24 On Plato (1538) CR XI, 413–25
24 On Plato (1538)
CR XI, 413–25
Oration on Plato, held by Conradus Lagus, when conferring the title of Master on some students, in the year 15381
In a very serious deliberation in Thucydides, the Spartan king Archidamus said that the discipline of his country was such that the citizens did not study the laws with eagerness, in order to win or to overthrow, but that they obeyed them without subterfuge [History 1.84.3]. I believe that respect for the laws is beneficial not only for the Spartans, but for all states anywhere in the world. Since this is so, it is honourable both for me and for you to preserve the degrees established in the schools, so that we may obey the laws which have been passed on to us by our ancestors not without serious reason. Therefore I praise your courtesy for having come together here in order to preserve public morals, and I entreat you to listen to my oration with a favourable mind, especially since I have not taken on this rôle out of confidence in my intellect, but the nature of the office imposes upon us the necessity of speaking on this occasion. I do not know how others are affected, but I can declare it of my own mind that these scholastic assemblies and gatherings are most agreeable to me for many reasons. For it delights me to see, so to speak, the protection of the state, that is, the elders, who are already leading the state by their counsel and authority, as well as this flower of youth, who will guide succeeding generations. We must supplicate well on their behalf in these gatherings, and make our prayers that God may preserve these ornaments of life: education, laws and religion. It also comes to my mind, when I behold the teachers of all disciplines, what an embellishment the complete multitude of the arts is for life. Therefore let us remember that these assemblies are to be celebrated in such a way that they may put us in mind of the gifts of heaven, of the state and of our duty.
What is more appropriate in the company of the learned than to speak or hear about good things? Since the nature of my office demands that I deliver an oration here; I greatly wish that I could satisfy you in this matter. But it is convenient if you give permission to those who speak, if nevertheless they make an effort to recommend their study to you, and to bring to it arguments that are proper and useful to scholars. Furthermore, it is greatly beneficial to know the stories of learned and excellent men, for
1 Conradus Lagus (d. 1546) was Dean of the arts faculty in 1538.
their examples and dangers and various fortunes admonish us of life and of morals, and their beliefs shape the judgements of those who study them. I commend therefore the counsel of those who have told the stories of most learned men here before. In order to imitate them I have decided upon an oration on Plato; it is truly beneficial to know about his studies, travels and advice on the state, and to see somehow what kind of philosophy he deals with, and what benefit it brings to those who learn it. I shall, however, omit the vulgar praises, which are called for by the renown of the topic and by the love for one's country. For if this oration is to be held for the benefit of the students, I have to speak extensively about his type of teaching.
But let me first expound his life briefly: Plato was born in Athens, in the month of March in the year in which that most eloquent man, Pericles, died; that year was the third of the destructive war that the Greek cities waged among themselves, which was called the Peloponnesian War.2 On his mother's side he descended from Solon. He possessed great wealth, and was therefore educated in a manner befitting a gentleman. He studied letters, arithmetic and geometry, for in Athens these arts were taught to boys early. Since he had a powerful intellect he wrote poems and tragedies, inspired by admiration for Euripides, with whom he was acquainted, for Plato's adolescence coincided with a time which was not quiet for the city, but yet not sad. For although the beginning of the war had been inauspicious, and great misfortunes were endured, nevertheless after about twenty years many favourable events followed and raised up the city again. Later, when Plato was almost of adult age, the changed fortunes of the city, both in military and civil matters, prevented him from having a political career: at home destructive discord had broken out among the citizens. This was followed by disaster abroad, where the Athenians were defeated by Lysander. Then the city was taken, in the year in which Plato was twentythree years old. At that time his country was oppressed in sorrowful servitude by the Spartans and by the thirty tyrants, and since Plato had an intellect which abhorred civil discord and fighting, and was fond of erudition, he reckoned that he had to leave the country, because he could neither bring succour to his country which was going to ruin and perishing, nor would he be safe amidst the monstrous cruelty of the thirty tyrants and the unremitting disturbances. It is said nevertheless that he served in the military before his country's overthrow and the civil discord but, since it
2 Around 427 BC. The main source for Plato's life seems to be Diogenes Laertius, Lives, III (pseudo-) Plato's Epistles and Ficino's summary in his translation of Plato's works, Opera, 1517, fols. iiirf.
