Leonardo Bruni, Marsilio Ficino, and Their Conjectures in Plato's Writings

Leonardo Bruni, Marsilio Ficino, and Their Conjectures in Plato's Writings
Author(s): Wodzimierz Olszaniec

Source: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 49 (2004), pp. 153-170
Published by: University of Michigan Press for the American Academy in Rome
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4238821 .
Accessed: 27/03/2014 07:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Academy in Rome and University of Michigan Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.167.204.6 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 07:21:23 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LEONARDO BRUNI, MARSILIO FICINO,
AND THEIR CONJECTURES IN PLATO'S WRITINGS
Wlodzimierz Olszaniec, University of Warsaw
S ifting through nineteenth-century editions of Plato by L. E
Heindorf, I. Bekker, or G.
Stailbaum,
we come across many variants in the
text,
the
origins
of which stem from neither Greek manu-
scripts collated by editors nor the indirect tradition of ancient times but the Platonis Opera Omnia
by Marsiio Ficino, the canonical Latin translation of Plato that for a very long time-up to the
seventeenth century-was the main source of knowledge in the West for the Greek
philosopher's
works. These nineteenth-century conjectures were undertaken on the principle of
retroversion, that
is, a reverse translation of a given word or passage from Ficino's Latin back into Greek, receiving in
this manner an alleged conjecture of the humanist into the Greek text. This, of course, was a risky
procedure, since it assumed treating Ficino's version as "literal" (ad verbum), in the meaning that
this term has to a historian of the Renaissance theory of translation. Dozens of corrections culled
from Ficino's work managed to infiltrate editions, many of which have been praised by contemporary
researchers exploring the tradition of Plato's text. Research into the text of Plato used by Ficino has
shed new light on the matter of his conjectures. It has been determined that some of the variants
once considered as Ficino's corrections performed ope ingenii ("through his own intellect," to use
Waszink's term)1 had already been contained in manuscript sources that were not taken into con-
sideration by the authors of the editions.2 Although the main manuscript that Ficino used was MS
Laur. 85, 9, there are many indications that while translating some of the dialogues he had at hand
other Greek sources. Examining manuscript readings that were omitted in these earlier editions
makes it possible to reassess the philological invention of the humanist and to verify the number of
conjectures that should be rightly attributed to him.
Equally important here is the study of Ficino's dependence on earlier Latin translations of Plato.
It has long been known that Ficino lavishly benefited from Leonardo Bruni's version. Bruni was the
first quattrocento translator from the Greek who used the new ad sententiam method of translation.
In his treatise On the Correct Way to Translate (De interpretatione recta) he criticized severely the
medieval word-for-word rendering of the Greek into Latin and set out a number of rules to be fol-
lowed by a good translator, focusing mainly on stylistic questions.3 An examination of Bruni's own
versions shows that he himself substantially practiced these rules, preferring sometimes to diverge
from the Greek text in order to obtain intelligible and elegant Latin. This purpose justified many
omissions or additions of words and passages, as well as various syntactical transformations whose
I was able to prepare this article thanks to a three-month
Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship at the American Acad-
emy in Rome in 2001-2002. I should like to express my
gratitude to Prof. Juliusz Domafiski and Prof. Mikolaj
Szymafiski for their valuable comments on an earlier
draft. I also thank the reader of MAAR for useful recom-
mendations.
1
Cf. Wasznik 1975, 13.
2
The two most important works in this matter are Gentile
1987 and Carlini 1999.
3For an English translation of Bruni's treatise, see Griffiths,
Hankins, and Thompson 1987, 217-229.
MAAR 49, 2004
154 WLODZIMIERZ OLSZANIEC
goal was to clarify meaning.4 Ficino, in turn, never resorted to the measures used by Bruni and
rendered the Greek text faithfully, but not literally in the way the medieval translators did. Though
his Latin version of Plato lacked the elegance of Bruni's and failed to convey the subtlety of Plato's
prose, Ficino was always praised for not only his textual accuracy but also his philosophical precision,
which Bruni, incapable of understanding the technical language of philosophy, did not possess.5
The dependence of Ficino on Bruni pertains to all the Platonic writings that Bruni translated:
the Phaedo, the Gorgias, the Crito (second version), the Apology (second version), the Phaedrus, the
Letters, and the Symposium (the Speech of Alcibiades). This dependence has already been described
in general and illustrated with the use of instructive examples.6 However, a detailed philological
comparison of the two great translators' versions has not been performed to date, and this allows
for a modified judgment of Ficino's work at emendation. Since some of Ficino's "conjectures"
can be found in translations by Bruni, in such cases it is the latter who should be accorded their
authorship, or we should suspect the existence of an unknown reading in a manuscript that Bruni
had at his disposal. In this article I present a list of such instances. I do not, however, attempt to
pass judgment as to which corrections are authentic conjectures of Bruni and which instances are
merely translations of dissimilar readings within the Greek text. We are not always able to state
what manuscripts he used; so far it has been possible to ascertain this in the case of the Phaedo (MS
Bodmer 136).7 Pinpointing the Greek source has proven to be impossible in the case of the Crito
(second version),8 whereas the manuscript in which Bruni read the Letters has not survived until our
times.9 As to the remaining texts, the sources of their translations have not yet been ascertained.
1. The Gorgias10
In Bruni's as well as in Ficino's Latin translations one finds the following corrections, some of which
have found their way into critical editions of the dialogue:
448 e: AXX' O6E1; flspTa TroLC
TL3
'
FOp'you TEXVn, XX&a TIS, KaL oVTLVa &EOl KCtXELV TOV FOpyuCV.
But nobody asked what was the quality of his art, only what it was, and by what name we ought
to call Gorgias.i
Bruni: Sed nullus qualis esset Gorgiae ars petebat, sed quaenam esset et quem oportebat Gorgiam
vocari.
"
'
For the characteristics of Bruni's translations from Plato,
see in particular Berti 1983; Hankins 1991, 39-58, 66-81,
and 388-400; Hankins 1994.
5
For the characteristics of Ficino's translations, see Hankins
1986; 1991, 311-314; Berti 1996.
6
See Hankins 1991, 2:464-473.
7On the Bodmer manuscript, see Berti 1978.
8On the Greek source of the second translation of the Crito,
see Berti 1983, 106-110.
9
Cf. Berti 1992, 91.
'o
The text of the Gorgias is quoted from Dodds 1959.
I
also
consulted Diaz de Cerio and Serrano 2001, where additional
information about readings in the Gorgias is contained. The
text of the Phaedrus is quoted from Moreschini 1985; the
text of the Letters from Moore-Blunt 1985. Quotations from
remaining dialogues of Plato after Burnet 1899-1906; I also
consulted Duke et al. 1995.
11
All the English translations of the Greek text of Plato
follow the Loeb edition: Bury 1929 (Gorgias, except 485e),
Fowler 1919 (Phaedrus, Phaedo, Crito, and Apology), Lamb
1925 (Letters).
12
The texts of all Bruni's translations quoted here (except
Crito and Letters) after BAV 3348. The Crito is quoted from
A. Carosini's edition in Berti 1983; the Letters after MS
Laur. 76, 57.
