SELECTED WORKS BY STEPHEN GERSH Kinesis Akinetos, A Study of Spiritual Motion in the Philosophy of Proctus Philosophia Antiqua XVI), Leiden: E.}. Brill 1973 from lamblichus t0 Eriugend. An Investigation of the Prebistory and Evolution of the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition Gtudien zur Problemgeschichte der antiken und. mit tclalterlichen Philosophie VIII), Leiden: E. J, Brill 1978. omnipresence in Eriugena. Some Reflections on Augustino- Maximian Elements in Periphyseon', Eriugena, Studien en feinen Quellen, Herausgegeben von Werner Beierwaltes Heidelberg: Carl Winter 1980, pp. 55-74 fiatonism — Neoplatonism — Aristotelianism. A ‘Twelfth: (catury Metaphysical System and its Sources’, Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century. Edited by Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable, Cambridge/Massachusetts: Harvard Univer sity Press 1982, pp, $12-534 PUBLICATIONS IN MEDIEVAL THE MEDIEVAL INSTIT UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DITED BY RALPH MeINERNY: series Founded Dy Philip 8. Moore, CS,C.t, Joseph N. Garvin, C5.C.4 ™ and A. 1. Gabriet — xxi EPHEN GERSH 5 MIDDLE PLATONISM AND NEOPLATONISM THE LATIN TRADITION VOLUME I UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS NOTRE DAME, INDIANA 1986Preface Introduetion i, Med PART Contents fi, Greek Platonism 1 Middle Platonism: The Platonists and the Stoics Chapter 1 CICERO Introduction Philo of Larissa and the New Academy Cicero's Skepticism Antiochus of Asca on and the Old Academy Cicero's Platonism Stoic Tendencies Greck and Latin Philosophy The Divi 1 of Philosophy The Themes of Philosophy 51 53 53 58 63 oCONTENTS CONTENTS 12 Bthi 79 1.333 ‘The Immanent Soul 129 1.21 The Argument of De Republica IIL 80 La ge - SS eee eter oe 141 The Innate Standard of Knowledge 132 1.23 The Argument of De Legibus II 87 hn AeibMuson Servet tind Es 1.31 Cicero's Theology 90 ist. FieiorroF Foams ae 1.311 The Nature of God 93 1312 The Transcendence andimmanence of God 94 Chapter 2 SENECA 155 1.313 The Relation of Macrocosm to Microcosm 99 at dae 155 132 Cicero’s Philosophy of Nature 101 2.11 Seneca'sStolelam 159 1.321 Antiochus at Academica 24 101 2.12, The’ Thee of ealicsophy, iss 1.322 Antiochus at Academica 26-27 107 2» Theology 165 1.323 Antiochus at Academica 28 aie 2.211 ‘The Transcendence and Immanence of God 168 1.324 The Question of Incorporeality 136 2.212 Transcendence and Incorporeality 170 1,325 The Relation of Macrocosm to Microcosm 119 Toaacsiee eee pale aay Ua 1.33. Cicero's Psychology iis j 2.22 Philosophy of Nature 176 2.23 The Relation of Macrocosm to Microcosm 179 ‘The Knowledge of the Scul 1.332 The Transcendent Soul 125 | 23 SenetCONTENTS 2.31 ‘The Argument of Epistula ad Lucitium 58 2.32 ‘The Argument of Epistula ad Lucilium 65 PART I, 2 Middle Platonisn 33 Conclusions (he Platonists and the Doxograpbers Chapter 3 GELLIUS 3.1 Introduetion 3.11 Gelliusand Philosophy 3.2 Platonism in the Noctes Atticae 3.21 The References to Plato 3.22 Directand Indirect Platonism 3.23 The Influence of Taurus and Favorinus Chapter 4 APULEIUS 4a Introduction 4.11 Apuleius’ Works 4.12 Apuleius’ Sources 181 188 194 197 199 199) 200 207 207 CONTENTS The Triadie System Gods, Demons, Men God, Invisible Gods, Visible Gods Disembodied, Semi-Embodied, Embodied Demons Explicit and Implicit Triads God, Matter, Form God and Form in Plato God, Matter, Form in the The Doxographers, ‘The Triad in the Doxogeaphers The Earlier Tradition on God, Matter, Form God and Form in the Doxogeaphers Conclusions God, Soul, Nature God, Mind, Soul Mind and Soul in Plato wil 246 246 2494.272 4.273 +4274 431 4311 43111 43112 4.3113 43114 43115 4.312 43121 4.3122 CONTENTS God and Mind in the Doxographers The Conflict in the Sources The Equation of God and Soul The Two Levels of Mind Conclusions ‘The Hierarchical System God / Forms / Mind God's Nature God's Causality The Doctrine of De Mundo Positive and Negative Aspects of God's Causality ‘The Doctrine of De Platone lity in its Positive and Negative ‘The Nature of Forms ‘The Causality of Forms The Latin Terminology 258. 