Cavalcanti and the five positions

Use in the book

Book VI opens with Ficino’s recollection of a discussion that leads into Giovanni Cavalcanti’s speech. Ficino recalls a discussion beneath a laurel at Regnano with Landino, Nuzzi and Vespucci present. Cavalcanti accepts the five grades of reality and the everlasting third essence, yet distinguishes accepting the immortality of rational soul generally from proving that our human soul belongs to that grade. The latter remains probable rather than firmly established. He therefore requires a classification of the alternatives followed by arguments proper to the human case. The demand is methodological, not merely a request to repeat the earlier conclusion more emphatically.

The five positions remove different dependencies. The first makes soul an exceedingly subtle body diffused through the coarser organism, with the elemental variations and associated authorities enumerated in VI.1.2. The second replaces bulk with a quality spread through that subtle body, such as heat or warm constitution. It is genuinely different from the first because the proposed source of life is now a qualifying determination, not matter or quantity as such. The third places a luminous qualitative point in heart or brain, giving one privileged organ a ruling centre. It narrows the qualitative source without freeing it from local bodily dependence.

The fourth removes determinate position and makes the principle wholly present in every member, but still derives or supports it through matter. Its two alternatives are important. The bodily constitution might generate the principle itself; or another producer might draw it from matter’s latent seed, beginning or proportion and bind it to matter as its natural womb. Merely admitting a producer beyond the constitution therefore does not reach the fifth account. The causal contribution and continuing support of matter must also be excluded. In the fifth, indivisible whole-present soul depends solely on its incorporeal author’s effective power, not on a material beginning, capacity or tinder. It is consequently free from matter without being unproduced or independent of all cause.

These headings should not be equated with five uniform ancient schools. Ficino’s reported names distinguish different proposals, and some attributions are qualified. The warm-constitution theorists “seem to have intended” their position. Aristotle the natural philosopher follows the ancient theologians “for the most part,” not without qualification. The remembered dinner at Bernardo Bembo’s, its named learned guests and Pier Leone’s joining of Platonic and Peripatetic teaching reinforce the cross-school demand for demonstration rather than substituting reputation for proof. Haec ille finally ends Cavalcanti’s speech and introduces Ficino’s response.

The classification explains the later arguments’ different scope. Nutrition first distinguishes common bodily matter from a life-giving form. Cohesion, whole presence and self-motion press further against a form divided with body. The locally seated source is challenged by soul’s essential relation to each member. Temperament returns in the final argument because qualitative flux threatens the continuity attributed to soul. Even these successes do not by themselves settle material origin: VI.3 assigns natural, sensory and intellectual evidence separate tasks, reserving the additional origin question for understanding. A reading that treats every natural-power argument as an already complete proof of all five-position distinctions erases the programme that motivates the book.

Places to read

1. VI.1.1Cavalcanti distinguishes general immortality from the unproved classification of our own soul.
2. VI.1.2, VI.1.3, VI.1.4, VI.1.5, VI.1.6The five alternatives and the named supporters appear inside his reported speech.
3. VI.3.1, VI.3.2Ficino assigns different conclusions to successive modes of proof.

Translation in this edition

The anchors are editorial comparison units. The apparatus retains Regnano against G1559’s apparent Regoano and explains that transparent Italian personal names are rendered using their familiar Italian forms. The assertion that there are no other positions is Cavalcanti’s exhaustive classification as Ficino presents it; it is not an independent modern history of all theories of mind.

Angellerius; Arduinus

Angellerius; Arduinus. Printed forms: Oliverio Arduino Florentino; Richardo Angellerio Anglariensi.

Richard Angellerius of Anghiari and Oliviero Arduino of Florence, named Peripatetics. Cavalcanti reports that they reached the same conclusion about the required proof. References: VI.1.6. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

assentiri; opinari; arbitrari

assentiri; opinari; arbitrari. Printed forms: Arbitror; Assentior; Opinor.