LEONARDO BRUNI, MARSILIO FICINO, AND THEIR CONJECTURES IN PLATO'S WRITINGS
155
But no one was asking what was the quality of Gorgias's art, but what it
was, and
by
what
name
we ought to call Gorgias.
Ficino: Sed nemo qualis sit ars Gorgiae quaerebat, sed quaenam sit et quem oporteat vocari
Gorgiam.13
(Translation as above)
The manuscripts have the present form EpxOTa, and a correction into the
imperfect 11p 'Ta is
indispensable and universally accepted. Bekker, who accepts the
correction, does not mention its
source, but one may suspect that it was Ficino's translation. Both humanists noted the
necessity
of the imperfect tense here, so their translations correspond by coincidence rather than
through
dependence of the latter on the former.
453 e-454 a: aTroKpLvo1iLeOC Trov UvTq OTl Tr3 &LcJFKQXLKfl3 TfS ITEpL TO
a'pTLOV
TE K'L TO TTEpLTTOIV
O(JOV EFTLV.
... we shall reply, I suppose: The instructive kind, which deals with the amount of an odd or
an even number.
Bruni: nonne responderemus sibi doctrinalis circa par et impar.
... we would answer, I suppose: the instructive kind, which deals with the odd and the even.
Ficino: respondebimus praeceptoriam, videlicet circa par et impar, quot utraque sint.
we will answer: the instructive kind, namely, which deals with the odd and the even, in all their
quantities.
Kratz, Gercke, and Theiler deleted the words &raov E&TLV; perhaps 6oov ought to be corrected
to ova (Kleist), comparing 451 b: ovact v EKacTEpa
TVyXaV-q
oVTa. The translation by Ficino would
point to such a correction; Bruni omitted these words in his translation. It is worth noting that
Ficino translated identically the quoted passage from 451 b (quot utraque sint).
465 a: OTl OVK EXEL X6yoV ot&EVa X Tpocy4E'pEL <T> ai TrpoU4 pEEL OTTOL aTTa TVflV 49FLV ECYTIV.
... since it has no account to give of the real nature of the things it applies ...
Bruni: ... quoniam nullam habet rationem eorum, quae affert, qualia sint secundum naturam.
... since it has no account to give of the real nature of the things it offers.
Ficino: ... quoniam nullam habet rationem eorum, quae affert, qualia natura sint.
The majority of scholars (save for Dodds, who added i)
recognized Xp 1TpOa4EpEL a 1TpOa4EpEL
as the juxtaposition of two alternative readings and accepted Cornarius's conjecture xiv lTpocrEpEL
(Dodds notices that the correction had appeared earlier in the Byzantine writer Doxopatres). Bek-
ker also gives this version of the text, referring to Ficino. Ficino, in turn, recreates the translation
of Bruni. It is possible that in Bruni there is a simplification, a measure he often resorted to in his
translations.
467 b: OVK
LPTL
6[1OXO"YEL3
TTOLElV a OKEL ctt)TOL; fEXTLCFT ELVCL, [TOV-TOrV
1TPO6OEV];
Did you not admit just now that they do what they think best?
Bruni: Nonne paulo ante confitebare illosfacere, quae sibi optima viderentur?
Did you not admit just now that they do what seems best to them?
Ficino: An non paulo ante confitebaris, quae sibi bona videntur, eos facere?
13
Ficino's translation is quoted from Choris and Luere
1491.
Did you not admit just now that they do what seems good to them?
The words TOVTOV TrpO(aOEv are an evident gloss to
a'pTL
and were suspected for the first time
by Schleiermacher and Bekker. It may be that Bekker (who did not translate this omission in his
commentary) got this idea from Ficino, who in his translation had omitted these words. Here the ne-
cessity of the correction was obvious (as at 448 e) and both humanistic translators recognized it.
472 e: KaTTa e yeE TflPV
ElV
0oCav, X HXe, 6o ctLKV TE KaL O a66LKO! 1TaVTW3 [[EPV CitXLo0 ...
Whereas in my opinion, Polus, the wrongdoer or the unjust is wretched anyhow.
Bruni: Mea autem sententia, o Pole, iniurians et iniustus omnino miser est ...
Whereas in my opinion, Polus, the wrongdoer and the unjust is in any case unhappy ...
Ficino: Secundum vero sententiam meam, o Pole, qui iniuriatur iniustusque est, omnino est ante
alios miser.
Whereas in my opinion, Polus, the wrongdoer and the unjust is in any case the most unhappy
of all.
Editors universally accept 1TaVT0s in place of the manuscript reading &TriaVThV. The alterna-
tive rraVTON is confirmed only by Stobaeus, and this is one of several instances where he presents a
good reading in spite of the remaining tradition. It is to Stobaeus that Bekker refers. Could Bruni,
who corrected in the same manner, have known this source, or is this an ope ingenii conjecture?'4
Ficino's translation ante alios points to 1rTaVTOV in his Greek text. But he had Bruni's version in
mind and repeated omnino after him.
478 b: TC 01V)1 TOVTOV KacXXLUTOlV ECTLV [Wv XEYEL;];
Which then is the fairest of these things?
Bruni: Quod ergo istorum pulcherrimum est?
Ficino: Quid ergo horum est pulcherrimum?
In his apparatus Dodds notes for xv XCyeCs: secl.
Heindorf
(non vertit Ficinus). Ficino's omis-
sion of the words had its source in Bruni's translation.
484 a: EUv 6E
ye Ot[aL 4VCUlV LKacVflV YEVI]TtL EXC)V ctVflp, 1TUVTa TCUTCL &1TOGELTLO[[EVo0 KaEL &Ctp-
pI}'ct3 KaiL &LUvVY0)V, KaTCtraTcTfaUc Ta
TILETEpt -Ypa1[[LaTa
KaL
WltyYyavEIUTa Kal E1TrKCt
KCL v6W[vs TOV Trrtpa v1ULV T1TaVTC ...
But, I fancy, when some man arises with a nature of sufficient force, he shakes off all that we
have taught him, bursts his bonds, and breaks free; he tramples underfoot our codes and jug-
gleries, our charms and 'laws,' which are all against nature ...
Bruni: Quod si vir aliquis praestantis naturae insurgat ac litteras fascinationes incantationesque
huiusmodi vestras conculcans ac disrumpens legesque omnes, quae a natura desciscunt,
effringens
But if a man of outstanding nature arises and, trampling underfoot and destroying all your
writings, spells, and incantations of this kind and breaking all the laws which are against nature
Ficino: At si quis praestantis naturae vir insurgat ac litterasfascinationes incantationesque huiusmodi
vestras pessumdans atque discidens legesque omnes, quae desciscunt a natura, subvertens ...
14
As Berti 1978, 147-148 pointed out, there are also sev-
eral instances where Bruni's Phaedo agrees with the text
of Stobaeus. Bruni's knowledge of this source is thus very
probable.
157
Morstadt deleted 8ta4Vywv as a probable gloss to &appua;. The word was not translated
by
Bruni (though omissions are a trait of his translations) nor
by Ficino,
who imitates Bruni.
485 e: ... EXeI'eOpov bE KaiL [Eyt KaL LKQVOlV [Lr&ET1rOTE 4OE7y~CtaOma ...
... and [he must] never utter anything free or high or sufficient.