259 260 263 265 266 266 285 286 292 293 361 4.363 364 cont Thi ranslation of Terminology ‘The Greek Terminology The Gods Invisible Gods Visible Gods Universal Soul The Demons Disembodied Demons Semi-Embodied Demons Individual Soul Matter / Forms / Numbers / Body ‘The Nature of Matter Matter and Forms Matter and Numbers ‘The Nature of Body Chapter 5 THE “ASCLEPIUS” 297 301 302 304 308 309 sul 313, B15 318, 324 325 329CONTENTS Introduction ‘The Nature of Hermeticism ‘The Latin Asclepius ‘The Positive Approach to God and Negative Approaches to egative Approach to God ‘Transcendence Immanence Transcendence and Immanence God's Causality ‘The Divine Intellect he Theory of Forms ‘The Theory of Matter God and Creation Eternity as God Spirit as God 329 330 332 338 340 341 343 344 345 348 348, 351 354 358 361 5.2233 31 36 Excursus B THI CONTENTS Loveas God The Status of Fate The Second God The Hierarchy of Gods The Second God and the Hierarchy of Gods The Theory of Man Man's Nature Man's Function Man's Destiny Conclusions A. CENSORINUS’ DE DIE NATALI DOXOGRAPHY OF AMBROSE, MERON 1,1, 1-4 HE} Excursus © AUGUSTINE'S DE DIVERSIS TONIBUS 1. QUAE’ TH, QU AG 363 305 370 386 389 397 103Preface Iris generally agreed that those types of philosophy which are loosely cal ed Platonic’ oF 'Neoplatonic’ have played a crucial role én the history of Cirapean culture during the centuries between late antiquity and the kenaisance. However, no scholar has attempted to describe the evolution of hese jorms of thought ina single comprehensive academic study. In order to stress this surprising deficiency, ic therefore seems appropriate to present a history of the Platonic tradition during the Middle Ages, Such a history must have at least three centers of focus — one in the transmission of ancie piulosophy to the mediaeval period, another in the eighth to ninth centuries, tnd) another inthe ewelfth century — although the intervening phases deserve at least a briefer treatment. What follows here represents the first stage in this project of mapping che course of Platonic philosophy during the Middle Ages. To the intelligent Dohserver it quickly becomes evident that those mediaeval philosophers who tare usually styled "Platonists’ do not develop theie theories in dieect response to Greek philosophy. Owing to the peculiar historical circumstances in ‘which the mediaeval world arose from the ashes of ancient culture, these writers were mostly deprived of immediate access to the greatest intellectual achievements of the Greeks. Instead they elaborate their doctrines in relation to the Latin philosophical literature produced between the classical period uo the end of antiquity. Thus, an adequate discussion of Platonism ducing the Middle Ages must begin by examining these important channels of In earlier versions, parts of this study were presented as lectures before various scholarly groups during the years 1977-83: the Divinity School, University of Chicago; the Renaissance Seminar, University of Chicago: the Midwest Patristics Seminar, Chicago: the Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy, Boston; the Committee for Medieval Studies, University of California, Berkeley: the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology. Herkeley; the Department of Philosophy, St. Mary's College of California, Moraga; the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies, Oklahoma City the International Patristic Conference, Oxford. I am grateful to the par- Uicipanis in those seminars for learned observations which have sometimes {rept into my Footnotes "he author is pleased to acknowledge his debt to Ralph Melnerny, Diree ‘or of the Medieval Institute at the University of Notre Dame, for his recon ‘mendation that this manuscript should appear among the Notre Dame Publications in Medieval Studies, Much is also owed to my researchPREFACE assistants Michael Tkace, Hugh Griffith, Mary Frances Sparrow, Robert Ken rnedy, and Joha Michalski for theie labors during 1980-85. Jean Oesterle took time away from other projects in order to edit the lengthy typescript and be ing a European writer's punctuation ard spelling into line with American conventions. The index of Latin texts was compiled with the assistance of three graduate students in the Medieval Institute: Gregory Froelich, Michact Paietta, and Steven Werner. Finally, Alice Osberger presided over the com. plex operation in which the material was transmitted from typewriter to word: processor to printer Notre Dame, Indiana 1985 Introduction In what sense can we speak of the influence of Plato's philosophy in the Middle Ages? The time is long past when was customary t0 speak of the mediaeval period as a phase of history dominated by Aristotelianism, for most modern scholars would admit that this is a fair description only of its final stage the era of Scholasticism. Yet there is no agreement concerning the nature of the intellectual