The Philosophy of GEMISTOS Plethon: Platonism in Late Byzantium, between Hellenism and Orthodoxy
Abstract
George Gemistos Plethon (c. 1360-1454) was a remarkable and influential thinker, active at the time of transition between the Byzantine Middle Ages and the Italian Renaissance. His works cover literary, historical, scientific, but most notably philosophical issues. Plethon is arguably the most important of the Byzantine Platonists and the earliest representative of Platonism in the Renaissance. This book provides a new study of Gemistos' philosophy. The first part is dedicated to the discussion of his 'public philosophy', in the second, most extensive, part of the book the Platonism of Plethon is presented in a systematic way and in the third part the notorious question of the paganism of Gemistos is reconsidered.
... Он создал последовательно философски обоснованную систему платонического богословия и этики, противопоставив ее христианской парадигме, но в то же время всю жизнь находился в почете у христианских императоров Византии и даже был на Ферраро-Флорентийском соборе в составе православной делегации. Исследователи порой приходят к противоположным выводам относительно воззрений философа, что видно из последних монографий о нем: Б. Тамбрун [20] и Н. Синиоссоглу [19] видят в Плифоне убежденного антипаламита, платоника и язычника, тогда как В. Гладки [13] считает, что Гемист оставался православным, хотя сильнее других увлекся античной философией, а его языческие сочинения представляют собой скорее литературную игру. В данной статье анализируются взгляды Плифона на бессмертие души с целью выяснить, насколько они в действительности расходятся с христианскими. ...
... 12 Древнее название реки Дунай. 13 То есть африканскими. 14 Границы Римской империи к началу II века. ...
Introduction. The article examines the views of the last major Byzantine philosopher George Gemistos Plethon on the immortality of the human soul. Scholars are still debating whether Plethon was a pagan who completely rejected Christianity, or a Christian who was too fond of Platonism. Methods. Methods employed in this article are source research, information analysis, comparative research. Sources on the subject include: Plethon’s funeral orations on Cleopa Malatesta and on Helena Palaiologina, “Book of Laws”, commentaries on the Chaldean Oracles, “On the Differences of Aristotle from Plato”, “Summary of the Doctrines of Zoroaster and Plato”, “Áddress to the Despot Theodore on the Peloponnese”, Theodore Metochites’ treatise “On Education”. Analysis. An analysis of Plethon’s writings shows that in his doctrine of the human soul and its posthumous destiny Gemistos was far removed from Christianity. Plethon confessed the pre-existence of souls to bodies and metempsychosis, he considered life in body as the main human mission in universe, as a link and boundary between the mortal and immortal worlds. According to Plethon, permanent periodical connection of immortal and mortal (soul and body) in human is better, than endless immortality after one life. His doctrine about soul does not imply neither deification of body, nor bodily resurrection and terrible judgment at the end of time. Results. In Plethon’s monodies, his non-Christian views are expressed in a veiled way, but a careful analysis of the text of the monodies in comparison with the other works of the philosopher shows that his views on the destiny of the soul, on the one hand, were very different from those of the Christian Church, and on the other hand, they looked more optimistic, leaving the soul the opportunity both for gradual improvement in a series of rebirths, and for enjoying the divine life between them, subject to virtuous behavior on earth. Appendix. The article is accompanied by a Russian translation of Plethon’s monodies on Cleopa Malatesta and Helena Palaiologina.
... v;Lagarde 1989: 376.16-380.20). См. подробный обзор документально зафиксированных в сочинениях Плифона источников его философии, которые он относил к платонической традиции, Hladký 2014Hladký : 168-184. Олег Ноговицин / Платоновские исследования 20.1 (2024 го один раз -в начале трактата «Против Схолариевой защиты Аристотеля». ...
