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

8/11/2019 Leonardo Bruni, Marsilio Ficino, And Their Conjectures in Plato's Writings - W. Olszaniec

1/19

Leonardo Bruni, Marsilio Ficino, and Their Conjectures in Plato's WritingsAuthor(s): Wodzimierz OlszaniecSource: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 49 (2004), pp. 153-170Published by: University of Michigan Pressfor the American Academy in RomeStable 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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Academy in Romeand University of Michigan Pressare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toMemoirs 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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=umphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaromehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4238821?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4238821?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaromehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ump


2/19

LEONARDO

BRUNI,

MARSILIO

FICINO,

AND THEIR

CONJECTURES

N

PLATO'S

WRITINGS

Wlodzimierz

Olszaniec,

University

f

Warsaw

ifting

through

nineteenth-century

ditions of

Plato

by

L.

E

Heindorf,

I.

Bekker,

or G.

Stailbaum,

we come

across

many

variants

n

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

OperaOmnia

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

onjectures

were

undertaken

on the

principle

of

retroversion,

hat

is,

a

reverse

translationof a

given word

or

passage

from

Ficino's

Latin back

into

Greek,

receiving

n

this

manner an

alleged

conjecture

of

the

humanist nto

the Greek

text.

This,

of

course,

was a

risky

procedure, since it

assumed

treating Ficino's

version as

"literal"

ad

verbum),

n

the

meaning

that

this

term

has to a

historian of

the

Renaissance

theory

of

translation.

Dozens

of

corrections

culled

from

Ficino's

work

managed o

infiltrate

ditions,

many

of

which

have been

praised

by

contemporary

researchers

xploring the

traditionof

Plato's

text.

Research

nto 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 erm)1had alreadybeen containedin manuscript sources thatwere 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

indicationsthat

while

translating

some of

the

dialogues

he had

at

hand

other

Greek

sources.

Examining

manuscript

readingsthat

were

omitted

in

these

earlier

editions

makes it

possible to

reassessthe

philological

inventionof

the

humanistand

to

verifythe

number

of

conjectures

that

should be

rightlyattributed

to

him.

Equally

mportant

here is

the

study of

Ficino's

dependence

on

earlier

Latin

translations f

Plato.

It

has

long been

known

that

Ficino

lavishly

benefitedfrom

Leonardo

Bruni's

version.Bruni

was

the

first

quattrocento

ranslator

rom

the

Greek

who

used the

new ad

sententiam

method of

translation.

In his treatise On the CorrectWay to Translate De interpretatione ecta)he criticizedseverelythe

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,

ocusing

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

intelligibleand

elegantLatin.

This

purpose

justified

many

omissions

or

additions of

words and

passages,as

well as

various

syntactical

ransformations

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 Carlini1999.

3For an

English

translation

of

Bruni's

reatise,

see

Griffiths,

Hankins,

and

Thompson

1987,

217-229.

MAAR

49,

2004

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/19

154

WLODZIMIERZ

OLSZANIEC

goal

was to

clarify

meaning.4Ficino,

in

turn,

never

resorted to the

measures

used

by

Bruni

and

rendered the

Greek text

faithfully,but

not

literally

n

the

way

the medieval translatorsdid.

Though

his Latin

version

of

Plato lacked the

elegance

of

Bruni's

and

failed

to

convey

the

subtlety

of

Plato's

prose, Ficinowasalwayspraised ornot onlyhistextualaccuracybut also hisphilosophicalprecision,

which

Bruni,incapableof

understanding

he

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,

he

Gorgias,

he Crito

(second

version),

the

Apology (second

version),

the

Phaedrus,

he

Letters,

and

the Symposium

the

Speech of

Alcibiades).

This

dependence hasalreadybeen

described

in

general

and illustrated with the

use of

instructiveexamples.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 unknownreadingin a manuscriptthat Bruni

had

at his disposal. In

this article

I

present a

list of such

instances.

I

do not,

however, attemptto

pass

judgment as

to

which

corrections are

authentic

conjectures of Bruni

and which

instancesare

merely translations

of

dissimilarreadings

within the Greek

text. We are not

always able to

state

what

manuscripts

he

used;

so

far

it

has

been

possible

to ascertain his

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),8whereas the

manuscript

n

whichBruni

read the

Lettershasnot

surviveduntilour

times.9

As to the

remainingtexts, the sources of their

translationshave not

yet been ascertained.

1. The

Gorgias10

In

Bruni'sas

well

as in

Ficino'sLatin

translationsone finds

the following

corrections,

some of which

have

found

their

way

into

critical editions of

the

dialogue:

448

e:

AXX'

6E1;

flspTa

TroLC

L3

'

FOp'you

TEXVn, XX&a

IS,

KaL

oVTLVa

&EOl KCtXELVOV

FOpyuCV.

But

nobodyaskedwhat

was he

quality

f

his

art,onlywhat t was,

andbywhatnamewe

ought

to

call

Gorgias.i

Bruni: ednullus

qualis sset

Gorgiaerspetebat,

edquaenamsset

et quem portebat

orgiam

vocari.

'

For the

characteristicsof

Bruni's

translationsfrom Plato,

see

in

particularBerti

1983;

Hankins

1991, 39-58,

66-81,

and

388-400; Hankins

1994.

5

For

the

characteristics f

Ficino's

translations, ee

Hankins

1986; 1991,

311-314; Berti

1996.

6

See Hankins

1991,

2:464-473.

7On

the Bodmermanuscript,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

s quoted from

Dodds 1959.

I

also

consulted

Diaz de

Cerio and

Serrano2001,

where additional

information

about readings

n the

Gorgias s

contained.

The

text of the

Phaedrus

s quoted

from

Moreschini

1985; the

text of the

Letters

rom

Moore-Blunt

1985.

Quotations from

remaining

dialogues of

Plato

afterBurnet

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,andApology),Lamb

1925

(Letters).

12

The

texts

of

all

Bruni's

translationsquoted here

(except

Critoand

Letters)after BAV

3348. The

Crito

s quoted from

A.

Carosini's edition in

Berti

1983; the

Letters

after

MS

Laur.76, 57.



