Platonic tradition and early modern theory of epidemics

Most of the studies on the history of medicine, pay special attention to how the plague epidemics in 14th–16th centuries had changed the medical theory and practice. In the medical discourse, those epidemics helped to shape the “epistemology of particulars (particularia)” which contrast with the scholastic epistemology dealing with the search of universal causes. Marsilio Ficino, one of the most influential natural philosophers of the Renaissance, combines scholastic medicine and philosophy of ancient authors in order to develop his theory of epidemics in the treatises Consilio contra la pestilentia and De vita. He identifies the external and internal causes of plague and describes ways to combat the disease. The external cause is the constellations of planets which cause putrid exhalation in certain territories that is an example of conventional scholastic epistemology dealing with mass diseases. The internal cause is identified with the inability of the body to resist the disease “from within”. The main focus of my paper is the argument that, according to Ficino, philosophers have a special ability to resist disease “from within”. The figure of Socrates and his ability to withstand the Plague of Athens allows Ficino to formulate a new take on epidemics which falls within the scope of “epistemology of particulars”. From the historical point of view, the novelty of my approach comes from the fact that I trace the source of Ficino’s knowledge about Socrates’ disease resistance ability to Noct. Att. 2.1. of Aulus Gellius. Ficino’s natural philosophy suggests that a philosopher from their very birth is “by nature” predisposed to philosophical contemplation, therefore the realization of their vital destination through multiple sympathetic connections affects all levels of the universe. Ficino’s doctrine has a social and political dimension since a philosopher (i.e. a platonist), attracting positive astral influences, levels the effect of negative “heavenly” causes of mass diseases and thus benefits all people around him. Thus, the practice of philosophy (i.e. Platonism in Ficino’s interpretation) during epidemics is not simply a form of leisure time or private activity for a philosopher but a form of concern for public health. The paper also offers a commented Russian translation of chapters 1–2, with the Proem, of Ficino’s treatise Consilio contra la pestilentia.