by Karel Vereycken, august 2026

This article will be a first of a series of which I present the first part here:


I. Fake Platonist Marsilio Ficino and his Florentine “Platonic Academy”
II. The Medici dynasty and Cosimo de’ Medici’s
III. Georgios Gemistos Plethon, his life and ambitions

As it is well known, I’m a passionate researcher and admirer of what goes under the label of “Renaissance.” I’ve researched quite extensively and over many years, creative artists such as Ghiberti, Verrocchio, Brunelleschi, Donatello, Piero della Francesca, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Raphael.

This summer, I read Alma Palmer’s inspiring book “Inventing the Renaissance, Myths of the Golden Age.” That title is in reality a wake-up call. Yes, there was a splendid unprecedented explosion of Greek and Latin studies combined with painting, sculpture and architecture invented by idealistic humanists that anybody visiting Italy, and Florence more particularly, can admire. However there are also powerful myths invented (created out of hot air) by powerful factions of the oligarchy out to claim their own legitimacy (it was all me) and play down that of others.

As a starter, let’s examine the very common narrative about the Greek philosopher Georgios Gemistos, who added the name “Plethon” (Plato) to his own name, who traveled in 1438, at the age of at least seventy-eight, to the Council of Ferrara–Florence, the ecumenical gathering that sought to heal the schism between the Orthodox and Latin churches. Plethon, it goes, brought with him the full works of Plato and inspired Cosimo de’ Medici to set up a “Platonic Academy” and have Plato’s works made available to the West.

“This is clearly one of those stories too good to be examined closely, and it has been repeated by nearly every scholar who has written on Florentine culture or Renaissance Platonism,” says James Hankins who spent years trying to document the case.

Here is a rough sketch of the various points of the official narrative followed by my remarks and interrogations:

1) In 1438-39, at the Council of Florence, Cosimo de’ Medici made acquaintance with the “Neoplatonic” philosopher George Gemistos Plethon.

Conclusive proof lacking. The sole and unique source of information for this supposed encounter of 1438-39 is Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), the son of Cosimo’s physician. Ficino was not an eyewitness to the event. He was born in 1433 and was 5 years old when the Council of Florence started. He could have gotten the story from his father, who was Cosimo’s medical doctor.

To be added to that, the fact that Plethon spoke nothing but Greek, while Cosimo had no command over Greek and had very poor command over Latin. Cosimo, while he reportedly admired ancient greek knowledge, never wrote poetry, orations or treatises. The only surviving letters are in Italian. To understand Plethon, Cosimo would have required a good translator. But Bessarion, Plethon’s pupil, was organizing, directing and managing, together with Traversari and Cusa, the Ecumenical council.

Other than Ficino, not one single source of that period, even among the most ardent defenders and lackey’s of the Medici, praises or even mentions Cosimo’s encounter with Plethon and his supposed plan to set up a Platonic Academy.

The only metaphorical hints to a supposed encounter between Cosimo and Plethon, as well as his project to create a Platonic Academy appear in two writings of Ficino:

• 24 years after the Council of Florence in a letter to Cosimo de’ Medici written in September 1462;
• 52 years after the Council of Florence in Ficino’s preface to 1490 translation of the Enneads, the main work of the (evil neo-Platonic) Plotinus (who Roman Emperor Julien the Apostate tried to impose as a state religion at the end of the Roman Empire as an alternative to Christianity). The aim of that preface, was to please Cosimo’s grandson, Lorenzo the magnificent (1449-1492), and beg him to continue financing Ficino and his translations of Plotinus, which according to the latter, was nearly as ardently requested by Cosimo as that of the works of Plato.

Here is the critical passage of Ficino’s 1490 introduction to Plotinus’ Enneads :

“The Great Cosimo, the Father of his Country by senatorial decree, at the time when a council was being negotiated among the Greeks and Latins in Florence under Eugene IV [1438], frequently heard a Greek philosopher by the name of Gemistus Plethon disputing like another Plato on the Platonic mysteries. From his fervid lips Cosimo was straightway so inspirited, so ensouled, that from that time forth he conceived deep in his mind a kind of Academy, to give birth to it at the first opportune moment. Then, while that great Medici was intending in some sense to give birth to the great thing he had conceived, he destined me, the son of his favorite doctor Ficino, while still a boy, to [undertake] the labor, educating me from that day forth to this very thing.”