movement or movements which preceded Scholasticism and continued to make their presence felt even after they had fallen from their predominant role, these tendencies being variously described as Platonic or Neoplatonic in character. To what extent is it correct to speak of the earlier mediaeval philosophy as Platonic? Should it not more correctly be classified as Neoplatonic? What is the dif- ference between Platonic and Neoplatonic doctrine? What have cither the Platonic or Neoplatonic modes of thought to do with Plato? It is with such a bewildering series of questions that all modern scholarship on the Platonism of the Middle Ages is fac- ed at the outset of its endeavor. We may perhaps take an erudite and perceptive study by C. Baeumkert as the beginning of twen- tieth-century scholarship on this subject, and here we find the traditional view of mediacval thought as first theological and secondly Aristotelian subjected to the critical reappraisal which 1. C. Bacumker: ‘Der Platonismus im Mittelalter’ Beitraige zur Geschichte der Phitosophie des Mitelatters 25, 1-2 (Studien und Charakteristiken zur Geschichte der Philosopbie insbesondere des Mittelatters. Gesammelte Vor- ‘rage und Aufsdtze von C. Baewmker mit einem Lebensbilde Bacumkers herausgegeben von M. Grabmann) (Minster, 1927), pp. 139-179. Reprinted W. Beierwaltes; Platontsmus in der Philosophie des Mittelaters, Derausgeyeben von W.B, (Wege der Forschung 197) Darmstad, 1969), ppINTRODUCTION is so necessary. Bacumker argued that it is mistaken to contrast the Middle Ages so simplistically with a humanistic and Platonic Renaissance, since both these latter tendencies are amply represented in the earlier period.? The writer then demon- strated his thesis at length by distinguishing three main tenden- cies in mediaeval thought: the humanistic, the natural scienti and the theological, and by showing that in each of these areas there is significant and persistent Platonic influence. Of course — and this point is important for the current investigation — the Platonism of the ancient period is not distinguished from its Neoplatonic developments by the mediaeval Latin writers, ¢ contrast being revealed for the first time by the modern historical criticsm of von Humboldt and Schleiermacher.4 Thi is made especially clear by examining the theological tradition where we find that Augustine, its founder and greatest represen- tative, shows no signs of any direct acquaintance with Plato's dialogues. His doctrines are entirely derived from the writers of late antiquity.5 Bacumker's discussion was taken up a few years later by E. Hoffmann who, however, drew conclusions of a different kind from the material Hoffmann asked to what extent this Platonism of the Middle Ages was a genuine Platonism, and found himself compelled to answer negatively: ‘Die genuinen Motive Platons blieben fiir das Mittelalter stumm.’7 Given that mediaeval Platonism was mediated through late ancient writers in the way shown by Baeumker, would it not be better to aban- 2. Bacumker: op. cit, p. 13910 3. Bacumker: op. cit, pp. 1 4. Bacumker: op. cit, p. 156. 5. Bacumker: op. cit, p. 166. 6. E, Hoffmann: “Platonismus und Nitelalter Warburg 3 (1923), pp. 17-82 7. Hoffmann: op. cit. p.74 v7 ‘ortrage der Bibliothek MEDIAEVAL PLATONISM. 3 don altogether the expression ‘Mediaeval Platonism’ as imply- ing a verbal confusion, simply speaking of Neoplatonism or Christian Neoplatonism in this connection?# This critique, although embodying perhaps a judgment excessively severe regarding Bacumker whom the writer unfairly considered to be ilso a party to this historical inexactitude, was valuable at the time. However, to be a valid interpretation, it requires the ad- mission of two prior assumptions: that the Platonism of the Mid- dle Ages is indeed entirely mediated through late ancient inter- pretation, and that it is really possible to distinguish “genuine Platonism from Neoplatonism (Of these premises, the first was soon to be directly challenged and the second subtly modified by a short but brilliant monograph entitled The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the Middle Ages. This was written by R. Klibansky as an introduction to the Corpus Platonicum Medii Aevi (published under the auspices of the British Academy, the Union Académi- que Internationale, and the Warburg Institute, London) of which he isedivor.? Speaking of the Latin Middle Ages, Klibansky distinguished the indirect and direct traditions of Platonism. The indirect radition'® consists of various Latin or Greek writers of late anti- quity — the latter being available in Latin translation — who were extensively read and commented upon in the mediaeval World. These writers all transmit a mode of philosophical thought which is indebted to Plato but more specifically reflects the modification of his doctrine in the light of late ancient religious and philosophical assumptions. However, although its 8. Hoffmann: op. eft, p. 82. 