Diotimos Library · Renaissance Collection · Bilingual Edition
Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology, Volume II
Books V–VIII · Latin with an independent English translation
Explore the LexiconSwipe or use the arrow keys.
Latin Page · Branch 75 of 191
Book VI · Chapter 2 · § 9
Latin
p. 144Quid enim stultius est quam concedere nos bestiis ratione praestare atque ea quae sensu percipimus existere aliquid confiteri, quae etiam nonnullae bestiae acutius sentiunt; id autem quod rationis oculo intuemur nihil esse contendere? Nullum enim animal esset insipientius homine, si ea vis animi quae hominis propria est magis quam sensus, qui communis est bestiis, falleretur. Nefas est autem animalium regem dicere omnium dementissimum. Dementissimus autem is erit solus qui non fatebitur tanto praestantius esse mentis obiectum sensus obiecto quanto mens est sensu praestantior, ac propterea incorporeas naturas in excellentiore substantiae genere revera inveniri quam corporea. Praesertim quia, si obiecta mentis eam movent, sicut obiecta sensus movent sensum, oportet ea ipsa mentis obiecta aliquam per se habere substantiam, ut mentem movere queant. Sin autem dicatur intellectum a suis obiectis minime agitari, iam satis probatum erit saltem intellectum ipsum esse naturam incorpoream, postquam, dum fabricat sua, non movetur ab alio et aedificia fabricat incorporea. Meminisse vero oportet quemadmodum puer qui natus est caecus difficile credit colorum varietatem lucemque esse, cum tamen ceteris hominibus nihil sit luce clarius; sic animum nuper tenebris corporis circumfusum vix adduci ut existimet lucem aliquam incorporalem existere, cum tamen nihil sit illa in rerum ordine angelis manifestius. Hoc Plato in septimo De republica longe conqueritur; hoc Aristoteles in secundo Divinorum confirmat, dicens humanum intellectum ad ea quae sunt per se in ordine rerum manifestissima non aliter se habere quam ad solis lucem noctuae oculum.
Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology, Volume II: Book VI
p. 145What could be more foolish than to concede that reason makes us superior to the beasts, to acknowledge that the things perceived by sense possess reality—although some beasts perceive them more keenly than we do—and yet to contend that what we behold with the eye of reason is nothing? No animal would be less wise than man if the power of the soul proper to man were more deceptive than sense, which he shares with beasts. It is an outrage to call the king of animals the most insane of them all. Yet the truly insane man is the one who will not admit that the object of mind is as far superior to the object of sense as mind is superior to sense, and therefore that incorporeal natures are truly found within a more excellent order of substance than corporeal things. For if the objects of mind move it as sensible objects move sense, those intellectual objects must possess some substance in their own right if they are to move the mind. But if the intellect is said not to be affected by its objects, then at least the intellect itself has already been sufficiently shown to be an incorporeal nature, since, while fashioning its own works, it is not moved by another and fashions incorporeal structures. We should remember that a child born blind finds it difficult to believe in the variety of colors or the existence of light, although nothing is clearer than light to everyone else. In the same way, a soul only lately enveloped in the darkness of the body can scarcely be brought to believe that an incorporeal light exists, although to the angels nothing in the order of things is more manifest. Plato laments this at length in the seventh book of the Republic, and Aristotle confirms it in the second book of the Divine Philosophy, saying that the human intellect stands toward things which are in themselves most manifest in the order of reality just as an owl's eye stands toward the light of the sun.
Socrates
Reading Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology, Volume II · Book VI · VI.2.9
Ask about a concept, passage, contradiction, or connection.
Socrates will begin with this book and its sources.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.
- PDF editionComplete Volume II — PDF
- Word editionComplete Volume II — Word
- public-domain-base-witnessFlorence 1482 editio princeps — Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
- collating-witness-cc-by-4.0Paris 1559 printing — Universidad Complutense de Madrid
- late-control-and-ocr-aidParis 1641 Opera printing — Internet Archive