“Moreover, he labored that I should not only have all the books of Plato in Greek, but also the books of Plotinus. After this, in the year 1463, in the thirtieth year of my life, he commissioned me to translate, first, Thrice-Great Hermes, and thereafter Plato. Mercury I finished in a few months while Cosimo was still alive; Plato I had also begun at that time [1463]. Although he was also eager for Plotinus, he said nothing to me about translating it, lest he should appear to be weighing me down with too great a burden all at once. Such was the great man’s clemency to his own, such was his modesty towards all. Thus, I never thought, either in the manner of an inspired poet or in my own person, to approach Plotinus. But in the meantime Cosimo at length expressed-or rather impressed from on high-that which he had kept silent about while living on the earth.”

“At the moment when I was giving Plato to the Latin world to read, Cosimo’s heroic soul incited the heroic mind of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola in some unknown way-Pico himself almost did not know how-to come to Florence. Pico, born in the very year [1463] I was starting on Plato, and coming to Florence the same day-almost the same hour-I was publishing him, after greeting me asked me immediately about Plato. To him I said, ‘Our Plato has today emerged onto our thresholds.’ Then he heartily congratulated [me] on this, and straightway-and neither I nor he knows whence the words came-he led, or rather impelled me to translate Plotinus. Surely a divine cause brought it to pass that the hero Pico should be born while Plato was being, as it were, reborn-Saturn being then in the house of Aquarius as it was when I was born thirty years previously-and that he should come to Florence on the very day our Plato was published, and that he should inspire me in a marvelous fashion with Cosimo’s vow about Plotinus which had been quite hidden from me, but which was revealed by heavenly means to him.”

What is a proven fact is that Plethon (c. 1355-1452) did meet with Leonardo Bruni (1370-1444), the chancellor of Florence at that time, who had translated himself several Greek manuscripts including Aristotle and Plato. Leonardo Bruni’s translations of the Phaedo, Apology, Crito, and Phaedrus were made only shortly before Gemistos visit. Bruni had studied Greek under the Byzantine scholar Manuel Chrysoloras (1350-1415) who had been invited to teach Greek in Florence by Coluccio Salutati (1341-1406), a friend and admirer of Petrarch (1304-1374) and Boccaccio (1313-1375). Thanks to Chrysoloras’ activity a number of new Latin of Platonic writings began to appear under the name of his students, Bruni, Umberto Decembrio, and Cencio de’ Rustici, who translated between them ten Platonic dialogues, including the Gorgias, Crito, Apology, Phaedo and the Republic.

According to historian N.G. Wilson, Plethon, during his stay in Florence acquainted the Italian geographer Paolo Toscanelli (1397-1482) with the extensive travels, writings and mapping of the Greek geographer Strabo (1st century BC/AD), hitherto unknown in Italy but crucial for elaborating his famous map that later fell in the hands of Columbus. What is known is that Strabo’s works became an integral part of Bessarion’s library.

2) At the invitation of his humanist friends, including Cosimo, Plethon engaged in private lectures explaining the difference between Plato and Aristotle, arguing that Plato was far more compatible with Christian doctrine.

Conclusive proof lacking. During the Council, Gemistos found that he had free time because much of the counciliar discussion concerned theological minutiae that did not require the presence of a secular sage. Even if Ficino claims Cosimo assisted “frequently” at Plethon’s lectures, there is close to zero evidence they ever took place. What is known is that Plethon wrote a treaty on the difference between Aristotle and Plato, commonly known as De Differentiis. A decade later, Plethon described the circumstances in which he composed his book without ever mentioning it was a follow-up to his lectures:

“That work was not composed as a result of thorough research . . . but at a time when I had been indisposed at Florence and was unable for several days to go out of the house where I was staying; perhaps, too, because I was bored, and was trying at one and the same time to relieve my boredom and to do a favor to those who were interested in Plato. Thus I wrote that work in the briefest form…”

C. M. Woodhouse, author of the 416 pages book “George Gemistos Plethon, The Last of the Hellenes” (1986) says that most claims about this event should be considered as pure speculation. For him:

“The impact of Plethons lectures on the Italians remains hard to assess. Very few of them left any record of their impressions; none of them is more than superficial and secondhand. The case of Cosimo de’ Medici, recorded by Ficino, is the only major exception; an additional but minor one is Grigorio Tifernate. Although De Differentiis was written for the benefit of Italian humanists,‘ none can be named who read it in Plethons life-time. But there is a strong tradition that Plethon impressed many westerners by his personality and learning.”