Bruni, Ficino: ... nihil umquam liberale aut magnificum prolaturus.
... incapable of uttering anything free or high.
To many editors LKavov seemed inadequate (as contrary to climax); thus they replaced it, for
example, with KaXo6v or KaLlVOv. Bruni simply omitted the adjective; Ficino, who
usualy supplements
Bruni's omissions, does not render it either.
486 d: ... OUK aV OLEL [>E 6aL[[EVOV EVpELV TOUTOV TLVCi TOV XLOWI) ]
fctcaVi(oLCVtV TOV
XpYO6v
. . .
... do you not think I should have been delighted to find one of those stones with which they
test gold ...
Bruni: ... nonne arbitrareris me libenter aliquem ex huiusmodi lapidibus reperire, per quos aurum
probatur?
Ficino: ... nonne arbitraris me libenter reperturum aliquem ex his lapidibus optimum, per quos
probari aurum solet?
... do you not think I should be delighted to find the best of those stones with which they
used to test gold?
The illogical i] was replaced by Stailbaum with aI; (in MS Parisinus 1812 we find ai), not quot-
ing Ficino. The correction sequence would be as follows: Bruni > Ficino > Stallbaum.
494 c: A&yW, Kacl Ta; &XXcaE
ETrLOV[[La3 iTrai(Tac
EXovTa KCtL 8uvci[evov TrXTpooWv XaLPoVTa ev8a L xovo;
(qv.
Yes, and having all the other desires, and being able to satisfy them, and so with these enjoy-
ments leading a happy life.
Bruni: Dico; et certe reliquas omnes cupiditates ac eum, qui explere potest gaudetque beate
vivere.
Yes; and having all the other desires, and being able to satisfy them, and living happily in the
enjoyment of them.
Ficino: Dico equidem; atque reliquis similiter cupiditatibus
affectum esse explereque eas posse cum
voluptate beatam vitam
affirmo.
Yes; and having all the other desires, and being able to satisfy them with pleasure is a happy
life.
Dodds accepts Stephanus's conjecture TriXpoiv instead of 1TrXfporvTa offered by the tradition.
Fabricius had already noticed that Stephanus silently borrowed many conjectures from Ficino's
translation."5 It is evident that the real source of the correction is Bruni's translation.
494 e: 6pa, X KtXXKXELS;, TL cLTrOKpLVI, EaV T1L Ce Ta EXO'[eVa
TO1JTOL3 E45Ed3 aTrtVTU Ep)TaQ.
See, Callicles, what your answer will be, if you are asked everything in succession.
Bruni: Vide, quid respondeas, si quis te deinceps consequenter de cunctis interroget.
See, Callicles, what you will answer, if anyone should ask you everything one after the other,
in succession.
15
At plerasque, quas adtulit [sc. Stephanus] coniecturas, esse
alienas, et e versione Ficini aut Hopperii, Cornariialiorumque
penu depromptas, nomine auctoris celato (Fabricius 1790-
1807, 3:131).
Ficino: Vide, quid respondeas, Callicles, si quis te deinceps quae consequuntur interroget.
See, Callicles, what you will answer, if anyone should ask you in succession the questions that
follow.
In his commentary to the passage Dodds writes that Bekker's correction ETTO,LEva instead of
eXO'tEva
is
tempting, especially
as a similar
corruption
occurs at Polit. 271 b 4.
Perhaps Bekker
borrowed the correction from Ficino's translation, although he does not mention it. To Ficino,
Bruni's translation was an example to be followed.
499 d: 'Ap' o0v) Ta; TOLcC't8E XEyEL, OLOV KaTCL TO (LCta acs; VVV861 EXEYOIIEV EV T) E&x0LELv KaL TLVELV
q6ovci,
[eL]
Ctpct TOVTWOV aL
RtEV
lrYLELCV TOLOVULl EV TW U64XLTL, .... CVTaCL EV Cya0aL, at 6E
TaVaVTLa TOUTWOV KaKCLi; (TrOlOirLV is an alternative reading for TToLoiGuL)."6
Now are these the sort you mean-for instance, in the body, the pleasures of eating and drinking
that we mentioned a moment ago? Then the pleasures of this sort which produce health in the
body ... are these good, and those which have the opposite effects, bad?
Bruni: An ergo tales dicis veluti in corpore quas nunc dicebamus edendi et bibendi voluptates? An
istarum, quae valitudinem faciunt in corpore hae sunt bonae, quae vero contra faciunt, malae?
Ficino: Num igitur tales dicis, velut in corpore quas modo dicebamus edendi bibendique voluptates?
Numquid ex his illae, quae valetudinem praestant corpori bonae sunt, quae vero contrariae,
malae?
Dodds accepts Heindorf's correction, which consists of the omission of Ei and the replacement
of inferential particle
appa
with the interrogative particle apct. The Ei has been omitted in the human-
ists' translations; Bruni's an and Ficino's
numquid show that they were reading (or conjecturing) the
interrogative
ptpa.
Thus, the sequence of correction is: Bruni > Ficino > Heindorf.
501 a: .a.. dX6yw TE 1aVTCWTaTLV CUS E?ro3 ELTiELV O&8EV
LapL0[uacE'Vl
. . .
... and altogether irrationally-with no thought, one may say, of differentiation ...
Bruni: Temeraria omnino neque pensi quicquam habens . . .
... altogether thoughtless and not caring about
anything
...
Ficino: ... temeraria prorsus neque pensi habens quicquam ...
Findeisen's
conjecture-dXoy6y-is
in agreement with the adjectival translation of Ficino,
modeled on Bruni.
502 b: 1TOTEpOV EYTLV CVTfl_ TO
E1TLXELpfl[&a
KaL
1
TrOV&l, wU aOl 50KEL, XCPL(EO0aL TOLS 0EUTa1S
IIOVOV
. . .
Are her endeavour and purpose, to your mind, merely for the gratification of the spectators .
Bruni: ... in quo studium apponit suum? Utrum ad gratiam ac voluptatem audientium dumtaxat
... What is her purpose? Merely to gratify and to delight the spectators ...
Ficino: Numquid studium eius conatusque ad audientium voluptatem solum tendit?
Is her purpose and intention merely to delight the spectators?
The expression
d;
(aOL OKE'L evoked doubts since it appears in a question directed at the inter-
locutor. The words were deleted from the text by Ast; Schanz proposed
U;
ROL
SoKEL. Probably for
16
Diaz de Cerio and Serrano 2001, 360.
LEONARDO BRUNI, MARSILIO FICINO, AND THEIR
CONJECTURES IN PLATO'S WRITINGS
159
the same reason Bruni omits the passage in his translation
(although
he in
general
omits this
type
of insertion in his translations). Ficino does not render it either, although he
usually supplements
Bruni's omissions.
505 C: TL OVUV
6T)
TOrl]U0[IEV;
[IETaUVt
TOV XOyov
KaTaXVO[IEV;
So now, what shall we do? Break off our argument midway?
Bruni: Quid ergo agemus? Numquid medium sermonem abrumpemus?
What shall we do then? Break off our argument midway?
Ficino: Quid ergo agemus? Numquid sermonem medium abrumpemus?
