Vojtch Hladk

Olomouc May 2013From Byzantium to Italy: Ancient Wisdom in

Plethon and Cusanus

Vojtch HladkI would like to tell you a story. In late November 1437 a ship left Constantinople. She headed for Venice which she was to reach in more than three months later. A young church legate Nicholas of Cusa who was aboard could be more than satisfied. It was due to his diplomatic skills that a high-ranking deputation travelled to Italy to attend a council which should discuss a union of Western and Eastern churches. Among the Byzantine lite, in the company of high state and church officials and scholars, there was a man who shared Nicholas vivid interest in philosophy and more specifically Platonism. His name was George Gemistos but he is also known under the surname he sometimes used Plethon, meaning the second Plato. He was undisputedly the greatest expert in ancient philosophy in late Byzantium and a kind of polymath around whom an important circle of pupils gathered. This all is well-known as well as the role Plethon and Cusanus had in the history of Renaissance thought. For Nicholas his diplomatic voyage to Constantinople was a turning-point in his intellectual career. In 1440, two years after his return home from Constantinople, he finished his first and by far the most famous philosophical treatise On Learned Ignorance (De docta ignorantia). At the end of this work he notoriously claims that during the journey he experienced an intellectual vision. It allegedly led him to the formulation of the key principle of his philosophy, namely, the coincidence of opposites. [[Handout, no. 1.]] It is tempting to imagine Nicholas being led to such a theoretical insight by a philosophical conversation with Gemistos. During the slow voyage to Venice they definitely had enough time to talk and, indeed, they could not miss one another. Gemistos was by far the most important Byzantine Platonist of the day and his knowledge of ancient culture attracted even Italian humanists from the West. As for Cusanus his interest in Platonism is apparent from his early years as well as the interest in ancient manuscripts and Greek. If his knowledge of the language was not good enough to engage in a conversation with Gemistos, he could easily turn to a number of interpreters and experts in both languages, Greek and Latin, who were naturally present in the delegation prepared for a difficult diplomatic mission.Unfortunately, leaving apart Nicholas long-term warm friendship with Bessarion, the most important pupil of Gemistos, it is difficult to find a tangible connection between the both thinkers. We know that some 30 years later Cusanus got a translation of Plethons On Fate (in fact chapter II,6 from the Laws) but it is not clear how much he was really interested in this text and generally in its author. It is plausible to claim that he had to know about Gemistos and he was also probably aware about his activities in Italy during the council of Ferrara-Florence in 14381439 as well as about the burning of Plethons Laws some 20 years later. At the same time, however, there are reasons why Cusanus might well have been critical towards Plethon, namely, because of his notorious fatalism and perhaps also because of his emphasizing of the differences between Plato and Aristotle, instead of mutual agreement of their philosophy. In general, there seem to be fewer similarities than divergences between the two respective versions of Platonism they both proposed. It is in fact difficult to find a particular philosophical idea by which Plethon could have influenced Cusanus e.g. during their joint journey to Italy. However, the work of both thinkers may provide a basis for a comparison regarding a motif which is, so to say, mythological. It is well-known that Plethon influenced the general culture of Renaissance but also of later times by his claim that the most ancient representative of the true wisdom is Persian Zoroaster. This sage was supposed to live 5000 years before the Trojan War, usually situated by the Greeks to the time around 1200 BCE. This gives a number quite incredible not only for antiquity, but also for the Middle Ages. For instance, according to the Byzantines the world was created on 31st August 5508 BCE. At the same time Plethon identified the Chaldaean Oracles which captivated already the Neoplatonists as the utterances of the Magi of Zoroaster. In fact, these dark oracular sayings originated in the Middle Platonic underground some time during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. It is not entirely clear what made Plethon associate the Chaldaean Oracles with Zoroaster. The safest conclusion seems to be that in his search for the most ancient sage he combined together several motifs which circulated in ancient religious and philosophical literature. However, in the European tradition his identification launched the Faszination Zarathustra which lasted until the end of the 18th century when the modern scholarly study of Zoroastrianism refuted his claim. Plethons influence was so far-reaching, exactly because he connected Zoroaster, or more precisely his Magi with a particular text, namely, the Chaldaean Oracles. Moreover, he produced an edition of the Oracles and wrote a detailed and comprehensive commentary upon them (which is based on a previous edition and commentary by Michael Psellos). In the 15th century this work by Plethon was owned by John Argyropoulos, a Byzantine philosopher and teacher living in Italy, or Francesco Filelfo, a leading Italian humanist and expert in Greek. Both of them were also convinced of the foremost role Zoroaster had in the history of though, obviously due to Plethon. But by far the most notable thinker of the period who was influenced by Plethons treatise was Marsilio Ficino. The leader of the Florentine Academy was fascinated by the wisdom of ancient sages since his philosophical beginnings. From the late 1450s he was attempting to reconstruct this wisdom on the basis of ancient sources available to him and he considered it as complementary to Jewish and Christian tradition. In his first arrangement the ancient, that means, pagan theology proceeds through the following authors: Hermes Trismegistus, Orpheus, Aglaophamus, Pythagoras, Philolaus and Plato who completes the series. However, in the late 1460s Ficino got acquainted with Plethons commentary and obviously under its influence added Zoroaster at the beginning of the series, while leaving out Philolaus. His considerations seem to be chronological, as he gives the sequence of the sages in time, but also geographical. Divine providence ensured that each continent known at the period had its own ancient wisdom which is written down in the respective text. Thus Asia has Zoroaster, who is the oldest of all the known sages and whose teaching is contained in the Chaldaean or after Plethons intervention Magian Oracles. These were, however, in fact composed only in the 2nd century CE. In Africa Hermes Trismegistus was the alleged author of Hermetic writings (Corpus Hermeticum) and was considered to be a (younger) contemporary of Moses who received the most important part of ancient wisdom, that is, the divine revelation contained in the Old Testament. As is well-known, Hermetic writings in fact originated roughly in the same time as the Chaldaean Oracles. Finally, Europe has an even younger religious initiator, poet Orpheus whose verses quoted very often by the Neoplatonists were probably written also much later. Plethon, too, mentions him, but once only. Orpheus does not seem to be his favourite sage because of his generally low opinion of poets. If we further add Sibyls we have the complete collection of the main sources of pre-Christian wisdom as conceived by Renaissance. Here, too, we have a written text, namely, the Sibylline Oracles composed also in late antiquity. They are naturally meant to evoke famous Roman documents the Sibylline Books kept on the Capitol.