was a brief first campaign, it is not necessary to relate it. While away he heard Euclid in Megara; the one whose geometry is extant. Since at the time the teaching of the Pythagoreans flourished in Italy, and Archytas of Tarentum was much admired, he then sailed to Italy, where he heard Archytas and Timaeus discussing the beginning and workings of nature and other topics of physics. It is possible to estimate what these topics were from the book which he called the Timaeus; they are some basics of physics, on the origin of the world, the double motion of the heavens, on who made, as he himself says, the letter X in the order of planets, on the sequence of elements, the generation of man, on the nature of humours, the parts of the human body, the soul and God the Maker of nature. These are briefly contained in the Timaeus [36C]; although there are some arithmetical riddles in it, Galen nevertheless considers that the remaining physics is taken from Hippocrates, and that these discussions are incomplete in Plato rather than finished – for neither is the reason of the motions of the heavens explained, nor is the anatomy unimpaired.3 I nevertheless praise the beginnings, and I believe that the kind of physics that describes the nature of humours and the parts of the human body is useful. And so Galen often borrows Platonic descriptions.
Plato remained in Italy until Thrasybulus regained his country, and Conon rebuilt the cast-down country, after the power of the Spartans had been shattered. Therefore Plato returned and began to listen to Socrates, captivated, it seems, by his political disputations. For Socrates had seen terrible changes in the Attic city which give much food for thought to an ingenious man who thinks deeply about the morals of men and about the strange vicissitudes of life. After the restoration of the country's freedom and the victory of Thrasybulus, Socrates lived for about thirty years. He prophesied Plato's future greatness clearly when he said that, the day before Plato came to him, he had dreamt that he held a swan in his lap; it then flew high up, singing most sweetly. He said that Plato would be that swan for the Greeks [Diogenes Laertius, Lives, III.5].
When he had heard Socrates for some time, and was not content with these popular discussions on life and morals, but believed that the teaching of the nature of things needed to be added, he made for Egypt; his travelling companions were Eudoxus and the poet Euripides. And I do not doubt that these things happened by divine providence, so that in that way the old and erudite philosophy of the movements of the heavens be spread further. For
3 See Galen, On the Opinions of Hippocrates and Plato.
although Thales had passed on to the Greeks a small part of that knowledge, it had been consigned to oblivion again. Therefore Plato and Eudoxus did a great service in not only bringing it back to Greece again from Egypt, but also in teaching it to their listeners in order to spread it. Indeed, Eudoxus also left tables of the motions and an order of the year. The knowledge that was founded in this way was preserved for a long time by the studies of the Greeks. If, as we must, we esteem its merit and usefulness, we must certainly render thanks to these first founders. Also worthy of admiration is the virtue of those who did not hesitate to undertake such distant journeys amidst great toil and danger, in order to search for the truth. What sharp goads were there in their minds, what enthusiasm for investigating things that were worth knowing?
We, by contrast, should be ashamed of our sloth, neglecting the arts given by divine providence and discovered by great toil, and allowing them to perish. Let us therefore be roused by Plato's example, first to love truly the noble arts, and not to shrink from the dangers and toil involved in obtaining them, and then let us imitate his decision. As he did, let us add that secret knowledge of the motions of the heavens to the moral discussions. And see4 for what purpose he sought after these arts. He listed the public benefits elsewhere: in this civic life there is need for a sequence of seasons and a description of the year, but the true purpose of learning is that the investigation of nature may lead us to a knowledge of God, and show human minds that a light is given to us by divine providence, by which life is guided, so that it may obey God, and that the minds of those who, recognising God, submit to Him, will live with God in a wonderful and eternal5 light after they have departed from this life. These are Plato's words in the Epinomis [989D].