Stephanus corrected KCTaXXORIEV to its future form KCtTCLXVO[LEv by analogy
to the earlier
TOflUo>[EV. It is possible that he borrowed this conjecture from Ficino's
translation-abrumpemus-
which took over the future tense from Bruni.
512 d: aXA', U [tKCJtpLe, opa [L] cXXo Tl TO 7EVV1lOV Kal TO &ya9ov G fp TO ci(ei TE Sal Ut4EJaL.
No, my gifted friend, just see if the noble and the good are not something different from saving
and being saved.
Bruni: Sed vide, ne aliud sit generosum et bonum quam servare ac servari.
But see if the noble and the good are not something different from saving and being saved.
Ficino: Ceterum, beate, vide ne aliud sit generosum atque bonum quam servare atque servari.
But, my gifted friend, see if the noble and the good are not something different from saving
and being saved.
<i> is the universally accepted conjecture of Heindorf. It found its way into Heindorf's edition
by way of Ficino's translation, but we should attribute it to Bruni.
512 a:
E'L
aE
TL3
apa EV
TO TOV
(Y(4ICTO9
TL[LWTEpy, TI 4VXQ, TOXXC voCfpTa ExCL KCL
CVLaTa,
TOUTCO) 6E ILOTEOV EUTLV KUL TOUTOV OVTpYEL . . .
Yet, if a man has many incurable diseases in that part of him so much more precious than the
body, his soul, that such person is to live, and that he will be doing him the service ...
Bruni: Si quis vero in animo, qui corpore pretiosior est, multos et insanabiles habeat morbos, huic
vivendum est affertque utilitatem ...
Yet, if a man has many incurable diseases in that part of him so much more precious than the
body, his soul, such a person must live and it brings him an advantage ...
The optative 6VTVYELEV from manuscripts has been corrected in many different ways. The form
OVflGEL is the universaly accepted conjecture of Deuschle. Bruni also noticed the inadequacy of the
optative and used affert. Ficino keeps to the Greek text (afferret).
2. The Phaedrus
235 a: 6;
oLOS; TE XuV, TUUTt ETEpWS; TE KUL
ETEpW3
XEyWV,
a[t>OTEPLW
ELTELV CtpLUTa.
... his ability to say the same thing in two different ways and in both ways excellently.
Bruni: ... quod posset eandem rem aliter et aliter dicendo utroque modo luculente dixisse.
Ficino: ... quod posset eandem rem aliter et aliter dicendo utroque modo luculenter dixisse.
In manuscripts one finds
TrdvTU,
with the exception of Coislinianus 155, which has T-vT-.
But this manuscript was unknown to philologists until recently,"7 and TavTa was universally ac-
cepted as a correction of Heindorf. The source of this correction was Ficino's translation (eandem
rem), which Heindorf quotes. However, it ought rightly to be derived from Bruni, who may have
had the reading TacuTa in his Greek manuscript.
235 b: >trj8 av Eva iTOTE 5uvCwOCL EL1TELV aXXC TTXELW KaL 1TXE'LOVO3 di.
... nobody could ever speak about it more exhaustively or worthily than he has done.
Bruni: ... nemo umquam queat plura et probabiliora dixisse.
... nobody could ever speak about it more exhaustively or worthily.
Ficino: ... nemo eadem de re plura aut probabiliora dicere possit.
... nobody could speak about the same thing more exhaustively or worthily.
The source of the reading
[trl6'
av Eva accepted by Moreschini is Hermias's scholia. Burnet
has r18oEv' <av> TrOTE, where the addition 'of acv comes from the Aldine edition. The humanists also
noted that a subjunctive form was needed for the phrase to make sense, so they used queat (Bruni)
and possit (Ficino).
The Aldine, prepared by Marcus Musurus and published in Venice by Aldus Manutius in
1513, was the editio princeps of the Greek Plato. So far its manuscript sources have been identified
for the Republic,18 the Timaeus, the Critias,19 the Symposion,20 the Hippias Major,2" the Charmides,22
and the Theages.23 For the first three dialogues listed above MS Venetus 187 was proved to be the
main source, while MS Parisinus 181124 and MS Venetus 186 were sources for the others. But in
some cases, as Boter points out for the Republic, "the Aldine has a reading which does not occur in
any extant manuscript and which makes good sense; some of these readings may be conjectural."25
This may be the case also in this passage of the Phaedrus.
237 c: ... Trep'L
E`pTOS
OlOV T EcTL KaL
iqV
EXEL
UVaIlVL
...
[Let us first agree] on a definition of love, its nature and its power ...
Bruni: ... de amore ipso, quale quid sit et quam habet vim ...
[Let us first agree] on a definition of love itself, what its nature is and what power it has ...
Ficino: ... quid amor
ipse
sit et quam vim habeat ...
[Let us first agree] what love itself is and what power it has ...
Heindorf proposed olov Tl. However, this emendation had been already made by Bruni (quale
quid)
26
250 a: ... cvTaL be . . . EKTrXfTTovTaL KClL OUKEO aVT1V yLyVOVTaL ...
But these . .. are stricken with amazement and can no longer control themselves.
17
This was taken into consideration for the first time in
Moreschini 1985.
18
Boter 1989, 242-244.
19 Jonkers 1989, 309-3 12.
20
Brockmann 1992, 185-190.
21
Vancamp 1995, 53.
22 Murphy 1990, 325.
23
joyal
1998, 48.
24
This manuscript probably belonged to Aldus; see Cataldi
Palau 1998, 469-471.
25
Boter 1989, 244.
26
Quale quid sit is a more literal though nonclassical equiva-
lent of Ol6V Tl. Bruni's formula resembles the language of
the scholastics. Bruni added emphasis in his translation and
Ficino, changing the formula, repeated this expressiveness
(ipse), although it has no equivalent in the Greek original.
161
Bruni: Hae autem ... obstupescunt et quasi extra se ponuntur.
But these are stricken with amazement and, in a manner of speaking, they are placed out of
themselves.
Ficino: Hae vero ... obstupescunt et quasi extra se ponuntur.
The phrase oVK E' avT6V comes from Hermias; manuscripts have OKET' atVTwV; Burnet accepted
Hirschig's conjecture OVKET' <EV> vUTWV. It seems that this idea could have been
put
into
Hirschig's
head by Ficino's translation, which, although not literal, conveys the
meaning:
OUKET <EV> aVTh)V
("no longer in themselves"), which is extra se ("out of themselves") expressed in a different
way.
Ficino repeats Bruni's translation.
253 c: KaOdrrEp E'V
UpXyj
TOV6E TOV [VWOV TPLX1 &LELXOREV WVXnV E'KdTYV ...
In the beginning of this tale I divided each soul into three parts ...
Bruni: Quamlibet vero animam a initio
triphariam
divisimus.
In the beginning I divided each soul into three parts.
Ficino: Quamlibet animam ab initio huiusfabulae trifariam divisimus.
In the beginning of this tale I divided each soul into three parts.
The verb 6LELXO[IEV is the universally accepted conjecture of Heindorf instead of the middle
form
6LELX6O[lv transmitted by the most important manuscripts. Heindorf cites divisimus from
Ficino's translation. However, its source is Bruni.
