The Renaissance Philosophy of Man: Petrarca, Valla, Ficino, Pico, Pomponazzi, Vives

by Ernst Cassirer (Editor), Paul Oskar Kristeller (Editor), John Herman Randall Jr. (Editor)

Despite our admiration for Renaissance achievement in the arts and sciences, in literature and classical learning, the rich and diversified philosophical thought of the period remains largely unknown. This volume illuminates three major currents of thought dominant in the earlier Italian Renaissance: classical humanism (Petrarch and Valla), Platonism (Ficino and Pico), and Aristotelianism (Pomponazzi). A short and elegant work of the Spaniard Vives is included to exhibit the diffusion of the ideas of humanism and Platonism outside Italy. Now made easily accessible, these texts recover for the English reader a significant facet of Renaissance learning.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Renaissance, Nonfiction, Religion, College, Classics

413 pages, Paperback

First published February 15, 1956

About the author

Ernst Cassirer was one of the major figures in the development of philosophical idealism in the first half of the twentieth century, a German Jewish philosopher. Coming out of the Marburg tradition of neo-Kantianism, he developed a philosophy of culture as a theory of symbols founded in a phenomenology of knowledge.

Reviews

[Erick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even though I had intended to go back and start with the Scholastics and move on to the Renaissance philosophers, I decided to read this on a whim. It was fairly interesting, both from a philosophical and historical perspective.

As far as I am aware, this book contains English translations of Renaissance works that can’t be found in other editions. It is therefore one of a kind. Petrarca (or Petrarch) has been translated elsewhere, and I have a copy of his essential works. That edition does not contain what is found here, however. Much of Petrarca’s philosophy is found in his letters, and you have a selection of those here. The most interesting being where he defends himself against the accusation of being a non-scholar and ignorant of philosophy. Petrarca is one of the earliest Renaissance writers, but he really provides a window into the Italian world of the time. Aristotle was still highly regarded. Petrarca is rather ambivalent about him—and for good reason. It seems that Aristotle had actually influenced a tendency towards secularism (this would probably be the same world that Giordano Bruno found himself immersed in—albeit with his own profound antipathy towards Aristotle). Petrarca had deeply held Christian convictions and had noted the negative impact Aristotle was having on faith. His friends accused him of being a philosophical ignoramus because of his criticisms of Aristotle. This does indicate how highly and universally regarded Aristotle was. Even prior to the above occurrence, Petrarca would meet people that may have professed Christian Catholicism when interrogated by authorities but had no issues in admitting to Petrarca personally that they saw it as nonsense. I must admit that I was surprised that anyone could be even that bold during the age of the inquisition, but I do believe his report. I think it was this tendency toward secularism that was one of the direct influences on the reformation. This is the kind of thing that Luther certainly would have come across personally when he visited Rome and other places where this secularist influence was felt. Petrarca actually shows that he was quite well read but had Christian convictions that caused him to be less than keen on Aristotle.

The other notable works in here are the one by Ficino and Pomponazzi’s work on the Immortality of the Soul. Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man is good as well but can be found in other editions, and for that reason, isn’t as notable in this one. Ficino is certainly one of the most important of the Renaissance philosophers. Petrarca only knew Plato through Calcidius’ commentary because it wasn’t until Ficino translated Plato’s works into Latin that they were widely available in that language. I’ve read a bit of Ficino even prior to this, but I plan on reading more of him in the not-too-distant future.

[Falk · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great selection of shorter works by some of the major Renaissance philosophers and humanists. There is both an excellent general introduction by Kristeller and Randall as well as introductions to the different authors and their works by the translators or by the editors. Petrarca's On His Own Ignorance and That of Many Others is a fascinating and entertaining piece of invective where he gives a broadside to the four Venetian Averroists that had slandered him. His Ascent of Mont Ventoux is also included along with some excerpts from letters which gives a broader context to the first two works. While all the different introductions are both interesting and useful, I very much appreciated Charles Trinkaus' very sober introduction to his own translation of Valla's Dialogue on Free Will. Turning to the Platonists, both Ficino's Five Questions Concerning the Mind and Pico's Oration on the Dignity of Man are fantastic reading. And as for Pico's "manifesto", it was a joy to finally get to read it after having seen it referenced so often; it's truly remarkable that it should have been written at such a young age. The erudite Pomponazzi represents the Aristotelians and does so with flair in his On the Immortality of the Soul – I guess that to fully appreciate all of it you really need to know your Aristotle from your Averroes, along with your Thomas and your Alexander, and indeed your Plato well (or actually take the time to look up all the references, which would perhaps take up half a lifetime of study) but trudging through the first part was well rewarded – his writing gets less convoluted further on in this treatise. The last work in this book, A Fable About Man by the Spaniard Vives, is an enjoyable read which shows the influence of humanist thought outside Italy. The selections in this volume serves both to bring together and to contrast the three major currents of this time period: classical humanism, Platonism and Aristotelianism. Whether your main interest is literature or philosophy, there surely is no better way to get well acquainted with early Renaissance thought and the individual philosophers and authors than to read their own words.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good collection of source material. My rank order: Aristotelianism, Humanism, (neo-)Platonism.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 5 out of 5]

Petrarka är både en fantastisk tänkare och en likaledes fantastisk författare. Valla hade jag inte läst om innan, och kommer inte att läsa om. Ficinos text om psyke och sanning var spännande, och läsvärd bara i sig. Översättningen av Pico är annorlunda än de flesta - mer fokuserad på fri vilja, och mer religiös. Vives är logisk, och tydligt i Aristoteles tradition - hans argumentation till och med låter som Theofrastes. Texten av Valdes var inte speciellt intressant.