Now let us turn our attention to Cusanus. In his case, too, we encounter some echoes of ancient wisdom. Its most important representative is definitely Hermes Trismegistus who appears in his work always in crucial places. Hermes is thus mentioned, together with Sibyls, already in Nicholas first text preserved to us, namely, the sermon delivered at Christmas 1430 (1428?). [[Handout, no. 2.]] Quoting several texts, Cusanus argues that both Hermes and Sibyls had a kind of intuitive knowledge of the existence of the second God or the son of God, that is Christ. This means that the ancient sages were able to understand, although dimly, the relations within the Trinity. It is obvious that Cusanus here draws heavily upon Lactantius and his Divine Institutes (Divinae institutiones). As it si well known, the Corpus Hermeticum was translated from Greek to Latin by Ficino only in 1463, that is, just a year before the death of Cusanus. Until then Lactantius, together with Augustine and a Hermetic treatise in Latin, Asclepius, were the main sources upon which early Renaissance drew its knowledge about ancient Hermetism. As for Sibyls, they are mentioned also in other Cusanus writings but in general they do not get an important role there.This Nicholas enthusiasm for Hermes is in stark contrast with his another sermon which if the dating of the editors is right was delivered just few days later on the 6th January 1431, that is, on Epiphany. [[Handout, no. 3.]] The main thrust of the sermon is the idea that the ancient sages, and most notably the Magi, were to some extent capable of grasping the truth which was later fulfilled by Christianity. However, in contrast to the previous sermon, Hermes is not here one of the sages who has an insight into divine mysteries, but a magician whose art is to be repudiated by every good Christian. The ancient and biblical authorities quoted here by Cusanus together with Hermes should be, it seems, divided into two groups. The source of Cusanus comment on Zoroaster, Aristotle, Hermippus, Democritus and Plato is most probably Pliny the Elder since in his Natural History they all appear together and in connection with magic, whose inventor as is usual in antiquity is the magus Zoroaster. Here he is thus at the first place in the series of thinkers as the most ancient sage. It is interesting for us that this is the only place in his whole work where Nicholas mentions Zoroaster. However, in the case of Hermes he seems to rely on some later, probably medieval tradition in which Hermes is thought to be rather magician than ancient sage. But Cusanus harsh criticism of Hermes was not to last. Some fifteen years later, in 1455, he seems much more open-minded. In a sermon he mentions the notorious passage from Hermetic Asclepius in which the animation of the statues by the souls of daemons and angels is described. He obviously thinks that its author just gives an account of the practice which he himself does not agree with. It was not Hermes, but, as is said in the Asclepius, our ancestors [who] once erred gravely on the theory (ratio) of gods.