3) Plethon brought with him to Florence a manuscript with all of Plato’s works

Yes. Plethon carried with him many Greek manuscripts. They included the entire works of Plato but also those of the (toxic neoplatonists) Plotinus and Porphyry as well as the Chaldean Oracles (more on that in Part III).

4) Captivated, Cosimo bought the Plato manuscripts from Plethon

No. There is no proof Cosimo was given or bought these manuscripts from Plethon. The latter took many books back with him to Mystras, Greece, after having allowed scribes in Florence to copy them. His most famous student, Cardinal Bessarion, later collected Plethon’s original autographs and manuscripts. Bessarion, not trusting Medici rule over Florence and demanding very precise conditions for conservation, donated his vast collection to the Republic of Venice, forming the foundation of the famous Biblioteca Marciana.

5) Cosimo gave the manuscripts of Plato’s works to Marsilio Ficino to have them translated into Latin

24 years after the Council of Florence, in 1462, Cosimo, seeing his life coming to an end, supplied the 29 years old Ficino with various Greek manuscripts of Plato’s work, whereupon Ficino started translating the entire corpus into Latin. The draft translation of the entire set of dialogues was finished six to seven years later, around 1468–69. In December 1473, Ficino, age 40, is ordained a priest and gave priority to writing and getting printed his own writings, among which the Platonic Theology and On the Christian Religion.

Plato had to wait and Ficino’s translation of the Complete Works of Plato (Platonis Opera Omnia), thirty-six in all, will only be printed in Florence in 1484 by the press of the dominican monastery of San Jacopo di Ripoli, that is 46 years after the Council of Florence. A much-improved second edition was printed in Venice in 1491 by Bernardinus de Choris de Cremona and Simon de Luere for Andreas Torresanus de Asula. 

Since the Medici’s wanted to keep the spread of ideas under their control, they only financed the (expensive) production of hand copied manuscripts and abstained from financing the arrival of the printing press. As a result, Florence, the epicenter of the Renaissance, ended up as one of the last to have modern printing shops !

Paul Oskar Kristeller, who spend years researching on Ficino, gives the following account of how Ficino’s translations came about:

“Marsilio Ficino, born in 1433, did not begin to learn Greek until 1456 (at age 23 years) and we have no specific information on the content and progress of his studies during the following years. We have a number of Greek manuscripts owned and annotated by Ficino, and a number of translations from the Greek surely or probably made by him, and some of them may belong to this early period, but none of them is dated. At the time when Cosimo de’ Medici gave Ficino a house in Careggi which the latter chose to call his Academy, in September, 1462, he celebrated the event with the translation of an Orphic hymn.”

Kristeller confirms that Cosimo asked Ficino to suspend his translations of Plato, and translate first the writings of Hermes Trismegistus:

“In April, 1463, Ficino completed his translation of the Corpus Hermeticum, after having spent only a few months on it. We know from Ficino’s own words that he began his translation of Plato at that time, after having finished the version of the Hermetica, that he did so at the request of Cosimo de’ Medici, and that he had at his disposal, since 1462, two Greek manuscripts of Plato, a complete one which belonged to Cosimo, and a partial one owned by Amerigo Benci.

As suggested by Kristeller in this paragraph, at the demand of Cosimo, Ficino translated first a collection of Hellenistic Greek documents found by Leonardo da Pistoia later called Hermetica (texts attributed to the legendary Hellenistic figure Hermes Trismegistus), and the writings of many of the (toxic) Neoplatonists, including Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Plotinus.