236 b: Tm)V 6E XOL1TrV ETEpa 1TXELCO KCtL 1TXEL'oVO Cti EL1TrOiV T(VSE [Avwcov] TrTcp' To KvtieXiL6v
avsq9tlRa U40)plXUTO0 EV'OXvulTrnia 9Tat0OfTL.
And if you speak on the remaining points more copiously and better than Lysias . . . , your statue
of beaten metal shall stand at Olympia beside the offering of the Cypselids.
Bruni: In aliis autem plura et praestantiora si dixeris, iuxta Cypselidas in Olympia solidus aureus
stabis.
And if you speak about the remaining points more copiously and better, your statue of gold
shall stand at Olympia near the Cypselids.
Burnet recognized the name of AvtLov as a gloss. Although omissions are frequent in Bruni's
translations, he does not ignore proper names. This means that he either did not mention this name
on purpose, or he did not have it in his Greek text. Ficino renders the name in his translation.
3. The Phaedo27
78 c: Ta 8E UXXOT 0XXWs KaL [tfllETrOTE KGTa' TCtVTa, TaWTCt E CUVOETt;
Are the things that are changing and never the same the composite things?
Bruni: Quae vero alias aliter sunt et numquam eodem modo, ea certe esse composita?
But those things that are changing and never the same are certainly the composite things?
Ficino: Quae vero alias aliter nec umquam secundum eadem, haec esse composita?
But those things that are changing and never the same are the composite things?
Heindorf proposed a dtXXOT'
dTXXw3, perhaps prompted by Ficino's translation. But quae in
27
I
was not able to consult MS Bodmer 136, which was used
by Bruni to translate the Phaedo.
the translations of Bruni and Ficino is a connecting relative, so the humanists were clearly translat-
ing TC 8E, not a 6E.
84 c-d: . ..
pRJ6Ev
CTrOKVTh1TE KCiL CTOL EL1TELV KClL SLEXOCElV, E'L
iTi9 '4LV 4aGLVETCl 3EXTLOV <av>
XEXOvaL ...
... do not hesitate to speak and discuss them yourselves, if you think anything better could be
said on the subject ...
Bruni: ... non vereamini dicere atque aperire, siforte in aliqua re videtur vobis melius dici posse
... do not be afraid to speak and make it clear, if you think it could be said in a better way . .
Ficino: ... ne vereamini loqui atque percurrere, si qua in parte putatis melius dici posse.
. . . do not be afraid to speak and discuss, if you think in some part it could be said in a better
way.
The particle <a1v> was added by Heindorf. The conjecture is convergent with Ficino's transla-
tion (posse). Its source has to be recognized as Bruni's translation.
87 b-c: ... Kai EL
TL9 aOTrUTOLl] avTC) ...
Then if anyone did not believe him ...
Bruni: Et si quis id non credat ...
And if anyone would not believe it ...
Ficino: Ac si quis id non credat ...
Manuscripts have &TTLUT6V; aiTrLGTOuL] is a conjecture of Heindorf (Bekker: diTLaToL). The con-
jectures are inspired by Ficino's translation, which is borrowed from Bruni's.
105 a: 4XX
opact
8iq
Ei
OVTC0
opC(,
uq
iL6vov
TO
EICVCVTLOV
TO
EVaVTLOV [I]q 6EXEOaUL,
C(XXCt KCL
EKELVO,
o v ETrL4Epl] Tl EVaVTLOV EKELV), E4) OTl av CtvTO L'i, alvTO TO ETL4EpOV T'V TOV ETl(EpO[tEVOV
EVCVTLOTlTC [fla6E1rOTE 8E'caKOM.
Now see if you accept this statement: not only will opposites not admit their opposites, but
nothing which brings an opposite to that which it approaches will ever admit in itself the op-
positeness of that which is brought.
Bruni: Sed vide, an sic diffiniendum sit, ut dicamus non solum contrarium non recipere contrarium,
verum ne illud quidem [sc. recipere], quod afferat aliquid contrarium ei ad quod accedat, ferens
eius, quod afferat, contrarietatem.
But see if it should be defined like this: not only does an opposite not receive its opposite, but
neither does that, which brings an opposite to that which it approaches, receive it, since it brings
the oppositeness of that which is brought.
Ficino: At vide iam, num ita
diffiniendum putes, ut non modo contrarium non admittat contrarium,
verum etiam illud, quod aliquid afferat contrarium illi ad quod ipsum accedat, ipsum videlicet,
quod affert, numquam contrariam eius, quae affertur, recipiatformam.
But see if it should be defined like this: not only does an opposite not admit its opposite, but
also that which brings an opposite to that which it approaches (namely, to that which brings)
never receives a form contrary to that which is brought.
From the forms of the present infinitive
recipere
in Bruni and the present subjunctive
recipiat
in Ficino we may surmise that they did not read 66actaOaL, but 3'EUcOML, as was later proposed by
Madvig.
LEONARDO BRUNI, MARSILIO FICINO, AND THEIR CONJECTURES IN PLATO'S WRITINGS 163
4. The Crito
48 e:
Wg E'y(J
TrEpL 1ToXXOV TrOLOVIIUL 1TELUQa CE TCVTC1 1TpcITTELV, XtXt
WrTl tKOVTO3.
... for I am anxious to act in this matter with your approval, and not contrary to your wishes.
Bruni: Nam ego plurimifacio persuaso te hoc agere, non autem invito.
Ficino: Equidem multi facio persuaso te haec agere, non autem invito.
Manuscripts have TrFE aL (B W S), 1TE'LOaL (T). It has been observed that we are dealing here
with an authentic conjecture of Bruni's that found its way into modern editions through Ficino.28
The participle rreLuaa was included by P. Buttmann in his edition, quoting Ficino.
5. The Apology
37 b: PVTL TOVTOV 8] 'E'XwaL )lV ECl ot6c Tl KaK6V OVTPV;
Shall I choose instead of that something which I know to be an evil?
Bruni: Pro hoc eligam eorum aliquid, quae mala esse scio?
Shall I choose, instead, something from those things I know to be bad?
Ficino: Eligam eorum aliquid, quae plane mala esse scio?
Shall I choose, instead, something from those things which I know to be clearly bad?
The phrase ol&a TL is a correction of Baumann accepted into the text by Burnet. In the manu-
scripts we find o{6' OTl. Bekker in turn left oo6' OTl and added TL before xv. Bekker rendered in
this way the aliquid that is present in Ficino's translation and was taken from Bruni's version.
In the Apology we meet Bruni's corrections that Ficino did not accept:
32 d-e: KtL TOVT(WI) V>LV 'EOVTaL 1ToXXol
jaapTVpE9.
Of these facts you can have many witnesses.
Bruni: Et horum plerique vestrum testes mihi esse possunt.
Of these facts many of you can be my witnesses.
The word vestrum in Bruni's translation suggests that he had in his manuscript iUs6vv. An identi-
cal correction was proposed by Hermann. Ficino translates it with the dative vobis.
36 b: Ey &
6be TLVO3 I4LV
aLVTLTL[iJTYO[iaL,
(t
aWV6pE9 'A9VcCLOL;
Well, then, what [penalty] shall I propose as an alternative?
Bruni: Ego, Athenienses, quo a vobis liceripostulem?
