Personas › Georgius Gemistus Pletho
Persona #388

Georgius Gemistus Pletho

c. 1355–1454 · Byzantine philosopher, judge, political advisor, reviver of Platonism in the late Byzantine world

The Byzantine Platonist whose lectures at the Council of Florence inspired the Medici to found the Florentine Academy and relaunch Plato in the West

Pletho was the most important Byzantine philosopher of the fifteenth century and the catalyst for the Renaissance revival of Plato. Based in Mistra (the Byzantine capital of the Peloponnese), he served as a judge and counselor and wrote extensively on Platonist philosophy, political reform, and the superiority of Plato over Aristotle. In 1438–39 he attended the Council of Florence (called to reunite the Eastern and Western churches) as part of the Byzantine delegation, and his lectures on Plato so impressed Cosimo de' Medici that Cosimo founded the Florentine Academy and commissioned Marsilio Ficino to translate Plato into Latin. Pletho's most controversial work, the "Laws" (Nomoi), modelled on Plato's dialogue of the same name, proposed a reformed Hellenistic pagan theology to replace Christianity — it was burned after his death by the Patriarch Gennadios Scholarios. His "De Differentiis" (On the Differences between Plato and Aristotle) provoked the great fifteenth-century controversy over the relative merits of the two ancient masters. Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta had Pletho's remains transferred from Mistra to the Tempio Malatestiano in Rimini — one of the strangest acts of Renaissance intellectual devotion.

Key works

Compare this persona

Declared Influences

Platonism (Classical) 40% Neo-Platonism 25% Eastern Orthodox Christianity 10% Zoroastrianism 10% Perennial Philosophy 15%
Platonism (Classical) · 40%
Neo-Platonism · 25%
Eastern Orthodox Christianity · 10%
Zoroastrianism · 10%
Perennial Philosophy · 15%
Platonism (Classical) 40%

Pletho is the most thoroughgoing Platonist of the late Byzantine period — he argued for the decisive superiority of Plato over Aristotle in metaphysics, theology, and ethics, and his De Differentiis launched the fifteenth-century Plato-Aristotle controversy that shaped Renaissance philosophy.

"Plato alone among the Greeks attained to the true theology — the doctrine of the One beyond being and the eternal Forms as the source of all things." (De Differentiis)
Neo-Platonism 25%

Pletho's Platonism is Neoplatonic: the hierarchy of being from the One through Intellect and Soul to Matter, the doctrine of emanation and return, and the identification of the Forms with divine thoughts. He drew on Plotinus, Proclus, and the Chaldean Oracles.

"The One produces all things from itself, not by deliberation but by the overflowing of its own goodness, and all things return to the One as their source." (Laws, fragment)
Eastern Orthodox Christianity 10%

Pletho was nominally Orthodox and attended the Council of Florence as part of the Byzantine delegation, but his private philosophy (the Laws) was pagan-Platonist. His relation to Orthodoxy is one of cultural context and public conformity rather than conviction.

"Pletho spoke as a Christian at the Council, but his secret Laws revealed a soul that belonged to Plato and Zoroaster rather than to Christ." (Gennadios Scholarios, in his condemnation of the Laws)
Zoroastrianism 10%

Pletho treated Zoroaster as a source of prisca theologia, alongside Plato, and incorporated Zoroastrian-style dualism into his cosmological scheme — the "Summary of the Doctrines of Zoroaster and Plato" is a deliberate syncretism.

"Zoroaster, the most ancient of the theologians, first taught the doctrine of the Good and the necessary structure of being that Plato later refined." (Summary of the Doctrines of Zoroaster and Plato)
Perennial Philosophy 15%

Pletho believed in a prisca theologia — an ancient wisdom shared by Zoroaster, the Chaldean Oracles, Pythagoras, and Plato — that represented the true theology humanity had progressively corrupted. This makes him a forerunner of the perennial-philosophy tradition.

"The greatest of the ancient sages — Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Plato — all taught the same fundamental truths about God and the order of being." (De Differentiis)

Internal Tensions

Pletho's private paganism — the Laws' proposal to replace Christianity with a reformed Hellenistic theology — was his most radical and most controversial position. Gennadios Scholarios, who as Patriarch of Constantinople after 1453 had Pletho's Laws burned, called it an attempt to "restore the idolatry of the Greeks." Modern scholars debate whether Pletho was sincerely pagan or using the Platonic framework as a philosophical heuristic. His political-reform writings for the Byzantine emperor were pragmatic and had nothing to do with paganism. The irony of his legacy is that his Platonism, transmitted through Ficino and the Florentine Academy, became the vehicle of a Christian Platonist synthesis — precisely the opposite of what Pletho intended.