One of the reasons why Cusanus changed his opinion on Hermes must have been his improved knowledge of this Hermetic treatise. Between 1430/1 when the first sermons were written and 1440 when the Learned Ignorance was completed he acquired a copy of the Asclepius which he extensively studied as is attested by his numerous notes in margins. Moreover, this Hermetic text plays an important role in the Learned Ignorance which further shows that its reading had a huge impact on Cusanus. A quotation from the Asclepius thus underlines his claim that God is completely unnameable. The same passage is adduced not only here but four times more in Nicholas other, later treatises. A little further the androgynous character of divinity asserted by the Asclepius is to support Nicholas doctrine of the coincidence of opposites. Hermes thus becomes a witness of the claim that the pagan gods are plural in the sensible world, but united, or complicated on a higher level into one God. In the treatise On the Beryl (1458) another important quotation from the Asclepius claims that according to Hermes Trismegistus man is a second god. This alludes to Cusanus famous doctrine of the active and creative character of human knowledge in the form of conjectures (coniecturae) that can be made infinitely more and more accurate. In a sense man is thus a creator of the world, namely, the world of knowledge, similarly to God who is the creator of the real one.

In general, Cusanus evokes the Hermetic Asclepius in a connection with the ideas which are crucial in his though the ineffable God, the coincidence of opposites in him and the notion of man who is similar to God thanks to his creative knowledge. [[It is therefore not surprising that once he even names Hermes Trismegistus together with his main inspirer, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite.]]

But why does Plethon nowhere speak about Hermes Trismegistus and Sibyls? And why, in contrast, are they mentioned by Cusanus who, in turn, almost entirely ignores Zoroaster and Orpheus? The answer to such seemingly simple questions is neither short, nor a straightforward one. According to the classical distinction by Charles B. Schmitt, in Renaissance we should distinguish between philosophia perennis, perennial philosophy, and prisca theologia, ancient theology. Even though they share the conviction that in the past the gods talked to men more directly and even though their representatives are the same ancient sages evoked above, the perspective on the history of thought is remarkably different. The partisans of philosophia perennis would claim that all the people and nations have the same chance to participate in the wisdom that exists eternally and does not change in principle. It is just so that someone manages to get closer to it due to his rational capability of attaining the truth. In contrast, the advocates of prisca theologia would presuppose a unified and continuous current of ancient wisdom which develops and deepens in time. It might have been given to humankind in its entirety at the beginning, perhaps condensed in some kind of sacred writing, but people are not able to understand it fully and so time and subsequent revelations are needed to unravel its content. With this tradition a certain kind of millenarianism is also to be connected. [[We may demonstrate the difference between the two approaches on the way how they treat the Christian dogma of the Trinity. While the partisans of philosophia perennis would try to search for traces of trinitarian thought already in pre-Christian thinkers, the advocates of prisca theologia would claim that the proper understanding of trinitarian mystery was brought only by Christianity. It is so because Christian revelation radically deepened our knowledge of God.]] Prisca theologia thus presupposes a kind of exclusive line or lines, in which the thought deepens and develops in one direction. Different parallel lines may of course sometimes cross and enrich one another as in the case when pagan philosophy is thought to begin with Hermes Trismegistus while the Judeo-Christian revelation with his contemporary Moses. In this conception Christian theology and philosophy are considered to be a result of a unique progressive development whose fulfilment they represent. In contrast, the partisans of philosophia perennis imagine the history of human though as so to say a plane upon which ancient wisdom develops globally. It appears again and again in various places and without a necessary connection. Christianity is in this case conceived as the deepest expression of the wisdom which is given to all people alike, just on a different levels of perfection.

If we are to connect some names with both these currents, Gemistos Plethon is a clear partisan of philosophia perennis. Its most important Renaissance representative is, however, Agostino Steuco (1497/81548) with his eponymous treatise published in 1540. In contrast, the most influential advocate of prisca theologia is definitely Marsilio Ficino who in his later writings presupposes two parallel lines of ancient wisdom the one that begins with Zoroaster and Hermes Trismegistus, through Orpheus it reaches Plato and continues with the tradition of Platonic philosophy; the other starts with Moses and is fulfilled by Jesus Christ and his followers. As for Cusanus he perhaps somehow surprisingly belongs rather to the tradition of philosophia perennis. He not only thinks that ancient sages like Hermes Trismegistus and Sibyls somehow anticipated the truth revealed by Christianity but he also believed that one is able to bring to the true faith even the members of other religions, especially Islam. This is apparent most notably from his treatise On the Peace of Faith (De pace fidei, 1453). He thus puts the emphasis not so much on the continuity of the history of salvation which is fulfilled by Christianity as on the capability to attain the truth which is given to all the people alike.