When Cosimo died on August 1, 1464, Ficino had translated ten Platonic dialogues, nine of them before January 11, and by April 1, 1466, twenty-three dialogues were ready.

After that date, we have no specific information on the progress of the translation, but it is probable that Ficino had completed the first draft of the entire work by 1468 or 1469. However, he wanted to subject the translation to a thorough revision, and hence refused to have it circulate.

Occupied with his Platonic Theology and several other writings, Ficino did not attend to the revision of his Plato translation for several years. He probably began to revise it around 1477, and had finished the revision in 1482 when he allowed it to be copied for others.

In 1483, Ficino sent the entire translation to the printer, apparently after having revised it once more, and finally the first printed edition of Plato appeared in October 1484. Although it had been carefully seen through the press by Ficino, it was necessary to append to it a long list of corrections.

The second edition, printed in Venice 1491, was not supervised by Ficino, but inserted the corrections in the text and hence is considered more accurate. From these two early editions all later ones are derived, although they may have been altered by some of the editors.”

The story goes that while other companions at Cosimo’s sickbed read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (with humanist commentaries) during his prolonged illness, Ficino read some of his newly made Latin translations of Plato’s works to comfort and entertain Cosimo in his final hours. But Cosimo’s Latin, as said before, was poor.

6) Plato’s works were largely unknown till then in the West.

Yes and No. Ficino was far from being the first translator of Platonic dialogues, he rather represents the culminating point of translation activity during the fifteenth century. The Greek text has come down to us in a number of manuscripts, and it was printed for the first time by Aldus Manutius in Venice in 1513.

Before the Renaissance, the Western world was very limited in its access to Plato’s writings. It inherited from Roman antiquity only two partial renderings of the Timaeus made by Cicero and Calcidius, and a number of shorter testimonia in Cicero’s philosophical writings, St. Augustine, and other works of Latin philosophy. During the 12th and 13th centuries, when most works of Aristotle were translated into Latin, the reader acquired only the nearly unintelligible versions of the Phaedo and the Meno, translated by Henricus Aristippus, and a partial version of the Parmenides, translated with Proclus’ commentary by William of Moerbeke. This was all that a Latin student was able to read of Plato up to about 1400, including Petrarch, who owned sixteen Greek manuscripts of Plato that reached the West in modern times, but who was not able to read them.

7) Cosimo asked Ficino to set up a “Platonic Academy”

Historian James Hankins is very skeptical about that:

“We may begin by pointing out the general implausibility of the thesis that Cosimo ever founded or wanted to found a new Platonic Academy. It is striking, in the first place, that in none of the numerous works in laudem Cosmi written by humanists during the last decade of his life and after his death is Cosimo ever praised for having re-founded the Platonic Academy in Florence. A volume of ricordanze about Cosimo put together by his son Piero, for instance, though it includes dozens of consolatory letters from various princes, prelates, humanists and fellow citizens praising Cosimo’s magnificence, does not mention even once his project to re-found the Platonic Academy or his collations with Pletho.

Even the letter of Cardinal Bessarion, Plethons student, does not mention the creation of the new Academy. At least four of the poets commonly identified as members of the Florentine Academy wrote poems in praise of Cosimo-indeed, Amerigo Corsini wrote an epic poem in three books of which the third was devoted to praising Cosimo’s cultural patronage-but none of these poets mentions his founding of a Florentine Academy.”

Another way to understand Ficino and his « academy » is to examine the various ways he uses the word “academy” and its variants. What one finds is that Plato’s dialogues themselves could be referred to as an “academy,” rich with precious teachings as they were. An “academy” could be a private school organized to teach youths, though not necessarily located in one specific place or devoted to one doctrinal tradition. And the word “academy” could refer to regular meetings of literary men. Ficino’s “academy” seems to have been more associated with the first two meanings of the word. Rather than leading a regular gathering in a specific place, Ficino preferred to teach Florence’s elite youth when he could and, as a Socratic, philosophical friend, to try to draw out of his associates the better part of their natures in conversation.