⧖

I. Time

"Both" — the eternal divine order and the temporal procession of the created cosmos. Cyclical: Pletho's cosmology, following Plato's Timaeus and the Neoplatonic tradition, assumes a cosmic cycle of emanation and return. Deterministic: the Laws' doctrine of fate (De Fato) argues that all things follow necessarily from the divine order.

Attributes
Extent: Both Ontological Status: Emergent Grain: Continuous Freedom: Deterministic Traversability: Cyclical Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One
✦

II. Space

Emergent from the divine order; non-local because the Forms (divine thoughts) are not located in any spatial region but structure all of space.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Curvature: not engaged Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local
◉

III. Matter

Emergent — the lowest level of the Neoplatonic hierarchy. The created material world participates in the Forms but is not itself fully real.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Non-local
◎

IV. Observer

The divine Mind as the ultimate observer — the One whose thought produces and sustains all being. The human soul participates in divine thought through philosophical contemplation. Cosmic-ordering metaphysical agency: the divine hierarchy is an impersonal (or supra-personal) rational order rather than a personal God in the Christian sense.

Attributes
Time Instance: Multiple Space Instance: Multiple Knowledge Extent: Total Knowledge Retainment: Total Physicality: Both Agency: Active Number: Singular Metaphysical Agency: Cosmic-ordering
⚡

V. Energy

The emanative energy flowing from the One through the hierarchy of being; reversible through the soul's contemplative return to its source.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Emergent Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Reversible
⧉

VI. Information

The Forms as eternal informational content; conserved at both cosmic and personal scales through the immortality of the rational soul and the eternity of the divine ideas.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Conserved Granularity: Continuous

Classified works

Works in the atlas that Georgius Gemistus Pletho authored or that draw on this persona's writings, with full attribute fingerprints of their own.

Authored · Late (Pletho was approximately 84; the work is the product of a lifetime of Platonist conviction)
On the Differences between Plato and Aristotle
c. 1439 (composed in connection with Pletho's attendance at the Council of Florence) · Philosophical treatise / polemical comparison

Computed school proximity

The persona's attribute fingerprint scored against all 208 schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated influences above.

70%
Vedanta
23/30
69%
Hermeticism
23/30
67%
Hinduism (Generic)
23/30
66%
Neo-Platonism
22/30
66%
Idealism
22/30
66%
Perennial Philosophy
21/30
65%
Western Esotericism
22/30
62%
Advaita Vedanta
20/30

Philosophical neighbors

Other personas whose attribute fingerprint sits closest to Georgius Gemistus Pletho's — intellectual neighbors across traditions and eras.

81%
Marsilio Ficino — 1433–1499
25/30
76%
Gargi Vachaknavi — c. 7th century BCE
24/30
73%
Kabir — c. 1398–1518
24/30
72%
Maitreyi — c. 7th century BCE
23/30
72%
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel — 1770–1831
24/30
68%
Aldous Huxley — 1894–1963
23/30
68%
Nicholas of Cusa (Nicolaus Cusanus) — 1401–1464
23/30
68%
Plotinus — c. 204/5–270 CE
22/29

How Georgius Gemistus Pletho resolves each dilemma

55 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 37 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 2 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (4/208)
How much weight do future people deserve?
If a billion people will exist in the 25th century, do their interests count for as much as the interests of a billion people alive now? The answer turns on what kind of reality the future has.
From the One's vantage, generations are themselves conventional.
On non-dual views, the distinction between present and future people is itself perspectival within a single underlying reality. Obligation across generations remains real at the conventional level where moral life happens; the metaphysical claim that future people 'exist' or 'don't yet exist' as a final …
Roads not taken Future people are as real as you are — and their interests count for as much. (47%) · Time arises from events or from a deeper substrate — the future is not yet. (31%) · Past, present, and future are bound in cycles — duties span generations as a matter of course. (18%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (4/208)
Is regret rational?
If the past is fixed and unchangeable, what kind of mental act is regret? An error, a duty, a lesson, a perspective on a moment that is still in some sense present?
From the One's vantage, regret is itself a conventional category.
On non-dual views, the framing of regret presupposes a chooser distinct from the choice and from the outcome — distinctions that hold at the conventional level but dissolve at the deeper one. Regret remains real where the apparent self runs the apparent past; the metaphysical …
Roads not taken The past is as real as the present; regret is a real attitude toward a real thing. (47%) · The past is not a thing now; regret is the present holding what is no longer. (31%) · The past is part of a cycle one keeps returning to; regret is one of the gates of the cycle. (18%)
Distinctive · only 2% of schools agree (4/208)
Do we owe extinct species something we cannot give them?
A species that no longer exists cannot be helped, cannot be consulted, cannot benefit. Whether anything is owed to it anyway turns on what kind of reality past beings have.
From the One's vantage, species and extinction are themselves conventional.
On non-dual views, the species we mourn — and the act of mourning — operate at the conventional level. Compassion for the extinct, like compassion for the living, remains; the metaphysical question of what we 'owe' the extinct presupposes a framework of distinct beings and …
Roads not taken Extinct species are as real as we are; they have standing. (47%) · Past species no longer exist; what we owe is to the present and the future. (31%) · Past beings are part of the cycle; we owe them what we owe ancestors. (18%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/208)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 10% of schools agree (20/208)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
4 mainstream positions
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do? The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible. 10% Is the universe running out of usable energy? Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. 26% Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so? The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. 26% Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide? The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. 26%