To assent, hold an opinion, or judge; here they mark different degrees of commitment. Cavalcanti accepts the general hierarchy, regards the human soul’s placement as probable, and withholds firm assertion pending refutation of rivals. References: VI.1.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Bembus; Chronico; Demetrius

Bembus; Chronico; Demetrius. Printed forms: Antonio Chronico Veneto; Bernardum Bembum; Demetrio Attico.

Bernardo Bembo, Antonio Cronico of Venice and Demetrius of Attica, figures named in the dinner recollection. Bembo is described as a knight and Venetian envoy, while the other two are acute disputants; these are Ficino’s local descriptions. References: VI.1.6. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

concludere; respondere; quaerere

concludere; respondere; quaerere. Printed forms: concludamus; concludendumque; concludimus; quaeram; Quaeremus; quaerere; quaeritur; respondebit; Respondemus; responderet; respondet.

To draw a conclusion, answer and inquire. Questions, replies and conclusions delimit the dialectic; a premise inside an objection must not be taken as Ficino’s settled assertion. References: VI.2.2, VI.4.4, VI.4.6, VI.5.2, VI.6.3, VI.6.4, VI.8.3, VI.12.16, VI.13.9. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

confutare; reprobare; approbare

confutare; reprobare; approbare. Printed forms: approbaveris; confutatis; reprobatis.

To refute, reject, and establish the acceptable alternative. The fifth position must survive examination of the four predecessors before immortality is applied to us. References: VI.1.1, VI.1.6. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

convivium; discumbere

convivium; discumbere. Printed forms: convivio; discumberemus.

A dinner gathering; reclining or taking one’s place at table. The second social scene is recalled as support for the demand to establish the human soul’s proper classification. References: VI.1.6. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

disputatio; disputare

disputatio; disputare. Printed forms: disputatione; disputaveram; disseras; disseruisti.

A sustained philosophical discussion or examination by argument. Cavalcanti distinguishes the preceding common proof from a requested examination specifically of our own soul. References: VI.1.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

inquam

inquam. Printed forms: inquam; inquit.

I say; he or she says, marking clarification or reported speech. Cavalcanti’s speech and Ficino’s emphatic restat/formam clarifications must be attributed to their proper voices rather than flattened into one undifferentiated assertion. References: VI.1.1, VI.4.5. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Kalendae; laurus

Kalendae; laurus. Printed forms: Kalendis Martiis; sub lauro.

The first day of March; beneath a laurel tree. These expressions set the recalled discussion’s date and setting, without specifying a year in this passage. References: VI.1.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Landinus; Nuthius; Vespuccius

Landinus; Nuthius; Vespuccius. Printed forms: Bernardus Nuthius; Christophorus Landinus; Georgius Antonius Vespuccius.

Cristoforo Landino, Bernardo Nuzzi and Giorgio Antonio Vespucci, the named associates present. Their integrity and learning locate the debate within Ficino’s circle; their presence is not itself a premise proving immortality. References: VI.1.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Naldius; Fontius; Bonisegnius

Naldius; Fontius; Bonisegnius. Printed forms: Bartholomaeus Fontius; Ioannes Baptista Bonisegnius; Naldus Naldius.

Naldo Naldi, Bartolomeo Fonzio and Giovanni Battista Boninsegni, learned witnesses in the narrative. They are named as friends present when the Peripatetic agreement was reached. References: VI.1.6. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

opinio; sententia

opinio; sententia. Printed forms: opiniones; sententiam.

An articulated position or judgement, which may be reported rather than endorsed. The fivefold classification is a programme for adjudicating rival accounts, and the dinner guests are reported as agreeing with its demand. References: VI.1.1, VI.1.5, VI.1.6. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Petrus Leo Spoletinus

Petrus Leo Spoletinus. Printed forms: Petri Leonis Spoletini.

