Abstract
This chapter discusses Javelli’s concept of Christian philosophy (philosophia Christiana), a project that has been completely neglected by modern scholarship. In fact, Javelli should be credited as one of the few Renaissance thinkers who attempted to build a systematic and consistent project of Christian philosophy, encompassing all three traditional branches of practical philosophy: ethics, economics and politics. He develops this conception in three interrelated treatises entitled, respectively, Philosophia moralis Christiana, Oeconomica Christiana, and Philosophia civilis sive politica Christiana, all published together for the first time in Venice in 1540. In this chapter, I will focus in particular on the first, preliminary step of Javelli’s project, that is, the ‘dismantling’ of classical ethics, embodied first and foremost by Plato and Aristotle. By intermingling references to the Scriptures with discussions of the works by these two thinkers, Javelli offers a point-by-point refutation of the main tenets of classical ethics, concluding that both Platonism and Aristotelianism are equally useless for the development of a genuinely Christian philosophy. In his philosophically grounded confutation of classical ethics, not only does Javelli echo arguments and motives already presented by Erasmus in his writings, but he also makes use of well-known allegations derived from fifteenth- and sixteenth-century comparationes of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle.
All translations from Javelli’s works are mine.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
At the beginning of his Oeconomica Christiana, Javelli explains the reason why he did not write an epitome of Plato’s household management: ‘Ad mentem autem Platonis de hoc singularem considerationem non fecimus, quoniam Plato indistincte in doctrina sua de moribus, de dispositione familiae, de regimine civitatis pertractare videtur’ (Javelli 1580, II, 718a).
- 2.
Sections of Javelli’s Philosophia moralis Christiana had appeared in print already in 1538 and 1539. See Cordonier and De Robertis 2021, 41, note 59.
- 3.
Among the most recent contributions on Erasmus and the ancient philosophical schools (especially Epicureanism), see Monfasani 2012. On Erasmus’ view of the relationship between pagan wisdom and Christian thought, see Boyle 1981. On Erasmus’ notion of Christian Philosophy (or Philosophia Christi, as he himself calls it), as it is unfolded especially in the Enchiridion militis Christiani and the Paraclesis, see Rummel and MacPhail 2021.
- 4.
On the different attitudes of Renaissance scholars towards pagan ethics, see Kraye 1988, 319–325.
- 5.
Javelli 1580, II, 378a: ‘Duas iam exsolvisti morales disciplinas, naturali lumine adinventas illique innixas. Unam quidem ad mentem Aristotelis, quam Peripateticam diximus. Alteram ad mentem Platonis, quam Academicam sive Platonicam nuncupavimus. […] Nunc vero divino aspirante lumine a quo omnis syncera veritas effluit et ortum habet, tertiam decrevi disponere atque ordinare ut agnoscant mundi sapientes, qui non dignantur aliud suscipere et credere nisi quod ab arroganti emanat gentilium philosophia, qua bonitate Deus optimus, quo studio, qua irreprehensibili lege Christianum genus regat pretioso sanguine suo redemptum. Haec tertia philosophia moralis non debili et fluctuanti naturali lumini innititur, sed illi divino et infallibili. […] Hanc divinam et Christianam moralem philosophiam denominabimus, cuius dignitas et celsitudo supra Peripateticam et Academicam tanta utique erit quanta est solaris claritas indeficiens supra astrorum lunarisque globi refulgentam eclipsabilem’. This idea was already familiar to thinkers such as Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Marsilio Ficino, and it would be later developed into the notion of ‘perennial philosophy’ (philosophia perennis) by Augustinus Steuchus (1497/98–1548) in his De perenni philosophia (1540); see Schmitt 1966. The opposition between lumen naturale and lumen divinum is already to be found in Bessarion’s In calumniatorem Platonis; see Hankins 1991, I, 235–236. The passage quoted in the text is also discussed by Kraye 1988, 321.
- 6.
Javelli 1580, II, 378a–b: ‘Quocirca Plato, ut manifestavimus in tractatus 4, capite 3 suae civilis disciplinae pro certo sentit nullum ex hominum genere quantumcunque ingenio, prudentia, scientia, experientia praeditum sufficere propria virtute leges condere, quibus recte ac iuste sibi subditos regere valeat, nisi divinum adsit auxilium et occulta Dei inspiratio’. For the passage from the Epitome in politicam Platonis referred to here by Javelli, see Javelli 1580, II, 335b.
- 7.
All references in this paragraph are taken from Javelli 1580, II, 277a–b. The notion that Plato’s philosophy had come nearest to the Christian faith was a topos; see, for instance, De civitate Dei VIII, 9.