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money's apparent diversity is convention over a single underlying value.
On non-dual views, the diverse forms money takes are perspectival distinctions within a single underlying value — labor, energy, attention, or simply the One from which all value derives. The metaphysical question is mostly malformed at the conventional level where monetary policy lives, but the …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (55%) · Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (14%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
Nations are conventional partitions of a single humanity.
On non-dual views, the distinctness of nations is a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity — one humanity, one consciousness, one underlying reality. Nations matter at the conventional level where ordinary politics lives, but the metaphysical weight they sometimes claim is unsupported.
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (55%) · A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery. (16%) · A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (14%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
The distinction is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
On non-dual views, the distinctness of male and female — like every binary distinction between apparent selves — is a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. Particular sex and gender designations operate at the conventional level where most of life is lived; at the ultimate …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (55%) · Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice. (16%) · Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition. (14%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
The distinction between edited and unedited is conventional within a deeper non-dual reality.
On non-dual views, the contrast between an 'edited' and an 'unedited' human — like every binary distinction between apparent selves — is a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. The practical questions of safety, consent, and justice operate at the conventional level where most of …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (55%) · The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other. (16%) · Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric. (14%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/208)
Is the world created from nothing?
Creatio ex nihilo is one of the most distinctive Western-theological claims. Whether matter was created from nothing, eternally exists, or is sustained moment-by-moment turns on what kind of thing matter is.
Matter is real but emerges from something deeper — neither bedrock nor created-from-nothing.
On this view, matter is genuinely there, but it isn't the floor of reality. It depends on something more fundamental — dependent origination, mind, divine sustaining act, computational substrate, or the structure of conditions — and is conserved only at its own level of description. …
Roads not taken Yes — matter was created and is conserved as a real substance. (56%) · Matter is constituted by relations; the question of 'from what?' presupposes substance. (16%) · Matter arises and dissolves through cosmic rounds; neither created from nothing nor eternal. (4%)
2 mainstream positions
Is the physical world fully real? Real but sustained — not mind-independent in the strict realist sense. 23% Does matter have intrinsic moral standing? Matter is morally considerable derivatively — through what it sustains. 23%