To go back to our question, one may further point out that prisca theologia is most probably derived precisely from Christian conception of the history of salvation as conceived by the Church Fathers, most notably Lactantius, Augustine and Eusebius of Caesarea. According to them the key representatives of ancient wisdom are Hermes Trismegistus, the alleged contemporary of Moses, or sometimes Sibyls prophesying the coming of Christ. It is significant that in antiquity Hermetic writings and Sibylline Oracles did not exercised much influence outside Christian environment. And these are exactly the sources Cusanus relies on, even though his conception of history is different from the Christian Fathers, as has just been said. Plethons conception of philosophia perennis, too, seems to be derived from ancient thought, but from a very different cultural and religious background, namely, from the late Neoplatonists. Trying to cope with the ever increasing pressure of the Christian society in which they had to live they made an attempt to show the unity of Greek religious and philosophical tradition. In their ambitious project an important role is given to the Chaldaean Oracles but also to Orphic poems. Both parties, the Christians as well as the Neoplatonists, however, agree on the importance of Plato as the peak of ancient philosophy.

To conclude, although there seems to be a negligible mutual influence between Plethon and Cusanus, a comparison of their approaches helps us to distinguish the two major sources of their conception of ancient wisdom which are shared also by the subsequent Renaissance thought. As for Ficino, when he began to develop his much influential version of ancient wisdom, similarly to Cusanus, he first seems to rely on Latin Christian sources about ancient sages, that were available in the West in the Middle Ages. Hermes Trismegistus assumes the most important role in them and in 1463 Ficino even translates Corpus Hermeticum from Greek. However, he soon broadens his knowledge of ancient Platonism through the study of the Neoplatonists and due to Plethon he gets acquainted with the Chaldaean Oracles. In few years only, namely, at the end of 1460s, the prominent position in his conception of prisca theologia is taken by Zoroaster. In his work he thus symbolically repeated the encounter of Plethon and Cusanus, each one belonging to a very different intellectual tradition, which took place during their journey from Byzantium to Italy. More precisely, the journey took place between 27th November 1437 and 8th February 1438.

On Cusanus diplomatic mission in Constantinople and futher activities in the period in question cf. E. Meuthen H. Hallauer (eds.), Acta Cusana. Quellen zur Lebensgeschichte des Nikolaus von Kues, I,2: 1437 Mai 17 1450 Dezember 31, Hamburg 1983, no. 323334; E. Meuthen, Nicholas of Cusa: A Sketch for a Biography, transl. D. Crowner G. Christianson, Washington 2010, pp. 5458; H.L. Bond, Nicholas of Cusa from Constantinople to Learned ignorance: The Historical Matrix for the Formation of the De docta ignorantia, in: G. Christianson Th.M. Izbicki (eds.), Nicholas of Cusa on Christ and the Church: Essays in Memory of Chandler McCuskey Brooks for the American Cusanus Society, Leiden New York Kln 1996, pp. 135163. On Plethons life and activities cf. most notably C.M. Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon: The Last of the Hellenes, Oxford 1986. On the preparation of the council and the journey of the Byzantine delegation to Italy, ibid., pp. 119135.

Already before he published his first great work The Catholic Concordance (De concordantia catholica) but it was dedicated to the church problems discussed at the Council of Basel, not to speculative though.

It is in fact a personal note addressed to Cusanus friend, cardinal Cesarini: while I was at sea en route back from Greece, I was led to embrace in learned ignorance (docta ignorantia) and through a transcending of the incorruptible truths which are humanly knowable (per transcensum veritatum incorruptibilium humaniter scibilium) incomprehensible things incomprehensibly (incomprehensibilia incomprehensibiliter amplecterer). Nicholas of Cusa, De docta ignorantia III, Epistula auctoris, 263.49.

Cf. H. L. Bond, Nicholas of Cusa from Constantinople to Learned ignorance. The suggestion of M. ORourke according to which we have to do here not with a real Cusanus experience but just with a literary topos seems unconvincing since such an episode fits well into both Nicholas activities and development of his work, Cusanus at Sea: The Topicality of Illuminative Discourse, in: Journal of Religion, 71 (1991), pp. 180201.

On Cusanus obviously passable knowledge of Greek cf. J. Monfasani, Nicholas of Cusa, the Byzantines, and the Greek Language, in: M Thurner (ed.), Nicolaus Cusanus zwischen Deutschland und Italien: Beitrge eines deutsch-itelienisch Symposiums in der Villa Vigogni vom 28.3.1.4.2001, Berlin 2002, pp. 215252, reprinted in: idem, Greeks and Latins in Renaissance Italy: Studies on Humanism and Philosophy in the 15th Century, Aldershot (Variorum) 2004, VIII; E. Meuthen, Nicholas of Cusa, pp. 5354.