What penalty shall I ask from you, Athenians?
In place of the future form
CXVTLTLI1qoIrL
Bruni gives the deliberative subjunctive postulem.
Hirschig had a similar idea when he proposed as a conjecture the subjunctive acVTLTL,flcro4tcaL. Ficino
keeps to the Greek text (postulabo).
28
Berti 1983, 93. In his first Latin version of the Crito Bruni
translated: At ego plurimi extimo persuadere tibi ut sic facias,
sed non invitus; cf. Berti 1983, 174.
6. The Letters29
Perhaps the most widely known conjecture of Bruni is the attribution of Letter One to Dion. The
cause of such an attribution was undoubtedly the discrepancy between the role in governing Syra-
cuse, which this letter attributes to Plato, and the account delivered by other letters (Three and
Seven). The attribution was accepted by Ficino and, by means of his translation, by later editors
of the Greek text, such asJ. Oporinus (Basel 1534), G. Stallbaum (1825), I. Bekker (1826), and C.
F. Hermann (1858). In the apparatus of her edition J. Moore-Blunt notes this conjecture, but she
still attributes it to Ficino.30
Bruni's alleged attribution of the authorship of Letter Five also to Dion has caused much misun-
derstanding. The
inscriptio
of the letter, as well as the manner in which some expressions have been
translated, indicate that Bruni considered Plato its author, so in the argumentum to the translation
we are probably dealing with a corrupt text.31
In the Letters we find several other places in which the alleged corrections of Ficino are in
reality repetitions of an earlier translation by Bruni:
Ep. 7.327 b-c:
METC
&E
TOVTO
aLEVO'O0
[ 06vov
EV
alUT6
TrOT
av
yEVECOUL
TCl'TlV
TfV
&dtVOliV,
ilV
aV)TO;
)TrO TQOV 6v
X6O'yV CFXEV, E7YYLVO EVV 6E akT)TflV KCtL E'V aXXoV;
p46v
KCtTEVOEL
After this event, he came to the belief that this belief, which he himself had acquired through
right instruction, would not always be confined to himself; and in fact he saw it being implanted
in others also ...
Bruni: Postea vero, intelligens eam sententiam non in se uno solum, verum etiam in aliis quibusdam
exsistere ...
Afterwards, understanding that this belief exists not only in himself, but also in some other
people ...
Ficino: Postea vero animadvertit eam sententiam, quam
ipse
rectis conceperat rationibus, non in
se uno solum, verum etiam in aliis quibusdam, licet non multis, exsistere ...
Afterwards he understood that this belief, which he himself had acquired through right reason-
ing, existed not only in himself, but also in some other people, though not many ...
Apelt recognized the particle daiv as inappropriate-for neither a potential nor contrary-to-fact
suits here-and he did not render it in his translation. Perhaps for the same reason it has not been
expressed by Bruni and Ficino.
Ep. 7.330 c-d: T6v UV[1JOVXEVOVTQ cV&pL KU[L1VOVTL KCaL LUCLTaV &LaLTW[1EV1 [oXlp)v rrpos LeLttv
aXXo Tl
Xpf
1Tp6TOV
[iE)V
[ETacafXXELV T 'LOCov ...
Ought not the doctor that is giving counsel to a sick man who is indulging in a mode of life that
is bad for his health to try first of all to change his life ...
Bruni: Equidem sic existimo, hominem consilium dantem aegroto et intemperato circa victum
imprirmis hoc suadere debere, ut modum vivendi mutet.
I for my part think that one who gives counsel to a sick man living intemperately should first
advise him to change his way of living.
29
Though the entire Greek tradition of the Letters has not
been described to date, valuable information is provided
by Berti 1992. He identifies sources of translation for some
passages of Bruni's Latin version. But, as was noted above,
he comes to the conclusion that the humanist's Greek MS
of the Letters was lost.
30
Moore-Blunt 1985, 1. Isnardi Parente 2002, 8 in her recent
edition of the Letters still attributes it to Ficino.
31
On this matter, see Olszaniec 2003.
Ficino: Reor equidem hominem consulentem aegroto et circa victum intemperato inprimis hoc
suadere debere, ut modum vivendi mutet.
Suspicion has been aroused by aXXo TL. Badham concluded that the first three letters of the
suspected expression-AAA-were in fact the last letters of the preceding word VFIEIAN and
that in this place there was a lacuna, with the missing sense being something like <6L&aIUKELV CWTOV
KEXEU'CO> OTl XPfi. The idea of supplementation could have been suggested by Ficino's translation
with the added suadere, imitating Bruni's translation. We seem to be dealing here with an authentic
conjecture by Bruni.
Ep. 7.339 b: Trpos yap
86)
1TCVTa TCLVTC( TlV TrCtPEcKEvavGRLCV-V T]V
CLpXfqP EXoV(Ua 71 ETrLCFTOX', T]6E
TrT,
4pdcouaa.
For his letter was framed to deal with all these circumstances, having its commencement couched
in some such terms as these ...
Bruni: Ad haec omnia epistola composita fuerat. Caput vero eius epistolae in hunc fere modum
fuit.
The letter was written to deal with all these things. The beginning of this letter was more or
less as follows.
Ficino: Ad haec igitur omnia composita epistula fuerat, tali quodam exordio.
So the letter was composed to deal with all these things, the beginning of which was more or
less as follows.
Perhaps Bruni had in his text the reading TrapEaKEvar[LE'vf, common to A2 and Q2, and in the
further part of the sentence the form fpdcovcrav (not attested in manuscripts), or he himself made
such a correction. It does seem, however, that both translators simply paraphrase the text and ignore
its syntactic construction by grammatically aligning 4pd(ovuca with
apXYlv
and not with ETLuTOX1.
This is neither a different reading nor a conjecture of the first translator but a translator's introduc-
tion of orderliness into Plato's sentence, which is semantically unsound and an anacoluthon. Muller's
conjecture is identical, perhaps suggested by the translation of Ficino, who in turn followed Bruni.
Ep. 7.345 a: ... dyaMTtV 60Cav TTV T1S [tETOXfS YEVO[tEVflV.
... because of his lust for the fame accruing from its possession.
Bruni: . .. amans gloriam ex participatione quaesitam.
Ficino: ... quaerens gloriam ex participatione quaesitam.
Richards's conjecture TI]V EK Tfl; [[ETOXfS is consistent with Ficino's translation, which is an
exact repetition of Bruni's version.
Ep. 7.345 d: EopacKeLV TE EYW UKpLf3O TflV ETrLOlV4LaV Tls AlOVVKlOV fLXOGO+L'C . . .
... I perceived clearly what kind of love Dionysius had for philosophy ...
Bruni: Quae ego considerans videbam aperte, quae esset Dionysii cupiditas circa philosophiam ...
Considering this, I perceived clearly what kind of desire Dionysius had for philosophy ...
Ficino: ... iam plane perspiciebam, quo pacto erga philosophiam Dionysiusfuisset affectus ...
I perceived clearly what Dionysius' attitude was towards philosophy.
The correction of Tfl; AlOVVuLOV into T'V ALOVuuLOv proposed by Richards, Burnet, and Raeder
is consistent with Ficino, who follows the sense of Bruni's translation. One may suppose that this
is an ope ingenii correction introduced by Bruni.