В «Категориях» Аристотель утверждает одновременность существования соотнесенных как необходимую характеристику их бытия, говоря, что они одновременны по природе, но приводит два исключения, а именно соотнесенность знания и познаваемого, а также чувственно воспринимаемого и чувственного восприятия. Физическое и метафизическое обоснование смысла, в котором нужно понимать приоритет в порядке причинной взаимосвязи познаваемого над знанием и чувственно воспринимаемого над чувственным восприятием, он дает во второй главе III книги трактата «О душе» и в конце пятой главы IV книги «Метафизики». В своем трактате «О том, чем различаются Платон и Аристотель» Плифон дает развернутую критику данных исключений и сферы действия принципа одновременности соотнесенных. В статье рассматривается способ и порядок толкования аргументации Аристотеля в комментариях Аммония Александрийского, Иоанна Филопона, Симпликия, Асклепия и некоторых других позднеантичных неоплатоников, а также специфика платонической критики, которой подвергает саму возможность исключений из принципа одновременности соотнесенных Плифон. Нападая на неоплатоническую логику сближения Платона и Аристотеля, он предельным образом акцентирует те противоречия, которые существуют между платонической и перипатетической концепциями порядка бытия сущего.
In his , Aristotle affirms the simultaneity of existence of the Relatives as an indispensable feature of their being, declaring that they are simultaneous by nature while adducing two exceptions, namely, the correlatedness of cognition and the cognized, as well as of the sensuously perceived and sensory perception. The physical and metaphysical grounding of the reason, by which the priority of the cognized over cognition and of the sensuously perceived over sensory perception in the order of causal relationship is to be understood, is given by him in Chapter 2 of Book III of the treatise and at the end of Chapter 5 of Book IV of the . In his treatise , Pletho proposes a detailed criticism of the mentioned exceptions and sphere of activity of the principle of simultaneity of the Relatives. In the present paper, the author considers the mode and the order of interpreting the argumentation of Aristotle in the commentaries of Ammonius of Alexandria, John Philoponus, Simplicius, Asclepius and some other Neo-Platonists of late Antiquity, focusing on the specificity of Platonic criticism which Pletho applies to the very possibility of exceptions from the principle of simultaneity of the Relatives. In targeting the Neo-Platonic logic of convergence of Plato and Aristotle, he radically accentuates the contradictions between Platonic and Peripatetic conceptions of the order of the being of beings.
... Cf. Hladký (2014). ...
Публикация представляет комментированный перевод переписки Георгия Гемиста Плифона с Виссарионом Никейским, посвященной ряду философских тем. Виссарион стремится согласовать между собой разные мнения неоплатоников, тогда как Гемист показывает более свободный характер своего мышления: он берет у комментаторов Платона то, что находит подходящим для обоснования своих суждений, и не боится критиковать то, что считает ошибочным. Наиболее интересная часть переписки - дискуссия о судьбе и необходимости. Письма имеют полностью нехристианский характер: философские проблемы и тонкости обсуждаются исключительно в контексте античной философии, прежде всего неоплатонизма.
Introduction. The article examines the place of the creators of the human soul in the theological system of George Gemistos Plethon. In his interpretations of the Chaldean Oracles, Plethon calls the “second god” the “direct creator of the soul”; in the Plethon’s “Book of Laws,” this god is Poseidon, second after the supreme god Zeus, called the “immediate head” of humans. At the same time, in the “Book of Laws,” the gods-children of Zeus are called “creators” and “co-creators,” assistants of Poseidon in the creation of the universe; in particular, Pluto is the “head” and “ruler” of souls, the “leader” of humans. Why, then, is Pluto not the direct creator of the soul, if Poseidon uses him as an intermediary? Methods. Methods employed in this article are source research, information analysis, and comparative research. Sources on the subject include Plethon’s “Book of Laws,” commentaries on the Chaldean Oracles, and “On the differences of Aristotle from Plato.” Analysis. A consideration of the hierarchy of gods and their functions in the pantheon of Plethon shows that Gemistos calls Poseidon “the immediate creator” of the soul and “the immediate head” of humans, meaning that Poseidon is such as the immediate, in contrast to Zeus, creator of the world as a whole. Thus, Poseidon, like his father Zeus, whose only possible accurate image he is, is called δημιουργός and παραγωγός not in the same sense in which the other gods, whose assistance he uses in the creation of separate parts of the universe, can be so called. Results. Poseidon, as the totality of all forms of beings, is the immediate creator of the entire world as a whole, including the human soul. Other gods, including the “chief of human nature” and the “head of our immortal part,” Pluto, are responsible only for separate parts of the universe, and for them, “creation” and “production” of the corresponding parts of the universe turn out to be closer to “ordering,” “decoration,” and “guidance.” Appendix. The article is accompanied by a Russian translation of Plethon’s “Summary of the doctrines of Zoroaster and Plato.”
