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.
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.
Kraye introduces the work as follows:
Kraye then reproduces the Latin text of De morali disciplina with her commentary, emphasizing Filelfo's sources.
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.
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 conclusion
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.
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.
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.