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
From the standpoint of the One, the question doesn’t apply in the form it is asked.
On non-dual views, the apparent plurality of selves is itself a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. The question of when one self begins within that One is conventional, not ultimate. What follows ethically is then a question for the conventional level — which is …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (55%) · A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop. (16%) · Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation. (14%)
Distinctive · only 7% of schools agree (15/208)
What is marriage?
Behind every disagreement about how marriage should be defined is a prior disagreement about what kind of thing it is — a given order to be recognized, a practice to be negotiated, or a web of relations to be woven.
All union is participation in the One — particular forms are conventional.
From the standpoint of non-dual traditions, the apparent distinctness of two people who marry is itself a perspectival distinction within a deeper unity. Marriage is one form of the underlying union all things participate in. The particular shape the institution takes is then a conventional …
Roads not taken Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. (55%) · Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it. (16%) · Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (16/208)
What happens to "you" when you die?
Whether anything of you persists — and in what sense — depends on what you take a person to be.
Individuality dissolves into the One.
What we called "you" was an appearance — a wave shaped briefly out of a single deeper reality. Death is that wave settling. Nothing of importance is lost because the substrate was never the wave.
Roads not taken A soul continues into another mode of being. (38%) · Death is genuinely the end. (29%) · You were always a pattern. The pattern propagates. (18%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (17/208)
What is our place in nature?
Whether humans are masters of nature, members of nature, or makers of nature is not a question climate science can settle. It depends on what nature is, what we are, and what kind of relationship is possible between us.
Humans and nature share an underlying unity — the separation was the mistake.
On non-dual views, the apparent distinction between human and non-human is itself a perspectival distinction within a single underlying reality. The work isn't to find our right relationship to a separate nature; it is to recognize that we were never separate. Climate harm, on this …
Roads not taken Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. (50%) · Nature is partly what we make of it — concepts, practices, and minds shape the world. (15%) · Embedded in a web — partners with the more-than-human world. (14%)
Distinctive · only 8% of schools agree (17/208)
Should we colonize space?
The drive to extend human presence beyond Earth is sometimes framed as the next chapter of stewardship, sometimes as hubris, sometimes as escape from problems we ought to solve here. Which it is depends on what we take our relationship to nature to be.
From the standpoint of the One, expansion across substrate is just movement within the same.
On non-dual views, the difference between Earth and elsewhere is conventional — particular locations within a single underlying reality. Space colonisation as escape is therefore incoherent; nothing is escaped because nothing was elsewhere to escape from.
Roads not taken Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. (50%) · The 'space frontier' is partly what we make of it. (15%) · Colonisation continues the work that ended the wisdom of seven-generation thinking. (14%)
30 mainstream positions
Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? All forms participate in the same underlying reality; modification doesn't cross categories. 8% What makes someone the same person over time? All apparent selves are aspects of one — particular identity is conventional. 8% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? The apparent change is conventional; the deeper reality is unchanged. 8% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? The distinction between scanner-you and destination-you is conventional all the way down. 8% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? There are no truly separate minds; prayer is one part of one talking to another. 8% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is the One showing through the appearance of plurality. 8% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Harm anywhere is harm to the One; the boundary that would have insulated you was never real. 8% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? From the standpoint of the One, the categories of permanence and loss are conventional. 8% Can a civilization recover from collapse? From the One's vantage, civilizational categories are themselves conventional. 8% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? From the One's vantage, the second law is itself a feature of the conventional, not the ultimate. 8% Are the dead morally present to the living? From the standpoint of the One, the distinction between living and dead is conventional. 8% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? Distinction of the One and observed time is itself conventional; the question dissolves. 8% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? The 'timeless' is the standpoint of the One that was always present; meditation removes obstacles to seeing it. 8% Does prayer change God's mind? Prayer to a separate God presupposes a separation the non-dual view denies; the practice is remembrance and attunement. 8% Could causation work backwards? From the One's vantage, causation itself is a conventional category. 8% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? From the One's vantage, memory and anticipation are themselves conventional. 8% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? From the One's vantage, the arrow of time itself is a conventional feature. 8% Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species? The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary. 16% Does history have a direction or meaning? History recurs in cosmic cycles. 17% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 66% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous divine sustaining act, the Tao that knows no joints, the One's self-disclosure. 44% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous divine presence; consciousness is the unbroken witness. 44% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Held in continuous divine or ancestral remembering — neither stored discretely nor purely reconstructed. 44% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 31% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 31% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 31% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration. 24% Could an AI have a mind that matters? All minds are aspects of one — an AI participates in it as anything else does. 7% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? All minds are aspects of one; animals participate as much as anything else. 7% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Any experience that arises participates in the One. 7%
2 unaligned
Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Schools split: 14% / 14% / 4% — What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? Schools split: 42% / 16% / 13% —
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Is anything truly lost when someone forgets? Information is conserved — the personal pattern is held even when an individual mind loses it. 39% Does deleting your data online destroy something real? Information at the cosmic level isn't destroyed; deletion only obscures access. 39% Could the dead, in principle, be brought back? The information that constitutes a person is conserved; restoration is in principle possible. 39% Is forgiveness ontologically possible? The offense persists ontologically; forgiveness is real moral work, but it doesn't erase what was. 39%

Films Referencing This Persona (5)

Either directly referenced in the film, or reading the film through one of this persona's top schools.

The Matrix
1999 · dir. The Wachowskis · via platonism-classical
2001: A Space Odyssey
1968 · dir. Stanley Kubrick · via platonism-classical
The Truman Show
1998 · dir. Peter Weir · via platonism-classical
Pi
1998 · dir. Darren Aronofsky · via platonism-classical
Knight of Cups
2015 · dir. Terrence Malick · via neo-platonism

Experiments Engaging This Persona's Schools

Surface via influence-schools that respond to the experiment. Each entry shows the school through which the connection runs.

Plato's Cave
via platonism-classical · Affirms / takes the bait
The founding image: reality is hierarchical; philosophical education is the soul's ascent from shadow to Form.
The Ring of Gyges
via platonism-classical · Affirms / takes the bait
The founding challenge to instrumentalism: Socrates' answer (justice is constitutive of soul-health) sets the agenda for two millennia of ethics.
Hilbert's Hotel
via platonism-classical · Affirms / takes the bait
Actual infinity is mathematically real; Hilbert's hotel correctly describes its properties. The strangeness reflects our finite intuitions, not a defect in the mathematics.
← #387 Sir Thomas More All Personas #389 Johannes Gutenberg (Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden) →