#de amore

«Pues la belleza de todos los cuerpos es esta luz del Sol, que ves manchada por estas tres cosas, o sea, por la multitud de formas, pues la ves pintada de muchas figuras y colores, por límite espacial, y por cambio temporal. Quita su apoyo en la materia, de modo que más allá del lugar retenga las otras dos partes: tal es justamente la belleza del espíritu. Quita ahora si quieres el cam- bio del tiempo y deja el resto y te queda: la luz clarísima, sin lugar y sin movimiento, pero esculpida en todas las razones de todas las cosas. Esto es el ángel, esto es la belleza del ángel. Quita, por último, la multitud de las diferentes ideas, deja una luz simple y pura, semejante a aquella luz que permanece en la esfera misma del Sol y no se dispersa en el aire: ya casi en cierto modo has captado la belleza de Dios, la cual supera al menos tanto las otras formas cuanto la luz del Sol en sí misma pura, una e íntegra, sobrepasa el esplen- dor del Sol disperso, dividido, manchado y oscurecido por el aire nebuloso. Por tanto, la fuente de toda belleza es Dios. Dios es fuente de todo amor.»

Marsilio Ficino: De Amore. Tecnos, pág. 178. Madrid, 1994.

TGO

@bocadosdefilosofia

I saw some posts about A/G/L and how Camelot could have been saved...

And I personally thought "the medieval writers already dismissed the polyamory argument centuries before"

Its in Andreas Capellanus' Art of Courtly Love/De Amore:

"No one can be bound by Double Love/two Loves"

Which means "Pairings only" - both partners in a romantic couple can only have eyes for a singular person, whom they have an intense, health ruining affection for. There's no room for another person, because otherwise, it dilutes the tension and intensity of the romantic fiction for the audience, making it seem like the lover/beloved is a two-timer or weak and indecisive.

The argument goes "If you're not 100% for that one person, how can you say you are truly in deep love with that one person?"

My two cents is: Lancelot has two hands but only one heart.

This is probably why Galehaut exists: to prove Lancelot's status as a True Lover, he will always singularly choose Guinevere and her love over anything else.

It doesnt help there's other rules that say the (male) lover has to be jealous and possessive of the (female) beloved.

EDIT: There is another rule that enforces the "One Love Interest Only" Principle:

Some excerpts from the first speech Giovanni “gave” at a supper Bandini hosted in celebration of Plato’s death day where everyone read the Symposium then gave speeches on the nature of Love in response to each section of the Symposium.

Naturally, what the speeches actually were versus what Marsilio wrote down are likely vastly different. He very much was just using that gathering as a way to frame his commentary on Symposium in the classic Socratic style.

In any case, he gave Giovanni the most speeches (of course he did) with three of seven going to him. The others were given by Cristoforo Landino, Carlo Marsuppini, Tomasso Benci, Cristoforo Marsuppini.

Granted, technically all attendees were supposed to get one but a few people had to leave so the excess fell to Cavalcanti

Here’s Marsilio’s required plug about how hot his boyfriend is:

And a bit from the “official” preface and dedication (not the Secret/Personal one, as I call it, which was the true dedication to Giovanni):

The official dedication is to the citizens of Florence, Bernardo Del Nero, and Antonio di Tuccio Manetti and in this one he says Lorenzo de Medici inspired him to write the commentary on the Symposium. This is obviously just Ficino trying to please a patron because he says in many letters, and in the letter/secret preface of the first manuscript edition that it was Giovanni who persuaded him as a means to try and leverage him out of a deep depressive episode.

«Entonces, en tanto que el todo es más perfecto que la parte, tanto más perfecto es el cuerpo del mundo que el cuerpo de cualquier ser vivo. Sin duda sería absurdo pensar que un cuerpo imperfecto tuviese alma y el perfecto no tuviese alma ni viviera ¿Quién está tan enajenado como para decir que la parte vive y el todo no? Vive, por tanto, todo el cuerpo del mundo, ya que los cuerpos de los animales, que son parte de ese todo, viven. El alma de todo debe ser una, como una es la materia y uno el edificio.»

Marsilio Ficino: De Amore. Tecnos, págs. 125-126. Madrid, 1994.

TGO

@bocadosdefilosofia