4/19

LEONARDO

RUNI,

MARSILIO

ICINO,

AND THEIR

CONJECTURES

N PLATO'SWRITINGS

155

But

noone

was

asking

whatwasthe

quality

f

Gorgias's

rt,

butwhat

t

was,

and

by

what

name

we

ought

o call

Gorgias.

Ficino:

Sednemo

qualis

sit ars

Gorgiae

quaerebat,

ed

quaenam

it et

quem

oporteat

ocari

Gorgiam.13

(Translations

above)

The

manuscripts

avethe

present

orm

EpxOTa,

nd a

correctionnto the

imperfect

1pTa

is

indispensable nd

universally

ccepted.

Bekker,

who

accepts

he

correction,

oes not

mention

ts

source,

but

one

may

suspect

hat it was

Ficino's ranslation.

oth

humanists otedthe

necessity

of the

imperfect

ense

here,

so their

translations

orrespond y

coincidence ather

han

through

dependence

f

the latter

on the former.

453e-454a:

TroKpLvo1iLeOC

rov UvTqOTl

Tr3

&LcJFKQXLKfl3

TfS

ITEpL

TO

a'pTLOV

TE

K'L

TO

TTEpLTTOIV

O(JOV EFTLV.

... we shallreply, suppose:Theinstructiveind,whichdealswiththe amount f anoddor

an even

number.

Bruni:nonne

responderemus

ibi

doctrinalisirca

ar

et

impar.

...

we would

answer,

suppose: he

instructive

ind,

which

deals

withthe odd

andthe

even.

Ficino:

espondebimus

raeceptoriam,idelicet

irca

ar

et

impar,

uot

utraque

int.

we will

answer:

he

instructive

ind,

namely,

which

deals

with

he odd

andthe

even,

n

alltheir

quantities.

Kratz,

Gercke,and

Theiler

deleted

he

words

&raov

&TLV;

perhaps oov

ought o

be corrected

to

ova

(Kleist),

omparing 51

b:

ovact

v

EKacTEpa

TVyXaV-q

oVTa.

The

translation

y Ficino

would

pointto sucha correction;Bruniomitted hesewords n his translation.t is worthnotingthat

Ficino

translated

dentically the

quoted

passage from

451 b

(quot

utraque

sint).

465

a:

OTl

OVK

EXEL

X6yoV

ot&EVa

X

Tpocy4E'pEL

T>

ai

TrpoU4

pEELOTTOL

aTTa

TVflV

49FLV

ECYTIV.

...

since t

hasno

account

o

giveof the

real

nature f

the

things t

applies ..

Bruni: ..

quoniam

ullam

habet

ationem

orum, uae

affert,

ualia int

secundum

aturam.

...

since

t

hasno

account

o

giveof

the real

nature f

the

things t

offers.

Ficino: ..

quoniam

ullam

habet

ationem

orum,

uae

affert,

ualianaturaint.

(Translation

s

above)

Themajorityf scholarssave orDodds,whoadded ) recognized

p TpOa4EpEL1TpOa4EpEL

as

the

juxtaposition f

two

alternative

eadings nd

accepted

Cornarius's

onjectureiv

TpocrEpEL

(Dodds

notices

hat he

correction

ad

appeared

arlier

nthe

Byzantine

writer

Doxopatres).Bek-

ker

also

givesthis

version

of the

text,

referringo

Ficino.

Ficino,

n

turn,

recreates

he

translation

of

Bruni. t

is

possible

hat n

Bruni

here s a

simplification,

measure

e

often

resorted

o in

his

translations.

467

b:

OVK

LPTL

[1OXO"YEL3

TOLElV

a OKEL

ctt)TOL;

fEXTLCFT

ELVCL,

TOV-TOrV

TPO6OEV];

Did

younot

admit

ust

now

that

heydo

what hey

hink

best?

Bruni:Nonnepauloanteconfitebarellosfacere, uae ibioptima iderentur?

Did

you

not

admit

ustnow

that

heydo

what

seems

best to

them?

Ficino:

An

non

pauloante

confitebaris,uae

ibi

bona

videntur,

os

acere?

13

Ficino's

translation

is

quoted

from

Choris

and

Luere

1491.



5/19

156

WLODZIMIERZ

OLSZANIEC

Did you not

admit

ust

now that

hey

do whatseems

good

to

them?

The words

OVTOV

TrpO(aOEvrean

evident

gloss

to

a'pTL

ndwere

suspected

or the first

ime

by

Schleiermacher

nd Bekker.

t

may

be

that

Bekker

who

did not translatehis omissionn

his

commentary)otthis dea romFicino,who n histranslationadomittedhesewords.Here hene-

cessity

of

the correctionwas obvious

as

at

448

e)

andboth humanisticranslators

ecognized

t.

472e:

KaTTa

e

yeE

TflPV

ElV

0oCav,HXe,

6o tLKV

TE

KaL O

66LKO

1TaVTW3

[EPVCitXLo0

..

Whereas

n

my opinion,

Polus,

he

wrongdoer

r the

unjust

s wretched

nyhow.

Bruni:Meaautem

ententia, Pole,

niurians t iniustus mninomiser st ...

Whereas

n

my opinion,

Polus,

he

wrongdoer

ndthe

unjust

s

in

any

case

unhappy

..

Ficino:Secundumero

ententiammeam,

Pole,qui

niuriatur

niustusque

st,

omnino st ante

aliosmiser.

Whereas

n

my opinion,

Polus,

he

wrongdoer

nd

the

unjust

s

in

any

case he most

unhappy

of all.

Editors

universally ccept TaVT0s

in

placeof the

manuscript

eading

&TriaVThV.he alterna-

tive rraVTON

is

confirmed

nlybyStobaeus,

ndthis s one of

several nstanceswherehe

presents

goodreading

n

spite

of the

remaining

radition. t is to Stobaeus hat

Bekker efers.Could

Bruni,

who corrected

n

the same

manner,

aveknown his

source,

or

is this an

ope ingeniiconjecture?'4

Ficino's ranslationnte alios

pointsto

1rTaVTOV

n

his Greek

ext. But he had Bruni's ersion

n

mind

and

repeated

mninoafterhim.