The translation was made between 14581464 by Ioannes Sophianos, a Greek settled in Italy. It is not clear whether he translated the text upon Cusanus request and there are no notes by the latter in the manuscript. As the dedication to the Cardinal shows, Sophianos rather thought perhaps due to Bessarions advice that Cusanus might be interested in the treatise. It is noteworthy that Zeus and the gods in plural (theoi) in Plethons original polytheist text disappeared in the translation Sophianos leaves out Zeus and changes the gods from plural to singular. It might have been so because Gemistos was already famous as a Platonizing polytheist and it was thus better to avoid these topics. In general, we do not have much idea how much Cusanus knew about Plethon whom Sophianos calls a philosopher of our age (philosophus nostri seculi). Cf. P.O. Kristeller, A Latin Translation of Gemistos Plethons De fato by Johannes Sophianos Dedicated to Nicholas of Cusa, in: idem, Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters, III, Roma 1993, pp. 2138, reprinted from Nicol Cusano agli inizi del mondo moderno: Atti del Congresso Internazionale in occasione del Vcentenario della Morte di Nicol Cusano Bressanone, 610 settembre 1964, Firenze 1970, pp. 175193; J. Monfasani, Cardinal Bessarions Greek and Latin Sources in the Plato-Aristotle Controversy of the 15th Century and Nicholas of Cusas Relation to the Controversy in: A. Speer and Ph. Steinkrger (eds.), Knotenpunkt Bysanz: Wissenformen und Wechselbeziehungen, Berlin Boston: de Gruyter 2012, pp. 477478.

Thus Ficino who draws upon Plethon evokes his name only scarcely, because he is critical towards him, the question of fate being one of the issues. We can assume a similar attitude towards Plethon in the case of Cusanus who accepts the idea of fate as the explication and realization of ideal entities in time in our sensible world. However, we do not find in him a similar emphasis on the fatal determination of everything that is going to happen, De docta ignorantia II,7, 9, 10 (129, 141143, 151 Wilpert Senger). Cf. J. Monfasani, Marsilio Ficino and the Plato-Aristotle Controversy, in: M.J.B. Allen V. Rees (eds.), Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy, Leiden 2002, pp. 179202, reprinted in: idem, Greeks and Latins in Renaissance Italy, IX; idem, Cardinal Bessarions Greek and Latin Sources, pp. 478479.

Plethon and Cusanus thus jointly abandon the complex hierarchic picture of reality of the late Neoplatonists, developed after Plotinus into the form of the great chain of being, even though they both in many ways rely on Proclus and, in the case of Cusanus, also on Dionysius Areopagite. They both also emphasize the central position of man in the universe, although in a very different and probably independent way. This, together with a more simple version of Platonism, seems to have more to do with the general intellectual climate of the quattrocento than with their mutual interaction. Cusanus key doctrine of the coincidence of opposites has no equivalent in Plethon. In contrast, the latters treatment of ancient polytheism, original in Neoplatonism, that is, the identification of ancient Greek gods with Platonic forms is alien to Cusanus, however, tolerant he might be towards different religions. These include the polytheists who, according to him, venerate one divinity behind its multiple manifestation in many gods, De pace fidei VI (17), cf. also De docta ignorantia I,25 (8385 Wilpert Senger). Furthermore, while Cusanus cosmology with its assertion of the (potential) infinity of the cosmos is revolutionary, the one of Plethon is much more traditional, even though he argues against Aristotelian world picture. Finally, although the traces of Platonic tradition of negative theology are present also in Plethon, it gets much more important role in Cusanus.

For the overview of Plethons and Cusanus philosophy, including their sources cf. V. Hladk, The Philosophy of Gemistos Plethon: Platonism in Late Byzantium, between Hellenism and Orthodoxy, Farnham (UK) 2013; P.M. Watts, Nicolaus Cusanus: A Fifteenth-Century Vision of Man, Leiden 1982; J. Hopkins, A Concise Introduction to the Philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa, Minneapolis 1980; K. Flasch, Nikolaus von Kues, Geschichte einer Entwicklung: Vorlesungen zur Einfhrung in seine Philosophie, 1998 (1st ed.), 2001 (2nd ed.); idem, Nicolaus Cusanus, Mnchen 2001. On Cusanus sources cf. also his manuscript notes to Proclus and Dionysius: Cusanus-Texte, III: Marginalien, 1: Nicolaus Cusanus und Ps. Dionysius im Lichte der Zitate und Randbemerkungen des Cusanus, ed. L. Baur, Heidelberg 1941; 2: Proclus Latinus: Die Exzerpte und Randnoten des Nikolaus von Kues zu den lateinischen bersetzung der Proclus-Schriften, 2.1: Theologia Platonis. Elementatio theologica, ed. H.G. Senger, Heidelberg 1986; 2.2: Expositio in Parmenidem Platonis, ed. K. Bormann, Heidelberg 1986. On the problem of negative theology in Plethon cf. V. Hladk, B. Tambrun-Krasker on George Gemistos Plethon, in: Byzantinoslavica 67 (2009), pp. 377379; on the development of Platonism after Plotinus cf. R. Chlup, Proclus: An Introduction, Cambridge 2012.

