparable misfortune, which even after it has been experienced remains unbelievable! O our wretched condition, or rather, the condition of the entire human race. Woe to our misery, which exceeds all expectation! What sort of transgression have we committed? What great demon has beset us, that we should justly bear such a loss? O that terrible and grievous plague, which has prevailed so much against us, having proven superior to every care and having confounded every remedy! Where were the children of the envious physicians then... as much as they say a certain Attic woman once was? B What a sight we were granted to behold—or rather, what we were forced to experience! How could the eye bear to see that terrible and horrific spectacle, which transcends every misfortune? How did the feet not stumble from their accustomed base, and cast this body to the ground? How was the vision not changed by the setting of such a great luminary? How did the soul not depart from its senses, and, as if going into an eclipse, leave behind the intellect that energized it? He is gone, alas! O those who are present, he who was the busy investigator of mysteries and divine things, the mystagogue of sublime heavenly dogmas, the vast and most divine intellect, the teacher of sublime philosophy, who had thoroughly examined every divine wisdom with knowledge, and every human wisdom as well, and through his natural talent, memory, and greatness of mind had grasped this beyond what is natural, and by his love for mankind and compassion, daily distributed the potable and divine stream to those who wished for it. For not even in the least did he seem to grudge any of this benefit, which we see others doing every day. He has set, alas! the most radiant and brightest star of the inhabited world, which previously adorned the entire world beneath the sun with its own beauty, but now has poured out every disorder and deep darkness upon its setting. C And as for the study of wisdom and virtue, not only those of the Greeks who experienced it, D but even the better sort of the Romans themselves wondered at him; they who admired his irrefutable proofs so much, or rather, who were so unable to oppose him, even though they tried many times, that they cast aside their own arrogance and their customary refinement, and, falling down before his sacred feet, confessed openly that they knew nothing, and asked to learn from him things they did not know before; nor, out of his love for mankind, did he refuse to distribute the benefit to them.
A But now, alas, the divine trumpet lies silent, the sweet-singing swallow, the hearth of the Graces, the pride of nature, the marvelous nature, the most radiant and illustrious ornament of the most unfortunate Greeks, or rather, of the human race in common, the marvelous beneficence of God towards men, the illumination of sacred souls. He who had traversed all knowledge, all wisdom, and all science in a supernatural manner, and who was therefore revealed to all as a rule, a model, and a standard of all that is beautiful and precious, or rather—and let no one present blame my speech, for I prioritize nothing anywhere more than sacred truth, since it is not pious to prioritize anything at all above it—that he has examined all the creation, both intelligible and sensible, which the wisdom of God has produced or brought forth out of goodness, and having taken this up, he alone has grasped divine and human knowledge together with God; and having gathered all that everyone knew in this regard beyond all men, he has shown himself to be a divine and most perfect work, and worthy of the infinite wisdom of God. For when God is mindful of a grateful soul and a life that is godlike, He demonstrates it to be a treasury and storehouse of graces that are above nature. Paul, then, the divine mystagogue, even though he was deemed worthy of knowledge of the mysteries, says that through the contemplation and beauty of created things, the human intellect is raised, as far as is possible, to the contemplation or apprehension of the intelligible God, speaking almost the same things as the most divine David; for he also says that the heavens declare the glory of God. But this contemplation and understanding is indeed of countless things, and especially of those that surpass the senses—that is, the error concerning sensible things—and of those deemed worthy of the marvelous activity of the intellect. C But this divine and great teacher, not only through his own beauty and the adornment of virtue, urged everyone toward the glory of the transcendent God, upon which the great Plato says the eyes are kindled, but also, because of the kinship of our intellect to the intelligible, he led those who chose to do so much more easily and better toward the intelligible, as if offering a hand to them everywhere, so that they might not wander pointlessly and lose their own... D which is the end of human life, and toward which every desire tends, and having grasped which, the human intellect, freed from its long wandering, ceases to investigate further. Thus, having shown himself to be a treasury of all that is beautiful and precious, and indeed godlike in decorum and divinity... to call him, or rather, to approach the merit of his worth. And these things, confused as I am already, and as if turned to stone by the terrible cruelty of the event, and I myself standing in need of some consolation, where all, if it were possible, should come together and together... [alt-version omitted]
