John Monfasani

Twenty-fifth Annual Margaret Mann Phillips Lecture: Erasmus and the Philosophers

Despite a lack of formal philosophical training and an antipathy to medieval scholasticism, Erasmus possessed not only a certain familiarity with Thomas Aquinas, but also close knowledge of Plato and Aristotle. Erasmus’ interest in some Platonic motifs is well known. But the most consistent philosophical theme in Erasmus’ writings from his earliest to his latest was that of the Epicurean goal of peace of mind, ataraxia. Erasmus, in fact, combined Christianity with a nuanced Epicurean morality. This Epicureanism, when combined in turn with a commitment to the consensus Ecclesiae as well as with an allergy to dogmatic formulations and an appreciation of the Greek Fathers, ultimately rendered Erasmus alien to Luther and Protestantism though they agreed on much.

Marsilio Ficino and the Plato-Aristotle Controversy

This chapter discusses Plato-Aristotle Controversy of the Renaissance that was a unique moment in the history of philosophy. For many in the Renaissance, to compare Plato and Aristotle was to enter into, indeed, to settle the major issues of philosophy. From George Gemistus Plethos Treatise on the Differences between Plato and Aristotle in 1439 to Jacopo Mazzonis Comparison of Plato and Aristotle in 1597, Renaissance Europe produced a whole series of comparisons based on the assumption that Plato and Aristotle in some way encompassed the whole philosophical universe. Concomitantly, Ficino refuted in detail Aristotles medieval Arab interpreter Averroes for impiously denying the immortality of the human soul. But apart from the issue of the immortality of the soul, Ficino spoke well of or cited favorably Averroes several times even in the Platonic Theology and the commentary on Plotinus. Keywords: Aristotelian philosophy; Jacopo Mazzoni; Marsilio Ficino; Plato-Aristotle controversy; Platonic Theology

Machiavelli, Polybius, and Janus Lascaris: the Hexter Thesis Revisited*

This paper resolves an old controversy. It aims to prove that Niccolò Machiavelli did read Polybius vi in the Latin translation of Janus Lascaris some time after he entered the Rucellai circle in 1515. This is the only way to explain the wording of specific passages in Machiavelli’s Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio and the Arte della guerra. It also seeks to demonstrate that he read books xix and xx of Diodorus Siculus’ Bibliotheca Historica in the translation of Lascaris and used the memory of that reading in his Vita di Castruccio Castrucane of 1520.