MikeH
For reference in what follows, here is the last part of Filelfo:
It seems to me that Filelfo has the idea that the doctrine of the Ideas came from Zoroaster the philosopher himself. Whether Filelfo is saying that this doctrine is expressed in writings of Zoroaster himself, or in writings of the Pythagoreans, is not clear to me. But there is clearly the idea that the doctrine of Ideas is from Zoroaster. What other source, besides Plethon, says this? Not Proclus, as you describe him, Kwaw. Not the Alcibiades, Ross.
I don't have jstor either, but there are a few libraries near me. One had the 1979 article Kwaw gave a link to the first page of, Jill Kraye's "Francesco Filelfo's Lost Letter De Ideis." In lieu of the lost letter, she focuses on an unfinished work by Filelfo written a little later that probably said much the same thing. She writes
Kraye introduces the work as follows:
All this would seem promising for our endeavor here, except that for the relevant sentences, Fraye merely identifies Plutarch's Isis and Osiris 369E, for the 3rd to the last sentence of the De morali disciplina, corresponding to the 2nd to the last sentence in the letter (adding in her Commentary Diogenes Laertius viii, 3), which we already knew, and adding one bit:
However the wording of these sentences in the De morali disciplina is somewhat different than in the letter. Here is the end of De morali disciplina:
I await a translation.
For reference, here is my scan of the page of Fraye's edition of De morali disciplina I am drawing from, in case I made any typos:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0pdJgyTFjg8/To6dCfy6WfI/AAAAAAAADlM/zlqlQi8PiIk/s1600/Fraye243.jpg
Otherwise, Fraye does identify specific sources at various points in the de morali disciplina: pseudo-Plutarch, De placitis philosophorum, i. 10, 882; pseudo-Timaeus of Locri, De mundi animo et natura (the work is cited by name in De morali disciplina, whereas the letter had only the philosopher); also Augustine, De div. quaest., xlvi, 2. These are the main ones for the Ideas. There is also Cicero, Orator 18, from which he draws rhetorically; the Satura, I think of Juvenal, vii, 53-57; Seneca's Ep. 65, 7 and 58, 18-21; and for odds and ends, Plutarch's De gloria Atheniensium 346A and An seni respublica genda sit, 786b-C.
Perhaps one of the first three I mentioned will have something about Zoroaster. But I doubt it, if he indeed is backing off what he said earlier.
It is clear that Filelfo's main subject, here as in the letter, is Plato's theory of Ideas, which at the end of the letter he attributes to Zoroaster. Here is one more thing from Fraye:
Unless something else comes up, we are still left, for Filelfo's still unnamed source in the letter, with Plethon's comments to his version of the Chaldean Oracles.
Thus afterwards Plato in his turn made use of Pythagoras and was followed by various authors and doctors. They spread, according to what came wisely and acutely from Zoroaster the philosopher himself concerning Idea, writings which are referred to by Plato.
It seems to me that Filelfo has the idea that the doctrine of the Ideas came from Zoroaster the philosopher himself. Whether Filelfo is saying that this doctrine is expressed in writings of Zoroaster himself, or in writings of the Pythagoreans, is not clear to me. But there is clearly the idea that the doctrine of Ideas is from Zoroaster. What other source, besides Plethon, says this? Not Proclus, as you describe him, Kwaw. Not the Alcibiades, Ross.
I don't have jstor either, but there are a few libraries near me. One had the 1979 article Kwaw gave a link to the first page of, Jill Kraye's "Francesco Filelfo's Lost Letter De Ideis." In lieu of the lost letter, she focuses on an unfinished work by Filelfo written a little later that probably said much the same thing. She writes
She cites a letter of Filelfo's to Lorenzo of 7 Dec. 1474; Lorenzo was in Pisa when Filelfo dropped off his manuscript passing through Florence. He was hoping to get an appointment from Lorenzo with what he considered suitable renumeration. In 1475 Filelfo did get such an appointment in Rome and never finished the work. He finally took the job in Florence in 1481, at lower pay than he had hoped, but died at age 83 a few weeks after moving there.At the end of 1474 Filelfo showed part of De morali disciplina to Donato Acciaiuoli and other humanists in Lorenzo's circle, and he confidently expected that they would give Lorenzo a glowing report.