In the early-fifteenth century, the Peloponnesos (Morea) continued to be a zone of Greek-Latin confrontation, which started when the Fourth Crusade participants conquered Byzantine territories. By the period under study, the balance of power on the peninsula radically changed, so the Romaioi of the Despotate of the Morea, led by the despotai of the Palaiologos dynasty (1383–1460), were pursuing the policy of conquest against the Latins of the Principality of Achaea. This article examines the impact of the Byzantine “Reconquista” in the Morea on the peninsula’s Latin population: the inhabitants of the Principality of Achaea, as well as the Venetian territories, which suffered collateral damage from regular clashes between their neighbours. The author uses Venetian documentary material and Byzantine narrative sources (historical works by George Sphrantzes, Laonikos Chalkokondyles, and Doukas, rhetorical works by Manuel II Palaiologos and George Gemistos Plethon) as the background to analyse how the Palaiologoi’s expansion changed the life of the Latin population and the Greeks’ attitude towards the latter. The conclusion is that the period in question was critical for the Latin population from not only political but also psychological and economic points of view. Extremely alarming feelings of the Latins were associated with the colossal economic damage from military actions and uncertainty about the future due to the small number of the Latin population in the Morea. Nevertheless, after the annexation of the Principality of Achaea by the Despotate of the Morea (1430), the Latins still found their place in the changed realities, but solely on Byzantine terms.
В статье показано, что Плифон в своих сочинениях под «софистами» имеет в виду христиан и полемизирует с их учением. По мнению Гемиста, христиане ввели в заблуждение множество людей, ложно утверждая, будто творят великие дела с помощью божественной силы и имеют знание, полученное непосредственно от Бога. Чтобы показать, что авторы Библии — выдумщики, недостойные доверия, Плифон объявил древнейшим авторитетом в области богословия и законодательства Зороастра и поместил его жизнь на много столетий раньше не только традиционной датировки жизни Моисея, но и принятой христианами даты сотворения мира. Гемист критикует «софистов»-христиан за следование множеству нелепых установлений и правил, он считает заблуждением такие монашеские и христианские практики и добродетели, как бегство от занятий мирскими науками и от познания материального мира, полное воздержание от сексуальной жизни, посты и полное воздержание от мяса, телесную аскезу, полное нестяжание. Плифон отвергает те образцы христианской аскезы, за которые веками прославлялись святые подвижники, предпочитая умеренность и благопристойность обыкновенного светского человека, а супружескую жизнь ставит выше безбрачия. Его философия имеет антихристианскую и антимонашескую направленность, и попытки некоторых исследователей увидеть в Плифоне христианина, чьи взгляды можно примирить с православием, следует признать несостоятельными.
The article shows that Plethon in his writings by the name “sophists” means Christians and polemizes with their teaching. According to Gemistos, Christians misled many people, falsely asserting that they were doing great things with the help of divine power and have knowledge received directly from God. To show that the authors of the Bible were inventors, unworthy of confidence, Plethon declared Zoroaster the oldest authority in the field of theology and legislation and placed his life many centuries earlier not only of the traditional dating of the life of Moses, but also of the date of the world creation that was accepted by Christians. Gemistos criticizes the Christian “sophists” for following many ridiculous establishments and rules; he considers erroneous such monastic and Christian practices and virtues as avoiding scholarly pursuits and the knowledge of material world, complete abstinence from sexual life, fasting and complete abstinence from meat, bodily austerity. Plethon rejects those examples of Christian asceticism, for which holy ascetics were glorified for centuries, he prefers the moderation and decency of an ordinary secular person, and puts a married life above celibacy. His philosophy has an anti-Christian and anti-monastic orientation, and the attempts by some researchers to consider Plethon as a Christian whose views agree with Orthodoxy should be rejected as untenable.