Are these not most weighty words, young men? I do not want them to be part of the Gospel, but they should have their place. It is a knowledge of reason, which leads to the boundaries set up by divine providence, if it applies itself to philosophy correctly, if it seeks for the traces of divinity in things and if it considers the nature of the human mind. For the ravings of Epicurus stray far from the path, take away physical principles and consign to oblivion the knowledge of God imprinted on to human minds.
But let me return to history. When he had returned from Egypt, Plato stood by Socrates in his trial. When he began to speak for him in public, he was prevented by the noise of the opposing faction; he was therefore forced
4 Reading videte for videre.
5 Reading aeterna for aeternae.
to desist, since he was not heard, but in some other services he manifested towards Socrates faithfulness and steadfastness worthy of a good man. The Apology, which still exists, indicates with what dignity he would have defended Socrates had he been permitted to do so: in it many things are said with great wisdom against the arrogance of the men who despise God and deny the existence of providence. He then goes on to say many things about immortality, and that it is a great pleasure to the sage to depart from this life, and join those men where he can learn about the highest things with certitude.
After Socrates had been killed, when those who had indicted him lay in ambush for his friends, Plato again resolved to leave the country. Thus he travelled to Sicily, and came to the tyrant Dionysius, the father of the younger Dionysius – who were both expelled from rule shortly thereafter – for the Sicilians had frequent commerce with the Athenians, and they imitated their laws and studies. The tyrant himself was of a powerful intellect, and he delighted in Greek studies. There was a citizen of Syracuse of the highest merit, Dio, who received Plato as a guest in order to hear him speak about nature and about the state. However, just as there is a natural discord among many things, and of animated beings between each other, such as between wine and hemlock, or the swan and the eagle, there is also an innate and implacable hatred between the nature of tyrants and that of philosophers. Therefore, when Plato openly rebuked Dionysius' violence in some matters, the tyrant was going to kill him. However, upon Dio's plea he granted him his life, but in such a way that he was given as a slave to some Spartan, whom Dionysius commanded to sell him. Thus Plato was taken to Aegina, and was bought back by Dio for 30 minas, that is 300 crowns, as we would now say.
When the father died and the young Dionysius succeeded him, and was guided mainly by Dio's counsel, Dio wanted to bend Dionysius' youthful intellect towards virtue, justice and moderation, and decided that Plato should be called. Although Plato had been warned by the earlier example that there is no friendship between philosophers and tyrants, he was nevertheless overcome by Dio's exhortation and returned to Sicily. The beginnings were favourable for the companionship at court, and the citizens all foretold a golden age for themselves, when the youth began to be led by Plato. For he listened to the philosopher treating with great enthusiasm of God and of immortality, as the letters prove that are still extant. These are the foundations of true virtue, to hold a correct belief concerning God and
the immortality of the soul; this is a philosophy worthy of kings. Therefore Plato accomplished so much that the horrid form of tyranny was utterly removed; the king went forth in public and engaged with the citizens, surrounded not by a tyrant's attendants, but by the most learned and noblest citizens. Not only was the youth's private life without baseness, but he busied himself also with the most excellent studies. In his rule, nothing was done cruelly, unjustly or without the counsel of the good men Dio and Heracleides.
These many good things were not to be spoiled by Dionysius' nature, as much as by the common plague of courts, envy. Some base men, who desired the condition of tyranny, so that they might have licence for their crimes, attempted to draw to themselves the reins of affairs, expelling Dio. It is not unknown how powerful false accusations are, not only in the courts of princes, but also among private persons. Since Dio had Dionysius' sister for his wife, it was whispered to the king that he should not grant too much power to a relative lest he might at some point covet his kingship. When deceit got the upper hand Dio was driven from the kingdom, while Plato exerted himself in vain in various ways lest something unjust be decreed against such a citizen endowed with the greatest virtue and merit.