Ep. 7.347 a: apa Tli EOEX'aEL
[LE
cryeEiV Vav'T-lV
op[iW[LevOV
EK T1] ALOVvu(ov olKia3;
... would any of them consent to convey me as a passenger, starting off from the residence of
Dionysius?
Bruni: ... quis me nauta asportare audebit?
... will any sailor have the courage to carry me away?
Ficino: ... quisnam me navi asportare ex aedibus
ipsis Dionysii audeat?
... would anybody have the courage to carry me away by ship from the residence of Dionysius?
It is evident that Bruni corrects
vclVTTIV
to
vaVTUTf
(does he read this in his manuscript?). Ficino's
translation does not unequivocally suggest the version in the Greek text. Some later editors (Bekker,
Burnet) corrected the text in ways similar to Bruni (though with no knowledge of his translation).
Ep. 8.352 e-353 a: 'EUT) 8] 1TaVTCLTTaUL O LEV EUXI] TL3-UaTro yap Oe6v
X TVraVTa (LpXoIleVov dELE
X6yELV TE KCL VOELV--E1LTEXfl; 6 ELI]
Ufl?taloVuQa
1i]ILV TOLOV& TLVCt Xyoiv. Nvv
V[CLV
KCL
TOL3
ToXE[tLoL3 aXe86v, Et oUlTEp yE'yOVEI) o Tro6XEIo,
OVyTEVeLa
aPXEL JILCt SLa TEX0ov ...
Be it so, then, that this is nothing but a prayer (and in truth every man ought always to begin
his speaking and his thinking with the gods); yet may it attain fulfilment in indicating some such
counsel as this: Now, and almost ever since the war began both you and your enemies have
been ruled continuously ...
Bruni: Esto igitur omnino illa nobis tamquam votum et deprecatio quaedam, nam omnibus in
rebus
principium
a diis faciendum est et dicendi et cogitandi. Huius autem ita demum compotes
fiemus, si reperietur talis aliqua ratio, quae et vobis conducat et bostibus. Ex quo quidem bellum
in Sicilia fuit, familia una continuo dominata est ...
Be it so, then, that this is nothing but a vow and a prayer, for we should always begin our speak-
ing and reflecting with the gods. We will be granted this prayer if a resolution can be found
that is advantageous for both you and your enemies. Since the war began in Sicily, one family
ruled continuously ...
Ficino: Ideoque sit nobis
ipsa
omnino tamquam votum et deprecatio quaedam. Omnibus enim in
rebus et dicendis et cogitandis
principium semper a diis est faciendum. Votum utique eius modi
absolutum talem nobis significabit rationem, quae vobis simul inimicisque conducat.
Principio,
ex
quo tempore bellum in Sicilia gestum est, familia una continue dominata est ...
Be it so, then, that this is nothing but a vow and a prayer, for we should always begin our speak-
ing and reflecting with the gods. Certainly a prayer of this kind, when fulfilled, will indicate to
us such a resolution as would be advantageous for both you and your enemies. At first, since
the war began in Sicily, one family ruled continuously ...
In his commentary to the Letters Novotny states that Ficino understood 0i]lcaLVOVca to govern
Pv
KacL TotL TroXe[ILoL; and that he does not know of any reading of the manuscripts that would
conform with such an interpretation; this points to the probability of this being Ficino's conjecture.32
However, it is evident that such punctuation ought to be attributed to Bruni (ratio, quae et vobis
conducat et bostibus).
Of interest are some corrections by Bruni that did not find acceptance by Ficino.
Ep. 6.322 d-e:' EpaCTW 8E KCtL KOptaKy, Trpo;
T-n
TWV Ei86V Co4Lq Ti KaX1 TaVCT1], Ei
s'
, KaIlTEp
'YpEV XV, 1TpOcT8ELV
9o0La3 Tfig iTEpL TOV!;
1ToVflpoV
KacL a8LKOV; fVXaKTLKfl; KCL
TLVO3
a4WVTLKW] vvci[setE;. 'aTrELpOL
yap E'LOL 8la TO
[EO
TflLV
[tETp'LwV
OVTWV KCL O KaKOJV
OixVOV
6LUTETPL$EVaL TOV Ctov.
While Erastus and Doriscus, in addition to this fair Science of Ideas, need also-as I, old though
I am, assert-the science which is a safeguard in dealing with the wicked and unjust, and a kind
32
Novotny 1930, 252.
of self-defensive power. For they lack experience owing to the fact that they spent a large part
of their lives in company with us who are men of moderation and free from vice.
Bruni: Erasto autem et Dorisco, praeter sapientiam istam pulcherrimam quam habent, alia
insuper,
ut mea fert opinio, est opus sapientia adversus improbos cavendi et ad resistendum potentia. Sunt
enim, licet aetate senes, tamen inexpertifraudum ex eo, quia cum hominibus vivere consueti sunt
mznime malls.
Erastus and Doriscus, in addition to this fair knowledge that they have, need also,
I
think,
the knowledge of avoiding the wicked and the power of resistance. For they, though old, lack
experience of deception, owing to the fact that they used to live in
company with men
anything
but wicked.
Translation of the KaLLrTEp 'yEpov xO v passage-which has been subject to different interpreta-
tions by scholars, and by many considered as corrupt-suggests that Bruni corrected 'yEpov xv to
yEpOVTOV OVTCV. Novotny proposed an identical conjecture in his edition.33
Ep. 6.323 d: E1ToRivPVTOS CToV6i TE CLj [[1] Q[LOVChp KUL Ti Tfl U17OU&6fS Q6EXfl 1Tri8LCt, KCLL TOV
TO)l)V TUVTW)V OEOV fl'YE0Va TlV TE OVTWV KCL TlV )[LEXXOVTWV, TOV) TE
fl-YEOV03 KCIL tLiTLO)
lTaTEpa
KVpLOV f7OrVoVTTC* ...
... and with an earnestness that is not out of tune combined with the playfulness that is sister
to earnestness, swear by the God that is Ruler of all that is and that shall be, and swear by the
Lord and Father of the Ruler and Cause ...
Bruni: . .. laudantes studio non alieno a Musis et
ipsius
studii sorore disciplina deum omnium
ducem praesentium acfuturorum et ipsius ducis et causae patrem dominum ...
... praising with an earnestness, which is not unfamiliar to the Muses, combined with a discipline
which is sister to earnestness, the god that is ruler of all that is and that shall be and [praising]
the lord and father of the ruler and cause ...
Could it be that Bruni had in his manuscript E&vIsVoiVvTac? An identical conjecture was pro-
posed by R. Hackforth.
The final passage in which Bruni and Ficino agree has not been recognized by editors of the
Greek text:
Ep. 11.358 e: ...
L' a 6E,
[LCtKpcI
ETEpac &EOLT' aIV
ETTLcTOXi; "TL3 1TdVTCt
&E~L'OL
...
... as to my reason for this, another long letter would be required to explain them in fun ...
Bruni: Qua vero de causa ista putem, magna mihi epistola opus esset, si cuncta narrare velim.
As to my reason for this opinion, a long letter would be required to relate everything.
