1 See Walker, D. P., The Ancient Theology (London, 1972)Google Scholar, chapters 1 and 3. Standard historical studies of the doctrine of the Trinity include: Prestige, G. L., God in Patristic Thought (London, 1936)Google Scholar; Jaroslav, Pelikan,The Christian Tradition: a History of the Development of Doctrine: Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600 AD) (Chicago, 1971), pp. I72–225 Google Scholar; Kelly, J.N.D.,Early Christian Doctrines (London, 1958), pp. 83-137, 223–279 Google Scholar; and Ritter, A. M., “Dogma und Lehre in der alten Kirche,” inHandbuch der Dogmen- und Theologiegeschichte,ed. Carl, Andresen (Gottingen, 1980-83), 1: 99–221.Google Scholar I am indebted to Father James A. Devereux, S.J., for his kindness in advising me on these and some other references.

2 Opera Omnia (Basel, 1576; repr. Turin, 1959 and 1983), p. 956.2: “Retulit praeterea nobis fratrem (nescio quem) in declamatione publica insolenter asseveravisse trinitatis apud Christianos divinae mysterium apud Platonem ipsum extare Christianosque familiaria illic primos accepisse. Vos autem a me super hac re tanquam mihi Platonica sint nota iudicium expectare. Ego igitur extra controversiam assero trinitatis Christianae secretum in ipsis Platonis libris nunquam esse, sed nonnulla verbis quidem quamvis non sensu quoquomodo similia; similiora vere in sectatoribus eius qui floruere post Christum, in Numenio, Ammonio, Plotino, Amelio, Iamblicho, Proclo, qui, cum et omnes Ioannis Evangelium egissent et quidam insuper Dionysii Areopagitae libros, nonnulla trinitati similia libenter usurpaverunt ordinesque angelorum et nomina susceperunt tanquam Platoni suo Mosis sectatori plurimum consentanea. Quamobrem Aurelius Augustinus quondam Platonicus et iam de Christiana professione deliberans, cum in hos Platonicorum libros incidisset cognovissetque Christiana per imitationem ab his probata, Deo gratias egit redditusque iam est ad Christiana recipienda propensior.” Cf. Arnaldo della, Torre, Storia dell'Accademia Platonica di Firenze (Florence, 1902), p. 592.Google Scholar I have expanded abbreviations and diacritics, repunctuated and adopted the u/v distinction. All translations from Ficino are my own.

3 Like most in the Quattrocento, Ficino assumed that the writings of the Pseudo- Areopagite were the authentic works of the convert of St. Paul, and that the works of Proclus (412-485 A.D.), most notably his Elements of Theology,were indebted to them. The dependence of Proclus on these pseudepigraphical works was not seriously or effectively contested until the sixteenth century and neither was their author's identification with the Dionysius mentioned in Acts 17. 34 (who was in turn identified with St. Denys, patron saint of France). Untangling these Dionysiuses and dating the writings themselves to the late fifth century was the achievement of nineteenth century scholars such as j. Stiglmayr and H. Koch. For the deep indebtedness of the Pseudo-Areopagite to Neoplatonism, see Müller, H. F., Dionysius, Proklos, Plotinus (Munich, 1926)Google Scholar and Roques, A.,L'univers dionysien (Paris, 1954)Google Scholar. The Fourth Gospel, according to Eusebius’ Praeparatio evangelica,11. 19. 1, was used by Amelius; cf. Augustine's De Civitate Dei,10. 29. Ficino was well aware of this tradition as a comment in his epitome for the Republic book VI demonstrates, Opera, p. 1408; cf. Opera, p. 1029, the commentary on the De divinis nominibus.

4 Opera, p. 925.2: “mihi certe nee ulla scientiae forma est gratiosior quam platonica, neque forma haec usquam magis quam in Dionysio veneranda. Amo equidem Platonem in Iamblicho, admiror in Plotino, in Dionysio veneror. Saepe vero suspicor antiquiores Plotino Platonicos, Ammonium atque Eunumium [sic] aut his forte priores, legisse Dionysii libros antequam nescio qua calamitate Ecclesiae delitescerent. Atque illinc in Plotinum et lamblichum Dionysii scintillas vere Platonicas fuisse transfusas, unde tantus sit ignis accensus.” Cf. Delia Torre, pp. 783-788; also n. 17 below.