478

b:

TC

1V)1

TOVTOV

KacXXLUTOlVECTLV

[Wv

XEYEL;];

Which hen s the fairest f these hings?

Bruni:

Quod rgo storum ulcherrimumst?

(Translation

s

above)

Ficino:Quid

ergohorum stpulcherrimum?

(Translations

above)

In

his apparatus odds

notesfor xv XCyeCs:

ecl.

Heindorf

(non

vertit Ficinus).Ficino's mis-

sion of

the wordshad ts

source

n

Bruni's

ranslation.

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

1TrKCt

KCL

v6W[vs

TOV

Trrtpa

v1ULV

T1TaVTC

...

But, fancy,

hen

omemanarises

witha nature f

sufficientorce,he

shakes ff all hatwe

have

aught

im,bursts isbonds, nd

breaksree; etramples

nderfooturcodes nd ug-

gleries,

urcharmsnd

laws,'

hich re

allagainstature

..

Bruni:

Quod

i vir

aliquis raestantisaturae

nsurgatc itteras

ascinationesncantationesque

huiusmodiestras

onculcansc

disrumpens

egesquemnes,uae natura

esciscunt,

ffringens

But

f

a manof

outstandingature

rises

nd, ramplingnderfoot

nddestroyingllyour

writings,pells,

nd

ncantationsf

thiskind nd

breakingll he

aws

which reagainstature

Ficino:At si

quis

raestantis

aturae

ir nsurgatc

itterasfascinationes

ncantationesqueuiusmodi

vestras

essumdans

tque

iscidens

egesquemnes, uae esciscunt

natura,ubvertens..

(Translation

s

above)

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.



6/19

LEONARDO

RUNI,

MARSILIO

ICINO,

AND THEIR

CONJECTURES

N PLATO'SWRITINGS

157

Morstadt

eleted

8ta4Vywv

as a

probable

loss

o

&appua;.

The wordwasnot translated

y

Bruni

(though

omissions

are

a trait of

his

translations)

nor

by

Ficino,

who imitates

Bruni.

485e:

...

EXeI'eOpov

E

KaiL

Eyt

KaL LKQVOlV

Lr&ET1rOTEOE7y~CtaOma

..

... and

[he

must]

neverutter

anything

reeor

high

or

sufficient.

Bruni,Ficino: ... nihil

umquam

iberale

aut

magnificum rolaturus.

...

incapable

f

uttering

nything

ree

or

high.

To

many

editors

LKavov

seemed

inadequate

(as

contrary

to

climax);

thus

they

replaced

it,

for

example,

with

KaXo6v

r

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

VpELV

TOUTOV

TLVCiTOV

XLOWI)

fctcaVi(oLCVtV

TOV

XpYO6v

. . .

...

do you not

think

I

should

havebeen

delighted

o find

one of

thosestoneswith

which

hey

testgold...

Bruni:..

nonne

rbitrarerise

ibenter

liquem

x

huiusmodi

apidibus

eperire,erquos

aurum

probatur?

(Translations

above)

Ficino: ..

nonne

arbitraris e

libenter

eperturum

liquem

x his

lapidibus

ptimum,er

quos

probari

urum olet?

...

do you

not

think

I

shouldbe

delighted

o find

the

best of

those stoneswith

which

they

used

to

test

gold?

The

illogical

] was

replaced

by Stailbaum

with

aI;

(inMS

Parisinus 1812 we

find

ai),

not

quot-

ing Ficino. The correctionsequencewould be as follows: Bruni> Ficino > Stallbaum.

494

c:

A&yW,

acl

Ta;

&XXcaE

TrLOV[[La3

iTrai(Tac

XovTa

KCtL

8uvci[evov

TrXTpooWv

aLPoVTa

v8a

L

ovo;

(qv.

Yes,and

havingall

the

other

desires,and

being

ableto

satisfy

hem,

and sowith

these

enjoy-

ments

eading

a

happy ife.

Bruni:

Dico;

et

certe

reliquas

mnes

cupiditates c

eum,

qui

explere

potest

gaudetque

eate

vivere.

Yes;and

havingall

the

other

desires,

andbeing

ableto

satisfy

hem,

and iving

happily n

the

enjoyment

f

them.

Ficino:Dicoequidem;tque eliquisimiliterupiditatibusffectumsseexplerequeasposse um

voluptate

eatam

itam

affirmo.

Yes;and

havingall

the

other

desires,

andbeing

ableto

satisfy

hemwith

pleasure s a

happy

life.

Dodds

accepts

Stephanus's

conjecture

TriXpoiv

nstead

of

1TrXfporvTa

ffered by

the

tradition.

Fabricius had

already

noticed that

Stephanus

silently

borrowed many

conjectures

from

Ficino's

translation."5

t is

evident

that

the

real

source of the

correction

is Bruni's

ranslation.

494 e:

6pa,X

KtXXKXELS;,

L

cLTrOKpLVI,

aV T1L

Ce

Ta

EXO'[eVa

TO1JTOL3

45Ed3

aTrtVTU Ep)TaQ.

See,

Callicles,

what

your

answer

willbe,

ifyou are

asked

verythingn

succession.

Bruni:Vide,quidrespondeas,i quis edeincepsonsequenterecunctisnterroget.

See,

Callicles,

what

you will

answer,

f

anyone hould

askyou

everything

ne after

he other,

in

succession.

15

At

plerasque,

quas

adtulit

[sc.

Stephanus]

coniecturas,

sse

alienas,et

e

versione

Ficini

aut

Hopperii,

Cornariialiorumque

penu

depromptas,

omine

auctoris

elato

Fabricius

790-

1807,

3:131).



7/19

158

WLODZIMIERZ

LSZANIEC

Ficino:Vide,quid

respondeas,

allicles,

i

quis

e

deinceps uae

consequuntur

nterroget.

See,

Callicles,what

you will

answer,

f

anyone houldask

you

in

succession he

questions

hat

follow.

