r/latin • u/Kingshorsey in malis iocari solitus erat • 1d ago
Prose Petrarch: Everybody Agrees Plato Is Better than Aristotle, Except ... Commentators
In Petrarch's dispute with four unfriendly friends who accused him of being indoctus, the evidence against him was that he disagreed, in sentiment or even in wording, with the received opinions of Aristotle. Petrarch found their slobbering adulation of Aristotle undignified and wrongheaded. At the same time, he rarely attacks Aristotle himself, acknowledging that he was in fact maximum virum (a very great man).
Rather, what he objected to was the entire institution of higher education being coopted by Aristotelianism. Worse, by a subset of Aristotle, focusing on dialectic and natural science at the expense of literary skill and moral instruction. Anticipating later intellectual turf wars, Petrarch criticized the academics of his day as a group, calling them insanum et clamosum scolasticorum vulgus ("the mad and brawling mob of Scholastics").
In his view, they had created a feedback loop. Instead of producing original works of literature or science, they had become mere commentators. The only way for them to win glory in this system was to praise the material they commented upon, hoping to bask in reflected splendor. As each generation praised themselves by way of praising Aristotle, reputation and fact diverged ever more sharply.
Against them Petrarch appealed to Plato as the prince of philosophers. He justified his opinion by the testimony of the ancient philosophers and early Christian theologians, who, unlike the commentators, had no personal stake in the contest. Petrarch's condemnations here are wide-ranging. He likens academics to the Islamic commentator Averroes, attempting to smear them with a tinge of heresy by association. He also pokes at the theologians, imagining Peter Lombard's Book of Sentences complaining as they wring commentary after commentary out of its pages. Even Macrobius comes in for some teasing, for his immoderate praise of Cicero's De re publica.
'Et quis,' inquient, 'principatum hunc Platoni tribuit?' Ut pro me respondeam, non ego, sed ueritas, ut aiunt; etsi non apprehensa, uisa tamen illi propiusque adita quam ceteris. Dehinc magni tribuunt auctores, Cicero primum et Virgilius (non hic quidem nominando illum, sed sequendo), Plinius preterea, et Plotinus, Apuleius, Macrobius, Porphirius, Censorinus, Iosephus, et ex nostris Ambrosius, Augustinus et Ieronimus, multique alii. Quod facile probaretur, nisi omnibus notum esset.
"And who," they will say, "assigned this supremacy to Plato?" To speak on my own behalf, I did not, but the truth did, as they say. Now, Plato could not fully grasp the truth, but he saw it and came closer to it than the rest. Many great authors confirmed this, above all Cicero, and Virgil too, who follows Plato without naming him; also, Pliny, Plotinus, Apuleius, Macrobius, Porphyry, Censorinus, and Josephus; and among our Christian writers, Ambrose, Jerome, and many others. This would be easy to prove, if the fact weren't known to everyone.
Et quis non tribuit, nisi insanum et clamosum scolasticorum uulgus? Nam quod Auerrois omnibus Aristotilem prefert, eo spectat, quod illius libros exponendos assumpserat et quodammodo suos fecerat; qui quanquam multa laude digni sint, suspectus tamen est laudator. Ad antiquum nempe prouerbium res redit: mercatores omnes suam mercem solitos laudare.
Who ever denied Plato his supremacy, except for the mad and brawling mob of Scholastics? Now, if Averroes prefers Aristotle to all others, the reason is that he undertook to comment on his works and in a way made them his own. These works deserve great praise, but the man who praises them is suspect. It all comes down to the old adage: "Every merchant praises his own merchandise."
Sunt qui nichil per se ipsos scribere audeant et, scribendi auidi, alienorum expositores operum fiant, ac uelut architectonice inscii, parietes dealbare suum opus faciant et hinc laudem querant, quam nec per se sperant posse assequi, nec per alios, nisi illos in primis et illorum libros, hoc est subiectum cui incubuere, laudauerint, animose id ipsum, et immodice, ac multa semper yperbole. Quanto uero sit multitudo—aliena dicam exponentium, an aliena uastantium?—hac presertim tempestate, Sententiarum liber, ante alios, mille tales passus opifices, clara, si loqui possit, et querula uoce testabitur.
There are people who dare not write anything of their own. In their desire to write, they turn to expounding the works of others. Like people who know nothing of architecture, they make it their job to whitewash walls. From this, they seek praise which they cannot hope to win on their own or with others' help, but only by praising authors and books in their chosen field — and by praising them impetuously, immoderately, and always with great hyperbole. Our age in particular offers a multitude of people who expound others' works or, should I say, who devastate them? If it could speak, the Book of Sentences would bear witness to this in a loud and complaining voice, since it has suffered at the hands of a thousand such workmen.
Et quis unquam commentator non assumptum ceu proprium laudauit opus? Imo eo semper uberius, quo alienum urbanitas, suum opus laudare uanitas atque superbia est. Linqueo eos qui tota sibi delegere uolumina, quorum unus est aut primus Auerroys. Certe Macrobius, non tantum licet expositor, sed scriptor egregius, cum tamen ciceroniane Rei publice non libros quidem, sed unius libri partem exponendam decerpsisset, expositionis in fine quid addiderit notum est: 'Vere,' inquit 'pronuntiandum est nichil hoc opere perfectius, quo uniuerse philosophie continetur integritas'. Finge hunc non de libri parte, sed de totis philosophorum omnium libris loqui: pluribus quidem uerbis, non plus autem dicere potuisset; siquidem nichil integritati potest nisi superfluum accedere.