5 Opera, p. 25.1: “Divino enim Christianorum lumine usi sunt Platonici ad divinum Platonem interpretandum. Hinc est quod magnus Basilius et Augustinus probant Platonicos Ioannis Evangelistae mysteria sibi usurpavisse. Ego certe reperi praecipua Numenii, Philonis, Plotini, Iamblichi, Proculi mysteria ab Ioanne, Paulo, Yerotheo, Dionysio Areopagita accepta fuisse. Quicquid enim de mente divina angelisque et caeteris ad Theologiam spectantibus magnificum dixere manifeste ab illis usurpaverunt.“ Cf. Delia Torre, pp. 592-593, and Walker, pp. 80-8 r. Walker identifies the references as being to Basil's Homilia,16 (Migne, PG,31. 471) and to Augustine's Confessiones, 7 and 9. Note that this passage, unlike the passages already cited from the Rondoni and Pier Leone letters, does not include Ammonius, the teacher of Plotinus, and also, Ficino believed, of Plotinus’ “constant friend,” the Christian Origen (Opera p. 1621.2). In his opening remarks to his commentary on Plotinus’ Enneads, 2.9 (Opera, p. 1663.3), Ficino states quite unequivocally that Ammonius was a Christian. He must have been the medium, therefore, of the transmission of Christian wisdom to Plotinus (even though the Rondoni letter lumps him together with those who appropriated [usurpaverunt] from it!); cf. Porphyry apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.,6. 19. 7.

6 Ficino is more than content, of course, to ascribe a Mosaic wisdom to Plato; see, most notably, his Concordia Mosis et Platonis in his Opera, p. 866.3. Cf. Walker, pp. 85- 86.

7 Opera, p. 1537: “Veterum autem Theologorum mos erat divina mysteria cum mathematicis numeris et figuris tum poeticis figmentis obtegere ne temere cuilibet communia forent. Plotinus tandem his Theologiam velaminibus enudavit, primusque et solus, ut Porphyrius Proculusque testantur, arcana veterum divinitus penetravit. Sed ob incredibilem cum verborum brevitatem, tum sententiarum copiam sensusque profunditatem, non translatione tantum linguae sed commentariis indiget.“

8 Walker, pp. 40-41 and 114.

9 Rev. ed. New York, 1968, pp. 241-244.

10 For the supreme importance of the Parmenides for Plotinus, see the seminal article by Dodds, E. R., “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic ‘One,’ “ Classical Quarterly,22 (1928), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 See Enneads,2. 9; 3. 6; 3. 8; 4. 3-5; 5. 5; 5. 8; 6. 4-5; also Wallis, R. T.,Neoplatonism (London, 1972), pp. 39, 45, 82–85.Google Scholar

12 See Henry, P., “The adversus Avium of Marius Victorinus: the First Systematic Exposition of the Doctrine of the Trinity, “ journal of Theological Studies,n. s. i (1950), 42- 55 Google Scholar; Pierre, Hadot,Porphyre et Victorinus (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar; Pierre, Hadot, Marius Victorinus: recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres (Paris, 1971)Google Scholar; and Anton, Ziegenaus, Die trinitarische Ausprägung der göttlichen Seinsfulle nach Marius Victorinus (Munich, 1972).Google Scholar

13 Michael, J. Allen, B., “The Absent Angel in Ficino's Philosophy,” Journal of the History of Ideas,36 (1975), 219–240 at 224ff. and 227ff.Google Scholar

14 Paul Oskar, Kristeller,The Philosophy of Marsilio Ficino (New York, 1943), pp. 164–170 Google Scholar. See also Michele, Schiavone,Problemi filosofici in Marsilio Ficino (Milan, 1957), p. 65; and Allen, pp. 227-228.Google Scholar