Cf. M. Stausberg, Faszination Zarathushstra. Zoroaster und die Europische Religionsgeschichte der Frhen Neuzeit, III, Berlin New York 1998.

On the copies owned by the both scholars cf. Oracles Chaldaques. Recension de Georges Gmiste Plthon. La recension arabe des , introd., ed., transl. and com. B. Tambrun-Krasker, ed. of Arabic text M. Tardieu, Athine Paris Bruxelles 1995, p. xxxiv (Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale di San Marco, cod. gr. XI, 9, originally owned by John Argyropoulos), xxxviiiix (Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, MS. 80, 24, originally owned by Francesco Filelfo). On the influence on their own thought A. Field, John Argyropoulos and the Secret Teachings of Plato, in: J. Hankins J. Monfasani F. Purnell, Jr. (eds.), Supplementum Festivum: Studies in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, Binghamton N.Y. 1987, pp. 315316; on Filelfo cf. J. Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance, III, Leiden New York Kbenhavn Kln 1990 (1st ed.), 1991 (2nd ed.), pp. 93, 515 (l. 2024), 521522 (l. 250271).

Ibid., pp. 460464, cf. also M.J.B. Allen, Synoptic Art: Marsilio Ficiono on the History of Platonic Interpretation, Firenze 1998, pp. 149; S. Gentile, La formazione e la biblioteca di Marsilio Ficino Ficino, in: Cahiers Accademia, 7, 2007, pp. 1931. The copy of Plethons commentary upon the Chaldaean Oracles owned by Ficino was unfortunately lost, cf. Oracles Chaldaques, ed. B. Tambrun-Krasker, p. lxvii(Florencie, Biblioteca Riccardiana, cod. gr. 76). On ancient wisdom in Renaissance cf. Catalogus translationum et commentariorum. Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries (=CTC), ed. P.O. Kristeller et al., Washington DC 1960-, I, pp. 137156; II, pp. 423424; III, pp. 425426 (Hermetica); I, pp. 157164; VII, pp. 325329 (Chaldaean Oracles).

Plethon, Ad Gemist. I 458.25, cf. V. Hladk, The Philosophy of Gemistos Plethon, p. ??.

Another important representative of ancient wisdom that could be adduced is Horapollo, cf. CTC VI, pp. 1529.

The most important studies on Cusanus Hermetism was published by P. Arf, The Annotations of Nicolaus Cusanus and Giovanni Andrea Bussi on the Asclepius, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute 62 (1999), pp. 2959; idem, Ermete Trismegisto e Nicola Cusano, in: P. Lucentini I. Parri V.P. Compagni (eds.), Hermetism from Late Antiquity to Humanism. La tradizione ermetica dal mondo tardo-antico allumanesimo: Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Napoli, 2024 novembre 2001, Turnhout 2003, pp. 223260; P. Arf also published Cusanus marginal notes to Asclepius: Cusanus-Texte, III: Marginalien, 5: Apuleius. Hermes Trismegistus, ed. P. Arf, Heidelberg 2004. In this paper we leave aside the medieval pseudo-Hermetic treatise Liber XXIV philosophorum, which Cusanus carefully studied, but never connects it with Hermes Trismegistus, cf. ibid., p. 27.

The sermon is entitled In the beginning was the Word (In principio erat verbum).

Nicholas of Cusa, Sermones (=Serm.) I, (ed. R. Haubst, NCOO 16, Hamburg 1991, 11.142). Cf. also Cusanus Nota in Asclep. 17*.

Nicholas of Cusa, Serm. I (NCOO 16, 11.616) = Lactantius, Divinae institutiones (=Div. inst.) IV,6,4, ed. P. Monat, Paris 1973 (Source Chrtiennes, 204), cf. Asclepius, (=Asclep.) 8, ed. A.D. Nock, Corpus Hermeticum, II, Paris 1992, 304.20305.2, 69.