construct the panegyric, not even so do I reckon that I could attain to the whole. Homer, indeed, in order to embellish the multitude of the Achaeans to a greater degree, as is the custom of the tribe of poets, declares that he alone should have enumerated the Muses, seeing that not even ten A tongues would have sufficed for such a task, perhaps understanding nothing of arithmetic, just as the Greeks had before the self-taught Palamedes was joined to them, who, understanding nothing of number, did not even know how many feet they had, since even one Muse, knowing the count, would have sufficed for so many armies. But for the panegyric of this great man, not the Muses and certain trifles, but rather what mind would have sufficed, were it apart? But now there was need of Plato, surely, or Thucydides, or Xenophon, and of those wise men of their time, to praise a lover of themselves, or rather a guide, as is worthy, if the discourse is not irksome to anyone, and a teacher. For not even if they happened to see one another (for such is the disposition I happen to have) would they have disputed with the great man about preeminence; but even they, recognizing their own guide, would likely have offered him the concession everywhere. Since even those men, if not by our eyes, we know at any rate by the history left behind about them, what sort of men they were. But I assert that, with regard to all wisdom, the great man was according to those men, or rather, frankly, superior to them; but as for virtue, not only were they not his equals, but they did not even draw near; for they would simply appear as children when compared to his divinity. Therefore, leaving those men aside, so as not to insult the man by comparing him to them—I mean Basil, Chrysostom, or, if you will, Gregory, our holy and divine Fathers, and those who were of their stature in virtue (for I am bold in saying this)—by comparing the great man to them, I would not miss the mark of what is fitting. For even they, if it had happened to them to encounter the great man (and may no one be angry with me for saying these things), would have deemed him a kinship and a supreme ornament to be enrolled in their company, or even would have profited from him, as much as pertains to wisdom and knowledge and science. For it is not the same thing to have departed from the world and to have appeared zealous while living under God, and, while dwelling amidst tumults and wars, to have displayed the most perfect philosophy. Therefore, he was not left behind in their virtue and modesty, nor was he blunted by matter, which is naturally wont to drag down human life like lead; but while yet in the body—that heavy burden and monument—and in the contemplation of their enjoyments, he completed all the time spent here, providing for the most part, out of reverence for Him who bound him, and for this (O the common loss, O the life of that transcendent man), not what gives pleasure and delight, but only what sustains, so that, following the Word submissively and tractably, it would not be a burden to him for philosophy. And thence, having altogether subjected it to the Word, and [having received] B the beginning of the senses, if any other did, he was seen as a divine precinct and worthy of the wisdom of God. Rather, just as he was seen to be peerless in the activity according to the mind, so also in his way of life he almost vied with the angels in self-sufficiency. For he, too, ate the bread of angels—which bread indeed one must take to be, I think, the contemplation of intelligible things and the apprehension of God's creatures. Now, the great man was so concerned with temperance that, even in the case of Bellerophon, or if you prefer, Joseph, he would have contested the matter; yet, when compared to the others in every respect, he plainly surpassed them by far. For who was so much a master of the other pleasures and even of the most violent of them than he? Who, moreover, so C despised all bodily refinement, being of such a disposition and appearance and brilliance as to excel, at any rate, the many, like that noble and great man? And who so despised honor and empty glory, and was seen to be superior to every kind of gain, even though some offered much and often begged him to accept, as that divine and most magnificent soul? If one were to call him a pattern of all intelligible things, or rather their most accurate image, he would not miss the truth. For he appeared as an image of the intelligible and sensible order. Plato, indeed, says that God, for the benefit of the wise, set Himself forth as a pattern of all good things. This man, however, appeared as the only image of that pattern, as much as is possible among men. Was the great man, then, so concerned with temperance, but lacking in courage? Or did he hold fast to justice, but happen to have less than anyone of prudence? Far from it! But the great man so abounded in courage that he not only bore the difficulties and distresses that occurred from some—and even these happened very rarely, others being the ones responsible for these things, not he, who was not at all the author of discord (for it is impossible for anyone living among men to be entirely exempt from these things)—but he also bore with spiritual vigor the various disasters sent by the divine, which orders the whole of this, especially when the great man was even suffering and breathing his last; he did not seem to be suffering himself, but resembled in all things someone else, if this indeed seems to be a clear proof of courage and nobility of soul; with which he D also departed brilliantly, leaving us in such orphanhood and affliction—alas for our misfortune. So, the great man was concerned with courage, but did he not hold fast to justice, or appear to have neglected it in any way? Which is not easy to find among men; for one would see that almost all, if they wished, are not already making it their concern to consider what is equal, but are simply desiring to partake of more everywhere, and as if this were natural for us, yet to the equal, because of the opinion of the many...