Kraye introduces the work as follows:
Kraye then reproduces the Latin text of De morali disciplina with her commentary, emphasizing Filelfo's sources.In composing De morali disciplina Filelfo recycled material which he had written previously. For example he took the passage on the divisions of the soul almost verbatim from a letter which he had written in 1444 to Ciriaco d'Ancona. [Fraye's footnote says 31 Oct. 1444.] More to the point, the set piece on Ideas is a concise and polished version of a letter of 1464 to Domenico Barbarigo. The discussion of Ideas in this letter, written nine years before De ideis, contains the same arguments based on the same sources as the section on Ideas in De morali discipline, which Filelfo composed not long after De ideis.
All this would seem promising for our endeavor here, except that for the relevant sentences, Fraye merely identifies Plutarch's Isis and Osiris 369E, for the 3rd to the last sentence of the De morali disciplina, corresponding to the 2nd to the last sentence in the letter (adding in her Commentary Diogenes Laertius viii, 3), which we already knew, and adding one bit:
She has no sources whatever for the end of the De morali disciplina, corresponding to the last sentence of the paragraph of Filelfo's letter.the reference to the Ionian and Italian schools of philosophy probably comes from Diogenes Laertius, e.g. i. 13-14.
However the wording of these sentences in the De morali disciplina is somewhat different than in the letter. Here is the end of De morali disciplina:
More for you to translate, Ross! I notice that he does not mention Zoroaster and Plato in the same sentence this time. Is he distancing himself from his earlier position? Fraye says, in her conclusionSequutus is quidem magis doctores, quibus cum apud chaldaeos congressus est, et Zoroastrem philosophorum omnium primum, quen Plutarchus tradit antecessisse bellum Troianum annis quinque milibus. Sed haec de Idea, et quid, quotuplexque sit, et quo pacto secundum Platonem accipienda, nos dixisse sufficiat. Nunc eo redeamus unde digressi sumus.
If he was merely paying 'lip service' to a popular idea, then, perhaps Fraye is thinking, we shouldn't expect him to have a source. But it wasn't a popular idea in 1464....although Filelfo paid lip service to the belief that Plato's theory of Ideas derived from Pythagoras and ultimately from Zoroaster (271-80), his account of Platonic Ideas is much closer to patristic and medieval than to 'ancient' theology.
I await a translation.
For reference, here is my scan of the page of Fraye's edition of De morali disciplina I am drawing from, in case I made any typos:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0pdJgyTFjg8/To6dCfy6WfI/AAAAAAAADlM/zlqlQi8PiIk/s1600/Fraye243.jpg
Otherwise, Fraye does identify specific sources at various points in the de morali disciplina: pseudo-Plutarch, De placitis philosophorum, i. 10, 882; pseudo-Timaeus of Locri, De mundi animo et natura (the work is cited by name in De morali disciplina, whereas the letter had only the philosopher); also Augustine, De div. quaest., xlvi, 2. These are the main ones for the Ideas. There is also Cicero, Orator 18, from which he draws rhetorically; the Satura, I think of Juvenal, vii, 53-57; Seneca's Ep. 65, 7 and 58, 18-21; and for odds and ends, Plutarch's De gloria Atheniensium 346A and An seni respublica genda sit, 786b-C.
Perhaps one of the first three I mentioned will have something about Zoroaster. But I doubt it, if he indeed is backing off what he said earlier.
It is clear that Filelfo's main subject, here as in the letter, is Plato's theory of Ideas, which at the end of the letter he attributes to Zoroaster. Here is one more thing from Fraye:
Filelfo even puts Augustine's words in Plato's mouth, Fraye says.ll. 131-268. Filelfo's description of Plato's theory of ideas is based almost entirely on 'Quaestio XLVI. De ideis' in St. Augustine's De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus.. See PL xl, Paris 1887, cols. 29-31; also critical edn. De visisis quaestionibus, ed. A. Mutzenbecher (Corpus Christianiorum, Series Latina, xliva), Turnhout 1975, pp. 70-3.
Unless something else comes up, we are still left, for Filelfo's still unnamed source in the letter, with Plethon's comments to his version of the Chaldean Oracles.