In his commentaryto the passage Dodds writes that Bekker'scorrectionETTO,LEvanstead 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'stranslation

was an

example to

be followed.

499 d:

'Ap'o0v)

Ta;

TOLcC't8E

XEyEL,

OLOV

KaTCL

TO (LCta

acs;

VVV861

EXEYOIIEV

V

T)

E&x0LELv

aL

TLVELV

q6ovci,

[eL]

CtpctTOVTWOV

L

RtEV

rYLELCV

OLOVULlEV

TW U64XLTL,

...

CVTaCL

EV

Cya0aL,t6E

TaVaVTLa TOUTWOV

aKCLi;

(TrOlOirLV

s

an alternative

eadingor

TToLoiGuL)."6

Now are

hese hesort

you

mean-for

instance,

n

the

body,

he

pleasures

f

eating

nd

drinking

thatwe

mentioned moment

go?

Then he

pleasures

f thissortwhich

produce

health

n

the

body .. are hese

good,and hosewhich

have heopposite ffects,bad?

Bruni:An

ergo ales

dicisveluti n

corpore uasnunc

dicebamusdendi t

bibendi

oluptates?

n

istarum, uae

valitudinem

aciunt

n

corpore

aesunt

bonae,quae

verocontra

aciunt,

malae?

(Translations

above)

Ficino:

Num

gitur

ales

dicis,

elut n

corpore

uas

modo

icebamusdendi

ibendique

oluptates?

Numquid

x

his

illae, quae valetudinem

raestant

orpori

onae

sunt, quae

vero

contrariae,

malae?

(Translation

s

above)

Dodds

accepts

Heindorf's

correction,which

consists of the

omission

of

Ei and the

replacement

of

inferential

particle

appa

with

the

interrogativeparticle

apct.The Ei has

been omitted

in

the human-

ists' translations;Bruni's

an

andFicino's

numquid

show thattheywere reading (orconjecturing) he

interrogative

ptpa.

hus, the

sequence of

correction

is: Bruni

>

Ficino

>

Heindorf.

501

a:

.a..

dX6yw

TE

1aVTCWTaTLV

US

E?ro3

ELTiELV &8EV

LapL0[uacE'Vl

. . .

...

and

altogether

rrationally-with o

thought,

ne

maysay,

of

differentiation..

Bruni:Temeraria

mnino

neque

ensiquicquamabens

. .

...

altogether

houghtless

ndnot

caring

bout

anything

..

Ficino: ..

temeraria

rorsus

eque

pensihabens

uicquam..

(Translations

above)

Findeisen's conjecture-dXoy6y-is in agreementwith the adjectivaltranslation of Ficino,

modeled on

Bruni.

502

b:

1TOTEpOV

YTLV

CVTfl_

TO

E1TLXELpfl[&a

aL

1

TrOV&l,

U

aOl

50KEL, XCPL(EO0aL

TOLS

0EUTa1S

IIOVOV

. . .

Areher

endeavour

nd

purpose,

o

yourmind,

merely

or the

gratificationf

thespectators

Bruni:

.. in

quo

studium

pponituum?

Utrum d

gratiam c

voluptatem

udientium

umtaxat

...

What s her

purpose?

Merely

o

gratify ndto

delight he

spectators

..

Ficino:

Numquidtudium ius

conatusqued

audientium

oluptatemolum

endit?

Is her

purposeand

ntention

merelyo

delight he

spectators?

The

expression

d;

(aOL

OKE'L

evoked

doubts

since

it

appears

n

a

question

directed at

the inter-

locutor. The

words

were

deleted from

the text

by Ast;

Schanz

proposed

U;

ROL

oKEL. Probably

for

16

Diaz de

Cerio and

Serrano

2001,

360.



8/19

LEONARDO

BRUNI, MARSILIO

FICINO,

AND THEIR

CONJECTURES

IN PLATO'SWRITINGS

159

the

samereasonBruniomits

the

passage

n

his translation

although

e

in

general

mits

this

type

of insertion n

his

translations).

icino

does

not render

t

either,

although

he

usually

upplements

Bruni's missions.

505 C:

TL

OVUV

T)

TOrl]U0[IEV;

[IETaUVt

TOV

XOyov

KaTaXVO[IEV;

So

now,what

hall

we

do?Break

ffour

argument

idway?

Bruni:

Quid

ergoagemus?

Numquid

medium

ermonem

brumpemus?

What

hallwe dothen?

Break ffour

argument

idway?

Ficino:

Quid

ergo

agemus?

Numquid

sermonem

medium

abrumpemus?

(Translationas

above)

Stephanus

corrected

KCTaXXORIEV

o

its future

form

KCtTCLXVO[LEv

y

analogy

to the

earlier

TOflUo>[EV.

It is

possible

that

he borrowed

this

conjecture

rom

Ficino's

ranslation-abrumpemus-

which took over the future tense from Bruni.

512

d:

aXA',

U

[tKCJtpLe,

pa

[L]

cXXo

l

TO

7EVV1lOV

Kal

TO

&ya9ov

GpTO ci(ei

TE

Sal

Ut4EJaL.

No,my

gifted

riend,ust

ee f

thenoble

nd he

good

are

not

something

ifferent

rom

aving

and

being

aved.

Bruni:

ed

vide,

ne

aliud it

generosumt bonum

uam ervare

c

servari.

But

ee

f

thenoble nd

he

goodarenot

something

ifferent

rom

aving

nd

being

aved.

Ficino:

Ceterum,beate, vide ne

aliud

sit

generosum

atquebonum

quam servare

atque servari.

But,my

gifted

riend, ee

f

the

nobleand

he

goodare

not

somethingifferentrom

aving

and

being

saved.

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) E

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

retiosior

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 bringshim an advantage ..

The

optative

6VTVYELEV

rom

manuscripts

has

been

correctedin

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;

E

XuV,

TUUTt

ETEpWS;

TE KUL

ETEpW3

XEyWV,

a[t>OTEPLW

ELTELV

CtpLUTa.

...

his

ability

to

say

the

samething

in two

different

ways and

in both

ways

excellently.