5. R. Klibansky: The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition dering the Mid- die ges. With a New Proface and Four Supplementary Chapters ... (New ‘YorkLondon, 1982; the original edition was published in 1939), 10, Klibansky: op. eft, p. 22 ff‘ INTRODUCTION sources do not transmit the doctrines of the Pbaedo ot the Republic without further elaboration, it would be a mistake to conclude that the mediaeval tradition is simply an offshoot of the Neoplatonic tendency in late antiquity for several reasons. First, such a view neglects the fact that there was also a direct tradition of Platonism in the Middle Ages. Cicero and Apuleius had translated certain dialogues into Latin, and Cicero’s transla- tions were available in the time of Jerome, Apuleius’ translation in that of Priscian the grammarian, although they disappeared from circulation shortly after these authors cited them."! The later Platonist Calcidius had furthermore made a translation of the cosmological dialogue Timaeus which, together with his own lengthy commentary, exercised considerable influence over mediaeval writers from the Carolingian period onwards This is shown by the imitation of i's doctrine in later authors, by its frequent citation by name in mediaeval library catalogs, and by the number of extant manus Finally, in the middle of the twelfth century, Aristippus of Catania made fresh transla tions of two dialogues which began to exert influence during the period which followed.!3 There is no doubting the significance of Klibansky’s demonstration: that Hoffmann’s thesis of a total absence of ‘genuine’ Platonism falls short of the facts. The second reason why Klibansky would not allow the mediaeval Platonic tradition to be described simply as Neoplatonic was the doctrinal complexity of the late ancient tradition itself. It is true that the various writers of that period transmit to the Middle Ages in many or perhaps most instances a doctrine which is essentially Neoplatonic in character. 11, Klibansky: op. eft, 12. Klibansky: op. ett 15. Klibansky: op. tt, 14, Klibansky: op. eft MEDIAEVAL PLATONISM 5 However, we must also realize that the term ‘Neoplatonism’ Airictly applies only to developments of Platonic doctrine from he time of Plotinus onwards. Thus, a writer of late antiquity like Augustine might transmit vestiges of earlier stages in the evolution of Platonic exegesis like that of the so-called ‘Middle n’ of Apuleius. Furthermore, the con y of Calcidius reveals the same state of affairs, since the philosophy contained there is of a Middle Platonic rather than Neoplatonic character. It is easy to see that this second argument of Kliban- sky's somewhat modifies the terms in which Hoffmann’s thesis, must be formulated: although it is essentially true that it does not correspond to the ‘genuine’ Plato, the indirect tradition of Platonism cannot be classified as Neoplatonism tout court. The late ancient sources of mediaeval philosophy are far too com- plex for either of these definitions, reflecting several different phases in the development of this tradition often in combina: tion with one another, Although Klibansky's monograph was a program for future research rather than a description of work completed, tt represented a fine survey of the subject and a major step for- ward from earlier scholarship. P.O. Kristeller's review of the Publication was therefore duly appreciative, although sug- gesting certain ways in which the project could have been fur- ther improved.!5 ‘The reviewer provided details of certain humanistic translations of Greek Platonists from the late Middle Ages to supplement and reinforce Klibansky’s account of the direct tradition, 16 yet his remarks were primarily aimed at the picture of the indirect transmission presented by the Continut 4 First, Kristeller pointed out that sources of ancient Plato P.O. Kristeller: Review of R. Klibansky; The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the Middle Ages, Journat of Philosophy 37 (1940), pp, 409-411, 6, Kristeller op. eft, p. 410.