- 8.
Augustine 1980, 817–818. See Javelli 1580, II, 380a–b: ‘Nempe palam in conspicua et notissima porticu, in Gymnasiis, in hortulis, in locis publicis ac privatis catervatim pro sua quisque opinione certabant. Alii afferentes unum, alii innumerabiles mundos, ipsum autem unum, alii ortum esse, alii initium non habere, alii interiturum, alii semper futurum, alii mente divina, alii fortuitu et casibus agi. Alii immortales esse animas, alii mortales et qui immortales, alii revolvere in bestias, alii nequaquam; qui vero mortales, alii mox interire post corpus, alii vivere postea vel paulum vel diutus, non tamen semper. Alii constituentes in corpore finem boni, alii in animo, alii in utroque, alii extrinsecus etiam posita bona ad animam et corpus addentes, alii corporis sensibus semper alii non semper, alii numquam putantes esse credendum’.
- 9.
- 10.
Javelli 1580, II, 381b: ‘Plato, ut declaravimus in dispositione suae Philosophiae moralis ac civilis, licet verius ac rectius et propinquius philosophiae Christianae instituta rectae tradiderit, tamen et ipse defecit in ea sua famosa communitate uxorum sive mulierum ac filiorum et possessionum, quam etsi non instituerit, quam ut rem impossibilem advertit non posse servari, tamen huius mentis fuit, ut Pythagorae observator, quod ad perpetuam humani generis pacem unitatemque civitatis, non superesset expeditior via. Qua tamen introducta et ad observantiam redacta, omnis honestas omnisque castitas et parentum honor sublata sunt. Ideo in hoc turpissime errasse’.
- 11.
See, for instance, Leonardo Bruni’s Vita Aristotelis in Griffiths et al. 1987, 289: ‘Plato believed, for instance, that all wives should be held in common – one can hardly imagine why – with the result that no one could tell his own children from those of a perfect stranger’.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
On the composition of the work, see Monfasani 2008, 3–4.
- 15.
For a recent contribution on Bessarion’ In calumniatorem Platonis, see Mariev 2022.
- 16.
Ficino presents this view in the Argumentum introducing book 5 of his translation of Plato’s Republic. See Plato 1484, II, pages unnumbered: ‘Similem preterea bonorum fuisse communionem inter philosophos brachmanas, gymnosophistas, esseos, pythagoricos’.
- 17.
See Bessarion 2014, 222. The topos resonates also in the earliest Italian vernacular translation of Plato’s Republic, made by Panfilo Fiorimbene. See Plato 1554, 175–176 (Argumentum introducing book 5): ‘[Platone] mostra che se bene quella comunanza non fosse possible, non però vanamente ne havea ragionato, et l’havea introdotta come esemplare da imitare con tutte le forze nel formare et ordinare la Repubblica. Poi afferma che all’hora questo sarà possible a fare quando i philosophi piglieranno il governo delle città’.
- 18.
For Bruni, see Griffiths et al. 1987, 288–289: ‘Plato was, to be sure, an exceptional man who possessed a great variety and range of knowledge and an eloquence well-nigh superhuman. But his doctrines were occasionally such as to depend for their acceptance upon the assent of a well-disposed mind rather than upon necessary proofs. Much of what he taught about the nature of the soul and the transmigration and descent into bodies was more akin to revelation than to demonstration. […] Plato’s doctrine was, moreover, inconsistent and unclear. Socrates wandered to and from wherever he was led with no order to his teaching, and did whatever he pleased. In disputation he seems not so much to be giving his own views as to be refuting the views and statements of others. Aristotle, on the other hand, was both more cautious in his teaching (he never commenced a subject unless he could offer proof), and more moderate in his opinions’. On this issue, see Hankins 1991, I, 255–256. Aristotle’s writing style, too, was sometimes criticised. On this, see Schmitt 1965.
- 19.
Javelli 1519, 36r: ‘Plato a superis descendit ad sensum sententias de divinis entibus veluti ab alto dimissas magis acceptans quam probans. Qui nempe modus soli theologo autem, innitenti divinae revelationi proprie convenit, philosopho autem, in humanis versanti, fere extraneus. Aristoteles autem veluti callidissimus naturae scrutator a sensatis et notioribus paulatim se ad immaterialia elevat’. On the division of spheres, see Hankins 1991, I, 205; Monfasani 2006.
- 20.