8) For that purpose, Cosimo offered funding and a part of his private villa in Carregi close to Florence

Unclear. Cosimo in 1463 gave Ficino a small property in Careggi with a domicile (“cum domo pro laboratore et hoste et terris laboratis,”) as the document in the State Archive of Florence puts it. There is also a letter from Ficino to Cosimo from September of 1462, in which Ficino writes: “spiritedly do I devote myself to the Academy you arranged for us on the estate in Careggi, as if I worship rightly at a kind of shrine of contemplation”

These two sources allow the inference that, while the specific gift of property did not occur until 1463, Ficino and his cohort met at least once on Medici property in the hills outside Florence. There is another document, again from 1462, which shows that he received a house in the city of Florence as a gift from Cosimo, which was then rented out, so that Ficino received the income from the rent.

9) The activities of Ficino’s “Platonic Academy” promoted Platonism in the West and kicked of the Renaissance.

Not at all. The fact that the arrival of real Platonic ideas were a key incentive in the birth of the Renaissance, is indisputable. But the Renaissance started three generations BEFORE Ficino publishing his translations. The reason that the Plethon/Cosimo/Ficino narrative became dominant is because the Medici family compound, by history books and intense propaganda called their fake claim pretending that THEY were the fathers, mothers, sons, daughters and authors of the Renaissance.

In reality, what the Medici mafia wants us to forget is the fact that Plato and Classical Greek wisdom were injected in Italy and Europe by Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio and their immediate followers Salutati, Bruni, Traversari and Nicholas of Cusa. It were the latter who motivated and paid the main collectors of Greek manuscripts, mostly over the entire period leading up to the Council of Florence:

• Manuel Chrysoloras (1350-1415), a greek scholar, humanist, philosopher and translator of ancient Greek texts. Serving as the ambassador for the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, he became a renowned teacher of Greek literature and history in Florence and Venice. In 1396, Coluccio Salutati, the Chancellor of Florence invited Chrysoloras to teach Greek grammar and literature. In a letter to Poggio Bracciolini, quoting the Roman lawyer and statesman Cicero, Salutati wrote: « The verdict of our own Cicero confirms that we Romans either made wiser innovations than theirs by ourselves or improved on what we took from them, but of course, as he himself says elsewhere with reference to his own day: « Italy is invincible in war, Greece in culture. » For our part, and we mean no offence, we firmly believe that both Greeks and Latins have always taken learning to a higher level by extending it to each other’s literature
• Guarino da Verona (1374-1460), a student of Chrysoloras who spent years studying in Constantinople and returned to Italy with numerous Greek codexes, founding a major educational system based on classical Greek and Latin learning.
• Niccolò Niccoli (1364-1437): Niccoli rarely left Florence. Instead, he stayed behind to fund Poggio’s expeditions, receive the recovered texts, and painstakingly transcribe them into his beautiful, efficient handwriting—a style that directly invented modern Italic script. Noteworthy is the fact that when Niccoli had spent so much on books that he was close to bankruptcy, Cosimo de’ Medici bailed him out. In exchange, Cosimo got a hand on Niccoli’s collection of manuscripts which he used for the first public library in Europe, an idea first conceptualized by Pala Strozzi, the richest man of Italy before Cosimo but exiled by the latter.
• Giovanni Aurispa (1376-1459), a Sicilian humanist who traveled to the East and returned to Italy in 1423 with a massive haul of 238 Greek manuscripts, among which all the works of Plato and work of Proclus, and various Greek historians and poets.
• Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459): As a papal secretary, Poggio used his travels to church councils to gain access to remote monasteries. He famously rediscovered Lucretius’s De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things, which preserved ancient Greek Epicurean philosophy, though written in Latin), as well as lost works by Cicero, Quintilian, and Vitruvius;
• Francesco Filelfo (1398-1481), a diplomat and scholar who collected a substantial library of Greek manuscripts while living in Constantinople before bringing them back to Italy.
• Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472), a Byzantine scholar who was a close friend of Cusa and who later converted to Catholicism and gathered a vast library of over 500 Greek manuscripts (which eventually formed the core of the Biblioteca Marciana in Venice), saving countless philosophical and scientific texts from destruction.