After Dio had been exiled, for a short while the power of the base men grew, and the king's mind began to be depraved. By chance, at that time Plato predicted an eclipse. At that point Aristippus, who was present, said that he would divine its meaning, and jokingly said that it portended enmity between the king and Plato. By this joke he wittily rebuked the change at court, but he should have added that, because of his change in morals, Dionysius would lose his kingdom. Although the tyrant attempted by cunning to detain Plato, Plato nevertheless suspected – and rightly – that there was some danger to him because of Dio, and removed himself from Dionysius in any possible way. He was released, therefore, not without gifts: they write that 80 talents were given to him, that is, 58,000 crowns.
He returned to Athens therefore and had disciples. Dio stayed with him, as well as many noble Syracusan youths, among them Aristotle's friend Eudemus. After Plato had been expelled, the tyrant began to proceed with all kinds of crime. He forced Dio's wife to marry another. This led to Dio starting a war, in which he was greatly helped by noble citizens, Plato's pupils. Thus Plato's school inflicted the just punishment upon the tyrant. For, as Plato had predicted, the tyrant lost his kingdom.
Later Plato aged, not in leisure, but – as is most virtuous – he encouraged the study of the best arts by teaching and writing. Here you have the history of a philosopher which contains a truly philosophical course of life. Out of desire for learning he went to many distant lands, brought the best arts to his country, encouraged studies and came into conflict with tyrants – for that, too, concerns a philosopher. He left behind not only writings, but disciples, who educated later generations and preserved the arts that are useful for life. What kind of life is preferable to this? Or what office in life is more useful for human society than the office of teaching? And so it is said rightly that even though philosophers do not hold a civil office, and although they abstain from public occupations, they are nevertheless just, for the reason that they inquire into and teach arts that are useful for life. An aedile who builds some building certainly does not do the state a better service than a learned man who guides religious [scruples], who shows what is just, who discloses the nature of things and shows to men the necessary remedies. Therefore, although Plato by his own decision did not hold a civil office in his country, he nevertheless did a great service to its citizens and indeed to later generations by a more outstanding kind of office. He himself mentions the reason why he abstained from the administration of the city: because he did not approve of the present state of affairs, but nevertheless felt that it had to be tolerated, because the behaviour of one's country has to be endured, like one's parents', even if it is not very appropriate. But I believe that the first reason for which he did not accede to public office was his country's misfortune and servitude, then the study of knowledge led his mind away from other occupations; in this he accomplished a much greater task for the state and for all later generations.
Now something had to be added about his writings: first of all, his eloquence is such that he excels by far all Greek and Roman orators whose writings are extant. No one's speech is richer or more splendid. In some we particularly praise the propriety, in others the elegance and the charm of the figures of speech; what Plato wants to express properly, he says so clearly that it is impossible to think of anything more appropriate. Again, when he wants to add splendour and embellishments he defeats by far all orators in the variety of his elaborate descriptions and the beauty of his figures of speech. Therefore some have said that if Jupiter were to speak Greek he would use Plato's words. Gorgias and Thrasymachus were slightly superior to Plato as orators, as well as some others who practised public speaking in their youth – for it was considered then that the young had
to be prepared for the state by that discipline in particular. Plato rails wittily here and there that they passed on nothing other than booklets of rhetoric, and accustomed the young to an empty talkativeness without the knowledge of things. Since nothing is more dangerous for the state than for young intellects to become accustomed to sophistry, Plato justly raged against the orators of that age, whose schools nourished only sophistry. Having curbed their studies, he roused up and appealed to those who practised rhetoric later, first to flee sophistry, establish the arguments of their subjects by some true reason and to take the topics from the sources of the business, not exotic and poetic ones, but such as are appropriate and fitting for the things about which one needs to speak.