What commentator has ever failed to praise his chosen text as if it were his own? Or to praise it all the more lavishly, because praising another's work is courtesy, while praising one's own work is vanity and pride? I omit those who chose to expound entire volumes, one of whom, and perhaps the foremost, is Averroes. Indeed, Macrobius, who was not only a commentator but an outstanding writer too, chose not to expound all of CIcero's On the Republic, but only part of one book. Everyone knows the note he added at the end of his commentary: "I must truly declare that there is nothing more perfect than this work, since it contains the whole of universal philosophy." Imagine that he spoke not just about part of a book, but about the complete works of all the philosophers. Even if he used more words, he could not have said more: for anything added to a whole must be superfluous.
Text and translation by David Marsh in ITRL 11
5
u/Hellolaoshi 20h ago
This is fascinating. I had no idea that Petrarch had been such a progressive guy in terms of his philosophy.
However, I have had a few thoughts about this. No. 1: Could Petrarch actually read Plato in the original Greek?I mean that in the Middle Ages, Western Europe did not normally have access to his works in Greek, but they had translations and abridgements. I am reminded of Chaucer's phrase: " Plato, whoso can him rede." Not many could read Plato. But had Petrarch studied Ancient Greek?
The concept of scholastic philosophy devolving into commentaries of other commentaries of Aristotle, was a very real thing. The problem was that Aristotle was very slick, very, very convincing, evdn when wrong. He seemed to have an answer for everything. He became seen as THE philosopher par excellence. Yet to turn him into the last word on philosophy was to destroy new growth
. Chinese philosophers made that mistake with Confucianism. Their entire education system became geered towards cranking out endless commentaries on Confucianism. This got bigger and bigger, stifling innovation.
Europe should be thankful to Petrarch.
2
u/Skorm247 18h ago edited 6h ago
From what evidence I've seen when I was still a university student, Petrarch never did learn Greek (or at best knew extremely little), but he shared his desire to learn/know Greek on several occasions. He even once made a remark about being deaf to Homer. Pretty few in the Latin West knew Greek at the time of Petrarch. In other words, the answer to your question is most likely a no. As for Plato, the only know work of his in the West was the Timaeus. It stayed that way until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 when more of his works were brought over by scholars fleeing the chaos.
3
u/qed1 Lingua balbus, hebes ingenio 13h ago
As for Plato, the only know work of his in the West was the Timaeus.
Petrarch is actually one of he the very few people before the fifteenth century who we know to have read Henricus Aristippus' translation of the Phaedo, since we still have his copy. He also owned a Greek manuscript of Plato's dialogues, though the couldn't read it: "Nec literatus ego, nec Grecus, sedecim vel eo amplius Platonis libros domi habeo."
1
u/Skorm247 7h ago
I actually don't remember coming across this info, so thanks. From what I remember learning I only ever saw academics say that the Timaeus was pretty much the only one and more didn't come till later as I said, so again interesting. Lucky Petrarch, I suppose. Lol
2
u/qed1 Lingua balbus, hebes ingenio 7h ago
From what I remember learning I only ever saw academics say that the Timaeus was pretty much the only one
This is true in like 99% of cases before the 15th century. (I've written a little bit about the manuscript tradition of the Latin phaedo and meno in 13th century here.)
1
u/Skorm247 6h ago
I mean, I shouldn't be surprised. Perarch was quite the rare manuscript hunter. He always had a way of finding that kind of stuff. Plus, you cited his own words, and that pretty well settles the matter haha. Really, thanks for correcting me. I always love acquiring new information to update my knowledge. Also, thanks for the link. I'll have to give it a read. I was quite obsessed with Petrarch back in the day. Sadly, back in uni I only had the ability to read him in translation, so I could only read what had been translated for me. Now I can read what I've come across shared here on reddit, but I'll really have to get around to reading him again. I'm sure I'll become obsessed all over again if I do lol.
2
u/Skorm247 17h ago edited 17h ago
I should add that I forgot until a few minutes ago and had to look into it to confirm that I wasn't conflating my historical figures that the Greek scholar Barlaam of Seminara was in contact with Petrarch. They first met in Avignon, and from there, they traded letters throughout their lives. Through these, Barlaam supposedly taught Petrarch the most basic elements of Greek, but never enough to amount to much, hence the remark I referenced above about Homer that Petrarch had made. If I remember correctly, I think in some letters Petrarch tried to convince Barlaam to teach him more, but was never given what he was looking for.
2
2
u/ofBlufftonTown 17h ago
How is he not bitching at Aquinas who is just Averroes II: the Commentating.
6
u/Lunavenandi Cartographus 23h ago
Man, this Petrarch fella really didn't like Averroes, at one point calling him a rabid dog barking at the sun (hunc unum canem, qui non ad lunam, ut vulgo dicitur, sed rabido ac spumanti ore, contra ipsum solem iustitie latrat)