15 Opera, p. 1169: “Dicimus itaque cum Plotino simul atque Parmenidc primum quidem esse unum super omnia, secundum vero unum omnia; ut perfectissimi genitoris progenies sit omnium perfectissima. Quando autem genitor genitumque sit unum in Christiana Theologia tractamus, Plato quem nunc interpraetemur duo putavisse videtur.“

16 Opera, p. 1194.3: “Trinitatem, quam saepe diximus principiorum ordinibus nullis connumerabilem esse, Platonici putant ipsum bonum, ipsum intellectum, mundi animam. Bonum quidem saepe patrem nominant, intellectum vero filium, animam mundi spiritum: Spiritus intus alit. Si trinitatis huius eandem volunt esse substantiam, quasi Christiani sunt [*] Catholici, si tres substantias, ferme sunt Ariani.” ( *The editio princeps adds “sunt.“)

17 And this is despite the fact that the “divine sparks” struck by the works of the Areopagite had ignited “such a huge fire,” meaning, I take it, such a blaze of inspiration and insight for the later Neoplatonists, Ficino's Platonici. One of those most obviously inflamed was Iamblichus. Towards the close of his epitome for the Republic book VI (Opera, p. 1408), for a moment Ficino seems to entertain the possibility that Iamblichus might have been sympathetic to the Catholic rather than the Arian position: “Although some Platonists, in the manner of the Arians, distinguish God the Son of God the Father by way of substance from the Father, especially Julian in his book The Sun,yet Iamblichus, Julian's teacher, draws our attention to the mysteries of the Egyptians; for in those mysteries the reason of the Father seems to be different from that of the Son, but the substance seems to be the same (diversa quidem ratio, sed eadem uidetur esse substantia).” Ficino then cites the “mystery” from Iamblichus’ Demysteriis,8. 2 (ed. Des Places, Paris, 1966, pp. 195-196). Notice his circumspect wording and the fact that it is an Egyptian, and only indirectly an Iamblichean, possibility that he adduces. A few years later, however, Ficino added a note to this same “mystery” in the body of his Latin translation of the De mysteriis (Opera, p. 1903). He now explains Iamblichus’ comments in terms of Proclan distinctions, explicitly so, and he has dropped the “Catholic” possibility without a word. The question of the consubstantiality of the third person of the Trinity he never raises, logically so given the Platonists’ invariable subordination of Soul.

18 See Walker, pp. 39-40, with further references. Walker observes that the Fathers of the Eastern Church generally were more subordinationist than their Western brothers; the Arian position, that is, was very much an Eastern heresy.

19 Opera, p. 1442. i: “Quern quidem divinum intellectum nominant non ipsum bonum, sed optimum boni filium, quern si unius cum primo substantiae esse intelligamus Platonem Christianae theologiae magis conciliabimus, sed caeteri Platonis interpretes reclamabunt.“

20 For this teaching cycle, see Westerink, L. G.,Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy (Amsterdam, 1962), pp. xxxvii–xxxviii Google Scholar; also Bent Dalsgaard, Larsen,Jamblique de Chalcis: Exégète etphilosophe (Aarhus, 1972), pp. 333–334.Google Scholar

21 At the end of his preface to his Platonis Opera Omnia of 1484, Ficino lists the Epinomis as one of the “thirteen” books of the Laws,while in the title for its epitome he refers to it as the “appendix” for the Laws (Opera, p. 1525.2).

22 Platonic Theology,17. 4 (ed. RaymondMarcel, asMarsile Ficin: Théologie platonicienne de I'immortalité des ȃmes,3 vols. [Paris, 1964-1970], 3: 168–169).Google Scholar I shall refer to Ficino's work in English and reserve the Latin title for Proclus’ magnum opus of the same name.

23 “Que in epistolis vel in libris de legibus et Epinomi[de] Plato ipse suo disserit ore certissima vult haberi; que vero in ceteris libris Socratis, Timei, Parmenidis, Zenonis ore disputat, verisimilia” (sub Libri Platonis). He repeats the idea in a letter to Bandini, Opera, p. 766.2.