Bruni:

..

quod

posset

eandem

rem

aliter et

aliter

dicendo

utroque

modo

luculente

dixisse.

(Translation

as

above)

Ficino:

...

quod

posset

eandem rem

aliteret

aliter

dicendo

utroque

modo

luculenter

dixisse.

(Translation

as

above)

In manuscripts

one

finds

TrdvTU,

with the

exception

of

Coislinianus

155,

which

has

T-vT-.



9/19

160

WLODZIMIERZ

OLSZANIEC

But this manuscriptwas unknown

o

philologists

until

recently,"7

nd

TavTa

was

universally

c-

ceptedas

a

correction

f Heindorf.

The sourceof this correctionwas Ficino's ranslation

eandem

rem),

which

Heindorf

quotes.

However,

t

oughtrightly

o be derived rom

Bruni,

who

may

have

had thereadingTacuTanhisGreekmanuscript.

235 b: >trj8

av Eva iTOTE 5uvCwOCL

EL1TELVXXC

TTXELW

aL

1TXE'LOVO3

i.

... nobody ould ver peak boutt more xhaustively

r

worthily

hanhe has

done.

Bruni:.. nemo mquamueat lura

t

probabiliora

ixisse.

... nobody ould ver peak

boutt more xhaustivelyrworthily.

Ficino:.. nemo adem ereplura utprobabilioraicereossit.

... nobody ould peak bout

hesame hingmore xhaustivelyrworthily.

The

sourceof

the

reading

trl6'

av

Eva

acceptedby

Moreschini

s Hermias's cholia.Burnet

has r18oEv'av>

rOTE,

where he additionofacv omes rom heAldineedition.Thehumanists lso

notedthata subjunctiveormwasneeded or the phrase o make ense,

so theyusedqueat Bruni)

and

possit Ficino).

The Aldine,preparedby MarcusMusurusand published

n Veniceby Aldus Manutius

n

1513,wasthe editioprinceps

f the GreekPlato.So far tsmanuscriptourceshavebeen dentified

for

the Republic,18

he

Timaeus,

heCritias,19he

Symposion,20

he

HippiasMajor,2"

he

Charmides,22

andthe

Theages.23

or the first hree

dialogues

isted

above

MS

Venetus187was proved o

be

the

mainsource,while MS Parisinus

81124

and

MS Venetus186 were sources

or the others.But in

some

cases,

as Boter

points

out for theRepublic, theAldinehas a readingwhichdoesnot occur

n

any

extant

manuscript

ndwhichmakes

good sense;

omeof

thesereadings

maybe conjectural."25

Thismaybe thecase also

n

this passage f the Phaedrus.

237 c: ...

Trep'L

`pTOS

OlOV

T EcTL KaL

iqV

EXEL

UVaIlVL

..

[Letus firstagree]

on

a definition f love, ts nature nd ts power ..

Bruni: ... de amore pso, qualequid sit et quam habet vim ...

[Let

us first

agree]

on a

definition f love itself,what ts nature s andwhatpower t has ..

Ficino:

...

quid amor

ipse

sit

et quam vim habeat ..

[Let

us first

agree]

what ove itself s andwhatpower t has ...

Heindorf

proposed lov

Tl. However, hisemendation adbeenalreadymadeby Bruni quale

quid)

26

250 a:

..

cvTaL be

. . .

EKTrXfTTovTaL

KClL

UKEO aVT1V

yLyVOVTaL

...

But these .. arestrickenwith

amazement ndcanno longercontrol hemselves.

17

This

was taken into

consideration for the first time in

Moreschini

1985.

18

Boter 1989,

242-244.

19Jonkers 1989,

309-3

12.

20

Brockmann1992,

185-190.

21

Vancamp

1995, 53.

22

Murphy1990, 325.

23

joyal

1998,

48.

24

This

manuscriptprobably belonged to

Aldus; see Cataldi

Palau 1998,

469-471.

25

Boter 1989, 244.

26

Quale quid sit is a more literal

thoughnonclassicalequiva-

lent of

Ol6V

Tl. Bruni's

formula resemblesthe language of

the scholastics. Bruni added

emphasis

n his

translation

and

Ficino, changing the formula,

repeated this

expressiveness

(ipse),

although it

has

no equivalent

in

the

Greek original.



10/19

LEONARDO

RUNI,

MARSILIO

ICINO,

AND THEIR

CONJECTURES

N

PLATO'S

WRITINGS

161

Bruni: Hae autem ...

obstupescunt

t

quasi

extrase

ponuntur.

But these are

stricken

with

amazement

and,

in a manner

of

speaking, they

are

placed

out

of

themselves.

Ficino: Hae vero ... obstupescunt t quasiextrase ponuntur.

(Translationas

above)

The phrase

VKE' avT6V

comes

from

Hermias;

manuscripts

have

OKET'

atVTwV;

Burnet

accepted

Hirschig's conjecture

OVKET'

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

aVTh)V

("no

longer

in

themselves"),

which is

extra se

("out

of

themselves")

expressed

in a different

way.

Ficino

repeatsBruni's

ranslation.

253 c: KaOdrrEp

'V

UpXyj

OV6E

TOV

[VWOV

TPLX1

&LELXOREV

WVXnVE'KdTYV

...

In

the

beginning

f this

tale

I

divided

achsoul nto three

parts

..

Bruni:

Quamlibetvero

animam a initio

triphariam

ivisimus.

In

the

beginning divided ach

soul nto

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

conjectureof

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

TXEL'oVO

Cti

EL1TrOiV(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

pluraet

praestantiora i

dixeris, uxta

Cypselidas

n

Olympia olidus

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

rendersthe

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

neverthe

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 he

composite

things?

Ficino:

Quae

vero

alias

aliter nec

umquam

ecundum

eadem,haec

esse

composita?

But those things that are changingand never the same arethe composite things?

Heindorf

proposed

dtXXOT'

TXXw3,

perhaps

prompted

by

Ficino's

translation. ut

quae n

27

I

was

not

able to

consult MS

Bodmer

136,which

was used

by

Bruni to translate

he

Phaedo.