Conclusion

Finally, looking at what was produced by the “Platonic Academy”, it has to be noted that both Ficino and even more his most important pupil Pico della Mirandola, became fervent supporters of the Dominican priest Savonarola. The latter called the Florentines to burn all their luxury goods leading them to sin. The books of the Plato-loving Boccaccio were thrown into the fire. Renaissance paintings were burned with Sandro Botticelli himself throwing some of his works in the giant fire burning, both as a spiritual catharsis and carnaval. It was Ficino’s favorite pupil Pico della Mirandola which convinced Lorenzo de Medici to allow Savonarola to enter Florence and present his doom day speeches.

Once it became clear that Savonarola was captivating growing anti-Medici sentiment, Ficino, to preserve his financial backing from the Medicis, felt obliged to criticize Savonarola. From his side, Savonarola criticized Ficino’s heavy reliance on magic and astrology.

Ficino only escaped from the Inquisition, who didn’t like Ficino’s mixture of Platonism, magic and Christianity, because Lorenzo de’ Medici’s wife, a scion of the Roman Orsini family and as such a part of the deep state ruling from above, intervened to prevent him getting sentenced. Savonarola was burned at the stake for creating political uproar. But the extremism he unleashed was so threatening that Lorenzo’s successor, Piero the unfortunate, most likely poisoned by arsenic Pico della Mirandola and the poet Politiano, another pupil and friend of Ficino, all considered too much related to the wild Dominican.

Main points of argument:

• Yes, real Platonism, together with augustinian christianity, promoted the image of « Renaissance » man, a free creative being as created as a living image of the creator.
• Thanks to Petrarch, Boccaccio, Salutati, Bruni, Traversari and Cusa, studies of Greek and Latin bloomed in Florence and kiscked off a “Renaissance” at the beginning of the 15^th century (construction of the gates of the Baptistry by Ghiberti) an elan that culminated with the construction of the Dome and the 1438 Council of Florence.
• Plethon was not the first to bring the full works of Plato to the West, they arrived in 1423 thanks to a collaborator of Nicholas of Cusa, Giovanni Aurispa.
• The translations of Plato’s work by the neo-Platonist (Plotinist) Marsilio Ficino, requested by Cosimo de’ Medici, only arrived at the end of the century (1484), that is AFTER the “Golden” Renaissance. They were not causing what happened before.
• Ficino and his follower Pico della Mirandola ended up backing the Renaissance book and art burning dominican monk Savonarola.
• The Medici family fabricated a myth pretending it was them (Cosimo and Lorenzo de Medici) which initiated the Renaissance. Leonardo da Vinci, the archetype of the creative Renaissance genius, said « The Medici created me and destroyed me. »

Works consulted:

• Debolt, Darien C. George Gemistos Plethon on God: Heterodoxy in Defense of Orthodoxy, University of Oklahoma:
• Diller, Aubrey. The autographs of Georgius Gemistus Pletho. In: Scriptorium, Tome 10 n°1, 1956. pp. 27-41;
• Hankins, James, Cosimo de’ Medici and the ‘Platonic Academy’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 53 (1990), pp. 144-162. Published by the Warburg Institute;
• Kristeller, Paul Oskar. Marsilio Ficino as a beginning student of Plato. In: Scriptorium, Tome 20 n°1, 1966. pp. 41-54;
• Palmer, Ada, Inventing The Renaissance, Myths of a Golden Age, Head of Zeus, Bloomsbury Publishing 2025;
• Papacostas A., George, George Gemistos-Plethon, an overview of his life and thought with a comprehensive bibliography, Harrisburg, PA, 1979;
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Marsilio Ficino, 2024
• Vanhaelen Maude. Marsilio Ficino’s translation of Plato’s Eutyphro. In Scriptorium, Tome 56 n°1, 2002. pp. 20-47;
• Vereycken Karel, The Greek language project, Plato and the Renaissance, Artkarel.com, 2021;
• Vereycken Karel, Albrecht Dürer’s Fight Against Neo-Platonic Melancoly, Artkarel.com, 2005;
• Vereycken Karel, How Neo-Platonism gave Plato a Bad Name, Artkarel, 2005;
• Wilson, N. G., From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Woodhouse, C.M., George Gemistos Plethon, The Last of the Hellenes, Claredon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1986;