Nicholas of Cusa, Serm. I (NCOO 16, 11.1624) = Lactantius, Div. inst. IV,6,5 = Oracula Sibyllina (=Orac. Sibyll.), ed. J. Geffcken, (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, VIII), Leipzig 1902, fr. 1.56; 8.329.

Nicholas of Cusa, Serm. I (NCOO 16, 11.2531) = Lactantius, Div. inst. IV,7,3 = Corpus Hermeticum (=Corp. Herm.), ed. A.D. Nock, Corpus Hermeticum, IV, Paris 1991, fr. 11ab.

Nicholas of Cusa, Serm. I (NCOO 16, 11.3241) = Lactantius, Div. inst. IV,9,23 = Corp. Herm. fr. 12b

Nicholas of Cusa, Serm. I (NCOO 16, 11.4142) = Lactantius, Div. inst. IV,15,9 = Orac. Sibyll. VIII.272.

Lactantius probably influenced also the famous decoration of the floor of Sienas duomo, where Hermes Trismegistus is accompanied by ten Sibyls. It was created in 1480s when Ficinos translation already existed. Cf. B.P. Copenhaver, The Sienese Mercury and Ficinos Hermetic Demons, in: J.W. OMalley Th.M. Izbicki G. Christianson (eds.), Humanity and Divinity in Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus, Leiden New York Kln 1993, pp. 148182.

Thus inSerm. II (NCOO 16, 5.2630) Sibyls are also introduced by Cusanus, again together with a reference to Lactantius; inSerm. XXI (ed. R. Haubst M. Bodewig, Hamburg 1977, NCOO 16/3, 19.6) he speaks of them in connection with pagans expecting the Messiah; inIdiota de staticis experimentis 190.4 (ed. L. Baur R. Steiger, Hamburg 1983, NCOO 5); Serm. CCLXII (ed. H.D. Riedmann H. Schwaetzer F.-B. Stammktter, Hamburg 2005, NCOO 19/5, 5.10); and CCXC (ed. S. Donati H.D. Rimann, Hamburg 2005, NCOO 19/7, 3.5) the Sibyline books are mentioned.

The sermon is entitled The Magi journeyed (Ibant Magi).

And we must be aware of how it is that from the beginning a perverse generation from the church-of-evil-doers always runs together with the elect and with the church-of-the-predestined. Hence, books of divination and of enchantments are found carved on stone before the Flood they were invented (inventi) by Hermes. These books came into the hands of Cham and his son Chanaan; they came to Zoroaster and to Aristotle and to Hermippus, and later (post ad) to Democritus and Plato, although Sefer Raziel says otherwise. And in these books are handed down manifold ways of using divination, incantations, etc., which is prohibited for a Christian. Serm. II (NCOO 16, 26.3341), transl. J. Hopkins (modified) in: Nicholas of Cusas Early Sermons: 14301441, Loveland, Colorado 2003.

Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia XXX,2.

It is more difficult to find reasons or sources why he talks about Cham and his son Chanaan in a connection with Hermes. In Bible Chams land is sometimes considered to be Egypt, where Hermes Trismegistus is also traditionally located. 1 Chron. 4.40; Pss. 78.51; 105.23.27; 106.22.

P. Arf believes that Cusanus makes a reference to the books whose alleged author is Abel iustus, cf. Ermete Trismegisto e Nicola Cusano, p. 230, with n. 32; cf. also a mentioning of these books and Sefer Raziel in Cusanus first sermon, Serm. I (NCOO 16, 4.1625). On the tradition of medieval Hermetism cf. P. Lucentini, Hermes Trismegistus II: Middle Ages (s.v.), in: W.J. Hanegraaff et al. (eds.), Dictionary of Gnosis and Western Esotericism, Leiden Boston 2006, pp. 479483.

Idem, Serm. CLXXXII A (ed. S. Donati H. Schwaetzer F.-B. Stammktter, Hamburg 2004, NCOO 18/4, 11.1114); CLXXXIX (NCOO 18/4, 11.38); Asclep. 37 (347.1019 Nock), transl. B. Copenhaver (modified), in: Hermetica, Cambridge 1992. The animation of statues is described also in ch. 2324; 3738.

Cf. P. Arf, Ermete Trismegisto e Nicola Cusano, p. 230.

Nicholas of Cusa, De docta ignorantia I, 24 (75.15 Wilpert Senger), Asclep. 20 (321.39 Nock). Cf. also Cusanus Nota in Asclep. 44*.

Idem, De beryllo 12 (ed. J.G. Senger K. Bormann, Hamburg 1988, NCOO 11,13.1215), De mente 3 (ed. L. Baur, NCOO 5, 69.68), De dato patris luminum 2 (ed. P. Wilpert, Hamburg 1959, NCOO 4, 102.913), Serm. XXIII (ed. R. Haubst M. Bodewig, Hamburg 1984, NCOO 16/4, 29.15).