24 “Et in epistola ad regem Dionysium, cum esset admodum senex, inquit nihil se de rebus divinis umquam composuisse neque esse Platonis opus de iis ullum nequc umquam fore, quasi non suam mentem aperuerit, sed narraverit alienam. In epistola quoque ad Syracusanos, quam postea scripsit senior, eadem repetivit, ubi adiunxit neminem exstare tunc aut fore in posterum, qui mentem Platonis de huiusmodi rebus intelligat. Merito, quia non scripsit” (ed. Marcel, 3: 168-169).

25 The Greek reads: ϰαὶ τòν τῶν πάντων θεòν ἡγεμóνα τῶν τε ὂντων ϰαὶ τῶν μεƛƛóντων τoῡ τε ἡγεμóνoς ϰαὶ αὶτὶoʋ πατέϱα ϰὐϱιoν ἐπoμνὐντας.

26 Opera, p. 1533.4: “Sed mediam inter duo haec mentem quandam divinam videtur inserere, quando dum repetit ducis, subiungit et causae. Nam apud Platonem saepe rex significat ipsum bonum, causa vero mentem, dux denique animam. Et quoniam causam refert ad mentem, ideo in Timaeo Platonici disputant intellectum, ipsius boni filium, mundi architectum proximum extitisse; de quo in Epinomide scribitur: Ratio divinissima, sive divinissimum verbum, mundum visibilem exornavit.” The Epinomis reference is to 986C.

27 Cf. Platonic Theology,4. 1 (ed. Marcel, 1: 165). According to Tarán, Leonardo,Academical Plato, Philip of Opus, and the Pseudo-Platonic Epinomis,American Philosophical Society vol. 107 (Philadelphia, 1975), pp. 133–139 Google Scholar, the Epinomis was probably the work of Philip of Opus or of another member of the early Academy.

28 Opera, p. 1533.4: “Appellat autem hie ipsum bonum turn patrem turn dominum, ut per primum quidem designaret mentis patrem, per secundum vero animae dominum. Ita forsitan Platonicus numerus exponet; ita quoque Platonicus Christianus sed Arianus. Poterit et quispiam per ducem sanctum spiritum intelligere, per mentem vero filium; nam ubi Plato patrem dicit, filium pariter subintelligit.“

29 Ibid.: “ Ac siquis unam trium ponat essentiam Platonicis quidem multis videbitur adversari, Platoni [*] tamen manifeste non repugnabit.” (* “Platoni” is the reading in the Plato editions of 1484 and 1491; the Opera Omnia reads “Platonicis” which is clearly wrong as Wind perceived [p. 242].)

30 Wind, p. 242; Walker, pp. 41, 101-103, 114.

31 As for instance had Martyr, S. Justin in his First Apology,59 and 60, as contrasted with Cyril of Alexandria in hisContra Julianum, 1. 34A-E (Migne, PG 76. 553B-D)Google Scholar. See Saffrey, H. D. and Westerink, L. G.,Proclus: Théologie Platonicienne, 4 vols, so far (Paris, 1968—), 2: xxxix-xl, 1-lii, for further references.Google Scholar

32 Ed. Eugenio Garin, G.Pico della Mirandola: De Hominis Dignitate, Heptaplus, De Ente et Uno, e scritti vari (Florence, 1942), pp. 466–467 Google Scholar: “Ed abbi ciascuno diligente avvertenzia di non intendere che questo sia quello che da’ nostri Teologi è detto figliuolo di Dio, perche noi intendiamo per il figliuolo una medesima essenzia col padre, a lui in ogni cosa equale, creatore finalmente e non creatura, ma debbesi comparare quello che e’ Platonici chiamano figliuolo di Dio al primo e più nobile angelo da Dio creato.“

33 Opera, p. 1232: “mentem ipsam divinam, quam Seraphin Hebraei nuncupant.“

34 For a comprehensive history of the exegesis of the Second Letter in antiquity, see Saffrey and Westerink, 2: xx-lix.

35 Saffrey and Westerink, i: lxxiii-lxxiv; also SafFrey's Notes Platoniciennes de Marsile, Ficin “Dans un manuscrit de Proclus, cod. Riccardianus 70,” Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance,21 (1959), 180-181.Google Scholar

36 Both, Marcel in his edition,Marsile Ficin: Commentaire sur le Banquet de Platon (Paris, 1958), p. 150 Google Scholar, and Wind, p. 243, refer us to Plutarch's De hide (Moralia,369D ff.) for the Zoroastran link. Walker, pp. 85-86, draws our attention to the trinity interpreters read into Deuteronomy 6. 4, and which some supposed was the source, or one of the sources, for Plato's trinity.