The article deals with the ideas of Claude de Seyssel (1450—1520). Attention is paid to the fact that these ideas were based on an analysis, based on the model proposed by Plato, of the oligarchic form of government as a real form of existence of the republic in contemporary Venice and a study of the applicability of this model to France. The relevance of the work is due to the appearance of a number of works in which one can see that the views of Claude de Seyssel were similar not only to the views of the Italian humanists, but also to the utopian ideas of the reorganization of Byzantium by George Gemistus Plethon (1355/1360—1452/1454). The authors of the article argue that the ideas of Claude de Seyssel should be considered in a broader context than was previously accepted in historical science. It is shown in the article that it was Claude de Seyssel who drew attention to the importance of the military class and its rights as the most important principle for the formation of European monarchies in the context of problems common to Italian and Byzantine humanists. It is proved that he became a kind of transmission link between Italian and Byzantine humanism, on the one hand, and French humanism, on the other, and significantly influenced the development of socio-political and historical concepts of French thinkers of the 16th-17th centuries.
This volume provides, through studies of some of the leading experts in Renaissance and Early Modern philosophy, the first assessment of the blurred relationship between Platonism and Aristotelianism between the fifteenth and the seventeenth century. Assuming a transnational and emic perspective, the case studies discussed in the volume aim at highlighting how early modern followers of Plato and Aristotle did not look at the philosophies of the two ancient thinkers as monolithic entities, with no reciprocal communication whatsoever, but were on the contrary well aware of the complex and ambiguous interplay between their systems of thought, an awareness in large part enabled by the gradual rediscovery of ancient commentators. Such a sophisticated approach to the two philosophers enabled early modern Platonism and Aristotelianism to explore new and original solutions to long-debated topics such as the immortality of the soul, and many others.
Dionisio de Halicarnaso, dando continuidad a unas ideas definidas ya en época de la Atenas clásica, buscó trasladar el concepto griego de autoctonía (vincular el origen de un pueblo a su tierra) al ámbito itálico a través del origen griego que reconoció al pueblo romano. Durante el período bizantino, la idea de identidad cambió y evolucionó a una identidad de tipo político o cultural. En época de la caída de Constantinopla, algunos autores intentaron conciliar esta nueva identidad con las ideas antiguas, de forma que el resultado permitiera reivindicar los orígenes griegos de la ciudad de Bizancio y de su imperio.
Recently, seminal publications highlighted the Romanitas of the Byzantines. However, it is not without importance that from the 12th century onwards the ethnonym Hellene (Ἓλλην) became progressively more popular. A number of influential intellectuals and political actors preferred the term Hellene to identify themselves, instead of the formal Roman (Ρωμαῖος) and the common Greek (Γραικός). While I do not intend to challenge the prevalence of the Romanitas during the long Byzantine era, I suggest that we should reevaluate the emerging importance of Hellenitas in the shaping of collective and individual identities after the 12th century. From the 13th to the 16th century, Byzantine scholars attempted to recreate a collective identity based on cultural and historical continuity and otherness. In this paper, I will seek to explore the ways Byzantine scholars of the Late Byzantine and Post Byzantine era, who lived in the territories of the Byzantine Empire and/or in Italy, perceived national identity, and to show that the shift towards Hellenitas started in the Greek-speaking East.
A Timarión, diálogo satírico lucianesco del siglo XII, la crítica lo ha venido considerando un ataque larvado al cristianismo, siguiendo la pauta marcada en una carta privada por su primer comentarista, el gran logoteta Constantino Acropolita (s. XIV). En este artículo se publica una traducción de la carta y se examina su contenido. Por otra parte, se repasa el texto del diálogo analizando los pasajes en los que se sustentan los argumentos de su supuesto paganismo latente.