11/19

162

WLODZIMIERZ

OLSZANIEC

the translations

f BruniandFicino s a

connecting elative,

o the humanistswere

clearlyranslat-

ing

TC

8E,

not

a

6E.

84

c-d:

.

..

pRJ6Ev

CTrOKVTh1TE KCiL

CTOL EL1TELV ClLSLEXOCElV,'L Ti9 '4LV 4aGLVETCl 3EXTLOV

av>

XEXOvaL

...

... do nothesitateo speakanddiscuss hem

yourselves,

f

you

think

anything

ettercould

be

saidon the

subject

..

Bruni: .. nonvereamini

icere

tque

perire,iforte

n

aliqua

e

videtur

obismelius

dici

posse

... do not

be afraid

o

speak

andmake

t

clear,

f

you

think

t could

be

said

n a

better

way

.

Ficino: .. ne vereaminioquiatque

ercurrere,

i

qua

n

parteputatis

meliusdici

posse.

. .

.

do not

be afraid

o

speak

and

discuss,

f

you

think

n

some

part

t couldbe said

n

a better

way.

The

particle as addedbyHeindorf.

The

conjecture

s

convergent

ithFicino's ransla-

tion

(posse).

Its sourcehas to be

recognized

s Bruni's ranslation.

87

b-c: ... Kai

EL

TL9

aOTrUTOLl]vTC) ...

Then f anyonedid not believehim

..

Bruni:Et si

quis

d non credat..

And

f

anyonewould

not

believe

t

...

Ficino:Ac si

quis

d

noncredat

..

(Translations above)

Manuscriptshave&TTLUT6V;iTrLGTOuL]

s

a

conjectureof Heindorf (Bekker:diTLaToL).he con-

jectures

are

inspired by

Ficino's

translation,

which

is

borrowed from Bruni's.

105 a: 4XX

pact

iq

Ei

OVTC0

pC(,

uq

iL6vov

TO

EICVCVTLOV

TO

EVaVTLOVI]q 6EXEOaUL,

C(XXCt CL

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 hisstatement:

ot only

will

oppositesnot admit heiropposites,but

nothing

which

brings

an

opposite

o that

which

t

approaches ill everadmit n itself he

op-

positeness

f

thatwhich

s

brought.

Bruni: edvide,ansicdiffiniendumit,utdicamus onsolum ontrariumonrecipereontrarium,

verum

ne

illud

quidem sc. recipere], uod

afferat liquid

ontrariumi ad

quodaccedat,erens

eius,

quodafferat,

ontrarietatem.

But see

if it

shouldbe defined ike this:

not onlydoes an oppositenot

receive

ts

opposite,but

neither oes hat,whichbrings n

opposite o thatwhich t approaches,eceivet, since t brings

the

oppositeness

f thatwhich s

brought.

Ficino:At

vide

am,

num ta

diffiniendum

utes,ut nonmodo ontrariumonadmittatontrarium,

verum tiam

llud,quodaliquid fferat ontrariumlli ad quod psum

accedat,psum idelicet,

quod

affert,numquam

ontrariam

ius,quaeaffertur,ecipiatformam.

But

see

if

it

shouldbe defined ike

this:not only does an oppositenotadmit ts opposite,but

alsothatwhich

brings

an

opposite

o thatwhich

t

approaches

namely,

o that

whichbrings)

neverreceives form

contrary

o

thatwhich s

brought.

From

the forms

of the

present infinitive

recipere

n

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.



12/19

LEONARDO RUNI,

MARSILIO

ICINO,

AND THEIR

CONJECTURES

N PLATO'SWRITINGS

163

4. The

Crito

48 e:

Wg E'y(J

TrEpL

ToXXOV

rOLOVIIUL

TELUQa CE TCVTC1

1TpcITTELV,

XtXt

WrTl

KOVTO3.

... for I am anxious to act in this matter with your approval,and not contrary o yourwishes.

Bruni:Nam ego

plurimifaciopersuaso

e hoc

agere,

non

autem

invito.

(Translation

sabove)

Ficino:Equidem

multifacio persuaso

e

haec

agere,

non

autem invito.

(Translations

above)

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'sthat found its

way

into modern editions

throughFicino.28

The

participle

rreLuaa

was included

by

P. Buttmann

n

his

edition,

quoting

Ficino.

5. The

Apology

37

b:

PVTL

TOVTOV

8]

'E'XwaL

)lV

ECl

ot6c

Tl

KaK6V

OVTPV;

Shall choose

nstead

of that

something

which

I

know

o be an evil?

Bruni: ro hoc

eligam

eorum

aliquid, quae

mala esse scio?

Shall

I

choose, instead,

something

from

those

things

I

know

to be bad?

Ficino:

Eligam eorumaliquid,

quaeplane 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

translationand 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 acts

youcanhave

manywitnesses.

Bruni:

Et horum

pleriquevestrum estes

mihi esse

possunt.

Of

these acts

many

of

you

can

be

mywitnesses.

The word vestrum n Bruni's ranslation uggeststhat he had in his manuscript Us6vv.n identi-

cal

correction was

proposed by Hermann. Ficino

translates t

with the dative

vobis.

36

b:

Ey

&

be

TLVO3

I4LV

aLVTLTL[iJTYO[iaL,

(t

aWV6pE9

'A9VcCLOL;

Well, hen,

what

[penalty]

hall

proposeas 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

deliberativesubjunctive

postulem.

Hirschig

had a

similar

idea

when

he proposed as a

conjecture

the subjunctive

acVTLTL,flcro4tcaL.

icino

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 ibi

ut sic

acias,

sed

non

invitus; cf.

Berti

1983,

174.



13/19

164 WLODZIMIERZ LSZANIEC

6. The

Letters29

Perhapsthe most widely known conjecture

of Bruni is

the attribution

of Letter One to Dion.

The

causeof such an attributionwas undoubtedlythe discrepancybetween the role in governingSyra-

cuse,

which

this letter

attributesto

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 apparatusof her edition

J.

Moore-Blunt notes this

conjecture,

but she

still attributes

t

to Ficino.30

Bruni'salleged attributionof the

authorship

of Letter

Five alsoto Dion has caused

much

misun-

derstanding.