38 Ed. Marcel, p. 151: “Sed eas [forme in materia] Plato in ordine posito non connumerat, quia de divinis a Dionysio interrogatus tres ordines ad incorporales speties pertinentes tamquam divinos induxit; formas autem corporum pretermisit.“

39 Ibid.: “ Noluit autem deum regem primum vocare, sed omnium regem, ne, si primum diceret, eum una cum sequentibus ducibus in aliqua numeri spetie conditionisque paritate collocare forsitan videretur. Neque dixit prima circa ilium, sed cuncta, ne crederemus eum ordinis alicuius potius quam cunctorum gubernatorem.“

40 Theologia Platonica, 2.8-9 (ed. Saffrey and Westerink, 2: 51-61).

41 Opera, p. 1531: “Tres ergo in universo sunt ordines, formarum scilicet et rationum et idearum. Ordo quidem formarum, quae patent sensibus, ad animam ipsam mundi reducitur; quae utique velut principium motus formas in materia generat, generat autem alias aliis rationibus atque seminibus. Hunc vero ordinem in anima rationum ad mentem redigimus anima altiorem, a cuius ideis anima gubernandarum rerum suscipit rationes. Ordo denique idearum in mentem ab immenso et simplici divini boni splendore descendit. Siquidem una hominum idea bonorum, id est, ipse Deus, alia aliorum bonorum menti angelicae ideas infundit. Quamobrem tres rerum ordines ad tres principes fontesque reducuntur: ordo quidem formarum ad mundi animam, ordo vero rationum ad mentem angelicam, ordo denique idearum ad ipsum bonum.“

42 Ibid.: “ Et quia per ideas cuncta referuntur ad bonum, ideo Plato inquit ‘Circa omnium regem cuncta sunt,’ id est, circa ipsum bonum sunt ideae, perque ideas omnia; 'Circa secundum,’ id est, mentem, ‘sunt secunda,’ id est, rationes quae sequuntur ideas; ‘Circa tertium vero tertia,’ id est, circa animam mundi formae.“

43 Ed. Marcel, p. 150: “ Circa regem,non intra regem sed extra significat. In deo enim nulla est compositio. Quid vero dictio ilia circa significet, exponit Plato cum addit: Eius gratia omnia. Ipse causa est pulchrorum omnium,quasi dicat, ideo circa regem omnia sunt, quia ad ilium tamquam ad finem pro natura sua omnia revolvuntur, quemadmodum ab illo, tamquam principio, producta sunt omnia. Pulchrorum omnium,id est, totius pulchritudinis que supra dictis in circulis emicat. Forme enim corporum per semina, hec per rationes, he per ideas reducuntur in deum et iisdem a deo gradibus producuntur. Proprie vero cum dicit cuncta,ideas intelligit, nam in his reliqua includuntur.“

44 Opera, p. 144.1.2: “ U t autem ostenderet singula ab ipso magis quam ab aliis causis emanare, ter replicavit ipsum omnium esse principium.“

45 P. 243. See Festugière, A.J.,Proclus: Commentaire sur le Timée,5 vols. (Paris, 1966- 68), 1:25.Google Scholar

46 Opera, p. 1531: “Significavit autem Deum esse rerurn causam exemplarem ubi dixit ‘circa'; item finalem ubi ait ‘eius gratia'; rursus efficientem quando subiunxit ‘ipse causa est pulchrorum omnium'; quod enim nonnulla sint deformia non ob id habent quod ab ipso sunt, sed quatenus ab eo degenerant.“

47 Opera, p. 1531: “Neque mirum Platonici videri volunt quod Plato quodlibet illorum trium principium nominaverit; nominasse enim similiter sed non aeque.“

