CREATION, THE TRINITY AND PRISCA THEOLOGIA IN JULIUS CAESAR SCALIGER Kuni Sakamoto * A mong the various schools of ancient philosophy which were rediscovered in the Renaissance, Platonism had the most decisive impact on the intellectual scene. After Marsilio Ficino (1433–99) translated all the Platonic dialogues into Latin, this philosophical current was disseminated widely among the intellectuals of the time. Although it never challenged the longstanding dominance of Aristotelianism, its impact was considerable enough to arouse debates between the followers of Plato and those of Aristotle. The Platonists claimed that Platonic philosophy was compatible with Christian faith, while the doctrines of Aristotle were irreconcilable with it. The Peripatetics, on the other hand, insisted on the superiority of Aristotle. There were also some thinkers who tried to reconcile the two great philosophers. These debates, which are now called the ‘Plato-Aristotle controversy’, began in the middle of the fifteenth century and continued over the course of the next century. 1 Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484–1558) was one of the leading Aristotelians of this period. 2 His philosophical masterpiece Exotericae exercitationes (Paris 1557), written as a critique of the Milanese physician Girolamo Cardano’s (1501–76) De subtilitate (Nuremberg 1550), became a major textbook of metaphysics and natural philosophy in transalpine countries during the first half of the seventeenth century. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646–1716), who was familiar with this tradition, used Scaliger’s name as a synonym for a great philosopher. 3 Historians have also pointed out that his unique interpretation of Aristotle was incorporated in the doctrine of early modern atomists such as Daniel Sennert (1572–1637) and David Gorlaeus (1591–1612). 4 Yet, * My dearest thanks go to Adam Takahashi, without whose encouragement the present research project would never have started. I am indebted to Shunichiro Yoshida, Yuki Nakanishi, Sae Kitamura and Hidemi Takahashi for their valuable comments. Finally, I wish to thank Hiro Hirai, who has always aided me with his immense bibliotheca hermetica. 1. On this controversy see L. Mohler, Kardinal Bessarion als Theologe, Humanist und Staatsmann: Funde und Forschungen, 3 vols, Paderborn 1923–42, i, pp. 346–98; F. Purnell, Jr, ‘Jacopo Mazzoni and His Com- parison of Plato and Aristotle’, Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University 1971, pp. 50–92; D. P. Walker, The Ancient Theology: Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, London 1972, pp. 110–22; J. Monfasani, George of Trebizond: A Biography and a Study of His Rhetoric and Logic, Leiden 1976, pp. 201– 29; idem, ‘Marsilio Ficino and the Plato-Aristotle Controversy’, in Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy, ed. M. J. B. Allen and V. Rees, Leiden 2002, pp. 179–202; J. Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance, 2 vols, Leiden 1990, i, pp. 193–263; E. Garin, History of Italian Philosophy, tr. G. A. Pinton, 2 vols, New York 2008, i, pp. 379–404. 2. On Scaliger’s life and works see V. Hall, Jr, ‘Life of Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484–1558)’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, xl, 1950, pp. 85–170; M. Billanovich, ‘Benedetto Bordon e Giulio Caesare Scaligero’, Italia medioevale e umanistica, xi, 1968, pp. 187–256; M. Magnien, ‘Bibliographie scaligérienne’, in Acta Scaligeriana, ed. J. C. de Beynac and M. Magnien, Agen 1986, pp. 293–331. 3. Leibniz, Otium Hanoverarum sive miscellanea, ed. J. F. Feller, Leipzig 1718, p. 142: ‘… ingeniosis- simus Taurellus, quem ego Scaligerum Germanorum appellare soleo …’. See P. Petersen, Geschichte der aris- totelischen Philosophie im protestantischen Deutschland, Leipzig 1921, p. 258; K. Jensen, ‘Protestant Rivalry: Metaphysics and Rhetoric in Germany c. 1590–1620’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, xli, 1990, pp. 24–43. 4. C. Lüthy, ‘An Aristotelian Watchdog as Avant- garde Physicist: Julius Caesar Scaliger’, Monist, lxxxiv, 195 JOURNAL OF THE WARBURG AND COURTAULD INSTITUTES, LXXIII, 2010