The

inscriptio

of the

letter,

as

well as the

manner

n

which

some

expressions

have been

translated,

ndicate that Bruni considered Plato

its

author,

so in

the

argumentum

to the

translation

we areprobably dealingwith a corrupttext.31

In

the

Letters

we find

severalother places

in

which the

alleged

corrections of Ficino

are

in

realityrepetitions of an earlier

translationby 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:Posteavero, ntelligenseamsententiamnonin se unosolum,verumetiam n aliis quibusdam

exsistere

..

Afterwards, understanding that this belief

exists

not

only

in

himself, but also

in

some other

people

..

Ficino: Postea veroanimadvertit

am sententiam, quam

ipse

rectis

conceperat ationibus,non in

se uno

solum, verum etiam in aliis quibusdam, icet non multis,

exsistere ..

Afterwardshe understood that this

belief,

which

he himself had

acquiredthrough right reason-

ing,

existed not

only

in

himself,

but also

in

some other people,

though not many ...

Apelt recognized the particledaiv

s 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 Bruniand Ficino.

Ep.7.330c-d:

T6v

UV[1JOVXEVOVTQ

V&pL

KU[L1VOVTL

KCaL LUCLTaV

LaLTW[1EV1

oXlp)v rrpos LeLttv

aXXo l

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

intemperatocirca victum

imprirmis

oc suadere

debere,

ut

modum

vivendi

mutet.

I for

my part

think that

one who

gives

counsel

to

a

sick man

living intemperatelyshould 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 or 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 Letterswas

lost.

30

Moore-Blunt1985, 1.Isnardi

Parente2002, 8 in her

recent

edition of the Lettersstill

attributes t to

Ficino.

31

On this

matter,see Olszaniec

2003.



14/19

LEONARDO

RUNI,

MARSILIO

ICINO,

AND THEIR

CONJECTURES

N PLATO'SWRITINGS

165

Ficino:Reorequidem ominem

onsulentem

egroto

t circavictum

ntemperato

nprimis

oc

suadere

ebere,

t modum

ivendi

mutet.

(Translations

above)

Suspicion

has been aroused

by aXXo

L. Badham oncluded

hat thefirst hree etters

of

the

suspected

expression-AAA-were

in factthe last letters

of the

preceding

word

VFIEIAN

nd

that

in this

place

there

was a

lacuna,

with the

missing

sense

being

something

like


15/19


16/19

LEONARDO

BRUNI, MARSILIO

FICINO,

AND

THEIR

CONJECTURES

IN PLATO'SWRITINGS

167

of self-defensive

ower.

For

they

ack

experience

wing

o the factthat

hey

spent

a

large

part

of their ives n

company

withus who

aremenof moderation

nd ree

from

vice.

Bruni:

Erasto utem t

Dorisco,

raeterapientiam

stam

ulcherrimam

uam

abent,

lia

nsuper,

ut meaertopinio, stopus apientiadversusmprobosavendi t adresistendumotentia. unt

enim,

icetaetate

enes,

amen

nexpertifraudum

x

eo, quia

cumhominibus

ivere

onsueti

unt

mznime

malls.

Erastusand

Doriscus,

n

addition o

this

fair

knowledge

hat

they

have,

need

also,

I

think,

the

knowledge

f

avoiding

hewickedandthe

power

of resistance.

or

they,

hough

old,

lack

experience f

deception,

wing

o the fact hat

hey

used

o live

n

company

withmen

anything

but wicked.

Translationof the

KaLLrTEpyEpov

O

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:

E1ToRivPVTOSCToV6i

TE

CLj

[[1]

Q[LOVChp KUL Ti Tfl

U17OU&6fS

Q6EXfl

1Tri8LCt,

KCLL

OV

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

earnestnesshat

s not out of

tune combined

withthe

playfulness

hat s

sister

to

earnestness,wear

by

the

God that s Ruler

of all

that s and

thatshall

be,

andswear

by

the

Lordand

Father f

the Rulerand

Cause ..

Bruni: ..

laudantes

tudionon

alieno

a

Musiset

ipsius

tudii orore

disciplina

eum

omnium

ducem

raesentium

cfuturorum

t

ipsius

ducis

t

causae

atrem

ominum..

...

praising

ith

an

earnestness,hich s

not unfamiliar

o the

Muses, ombinedwith

a

discipline

which s sister

o

earnestness,

he

god

that s

rulerof all

that

s

and

hatshall

be and

[praising]

thelord andfatherof the rulerandcause ..

Could it

be that Bruni

had in

his

manuscript

E&vIsVoiVvTac?n

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

TEpac

&EOLT'aIV

ETTLcTOXi;

TL3

1TdVTCt

E~L'OL

..

...

as

to

my

reason

or

this,

another

ong etter

wouldbe

requiredo

explainhem

n

fun

..

Bruni:Quaverodecausa staputem,magnamihiepistola pusesset, i cuncta arrareelim.

As

to

myreason or

this

opinion,a

long etter

would

be requiredo relate

verything.

Ficino:

Si

quisautemea

omnia

referre

ggrediatur,

uorum ecausa

ta

diffidam, rolixaopus

erit

epistola.

If

someone

ried

oexplain

ll

thereasons

whyI am

diffident,

long etter

would

be

required.

The

apparatusof the

Moore-Blunt

edition

does not

make anote

of

the

EL

TL1

reading

(instead

of

"TL3),

hich could

have been

the

basis forsuch

a

translation.

Bruni's

ranslation

withthe

change

to

the

first

person) has

become the

source

of a

more

precise (si quis)

translationby

Ficino.

7.

Conclusion

Let us

attempt to

present

a

classification

of the

examples.

Those

conjectures

hat

are

dependent on

Ficino-and in

fact

on

Bruni-include

approximatelyten

cases, since

here

editors

acknowledge

33

Novotny

1930,

132.



17/19

168 WLODZIMIERZLSZANIEC

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 (dependenton 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 hey recall

the good work done by the Renaissancehumanists.

In

conclusion, the above classification demonstrates that the source for many conjectures

in

Plato's texts was the Latin translationby Leonardo Bruni.