Si propone qui una nuova ipotesi sui celebri emisferi celesti nelle scarselle fiorentine della Sagrestia Vecchia e della Cappella dei Pazzi, tenendo conto del quadro storico delle tematiche dell’astrologia medicea sviluppatesi nella generazione di Cosimo de’ Medici. E’ infatti in questo ambito che deve trovare ragionevolmente collocazione una rappresentazione artistico-scientifica così straordinaria e innovativa da innumerevoli punti di vista, espressa addirittura in duplice copia. L’identificazione dell’autore del programma astrologico (Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, probabilmente in collaborazione con Leon Battista Alberti) non è purtroppo sufficiente, in assenza di documentazione e testimonianze dirette, a svelare le enigmatiche esigenze del committente Cosimo il Vecchio de Medici ma, alla luce di altre coeve e successive committenze di tematica celeste, è possibile tentare di ricostruirne la strategia astrologica complessiva, di natura sottilmente propagandistica e mitopoietica. Gli interessi della dinastia in ascesa sono inquadrati e giustificati in una narrativa divisa tra l’immaginario orientale e neoplatonico dei Re Magi e dell’eredità bizantino-ortodossa e quello profetico-gioachimita di una Firenze vista come nuova Gerusalemme e futuro polo dominante della storia e della politica mondiale. Il tema dei Magi e quello del Concilio di Firenze continueranno a intrecciarsi anche a decenni di distanza dal suo sostanziale fallimento, indicando con forza, tra le due date plausibili fin qui proposte per i cieli di San Lorenzo e di Santa Croce - il 1439 di Fortini-Brown e il 1442 di Forti - quella del 6 luglio 1439, la proclamazione della Bolla Laetentur Coeli in occasione della fuggevole riunificazione delle Chiese Occidentale e Orientale, a sei mesi esatti dalla ricorrenza magusea dell’Epifania. La scelta di questa data, lungi dall’essere una casualità calendariale o un puro calcolo tecnico-astrologico del momento migliore per celebrare l’evento, potrebbe celare secondo una plausibile ricostruzione storica del Toscanelli il cielo del primo avvistamento della Stella profetica della Natività di Cristo. La forza politica, religiosa e metafisica del messaggio dei due emisferi celesti, nonostante non venga mai citata e interpretata esplicitamente dalla letteratura contemporanea e successiva, lascerà una suggestiva e dimenticata eredità artistica nel Rinascimento italiano: quella grandiosa della prima volta della Cappella Sistina realizzata da PierMatteo D’Amelia e quella più modesta della cupolina della Cappella del Rosario a Montagnana, concepita dall’astrologo Galeotto Marzio.
This paper explores Georgios Gemistos Plethonʼs (circa 1355–1452 ACE) teaching methods and educational philosophy. We refer to the Byzantine philosopher as Gemistos and not Plethon, because most of his teachings and works were written while he was known as Gemistos. This paper is divided into several sections. It begins with a brief biography of Gemistos and then follows with a discussion on the general contours of Byzantine education, specifically Outer and Inner Learning as well as fourteenth and fifteenth century Christian perceptions of ancient Greek learning. In section three this paper investigates Gemistosʼs teaching methods and how Platoʼs notion of "turning the soul" may have influenced Gemistos understanding of how students learned best. Section four explores Gemistosʼs educational philosophy, his views on Plato and Aristotle as well his religious beliefs and how these may have impacted his teaching. This paper concludes with a discussion of Gemistosʼs lasting impact on education and learning.
