The present article concerns the problem of the different endings of the Gospel of Mark according to Eusebius of Caesarea, Quaestiones ad Marinum, 1, 1-3 and Severus of Antioch, Homily 77, 16, 1, which is largely based on Eusebius’ Quaestiones ad Marinum. The author proposes a new interpretation of Eusebius’ passage by comparing it with what Severus of Antioch says in his Homily. The final chapter deals with a possible allusion to a lost Quaestio ad Marinum in Severus’ Homily.

The rediscovery and revaluation of ancient Greek philosophy was one of the most relevant results of the rebirth of the classical studies in the Renaissance, and, thanks to pivotal figures such as Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola, Platonism became a cornerstone in the history of Western thought. Nevertheless, before the flowering of Platonic studies, a struggle between the supporters of Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy exploded: this is the so-called Plato-Aristotle controversy. The key figures of this controversy were George of (...) Trebizond, who produced a treatise against Plato, and Cardinal Bessarion, who replied to George of Trebizond in the In calumniatorem Platonis. Shortly after, Bessarion's protégées Domizio Calderini and Niccolò Perotti wrote two treatises in support of his patron, which represent the most significant products of the last stage of the Plato-Aristotle controversy. In this volume I reconstructed the different phases of the controversy, and then I focused on Calderini and Perotti's works, that I edited, translated and commented for the first time. The book provides the first general overview on the Plato-Aristotle controversy, and an in-depth analysis of these two treatises, which were produced at the crossroad of Platonism, Medieval philosophy and Modern thought. (shrink)