In

spite of not having been known

directly (practicallyso until this day) to researchersand 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'swritings will have to take into account these datain

addition to researchingPlato's entire direct tradition. Undoubtedly it will then turn out thatmany

of the

alleged conjectures

in

humanistic translations derive their origin from Greek sources

that

have thus far remainedunknown.



18/19

LEONARDO

RUNI,

MARSILIO

ICINO,

AND THEIRCONJECTURESN PLATO'SWRITINGS

169

Bibliography

ABBREVIATIONS

MS Laur. Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana.

BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.

WORKSITED

Berti,

E., "La raduzione i LeonardoBrunidel Fedonedi Platone d un codice

greco

della

Biblioteca

Bod-

meriana,"

MuseumHelveticum

5

(1978)

125-148.

Il

CritoneLatinodi Leonardo

runi

di Rinuccio

retino

Florence

983).

"L'

excursus'

ilosofico

della VII

Epistola

di

Platone

nella

versionedi Leonardo

Bruni,"

n

Dotti

bizantini i libri

greci

nell'Italia

elsec.

XV,

ed.

M.

Cortesi ndE.

V.

Maltese

Naples

1992)

67-116.

Atti

delconvegnonternazionale,rento, 2-23 ottobre1990.

"Osservazioni

ilologiche

lla

versione

del

Filebo

di

Marsilio

icino,"

n

Il

Filebo

di Platone

la

sua

fortuna, d. P. Cosenza

Naples

1996)

93-167.

Atti del

convegno

di

Napoli,

4-6 novembre

993.

Boter,G.J.,The

TextualTradition

f

Plato's

Republic

Leiden

1989).

Brockmann, .,

Die

handschriftliche

berlieferung

onPlatons

ymposion

Wiesbaden

992).

Burnet, ., Platonis

Opera,

vols.

(Oxford

1899-1906).

OxfordClassical

exts.

Bury,R.

G., trans.,Plato:Letters

London

andNew York

1929).

Carlini,

A.,

"Marsilio icinoe

il

testodi

Platone,"

Rinascimento

9

(1999)

3-36.

Cataldi

Palau,A.,

GianFrancesco

'Asola

la

tipografia

ldina: a

vita,

e

edizioni,

a biblioteca

ell'Asolano

(Genova

1998).

Choris,B. De, and S. De Luere,ed.,Platonis peraatinaMarsilio icinonterprete,orAndreasTorresanus

(Venice

1491).

Diaz

de

Cerio,M.,

and

R.

Serrano,

Die

Descendenz er

Handschrift

enetus

Marcianus

ppend.Class.

4.1

(T)

in

der

Uberlieferunges

Platonischen

Gorgias,"

Rheinisches

Museum

44

(2001)

332-372.

Dodds,E.

R.,ed.,

Plato:

GorgiasOxford

1959).

Duke,

E.

A.,

W.

F.

Hicken,W. S. M.

Nicoll,

D. B.

Robinson, nd

J. C. G.

Strachan,ds.,

Platonis

Opera, ol.

1

(Oxford

1995).Oxford

Classical

exts.

Fabricius, .

A.,

Bibliotheca

raeca,

2

vols.

(Hamburg

790-1807; epr.

Hildesheim

967).

Fowler,

H.

N., trans.,

Plato:

Apology,

Crito,Phaedo,

haedrus

London

nd

NewYork

1919).

Gentile,

S.,

"Note

sui

manoscritti

reci

di Platone

utilizzati a

Marsilio

icino,"

n

Scritti

n onoredi

Eugenio

Garin Pisa1987)51-84.

Griffiths,G.,

J.

Hankins,

ndD.

Thompson,

ds.

and

rans.,The

Humanism

f

Leonardo

runi:

electedTexts

(Binghamton,

.Y

1987).

Medieval nd

Renaissanceexts

andStudies

6.

Hankins, .,"Some

Remarks n

the

History nd

Characterf

Ficino's

TranslationfPlato,"

n

Marsilio

icino

e

il

ritorno i

Platone.

tudi

documenti,

d.

G. C.

Garfagnini

Florence 986)

2:287-304.

,

Plato n

the Italian

Renaissance,

vols.(Leiden

1991).

Columbia tudies

n the

Classical

Tradition

17.1.

"Translation

ractice

n

the

Renaissance.

heCaseof

Leonardo

Bruni,"n

Etudes lassiques,

.Actes

du

colloque

"Methodologie

e la

traduction:

e

l'Antiquite la

Renaissance,"d. C.

M. Ternes

andM.

Mund-Dopchie

Luxemburg

994)

154-175.

Repr.nJ.

Hankins,

Humanism

nd

Platonismn

theItalian

RenaissanceRome 003)1:177-192.

Isnardi

Parente,M., ed.,

Platone.

Lettere

Milan

002).

Jonkers,

G.,

The

Manuscript

raditionf

Plato's"Timaeus"

nd

"Critias"

Amsterdam

989).

Joyal,M.,

"The

Textual

Tradition f

[Plato],

Theages," evue

d'Histoire

es Textes

8

(1998)1-53.

Lamb,

W.

R.

M.,trans.,

Plato:

Gorgias

London nd

New

York1925).

Moore-Blunt,.,

ed.,Plato,

Epistulae

Leipzig

985).



19/19

170

WLODZIMIERZ

LSZANIEC

Moreschini, C., ed., Platon,

oeuvres

completes,

vol.

4.3:

Phedre (Paris 1985).

Murphy,D. J., "The Manuscriptsof Plato's Charmides,"

Mnemosyne43 (1990) 316-339.

Novotny, F., ed.,

Platonis

Epistulae (Brno 1930).

Olszaniec, W.,

"A

Note on Leonardo Bruni's

Latin Translationof Plato's

Letters,"

Journal

of

the Warburg nd

Courtauld nstitutes 66 (2003) 265-266.

Vancamp, B., "Latraditionmanuscrit 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 ui fondamenti della critica testuale," QuaderniUrbinatidi CulturaClassica

19

(1975) 7-24.

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

Documents

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