Those who work with topics related to Modern Greek identity usually start discussing these issues by quoting the famous Georgios Gemistos Pletho (c.1360-1454): we, over whom you rule and hold sway, are Hellenes by genos (γένος), as is witnessed by our language and ancestral education. Although Woodhouse thought of Pletho as the last of the Hellenes, others prefer to denounce him the last of the Byzantines and the first and foremost Modern Greek. During the 14th and 15th centuries, a number of influential intellectuals in the Eastern Roman Empire preferred the term Hellene (Ἓλλην) to identify themselves, instead of the formal Roman (Ρωμαῖος) and the common Greek (Γραικός). According to the prevalent view of modern scholarship, the shift should not be interpreted only as a statement of proto-national identity, but also as the outcome of growing archaism. As Vryonis pointed out, the historian Critoboulos used to call the Balkan nations with their archaic names: Byzantines became “Hellenes,” Albanians became “Illyrians,” etc. Chalkokondyles followed in the same path. Furthermore, in order to lament the decline of their Empire, byzantine intellectuals tended to compare their sad present to the glory of ancient Greece. Besides archaism, proto-nationalism and Hellenism, I suggest that a careful reading of the sources would lead us to reappraise the ways 15th century intellectuals perceived identity. Whilst I do not accept Vakalopoulos’ views on diachronic Hellenic identity, I support that, in the 15th century, Byzantine scholars attempted to create an identity based on cultural and historical continuity and otherness. Moreover, Laiou’s definition of Greek identity as a resultant of language, history, tradition and interests does not cover the case of 15th century Byzantine philosophers, since the latter strived to enrich and enlarge Greek identity with additional elements. It is worth noting that those philosophers who fled to Italy deliberately chose to describe themselves as
Greeks (Greci/Γραικοί) or Hellenes (Ἓλληνες) and not as Romans (Ρωμιοί/Ρωμαῖοι), according to the Byzantine official terminology. During the 15th century a major shift occurred in the Byzantine intelligentsia and its prominent members revisited matters of identity. In this paper, I attempt to scrutinize the ways Byzantine philosophers of the 15th century, who lived in the territories of the Byzantine Empire and in Italy, perceived identity and otherness. In my research, I include not only Greek, but also Latin sources, since their works is written in both languages.
Whether or to what degree Plato's Republic is a utopian work depends on what one means by “utopia,” a word with a notoriously wide range of meanings. I shall simply stipulate that by “utopia” I mean a description of an imagined society put forward by its author as better than any existing society, past or present. The limiting case (relevant to the Republic) is the portrayal not just of a better society but of the best society. I call a “mere utopia” a description of an ideal society meant or recognized by its author to be an impossible society - a society in some sense better than any historical society, but which could never actually exist. Socrates calls his ideal city “Callipolis.” Did Plato think Callipolis was realizable? Did he really believe that the city he portrays in the Republic is the best human society? As with so much else in Plato, scholars disagree. One mainstream interpretation, which fits most easily the surface of the text and which I share, is that Plato intends the society described in the Republic to be a utopia that is not a mere utopia. Socrates paints a picture in words of the best human society, one difficult but not impossible to realize. Compared with classical Athens, or indeed with any society existing today, the conditions in Callipolis are extraordinary. Communism of property, abolition of the family, tight control of every aspect of life by the philosophical ruling class, maximal “unity” of thought and feeling among the citizens – features such as these have led critics from Aristotle onward to criticize Callipolis as so contrary to human nature as to be both impossible and undesirable.
Conventional wisdom suggests that the Platonist philosophers of Late Antiquity - from Plotinus in the 3rd century to the 6th-century schools in Athens and Alexandria - neglected the political dimension of their Platonic heritage in their concentration on an otherworldly life. This book presents a reappraisal of these thinkers, arguing that their otherworldliness involved, rather than excluded, political ideas. A reconstruction of the political philosophy of these thinkers is proposed for the first time, including discussion of these Platonists' conceptions of the function, structure, and contents of political science (including questions concerning political reform, law, justice, penology, religion, and political action), its relation to political virtue and to the divinization of soul and state. This book also traces the influence of these ideas on selected Christian and Islamic writers: Eusebius, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, and al-Farabi.
