DiotimosReading Desk

Diotimos Library · Renaissance Collection · Bilingual Edition

Marsilio Ficino

Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology, Volume II

Books V–VIII · Latin with an independent English translation

Explore the Lexicon
Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology, Volume IIBook V · Chapter 14 · § 8

Swipe or use the arrow keys.

English Page · Branch 53 of 191

Book V · Chapter 14 · § 8

Latin

p. 100

Quae vero in se ipsis permanent et, si quando materiae haerere videntur, illam sustinent potius quam ab illa sustineantur, contrariam sibi vim non possunt admittere; verum si qua vis advenit materiae gremio, qualitates et formas inquinat astrictas materiae; formam vero illam quae materiam supereminet non attingit. Talis est anima, anima, inquam, rationalis, quae, cum fons motionis sit corporumque motrix, non potest a corporibus e suo statu mutari. Cumque speciei suae ingenitam habeat vitam utpote propriam, vivit semper absque labore vivendi, praecipue quamdiu secum ipsa vivit. Propinquans vero corpori irrationalem, ut Platonice loquar, ex se fundit vitam velut umbram. Ipsa quidem vera est anima animalisque vitae fons; talemque vitam non modo ad tempus suppeditat corpori, sed multo magis sibi ipsi semper, cum numquam deserat semet ipsam neque ad se deserendam compellatur a corpore, cuius qualitas in formam non transit incorporalem. Rursus neque ad idem cogatur ab animabus, quarum officium est vivificare, non perdere. Talis proculdubio rationalis anima iudicatur. Irrationalis autem non vera est anima, quia neque essentia vera est neque vera vita. Non vera essentia est, quia non existit per semet ipsam, siquidem per se non operatur, quandoquidem nihil agit absque corporis instrumentis. Non vera vita est, quoniam motionis libertate privatur. Non enim ducitur a se ipsa, sed vi trahitur ab iis rebus quae sensibus offeruntur. Ideo Platonici multi aiunt animam rationalem esse et animam et vitam subsistentem atque ex se corpus vivificantem; sed irrationalem formam potius, animationem vivificationemque corporis, esse putant; quam etiam esse immortalem Xenocrates, Speusippus, Numenius, Plotinus existimant; Porphyrius autem et Proculus et alii quamplurimi negant. Neque mirari debemus si animas alias veras, alias falsas esse multi Platonici arbitrantur. Rerum siquidem varietas decentibus nectitur intervallis.

100

Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology, Volume II: Book V

p. 101

Forms that remain in themselves, however, and only seem at times to inhere in matter, sustain matter rather than being sustained by it. They cannot admit a force contrary to themselves. If such a force enters matter’s womb, it stains the qualities and forms bound to matter, but it does not touch the form that rises above matter. Such is the soul—the rational soul, I mean. Since it is the fountain of motion and the mover of bodies, bodies cannot dislodge it from its state. And because it possesses as its own a life inborn in its species, it lives forever without the labor of living, above all while it lives with itself. Yet as it approaches body, it pours from itself, to speak as a Platonist, an irrational life like a shadow. The rational soul itself is true soul and the fountain of animal life. It supplies such life not only to the body for a time but, far more, to itself forever, since it never deserts itself and cannot be compelled to do so by body, whose quality does not pass into incorporeal form. Nor can it be forced to this by other souls, whose office is to give life, not to destroy. Such, beyond doubt, is the rational soul. The irrational soul, by contrast, is not true soul, because it is neither true essence nor true life. It is not true essence because it does not exist through itself: it does not act through itself, since it does nothing without bodily instruments. It is not true life because it lacks freedom of motion; it is not led by itself but forcibly drawn by objects presented to the senses. Hence many Platonists say that the rational soul is both soul and subsistent life and gives life to the body from itself; but they regard the irrational soul rather as a form—the animation and vivification of the body. Xenocrates, Speusippus, Numenius, and Plotinus hold that this irrational soul too is immortal; Porphyry, Proclus, and very many others deny it. We should not be surprised that many Platonists call some souls true and others false, for the variety of things is joined together by fitting intervals.

101

About This Reading Edition

Volume II continues Ficino’s inquiry into the immortality of the soul through Books V–VIII. Its arguments consider the rational soul’s self-motion, its relation to the body, sensation, and the powers of the mind. The Latin and independent English translation follow the supplied edition’s facing pages and matching comparison units.

Historical Text and Translation

The Latin reading text is independently established from the Florence 1482 editio princeps (M1482), collated against the Paris 1559 printing (G1559), with the Paris 1641 Opera used only as a late control. Abbreviations are expanded, spelling and punctuation are conservatively normalized, and consequential readings are recorded in the apparatus.

About Diotimos Editions

Diotimos Editions prepared this independent English translation in the voice established in Volume I, preserving Ficino’s argumentative sequence, metaphors, technical distinctions, repetitions, conditions, purposes, and qualifications. Editorial notes and witness variants accompany their passages as numbered notes. The edition and source statement, contents, and reading guidance are also retained. The source locator register remains available in the downloadable edition.

Rights

Ficino’s Latin source work is in the public domain. The 2026 English translation and Diotimos editorial matter are original to this edition and remain © 2026 Diotimos.