These form the vigour of an oration6 and without them, even if beautiful and variously depicted things are said, the oration is nevertheless both empty and inept. In oratorical delivery, too, many eminent virtues follow this vigour, such as dignity and brilliance. Thus Demosthenes' oration is by far superior to the writings of the older writers both in content and in delivery. Gorgias' little speeches have some meretricious ornament and flowers without true arguments, brilliance or disposition. Lysias' arguments may be appropriate, but they are feeble and without beauty. Even though Plato's disposition and manner of embellishing first appears borrowed from Isocrates, who was slightly older than Plato, it seems that nevertheless Plato's delivery, too, was of some use to later generations. The advice for finding the vigour, and the elaborate descriptions in Demosthenes, are without doubt redolent of Plato's teaching. For Demosthenes does not seek far-away arguments that are foreign to what has been established, but he takes his matters from the origins of affairs, as behoves an educated man, and he weaves them together with great skill by dialectic, almost as it is done in school, and, often striving, he utters sentences that are not common but, so to speak, scholarly, that is, drawn out from some very weighty knowledge. Why should we doubt, therefore, that Demosthenes was accomplished in that more erudite knowledge, and not in the pamphlets of rhetoric? And he himself indicates that he was a pupil of Plato, about whose philosophy he writes the following to a friend: ‘I see that you cherish the discipline, and indeed that of Plato, that truly abominates vile profit and deceit, and that commands that the aim of all actions be virtue itself and justice. That those instructed by this teaching cause crime and deceit for others, and are not just towards everyone’ [Letters V.3]. These are
6 For ‘vigour’ (nervus) as essential for a succesful orator, see Cicero, On the Orator, III.xxxi.80.
the words of Demosthenes, in which he gives a testimony that does honour to Plato.
It was indeed not simply a matter of common sagacity to see what faults the earlier sophistic of Gorgias and the like had, and to alter wholly the course of studies of his entire century. This matter was the sign of a great and heroic mind. He saw that the young were given weapons to move the state, when their minds were not curbed by a more weighty teaching, but the only action considered praiseworthy was to throw into disorder and to disturb the laws and other matters. Therefore he became the one to exhort the Greeks to cherish a different kind of teaching, which was useful for morals and for peace.
He demonstrated his belief clearly in his interpretation of the Delian oracle.7 For the Greek cities were tired of the continuous and grievous war that they were waging among themselves, and consulted the oracle at Delos, how the god was to be placated, so that he would free Greece from its present ills. When the god answered that the entire Delian altar – which was of cubic shape – had to be doubled, the Greeks added a mass of equal size and created a rectangular shape (tetragōnon) in which the length was greater than the width. When they asked afterwards whether they had obeyed the oracle in a proper manner, Apollo denied it. Therefore they were struck with consternation, and suspected that something hidden was signified under this guise, and resolved to seek an interpreter for the oracle who was outstanding in intellect and knowledge. They therefore related the oracle to Plato, who demonstrated to them the error in doubling the altar, because they made a rectangular shape (tetragōnon) instead of a cube, and he taught them how to double a cube by determining its diameter. He admonished the Greeks, however, that the god did not care greatly for the bulk of the altar, nor would he be placated by a pile of stones, but that the hidden meaning was that the Greeks should cultivate other, better studies, that is, philosophy, which would be useful for curbing people's minds, for moderation, justice and the love of public peace. Plato never failed in his effort to kindle these studies. In order to admonish the young who were desirous of eloquence that it was not to be employed for causing public disturbance, but for a different, more honourable use, he said that the goal of eloquence is not to delight men, but to say what is pleasing to God.
If only the young imprinted these precepts in their minds. That way, when they think that there is such a great goal set before them for their
7 For the Delian puzzle of doubling the cube, see Vitruvius, On Architecture, IX.13.
studies, namely to elucidate the glory of God by their speech, they will prepare themselves much more diligently for such an excellent task. They should also see how vile it is to devote oneself to eloquence for parasitical and facetious abuse, for deprecating the honourable arts, and for inflaming hatred against Christ. Since those who do so by that very act imitate the devil, they are by right to be called followers of the devil, and not eloquent. And in truth there are not a few of them in these public dissensions, for it is more than true what Menander says: ‘Life delights most in those who are worthless: the flatterer fares best of all, the swindler second, and the malicious man third.’8 Those who should most restrain these plagues nourish them, but perhaps this is not the place for this complaint.