A and the impending necessity of the law, A they adhere to the necessity of Solomon. But to see this great man, it is not necessary to look to women. But here, those judges of the things lived here, B Aeacus and Rhadamanthus, or if you will, Minos himself, would appear to us as complete nonsense if compared to the supernatural justice of this man. They say that Aristides, the son of Lysimachus, gained the greatest reputation among all the Greeks for justice by the excellent distribution of tributes. And he did not do this just once, like that other, but by distributing what was just throughout his whole life, he far surpassed him in every way. For he appeared as a protector for a long time of ancestral and common laws, and for the benefit of others he often neglected even his own affairs, following Plato even in this, who does not deem it worthy for the best of the rulers to gain anything at all from their rule, but says that a penalty is even laid upon them if they come to rule, declaring it a penalty outright, both the not deeming it worthy to rule, and the wishing to hold fast to the benefit of the common good, while not caring much for one's own affairs. Who, then, appeared more pious than him in matters concerning the divine? Or what arbitrator was better or kinder in public affairs, or rather, more gracious toward private ones? He who, out of philanthropy, did not even seem like an arbitrator—being, moreover, the protector of the greatest court of the Greeks—but as a common protector and guardian, a helper and father, holding out a helping hand to the wronged, often assisting widows, helping those in need, defending all in turn from whatever he had at hand, even in this fulfilling the lordly commandment which bids men to be merciful, so that they might in some way become similar to Him whom they call their Father. C But while he held fast to these things in such a way (O unbearable misfortune, O ultimate loss!), was he any less a participant in wisdom? But here, too, he surpassed all things by far, not only in things that are always existing and divine, which happens to be the greatest part of wisdom, but even in those things naturally subject to judgment, our own human affairs; not only was he not inferior to anyone, but even here, by using a natural divine wisdom, he surpassed everyone in turn. For who could set foot upon the secrets better than he, or explore the theory of these things? He who, having examined the reasons of all things and having gained his desire through the magnitude and height of his nature, made known to men the knowledge of things previously questioned, and by using philanthropy, partook of the whole of wisdom so much so as to become a pattern to others, and, so to speak, the self-knowledge of all, such that he seemed more like an intellect separate than a soul using the body as a vehicle. Who of all has ever become more charming concerning natural philosophy, every history, and political science than he? They say that a certain person, having fallen in love with the wisdom of Solomon, arrived from some land beyond the borders, she who, not having been deceived in her hope, unusually admired the wisdom of D Solomon. But it was not women who met this man, but men, often clever and wise ones, who came from the very ends of the inhabited world; who, having greatly admired the man for his wisdom, made him more known to us, even if he was not previously known to the many at all. They say that Palamedes, an autodidact and one trained in wisdom, who sailed for Troy, was the first to discover the number of hours and months and to bestow dice games upon the Achaeans. But he did not just discover dice games and hours—some trivial and common thing—but he discovered some wisdom, and filled in what was found lacking; and for those choosing the path of science, he refuted those others which were base, and which were escaping the notice of some, most truthfully and wisely, B and he freed the race of men from the greatest error. The most wise and brilliant writings of that blessed and divine soul bear witness to these things, which if anyone follows with confidence, he will not go astray anywhere regarding the holy truth. For they are, as it were, a type of philosophy and precision of dogmas for those who pursue them. But O the common misfortune, or rather my own private one, O bitter orphanhood, O envious and wicked fortune! He whom I was lucky to have as my only solace, my only comfort while living in a foreign land, an intellectual eye, the light of my miserable soul, my most divine guide, or rather my protector and guardian, upon whom alone I rocked the hopes of my own benefits, with whose golden wings of wisdom I flew as a fledgling, and C being armed with the adamantine words of that man—or rather, heavenly ones—and trusting that I would never be overturned by the words of other sophists, my ornament, my happiness, my glory—him, alas, I have been deprived of beyond expectation. Who would give to me fountains of tears and a tone befitting mourning, so that I might lament my own misfortune? But I have failed, O those present, by thus yielding myself entirely to lamentations and mourning, when it was fitting to be easily consoled even in his departure. For indeed, this death is not at all an absolute destruction of the whole, but a certain departure of our better part to some divine and intelligible place, one much more divine and better than the one here. Nor does our soul suffer destruction or dispersion. For this dogma is wicked, and altogether unworthy of the greatest wisdom of God and the ineffable understanding toward us. For in vain would the race of men have held to virtue, and enjoyed dreadful and secret mysteries, and been deemed worthy of the supernatural providence of the better one; and in vain does one establish temples, and engage in ceremonies, acts of worship, and prostrations and all such things. But this body, indeed, is entirely dissolvable and perishable, since it is already composite; and composition is the beginning of dissolution. But the soul, being incorporeal and altogether simple, is not...