48 The long Commentary on the Timaeus was published, substantially complete, as early as 1484 in the Platonis Opera Omnia and again in the second edition of 1491. For a description of the various stages through which the Commentary seems to have passed and for its publication history, see Paul O., Kristeller,Supplementum Ficinianum,2 vols. (Florence, 1937), i:lxi.Google Scholar

49 For the dating, see Kristeller, Supplementum,1: lxxxi-lxxxii.

50 It has been extensively studied by Walter, Dress,Die Mystik des Marsilio Ficino (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929).Google Scholar

51 But contrast Colossians 1. 16-17.

52 Wind, p. 243, refers us to Augustine's Sermones de scripturis,1. 5, and to Aquinas' Super epistolas Pauli,11. 36 (i.e. to Aquinas'analysis of the Epistle to the Romans 11. 36, to be found in his Opera Omnia[Parma, 1862], 13: 118-119).

53 Opera, p. 437: “Tria haec igitur, Potentia, Sapientia, Bonitas, ut placet Theologis, attributa patrem et filium sanctumque spiritum repraesentare videntur. Divinam quidem potentiam praecipue dicimus mundi causam effectricem, sapientiam consequenter operis huius exemplar, bonitatem denique finem. Triplicem hunc ordinem causae penes Deum Plato noster regi Dionysio declaravit, exemplar quidem dum inquit 'ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipsum omnia': ex ipso efficientem, per ipsum exemplarem, in ipsum finalem causam nobis exprimens.” Note the crux at “exemplar quidem dum inquit“; Wind silently omits “exemplar quidem.“

54 Tigerstedt's, E. N. contention in his “The Poet as Creator: Origins of a Metaphor,“ Comparative Literature Studies,5 (1968), 460-461Google Scholar, that Ficino repudiated the interpretatio Christiana of the Timaeus is very misleading as I shall try to demonstrate on another occasion.

55 See n. 31 above.

56 Pico, Oratio (ed. Garin, pp. 154-8); cf. Heptaplus, proem to Expositio II (ed. Garin, p. 222). Pico's views on the Platonists and the Trinity, particularly as expressed in the Heptaplus,are a fascinating study in their own right.

57 Ficino has a very interesting letter to Martin Prenninger, dated June 1 ith or 12th 1489 (Opera, p. 899), where, inter alia,he gives a list of Platonists writing in Latin up to his own contemporaries, Cusanus and Bessarion, as well as of Platonic works in the Greek tradition but available in Latin translations including his own. The letter testifies to his consciousness of being the inheritor of a continuous Latin Platonic tradition that reached back through Scotus, Henry of Ghent, Avicenna and Avicebron to Boethius, Augustine and Apuleius. See Kristeller, Philosophy, pp. 26-27; Raymond, Klibansky,The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the Middle Ages (London, 1939 Google Scholar; reissued with another essay and some additions, Munich, 1981), pp. 36, 42-47; and Raymond, Marcel,Marsile Ficin (1433-1499) (Paris, 1958), pp. 606–607.Google Scholar

58 Cf. Opera, p. 731; and della Torre, p. 593.

59 See, among many studies, Michele Federico, Sciacca,Saint Augustin et le néoplatonisme: la possibilité d'une philosophic chrétienne (Louvain, 1956)Google Scholar; Jean, Pépin,Ex Platonicorum persona: études sur les lectures philosophiques de Saint Augustin (Amsterdam, 1977)Google Scholar; and Alfred W., Matthews,The Development of Saint Augustine from Neoplatonism to Christianity, 386-391 AD (Washington, 1980)Google Scholar. For Augustine's views on the Trinity specifically, see Michael, Schmaus,Diepsychologische Trinitatslehre des heiligen Augustinus (Münster, 1927; repr. 1967)Google Scholar, and Olivier du, Roy,L'Intelligence de lafoi en la Trinité selon saint Augustin, genèse de sa théologiejusqu'en 391 (Paris, 1966).Google Scholar

60 Cf. Ficino's observation in his commentary on the Republic book VIII: “[Plato] quern solum temporis intervallum prohibuit esse Christianum” ﹛Opera, p. 1510).