I return to the established topic, therefore. As Horace says in praise of Pindar: ‘A mighty breeze uplifts the Dircaean swan / Antonius, as oft as he essays a flight / to the lofty regions of the clouds’ [Odes, IV.2.25 ff.].9 So certainly this swan, that is, Plato, singing some divine song, defeated all orators in eloquence. Here and there in Cicero, not only in the philosophical writings, but also in his lawsuits in the forum, many embellishments were plucked from Plato. Indeed, Cicero announces that he was made an orator at the Academy; we, too, can therefore borrow many embellishments from him. However, I shall stop speaking about eloquence, which is sufficiently celebrated by the testimony of the greatest orators – but eloquence is a great ornament for a man.
Concerning the things themselves and the type of philosophy, the controversies among the learned are great. First of all, it is well known that Plato did not write in order about all of the arts, but he demonstrated in more unrestrained discussions here and there what he approved of and what he did not. Befitting an ingenious and eloquent man, who was also by nature given to mockery (skōptikos), there are also many ironical and figurative discussions, as for instance when he jokingly argues that all great men who are of service to the state are justly punished by its citizens, because, by their services, they increased the people's passions and licentiousness. The Republic (politeia), in which he imagines the common use of things, is certainly ironic, for he wanted to censure wittily and figuratively the infinite greed of the mighty. The uneducated have pretended that these ideas were ravings, as they did not understand the type of greater discourse in Plato, and did not see that he himself called the ideas images
8 This is very similar to a passage in Menander, Theophoroumene, fr. I. (223), but without the first line.
9 As translated by C. E. Bennett in Horace, Odes (London and Cambridge, MA, 1968), p. 289.
and notions which the learned conceive in their minds, that is the definitions or demonstrations.10
Since he does not often employ the method which he proclaims so many times, and sometimes digresses freely in his discussion, and wraps some things in images and conceals them deliberately, and, furthermore, since he rarely announces what one should notice, I agree that it is rather Aristotle who should be presented to the young. He explains completely the arts he teaches, and employs an easier method, like a thread for guiding the reader, and most of the time announces what one should note. There are many weighty reasons why this is necessary for those who teach. For just as from the dragon's teeth sown by Cadmus a crop of armed men sprang forth, who fought among themselves, so, if one sows ambiguous opinions, various destructive disputes will spring forth.
Not long ago, Bessarion and Trebizond disputed among themselves in a hostile manner, when the one preferred Plato and the other Aristotle.11 Theodorus Gaza resolved this strife by saying that each had to be attributed his place. Thus the perusal of Plato would be very profitable, if one had been correctly instructed in Aristotle and read Plato afterwards. For if the reader brings the Aristotelian method to it, he can easily, as if within fixed limits, enclose the things that are widely scattered in Plato. I believe that this was Aristotle's reason for striving for such a concise method, that he could pass on in its entirety to following generations what he had received from Plato, collected and divided with some economy and order. Although he even wished to polish and correct some things, there is no great difference on any of the issues. And it is not difficult for the experienced to see which of the two excels in which part. Although I may be called impertinent, daring to judge the two most excellent philosophers, just as Midas presumed to judge between Apollo and Pan, it is nevertheless useful to show the young what the authors profess, who are usually presented to them.
What Plato has written about the management of cities is more copious, and it is embellished by wonderful splendour of speech. Since he wrote
10 Note that Melanchthon equates Platonic ideas with Aristotelian definitions: see Enarrationes Aliquot Librorum Ethicorum Aristotelis, CR XVI, 290.