Javelli 1580, II, 381b: ‘Circa divinum vero cultum Plato clarissime evanuit et erravit, dum tradidit in libris de legibus superstitosum ac falsum deorum visibilium cultum, dividendamque civitatem in duodecim partes, iuxta duodecim signa colenda, ut divina entia. Qui etsi forte existimaret in mente sua esse tantum unum Deum solique illi serviendum, tamen ut legislator populum ad impiissimam idolatriam traxit, ideo non immerito in hoc reprobandus est Socrates, de quo dicitur ethicen id est moralem philosophiam traxisse a coelo et ipse a genio suo, id est spiritu familiari deceptus est, quoniam Deum Socratis appellari sustinuit, a quo adeo dementatus est quod nil nisi eius iussu agebat et a iudicibus civitatis Atheniensis in carcere damnatus ad mortem’.
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
Javelli 1580, II, 381b: ‘Aristoteles qui sibi persuasit veram morum regulam et rectam politiam invenisse, postquam in secundo Politicorum politias a multis dispositas, ut a Socrate, Polidamo, Phalea, Charonda, Lycurgo, Minoe reprobasset, et ipse erronea tradidit, ut in septimo libro docet deos honorandos esse, ubi expresse idolatriam docuit. Docet nullum orbatum, id est vitiatum corpore, puta surdum, caecum, mutum esse nutriendum, sed natum relinquendum, sicut relinquitur catulus. Docet in casu, puta quando filii superabundant, aut timetur infamia, procurare abortum, quod utique impium et profanum est’. ‘Polidamo’ is a misreading for ‘Hippodamo’, which Aristotle discusses in Politics II, 81267b 22–1269a 28. The misreading occurs in all the printed editions of the work (1540, 1566, 1568, 1577, 1580).
- 24.
Bessarion 1469, 123: ‘[…] Philosophus ille suis in libris Politicis tractet: iubet ille profecto his in libris condi templa diis atque heroibus, constitui sacerdotes et sacre pecunie questores, adhiberi sacrificia et ritum servari paterne religionis’. The incunabulum I consulted is: Boston, Public Library, Q. 403.76.
- 25.
George of Trebizond 2021, 895–913.
- 26.
Javelli styles himself ‘Divi Thomae fidelis sectator’ in Javelli 1519, 36r.
- 27.
Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences, IV, d. 31, q. 2, a. 3: ‘Hoc peccatum quamvis sit grave, et inter maleficia computandum, et contra naturam, quia etiam bestiae fetus expectant: tamen est minus quam homicidium: quia adhuc poterat alio modo impediri conceptus. Nec est iudicandus talis irregularis, nisi iam formato puerperio abortum procuret’. Quoted from Amerini 2013, 182.
- 28.
Javelli 1580, II, 385a: ‘Aristoteles in Ethicis non veram et aeternam, sed qualemcunque beatitudinem et imperfectissimam pro hac vita posuit in divinorum entium intelligentia, ad quam tamen ipse confitetur se habere humanum intellectum, in 2 Primae Philosophiae, ut oculum noctuae ad lumen solis. Plato in Phaedone Socratem introducit disputantem de felicitate et miseria alterius vitae magis more poetarum quam quid certi determinet. In ultimo autem de Republica introducit Herum Pamphilum suscitatum a mortuis fabulantem per longas ambages circuitus animarum modo ad felicitatem, modo ad miseriam. In Timaeo vult animas ad compares stellas redire unde processerunt, et ibi felicitari. In libris de legibus instituit divinas leges de deorum cultu et orationibus et sacrificiis petendas esse, aut a Pythio Apolline aut a Delphico, aut ab Ammone oraculo. Qui proculdubio non sunt nisi fallaces spiritus et falsi dei: omnes enim dij Genti[li]um daemonia’. The list of ancient oracles presented by Javelli (‘Apollo Pythios, Delphi, Jupiter Ammon’) seems to contain some inaccuracies. Apollo Pythios and Delphi refer, in fact, to the same oracle, Apollo the patron deity of Delphi, hence the prophetic god of the Delphic Oracle. Furthermore, this list does not appear in Plato’s Laws. The passage from which Javelli’s quotation is most likely drawn is 738b, where Plato mentions the oracles of Delphi, Dodona and Ammon.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
See Javelli 1580, II, 326a.
References
Amerini, Fabrizio. 2013. Aquinas on the beginning and end of human life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Augustine. 1980. The City of God against the Pagans, ed. D. Knowles. New York: Penguin.
Bessarion. 1469. Adversus calumniatorem Platonis. Rome: Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz [Boston, Public Library, Q. 403.76].
———. 2014. Contro il calunniatore di Platone, ed. E. Del Soldato. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura.