Idem, De beryllo 6 (NCOO 11, 7.16), cf. Asclep. 6 (301.18302.2 Nock) and further 8 (304.20306.7 Nock), 10 (308.721 Nock). Cf. also a looser quotation of the same Asclepius passage in De coniecturis II,14 (ed. J. Koch K. Bormann, Hamburg 1972, NCOO 3, 143.89).

Some less important and more technical passages from Cusanus work are left aside: De docta ignorantia II,8 (134.12 Wilpert Senger), cf. Asclep. 14 (313.20314.4 Nock) on the problem of matter; Serm. CCXLVI (8.57), cf. Asclep. 4 (Nock 300.1011) on the problem of genus and species.

Nicholas of Cusa, Apologia doctae ignorantiae (ed. R. Klibansky, Hamburg 1932, NCOO 2, 7.49). Cf. Asclep. 1 (297.89 Nock), Cusanus Nota in Asclep. 1*; Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagite, De divinis nominibus I,8 (ed. B. R. Suchla, Corpus dionysiacum, I, Berlin 1990, 121.1415 / 597 C).

Ch.B. Schmitt, Perennial Philosophy: From Agostino Steuco to Leibniz, in: Journal of the History of Ideas, 27 (1966), pp. 505532, reprinted in: idem, Studies in Renaissance Philosophy and Science, London 1981 (Variorum), I; idem, Prisca theologia e philosophia perennis: due temi del Rinascimento italiano e la loro fortuna, in: G. Tarugi (ed.), Il pensiero italiano del Rinascimento e il tempo nostro: Atti del V Convegno internazionale del Centro di studi umanistici: Montepulciano, Palazzo Tarugi, 813 agosto 1968, Firenze 1970, pp. 211236, reprinted in: idem, Studies in Renaissance Philosophy and Science, London 1981 (Variorum), II.

Cf. ibid., p. 213.

Cf. Ch.B. Schmitt, Perennial Philosophy, pp. 507511; idem, Prisca theologia e philosophia perennis, pp. 216219.

This is also the conclusion of Ch.B. Schmitt, Perennial Philosophy, p. 514.

Cf. the study by J. Hopkins in: Nicholas of Cusas De pace fidei and Cribratio Alkorani, introd. and transl. J. Hopkins, Minneapolis 1994 (2nd ed.), pp. 329.

Cf. R. Chlup, Corpus Hermeticum, Praha 2007, pp. 2126; H.W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity, ed. B.C. McGing, London 1988. ??nco anglickho?? Sibyls appear most notably in the work of Lactantius.

Cf. H.D. Saffrey, Accorder entre elles les traditions thologiques: une charactristique du noplatonisme athnien, in: E.P. Bos P.A. Meijer (eds.), On Proclus and his Influence in Medieval Philosophy, Leiden New York Kln 1992, pp. 3550, reprinted in: H.D. Saffrey, Le Noplatonisme aprs Plotin, Paris 2000, pp. 143158; L. Brisson, Orphe, Pythagore et Platon: Le Mythe qui tablit cette lign, in: Th. Kobusch M. Erler (eds.), Metaphysik und Religion: Zur Signatur des sptantiken Denkens: Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.17. Mrz 2001 in Wrzburg, Mnchen 2002, pp. 417427.

Both conceptions have their predecessors in Jewish, early Christian and Greek Hellenistic thought, cf. the study by M. Havrda in: Klement Alexandrijsk, Stromata, V, introd., trans. and notes M. Havrda, Praha 2009, pp. 2345; cf. further the remarks by Ch.B. Schmitt, Perennial Philosophy, pp. 508509, and Prisca Theologia e Philosophia perennis, pp. 213214.

Cf. I. Kluststein, Marsilio Ficino et la thologie ancienne: Oracles chaldaques, hymnes orphiques, hymnes de Proclus, Firenze 1987.

His synthesis of the various late ancient pagan and Christian conceptions of ancient wisdom was probably to some extent inspired by Iamblichus who exercised some influence on him, cf. Ch. S. Celenza, Late Antiquity and Florentine Platonism: The Post-Plotinian Ficino, in: M.J.B. Allen V. Rees (eds.), Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy, pp. 7197. Iamblichus is the only Neoplatonist who mentions Hermes Trismegistus and his books, he talks about him especially in his On the Egyptian Mysteries, cf. R. Chlup, Corpus Hermeticum, pp. 2629. Furthermore, we find in him a motif of otherwise unknown Aglaophamus who provides a link between still mythical Orpheus and already historical Pythagoras.

PAGE 7