Pier Leone of Spoleto, praised as joining Platonic with Peripatetic teaching. His reported judgement reinforces the cross-school framing, not a claim that all doctrines of both schools are identical. References: VI.1.6. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Platonici; Peripatetici

Platonici; Peripatetici. Printed forms: Peripatetici; Peripateticis; Platonici; Platonicus.

Platonists and Peripatetics as the schools named or represented by Ficino. The text attributes particular vocabulary and replies to a school, while its opening social frame also stresses agreement across schools; a local attribution is not a universal historical claim. References: VI.1.6, VI.2.1, VI.8.6, VI.12.13, VI.12.17. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

probabilis; affirmare

probabilis; affirmare. Printed forms: affirmari; probabile.

Probable or plausible; to establish or assert positively. The human soul’s location in the third grade is initially only probable, not already demonstrated by the general immortality proof. References: VI.1.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

putare; existimare; arbitrari

putare; existimare; arbitrari. Printed forms: arbitrantes; arbitretur; existimabit; existimabunt; existimant; existimet; existimo; putamus; putanda; putant; putaret; putas.

To think, judge or suppose, with degrees of commitment determined by context. Ficino’s judgements, ancient attributions and the mistaken beliefs of shadow-viewers use these verbs differently; none automatically means an established demonstration. References: VI.1.2, VI.2.1, VI.2.3, VI.2.4, VI.2.9, VI.2.13, VI.2.14, VI.2.15, VI.8.6, VI.11.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

quinque capita

quinque capita. Printed forms: quinque capita.

Five principal headings under which different theories are reduced. The reduction aims at exhaustive alternatives; it does not identify each heading with one uniform historical school. References: VI.1.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Regnanum; Cavalcantes

Regnanum; Cavalcantes. Printed forms: Ioannem Cavalcantem; Ioannes; Regnano.

Regnano and Giovanni Cavalcanti, the place and host of the framing conversation. Ficino presents Cavalcanti as his uniquely dear friend and gives him the request that structures Book VI. References: VI.1.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

si; sin; nisi; licet

si; sin; nisi; licet. Printed forms: licet; nisi; quamvis; Quamvis; si; Si; Sin.

If, but if, unless, and although: markers of conditional branches and concessions. The repeated soul-body propositions belong inside tests and reductios; granting a branch temporarily does not endorse its conclusion. References: VI.1.5, VI.2.6, VI.4.4, VI.8.4, VI.9.1, VI.13.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

vel; sive; seu; aut

vel; sive; seu; aut. Printed forms: aut; Aut; nec; neque; Neque; seu; sive; vel.

Alternative conjunctions and negative coordination. The five positions and subsequent dilemmas depend on whether a list supplies rival possibilities, paired descriptions, or negated options. References: VI.1.2, VI.1.5, VI.1.6, VI.2.1, VI.2.22, VI.5.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Cavalcanti, Giovanni, and the Regnano gathering (authorities and interlocutors)

Cavalcanti, Giovanni, and the Regnano gathering. Cavalcanti’s speech at his house opens Book VI and requests proofs proper to the human soul. Cristoforo Landino, Bernardo Nuzzi and Giorgio Antonio Vespucci belong to the remembered gathering. The speech’s classification is part of the literary conduct of the proof. References: VI.1.1. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.

Contemporary philosophical circle (authorities and interlocutors)

Contemporary philosophical circle. Bernardo Bembo, Antonio Cronico of Venice, Demetrius of Attica, Richard Angellerius of Anghiari, Oliviero Arduino of Florence, Naldo Naldi, Bartolomeo Fonzio, Giovanni Battista Boninsegni and Pier Leone of Spoleto appear in the contemporary discussion framing the classification. The source gives them different roles as host, disputants, Peripatetics, witnesses or interpreter of Platonic and Peripatetic teaching. These are Ficino’s descriptions, not independent biographies. References: VI.1.6. See Cavalcanti and the five positions.