[Tintarella]

کتاب چهار فصل داره:
1-نیکولاس کوزانوس
2-کوزانوس در ایتالیا
3-جبر و اختیار در فلسفه‌ی رنسانس
4-مسئله‌ی سوژه-ابژه در فلسفه‌ی رنسانس
(کتاب سه فصل اولیه‌ی: پیش‌گفتار مترجم فارسی، انگلیسی و مولف داره و در انتها دو پیوست بهش افزوده شده که یکی نوشته‌ی کاسیرر و دیگری، جان هرمان رندال هستش که مقدمه‌ی اول و پیوست آخر رو دوست نداشتم و همون اوائل حوصله‌مو سر بردند (این‌جا اسپویل به معنای واقعی خودش -فاسد کردن- نزدیک می‌شه). همین‌جاست که می‌شه تفاوت تفکر نابغه با استادای درجه چند دانشگاهی که بیش‌تر شبیه دستگاه آب‌میوه‌گیری هستند رو فهمید)
.
کتاب با شخصی به اسم کوزانوس که ژرمن بوده شروع می‌کنه و تاثیر ویروس‌وار تفکرش بر دنیای لاتین و کل قرون وسطا (متفکرانی مثل داوینچی، فیچینو، پیکو، پترارک و در نهایت کپلر و گالیله) رو نشون می‌ده. البته مولف به دوره‌بندی دقیق اعتقادی نداره و این تغییرات رو بطئی و آرام می‌دونه که از تغییرات ساده در طرز پرسیدن سوال‌ها به جواب‌های مهم می‌رسه.
کوزانوس در کتابی به اسم نادانیِ دانسته مفهومی به اسم تطابق تقابل‌ها رو پروش می‌ده که در پی یه نوع رفع دیالکتیکی اندیشه‌های نوافلاطونی درون ارسطو و افلاطون واقعیه. کاسیرر تلویحاً اشاره می‌کنه که ترجمه‌هایی که از آثار فیلسوفان مسلمان انجام گرفته بوده، دقت لازم رو نداشته و اندیشه‌ی قرون وسطا درک درستی از افلاطون و ارسطو نداشته و به این ترتیب عقیده‌ای التقاطی مبتنی بر تفاوت هستی و درجات حیات ارسطویی و تقابل ایده و جسم (صورت و ماده) افلاطونی به وجود میاد که خدا رو در بالاها، در بالای جهان معقول قرار می‌داده و جهان محسوس (مادی) را در پائین‌ترین جایگاه... و میان این‌ها خیل فرشتگان و شیاطین و موجودات ماورائی قرار می‌گرفتند که نمونه‌ی سیستماتیک‌ش رو می‌شه در مراتب فرشتگانیِ فلوطین دید. به همین دلیل نیاز به ترجمه‌های دقیق‌تر و جدیدتر به تولد دوباره‌ی ارسطو و به خصوص افلاطون انجامید. از طرفی اکثر این متفکران در شروع بیش‌تر متالهان مذهبی بودند که می‌خواستند عالمی که خدا آفریده رو کشف کنند و به فکر بیرون کردنش از جهان نبودند (بیشترشون به طالع‌بینی اعتقاد داشتند و بسیاری از نتایج علمی رو در تلاش برای تبدیل طالع‌بینی به علم شناخت طبیعت -به صورت تصادفی- به دست آوردند)، هرچند نتایج رادیکال تفکرات‌شان مرزهایی که خودشون پدید آورده بودند رو هم در نوردید و به انقلاب علمی بزرگی انجامید.
وحدتی که کتاب در پی اونه در فصل آخر (چهار) درخشان کتاب رقم می‌خوره: در این فصل کاسیرر هستی‌شناسی و معرفت‌شناسی (و کل این شناسی‌های دهن پرکن) افلاطون و ارسطو رو بسیار فشرده، دقیق و واضح توضیح می‌ده و از طریق اون‌ها به فلوطین و در نهایت به جدل ابن رشدیان و توماس آکویناس (مسلمانان و مسیحیان) می‌رسه. دسته‌ی اول به شیوه‌ای از همون درک سلسله مراتبی اعتقاد داشتند (البته این با توجه به شخصیت‌های چون مانی و زرتشت احتمالاً برای ماها چندان غریب نیست: ماده شر است!). در واقع به نظر اونا هر فرد وجودی عَرَضی و تصادفی هست و باید خودش رو به سمت عقل الهی هدایت کنه تا بتونه اون نور رو پیدا کنه و ازش بهره‌مند شه (ولایت مطلقه‌ی...). در مقابل دسته‌ی دوم معتقد بودند که تا زمانی که فرد رو نشناسیم اصلاً نمی‌تونیم به خدا ربط پیدا کنیم. من در جزئیت و تنهایی خودم به سوی کل حرکت می‌کنم و خدا رو کشف می‌کنم و این رابطه زمانی می‌تونه درست تعریف بشه که این تقابل رو در نظر بگیره (می‌بینیم که چه‌طور صحنه برای دکارت آماده می‌شه تا بگه: «من» می‌اندیشم پس هستم!). از طرفی این رابطه‌ی یک‌سویه‌ی ابن رشدی که به نوعی فیضانِ از بالا به پائین ارتباط داره (لاهوت، جبروت، ملکوت، ناسوت) رو برعکس می‌کنه، واسطه‌ها رو حذف می‌کنه و عنصر عشق رو می‌آفرینه که این رابطه‌ی فرد و خدا رو دوطرفه می‌کنه و جایی برای ایمان باز می‌کنه...
در انتها کتاب به کشف دوباره‌ی ریاضیات و طبیعت توسط متفکرانی چون داوینچی و گالیله می‌پردازه و تفاوت ادراک ریاضیاتی باستان و تغییر اون در جهان رنسانس رو شرح می‌ده.
در نهایت از یکی از تعابیر کتاب استفاده می‌کنم و قضیه رو این‌طوری می‌بندم: انسانی که در قرون وسطی تیپ بود، در رنسانس به شخصیت تبدیل می‌شه و این فردگرائی راهی به سوی همه‌ی مسیری می‌شه که غرب تا به حال پیموده.
.
اکنون که به آن آرزوی زیبا پروبال داده‌ام،
دنیا را بیش‌تر زیرپای خود می‌بینم؛
بیش‌تر پر می‌گشایم
و درحالی که دنیای زیرپای خود را تحقیر می‌کنم، به سوی آسمان‌های بالا پرواز می‌کنم.
و فرجام فاجعه‌بار پسرِ دایدالوس
مرا بر آن نمی‌دارد که به پائین باز گردم، در حقیقت بالاتر می‌روم.
نیک آگاهم که بر زمین خواهم افتاد،
اما کدام زندگی را می‌توان با این مرگ قیاس کرد؟
صدای قلبم را در هوا می‌شنوم (که می‌گوید): ای بی‌باک، مرا به کجا می‌بری؟
پاسخش می‌دهم که دم فرو بند!
مگر شورهای بزرگ همیشه با درد همراه نبوده‌اند؟
نترس، مرگ باشکوه را خواهان باش و
قاطعانه ابرها را بشکاف.
اگر آسمان چنین مرگ باشکوهی نصیب ما کرده است،
چه باک، مرگ را با خشنودی پذیرا باش.

[Mandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought I would go back and read all the selections that weren't required for my class, but as I picked it up to do just that, I realized that I actually have no desire to do so. Good context for the Renaissance, but more relevant to Italy than England (my focus), and - though I should probably be ashamed to admit it - I found every author in the anthology except Petrarch to be insufferably verbose and boring.

Three stars for Petrarch!

[David Withun · Rating 4 out of 5]

-

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked every chapter and introduction besides the one “On the Immortality of the Soul” by Pietro Pomponazzi. Sadly, the one chapter I didn’t like was about 25% of the book. In modern day, for a non philosophy professional, Pomponazzi is unreadable. It was more like a book report siting Aristotle and St Thomas, and I found very little original or clear though from him. I agree it was a revolutionary piece of writing 500 years ago, but it’s a waste of time to read now. Just read Aristotle and St Thomas. The rest of the book was ok, and I am happy I bought, but you likely could find FREE versions of almost everything contained in this book (though the introductions were all well written)

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of essays provides valuable insight into Renaissance thought. Petrarch, the “father of humanism,” is credited with rediscovering the notion of “individuality.” His Ascent of Mount Ventoux is a classic expression of man’s striving toward virtue. Ficino’s Five Questions Concerning the Mind comes to the conclusion that the mind at rest has attained the ultimate good. Another Neoplatonist, Pico della Mirandola, places great confidence in the mind of man in his Oration on the Dignity of Man. Pico shows man to be the only creature capable of either crawling with the animals or soaring with the angels. The other writers represented here are Lorenzo Valla and Pietro Pomponazzi.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

great scholarly introductions to important Renaissance texts

[Krit Chanwong · Rating 5 out of 5]

Spent valentines night reading this lol

[Marg · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read "The Ascent of Mount Verneau" by Petrarca in this book. He climbs the mountain and randomly opens st. augustine's "confessions" I must admit I have tried the same in the attempt to find a miraculous solution to life's problems

[Stosch]

wont rate it because i only checked it out for the short ficino essay. translated word for word, difficult to read to make a point he uses 2 or 3 words, 4 times in different orders to make a point. short essay about difference between the soul and the mind and a few observations he made.