Boyle, Marjorie O’Rourke. 1981. Christening Pagan mysteries: Erasmus in pursuit of wisdom. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Cordonier, Valérie, and Tommaso De Robertis. 2021. Chrysostomus Javelli’s epitome of Aristotle’s Liber de bona fortuna. Examining fortune in early modern Italy. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Del Soldato, Eva. 2020. Early modern Aristotle. On the making and unmaking of authority. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Garin, Eugenio. 1966. Storia della filosofia italiana, 3 vols. Turin: Einaudi.
Griffiths, Gordon, James Hankins, and David Thompson. 1987. The humanism of Leonardo Bruni. Selected texts. Binghamton: Center for medieval and early Renaissance studies.
Hankins, James. 1991. Plato in the Italian renaissance, 2 vols. Leiden/New York/København/Köln: Brill.
———. 2007. Socrates in the Italian renaissance. In Socrates from antiquity to the enlightenment, ed. M. Trapp, 179–208. Aldershot/Burlington: Ashgate.
———. 2019. Manetti’s Socrates and the Socrateses of antiquity. In Brill’s companion to the reception of Socrates, ed. C. Moore, 619–634. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Izquierdo Labeaga, José Antonio. 2017. Sicut Oculus Noctuae. La debolezza dell’intelletto umano secondo san Tommaso. Alpha Omega 20: 355–418.
Javelli, Chrysostomus. 1519. Solutiones. In Defensorium Petri Pomponatii Mantuani. Venice: Giustiniano da Rubiera.
———. 1580. Opera quibus quicquid ad rationalem, naturalem, moralem ac divinam philosophiam pertinet, 3 vols. Lyon: Batholomeus Honorat.
Kraye, Jill. 1988. Moral philosophy. In The Cambridge history of renaissance philosophy, ed. C.B. Schmitt and Q. Skinner, 303–386. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marcel, Raymond. 1951. ‘Saint’ Socrate patron de l’Humanisme. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 5: 135–143.
Mariev, Sergei. 2022. Il libro di Bessarione in difesa di Platone: Vicende testuali e percorsi intellettuali. Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.
Mecci, Stefano. 2018. Il demone di Socrate nel Medioplatonismo. Giornale Critico della Filosofia Italiana 97: 56–75.
Monfasani, John. 2006. Aristotle as scribe of nature. The title-page of MS Vat. Lat. 2094. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 69: 193–205.
———. 2008. A tale of two books. Bessarion’s ‘In calumniatorem Platonis’ and George of Trebizond’s ‘Comparatio philosophorum Platonis et Aristotelis’. Renaissance Studies 22: 1–15.
———. 2012. Twenty-fifth annual Margaret Mann Phillips lecture: Erasmus and the philosophers. Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook (now Erasmus Studies) 32: 47–68.
———. 2021. Vindicatio Aristotelis. Two works of George of Trebizond in the Plato-Aristotle controversy of the fifteenth century. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval Studies.
Moreschini, Claudio. 1972. La polemica di Agostino contro la demonologia di Apuleio. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia 2: 583–596.
———. 1978. Apuleio e il Platonismo. Florence: Olschki.
———. 2019. Storia del pensiero Cristiano tardo-antico. Milan: Bompiani.
Plato. 1484. Opera, 2 vols, ed. Marsilio Ficino. Florence: Lorenzo de Alopa.
———. 1554. La Repubblica tradotta dalla lingua greca nella thoscana, ed. Panfilo Fiorimbene. Venice: Gabriele Giolito De Ferrari.
Rummel, Erika, and Eric MacPhail. 2021. Desiderius Erasmus. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta [online].
Schmitt, Charles. 1965. Aristotle as a cuttlefish. The origin and development of a renaissance image. Studies in the Renaissance 12: 60–72.
———. 1966. Perennial philosophy. From Agostino Steuco to Leibniz. Journal of the History of Ideas 27: 505–532.
Tavuzzi, Michael. 1990. Chrysostomus Javelli O.P. (ca. 1470–1538). A biobibliographical essay. Part I. Biography. Angelicum 67: 457–482.
———. 1991. Chrysostomus Javelli O.P. (ca. 1470–1538). A biobibliographical essay. Part II. Bibliography. Angelicum 68: 109–121.
von Wille, Dagmar. 2004. Javelli, Giovanni Crisostomo. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 62, 184–186. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Robertis, T. (2023). Neither Plato Nor Aristotle: Javelli’s Project of Christian Philosophy. In: De Robertis, T., Burzelli, L. (eds) Chrysostomus Javelli. International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées, vol 243. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27673-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27673-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27672-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27673-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)