A likely to be subject to corruption. For indeed, if there were any device whereby it might be subject to corruption, it would have to proceed through a body; since for one body to pass through another is a thing altogether impossible and contrary to nature. Furthermore, if the body were to be cut, the soul would share in that affection. Then too, magnitude would surely belong to it, and it would happen that one person possessed a larger soul than another—a notion which not only philosophy refutes, but also the opinion prevalent among the common people. For if this were so, one would possess not the knowledge of all things, but only sense-perception of those things of which one currently has knowledge. For it belongs to the soul alone to contain the universal, as well as number and the infinite, through which knowledge and form have received their origin. In vain, then, would it delight in the contemplation of existing things, and attempt to seek out the arguments regarding those genera which are superior to it. It is often distracted from these, as if they were its own proper concerns, and is greatly vexed and bears much ill-will toward those things which prevent it. But surely it would not seek them unless it were akin to them. Being, then, akin to them, what device is there that it should not also be superior to the experience of death in every respect? For those things to which it is kin are also beyond corruption and exempt from all change; this is something that no one will deny, not even the majority of mankind.
The wise, therefore, say that existence has a relation to operations, and operations in turn to existence. If, then, the soul partakes in the operations of superior beings, there must necessarily be a participation in their existence. B Just as we, by participating in the operations of beasts, necessarily participate in their existence—and because of this we die as they do—so, too, if we participate in the operations of those superior beings, we must necessarily appear superior to all corruption. For God, being supremely good and devoid of all envy, must needs bring forth beings that are nearer to Him as immortal, since He himself is eternal. Who, indeed, among the most pleasant of things—if this were not so, and there were nothing superior to the body in us—would deem them worthy to be despised above all else? And who would bring upon himself the sentence of death, choosing willingly to depart from life, when he might be sated by the soul’s oracles against the opposition of the body? For there is no strength in any being against itself, but each thing hastens to preserve itself in every way, and wages implacable war against those who hinder its salvation. But surely, if the soul brings life to the body and leaves it a corpse upon its departure, how can it not be, in itself, much more immortal and exempt from all corruption? For one cannot even say that it enters living and departs dead, seeing that some parts of the body endure for a very long time. For if its nature were in any way moved, it might perhaps have undergone corruption in and of itself. But since it is wholly unmoved, how can it be that it is subject to corruption, which is altogether impossible to arrive at without motion? For if it were ever to be destroyed, it would not be likely to suffer this from anything other than its own contrary, that is, its own vice; for all things are overcome by their contraries. Yet now, the wicked among men live no less than others, and thus refute this suspicion. C Not only, therefore, does the soul not suffer corruption and dispersion upon departing from the body, but this actually becomes the cause of its perfection and its ultimate operation; for even while it is with the body, it partakes of the pure sacred truth more clearly, precisely because it strives all the more to separate itself from the body. As things are now, due to the dullness of the body—being, as it were, ignorant and blear-eyed—it visibly sustains many things that are unworthy of its own nobility, concerning which it would be much better, as Plato says, to live without any body than to be mixed with it and contaminated by the anxieties thereof every day.
Moreover, death is not thought to be one of the irrational things, nor does it happen by chance; for it is a work of nature, and the work of nature must be a decree of God, which is not irrational. To not acknowledge God’s decree as being for the best would be impious. For being supremely good, He would not do anything evil. For God is not simply the cause of all things, but only of things good. How, then, could He be the cause of any evil for those who have lived here—like that great man—with zeal, possessing in the highest degree justice? D He who openly promises to those who live virtuously here, after this life, happiness, a good life, and myriad other blessings; whom it is not reasonable to distrust, now that we are persuaded by their deeds. For my part, I assert that the passing of that great man did not happen simply in the present course of things, but by divine dispensation; for it is not, it is not possible for the affairs of those who live as that great man did to ever be neglected by God. Pondering these things, therefore, one ought to hold fast to virtue as much as possible, regarding all other things as secondary, and to imitate his way of life as much as one can; for thus we would fare better both living and dying. Since even Plato himself says that the soul, setting out on its journey to Hades, departs carrying nothing else but virtue and wisdom. Which, as we all know, that great man possessed in the highest degree, and there is hope that he has fared as well as possible there. It is right, therefore, that we also rejoice in his happiness, and not act as if he had suffered something irrational and terrible, but rather regard his virtue and his divinity as the greatest consolation and ornament.