Ficino: Si quis autem ea omnia referre aggrediatur, quorum de causa ita diffidam, prolixa opus
erit epistola.
If someone tried to explain all the reasons why I am diffident, a long letter would be required.
The apparatus of the Moore-Blunt edition does not make a note of the EL TL1 reading (instead
of
"TL3), which could have been the basis for such a translation. Bruni's translation (with the change
to the first person) has become the source of a more precise (si quis) translation by Ficino.
7. Conclusion
Let us attempt to present a classification of the examples. Those conjectures that are dependent on
Ficino-and in fact on Bruni-include approximately ten cases, since here editors acknowledge
33
Novotny 1930, 132.
following Ficino in their emendations. These include: Grg. 465a, 478b, 512d; Phdr. 235a, 253c; Phd.
87b-c; Cri. 48e; Ap. 37b; Ep. 309a. In other passages (Grg. 448e, 467b, 486d, 494c, 494e, 499d,
505c; Phdr. 250a; Phd. 78c, 84c-d; Ep. 330c-d) one may surmise that editors had tacitly adopted
Ficino's good conjectures (dependent on Bruni). Other conjectures (Grg. 453e-454a, 472e, 484a,
485e, 501a, 502b, 512a; Phdr. 236b, 237c; Phd. 105a; Ap. 32d-e, 36b; Ep. 322d-e, 323d, 327b-c,
339b, 345a, 345d, 347a) were made independently by modern scholars, but nevertheless they recall
the good work done by the Renaissance humanists.
In conclusion, the above classification demonstrates that the source for many conjectures
in Plato's texts was the Latin translation by Leonardo Bruni. In spite of not having been known
directly (practically so until this day) to researchers and textual critics of Plato, the intervention
of Marsilio Ficino has caused his corrections to find their way into texts, apparatuses, and com-
mentaries. Future editors of the philosopher's writings will have to take into account these data in
addition to researching Plato's entire direct tradition. Undoubtedly it will then turn out that many
of the alleged conjectures in humanistic translations derive their origin from Greek sources that
have thus far remained unknown.
Bibliography
ABBREVIATIONS
MS Laur. Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana.
BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.
WORKS CITED
Berti, E., "La traduzione di Leonardo Bruni del Fedone di Platone ed un codice greco della Biblioteca Bod-
meriana," Museum Helveticum 35 (1978) 125-148.
Il Critone Latino di Leonardo Bruni e di Rinuccio Aretino (Florence 1983).
"L' 'excursus' filosofico della VII Epistola di Platone nella versione di Leonardo Bruni," in Dotti
bizantini e i libri greci nell'Italia delsec. XV, ed. M. Cortesi and E. V. Maltese (Naples 1992) 67-116. Atti
del convegno internazionale, Trento, 22-23 ottobre 1990.
"Osservazioni filologiche alla versione del Filebo di Marsilio Ficino," in Il Filebo di Platone e la sua
fortuna, ed. P. Cosenza (Naples 1996) 93-167. Atti del convegno di Napoli, 4-6 novembre 1993.
Boter, G. J., The Textual Tradition of Plato's Republic (Leiden 1989).
Brockmann, C., Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung von Platons Symposion (Wiesbaden 1992).
Burnet, J., Platonis Opera, 5 vols. (Oxford 1899-1906). Oxford Classical Texts.
Bury, R. G., trans., Plato: Letters (London and New York 1929).
Carlini, A., "Marsilio Ficino e il testo di Platone," Rinascimento 39 (1999) 3-36.
Cataldi Palau, A., Gian Francesco d'Asola e la tipografia Aldina: la vita, le
edizioni, la biblioteca dell'Asolano
(Genova 1998).
Choris, B. De, and S. De Luere, ed., Platonis opera latina Marsilio Ficino interprete, for Andreas Torresanus
(Venice 1491).
Diaz de Cerio, M., and R. Serrano, "Die Descendenz der Handschrift Venetus Marcianus append. Class. 4.1
(T) in der Uberlieferung des Platonischen Gorgias," Rheinisches Museum 144 (2001) 332-372.
Dodds, E. R., ed., Plato: Gorgias (Oxford 1959).
Duke, E. A., W. F. Hicken, W. S. M. Nicoll, D. B. Robinson, and J. C. G. Strachan, eds., Platonis Opera, vol.
1 (Oxford 1995). Oxford Classical Texts.
Fabricius, J. A., Bibliotheca Graeca, 12 vols. (Hamburg 1790-1807; repr. Hildesheim 1967).
Fowler, H. N., trans., Plato: Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus (London and New York 1919).
Gentile, S., "Note sui manoscritti greci di Platone utilizzati da Marsilio Ficino," in Scritti in onore di Eugenio
Garin (Pisa 1987) 51-84.
Griffiths, G., J. Hankins, and D. Thompson, eds. and trans., The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni: Selected Texts
(Binghamton, N.Y 1987). Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies 46.
Hankins, J., "Some Remarks on the History and Character of Ficino's Translation of Plato," in Marsilio Ficino
e il ritorno di Platone. Studi e documenti, ed. G. C. Garfagnini (Florence 1986) 2:287-304.
, Plato in the Italian Renaissance, 2 vols. (Leiden 1991). Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition
17.1.
"Translation Practice in the Renaissance. The Case of Leonardo Bruni," in Etudes classiques, I. Actes
du colloque "Methodologie de la traduction: de l'Antiquite d la Renaissance," ed. C. M. Ternes and M.
Mund-Dopchie (Luxemburg 1994) 154-175. Repr. inJ. Hankins, Humanism and Platonism in the Italian
Renaissance (Rome 2003) 1:177-192.
Isnardi Parente, M., ed., Platone. Lettere (Milan 2002).
Jonkers, G., The
Manuscript
Tradition of Plato's "Timaeus" and "Critias" (Amsterdam 1989).
Joyal, M., "The Textual Tradition of [Plato], Theages," Revue d'Histoire des Textes 28 (1998) 1-53.
Lamb, W. R. M., trans., Plato: Gorgias (London and New York 1925).
Moore-Blunt, J., ed., Plato, Epistulae (Leipzig 1985).
Moreschini, C., ed., Platon, oeuvres completes, vol. 4.3: Phedre (Paris 1985).
Murphy, D. J., "The Manuscripts of Plato's Charmides," Mnemosyne 43 (1990) 316-339.
Novotny, F., ed., Platonis Epistulae (Brno 1930).
Olszaniec, W., "A Note on Leonardo Bruni's Latin Translation of Plato's Letters," Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes 66 (2003) 265-266.
Vancamp, B., "La tradition manuscrit de l'Hippias majeur de Platon," Revue d'Histoire des Textes 25 (1995)
1-59.
,"La tradition manuscrit de l'Hippias mineur de Platon," Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire 74
(1996) 27-55.
Wasznik, J. H., "Osservazioni sui fondamenti della critica testuale," Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 19
(1975) 7-24.

Leonardo Bruni, Marsilio Ficino, and Their Conjectures in Plato's Writings - W. Olszaniec

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Leonardo Bruni, Marsilio Ficino, and Their Conjectures in Plato's Writings - W. Olszaniec

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Author(s): Wodzimierz Olszaniec

Anda mungkin juga menyukai