This book breaks new ground in the study of later ancient philosophy by examining the interplay of the two main schools of thought, Platonism and Aristotelianism, from the first century BC to the third century AD. From the time of Antiochus and for the next four centuries, Platonists were strongly preoccupied with the question of how Aristotle's philosophy compared with the Platonic model. Scholars have usually classified Platonists into two groups, the orthodox ones and the eclectics or syncretists, depending on whether Platonists rejected Aristotle's philosophy as a whole or accepted some Peripatetic doctrines. The book argues against this dichotomy, claiming that Platonists turned to Aristotle only in order to discover and elucidate Plato's doctrines and thus to reconstruct Plato's philosophy. They did not hesitate to criticize Aristotle when judging him to be at odds with Plato. For them, Aristotle was merely auxiliary to their accessing and understanding Plato. The evaluation of Aristotle's testimony on the part of the Platonists also depends on their interpretation of Aristotle himself. This is particularly clear in the case of Porphyry, with whom the ancient discussion reaches a conclusion, which most later Platonists accepted. While essentially in agreement with Plotinus's interpretation of Plato, Porphyry interpreted Aristotle in such a way that the latter appeared to agree essentially with Plato on all significant philosophical questions, a view which was dominant until the Renaissance. It is argued that Porphyry's view of Aristotle's philosophy guided him to become the first Platonist to write commentaries on Aristotle's works.
I Pletho's Date of Death
In 1976 I denied the correctness of the commonly held date of 1452 for Pletho's death. I argued instead for 1454. The difference of two years meant not only that Pletho lived to see the fall of Constantinople in 1453, but also that a whole series of works in the Plato-Aristotle controversy had to be redated. The basis for the 1452 date is a notice found amid other notes by an unknown hand on the last folio of the fifteenth-century manuscript M. 15 in the University Library in Salamanca and in another series of notes in the hand of Pletho's disciple and admirer Demetrius Raoul Kabakes on f. 50v of Gr. 495 of the Bayerisches Staatsbibliothek, Munich. With only trivial variation, both notes state that Master Gemistus died on the first hour of Monday, 26 June in the fifteenth Indiction. Since the only year in this period in which 26 June falls on a Monday in the fifteenth Indiction is 1452, Pletho's date of death seems well established. Though Kabakes was a bizarre character whose trademark was, in Bidez's phrase, an orthographe fantasiste , the fact that he wrote the notice in Munich Gr. 495 might be viewed as strenghtening its credibility. Futhermore, since Dositheus, Metropolitan of Monembasia seems to have died on 1 September 1452 and on blank folios (ff. 7v–8r) in MS Venice, Bibl. Marc., Zan. Gr. 333 (= 644) Bessarion wrote his memorial verses on Pletho and then his memorial verses on Dositheus, one can argue that in the summer of 1452 Bessarion first heard of Pletho's death and then a few months later of Dositheus'. Nonetheless, the death notice is certainly wrong.
The article interprets Plutarch's dualism in the light of the Apollo-Dionysus opposition as presented in De E 388e-389c, arguing that Plutarch is no dualist in the strict sense of the word. A comparison of De E 393f-394a with De Iside 369b-d shows that it is only in the sublunary realm of Nature that Plutarch assumes a duality of two distinct Powers; at the higher levels of reality the divine is unified and harmonious. If Plutarch fails to emphasize this point clearly enough, it is because his primary philosophical interests were ethical, not metaphysical.
The two central Latin works of the Plato-Aristotle Controversy of the Fifteenth Century were George of Trebizond's Comparatio Philosophorum Platonis et Aristotelis and Cardinal Bessarion's In Calumniatorem Platonis in response to George. The Renaissance fortuna of Bessarion's work is well known and reflects the relative success it enjoyed. George's Comparatio, however, had a much harder time of it. The story of its eventually printing in 1523 involves us tracing the history of MS Vat. Lat. 3382 of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana through Central Europe until its arrival in Venice. The key figure in the printing proved to be the imperial official Jacopo Bannisio. A marginal note by the Englishman Robert Ridley in a copy of Bessarion's work now at Yale University reporting a conversation he had with Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples in Paris provides interesting insights on how Lefèvre and others viewed the conflict between Bessarion and George as well as on the fortuna of George's Comparatio.