11 Johannes Bessarion (1403–73) wrote the In Calumniatorem Platonis (1469) against George of Trebizond (1395–1484), who in his Comparationes Phylosophorum Aristotelis et Platonis (1458) attacked the philosophy of Plato on moral grounds and criticised attempts to revive Neoplatonism as subverting Christianity proper. Theodore Gaza (1400–76), who belongs to the circle of Bessarion, is best known for his Latin translations of Aristotle's De Animalibus and Problemata, based on earlier translations by Trebizond; the best account of the conflict is in John Monfasani, George of Trebizond: a Biography and a Study of His Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden, 1976).
differing books, the Republic and the Laws, he joked in the former, but in the the Laws he explained his purpose simply and without riddles, and he brings together useful precepts for the leading of cities, from which the Roman lawyers drew many things as from sources. For it is manifest that in many laws the authors almost copy Plato's words. Concerning rape perpetrated with violence, Plato ordained that it was lawful to kill the rapist, not only for those to whom violence had been done, but also for their father, brothers or sons. The law on abductors, imitating this, gives the power to kill the abductor not only to the father, but also to other kinsmen. But the mentioning of examples takes longer than it would be convenient at this point. Indeed, the lawyers conceded so much to the authority of that writer that they inserted his words even into the laws; for example, in the section on trade a sentence is quoted which confirms an honest negotiation as a retail trader's (kapeleutiken). Furthermore, Cicero quotes several sentences from all of Plato's discussions of the vicissitudes and ruling of realms.
Aristotle, too, has gathered many embellishments from Plato, which he explains by applying his method. For he took from Plato the divisions of justice, which are greatly useful, and he included them more strictly within dialectical boundaries. The distinction between types of justice is also Plato's invention, together with its arithmetical and geometrical proportions. Still, in Aristotle the dialectic is complete. Physics, too, is more learnedly begun in these dwellings, so to speak, that is, from the first beginnings, and continued to the description of the natures of animals. Ethics as well is taught more simply. Let us therefore love them both, and when we are reasonably versed in Aristotle let us read the other for the sake of political matters and of eloquence. He has certain passages with which he can give pleasure to the learned. For he discusses quite weightily the immortality of the human soul, and he everywhere establishes as the goal of philosophy the recognition of God, as he says in a letter: ‘We philosophise correctly, if we recognise God as the father, cause and ruler of the entire nature, and obey him by living justly’ [Letters 6, C–D]. He says that this alone is noteducation without refinement (amouson paideian),12 and true philosophy. And since he saw that this was ridiculed by the atheists, he encourages the reader, saying that it is not enough to think like this, but that the mind has to be so strengthened and corroborated that we can spurn those who deride us for thinking that way. For he could see that the philosopher has need of
12 See note 12, oration 7, p. 68.
that strength, so that he would not allow himself to be deterred from the correct belief by the judgement of the impious. Although I myself, too, love and admire these thoughts of Plato's, nevertheless the error of those is to be rebuked harshly who, as a result, confuse Platonic philosophy and the Gospel. This confusion of types of teaching has to be avoided and abominated by the learned, and one needs to see what place is to be granted to philosophy. All good arts are gifts of God, but the individual ones should have their place. True philosophy, that is, one that does not stray from reason and from demonstrations, is some notion of the divine laws: it recognises that there is a God, it judges on civic morals, it sees that this distinction between worthy and vile acts is implanted in us by divine providence, it considers that horrid crimes are punished by God, and it also has some presentiment of immortality. It nevertheless does not see or teach what is proper to the Gospel, that is, the forgiveness of sins to be given without recompense, for the sake of the Son of God. This notion has not sprung from human minds, indeed, it is far beyond the range of human reason, but the Son of God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made it manifest, as is said at length elsewhere. Therefore sagacity has to be applied in distinguishing between types of teaching, and those impudent people are to be rejected, who pour darkness on the Gospel; indeed they consign to oblivion and destroy the Gospel, when they transform it into Platonic philosophy. Even more to be reproached are those who do not even understand Plato and generate monstrous beliefs by distorting his forms, and spread them in the Church, such as Origen and many others after him did. For the Christian doctrine was shamefully defiled in these old times by the impudent mingling with Platonic philosophy. I have added this briefly, for, while the comparison of teachings brings some light to scholars, the Church repeatedly warns us to be careful not to confuse the types of teaching. I have spoken.