Download PDF | Byzantine Philosophy and Its Ancient Sources by Katerina Ierodiakonou
Pages : 318
INTRODUCTION
KATERINA IERODIAKONOU
The title of this volume leaves no doubt as to its main objective; the articles here are meant to shed light on Byzantine philosophy against the background of ancient philosophical thought. The question is whether and in which ways the Byzantines were able to appropriate and to develop the philosophical tradition they had inherited from antiquity. But though ancient philosophy is a rather well-defined area which has been, and still is, extensively studied, it is not clear, at least not to everyone, what ‘Byzantine philosophy’ refers to, or, indeed, whether there is such a thing. The main aim of my introduction, therefore, is twofold: (4) to discuss briefly what is to be counted as Byzantine philosophy, and (ii) to explain further the purpose as well as the contents of this volume.
I
Byzantine philosophy remains an unknown field. Being regarded either as mere scholars or as religious thinkers, Byzantine philosophers, for the most part, have not been studied on their own merit, and their works have hardly been scrutinized as works of philosophy. Hence, although it is the case that distinguished scholars have in the past tried to reconstruct the intellectual life of the Byzantine period, there is no question that we still lack even the beginnings of a thorough and systematic understanding of the philosophical works produced in Byzantium.
This introduction could not even attempt to remedy the problem and dfer a comprehensive overview of Byzantine thought. It does, however, try to introduce some basic features of Byzantine philosophy and to address some of the as yet open, but quite important, issues involved in its study. It should thus also become easier to place in context the specfic topics which are discussed in the articles of this volume.
Ts there philosophical thinking in Byzantium? Isn’t it all theology?
Since theological concerns undoubtedly occupy a prominent place in the works of Byzantine thinkers, the obvious question to ask, and often asked, is hence whether there really is such a thing as Byzantine philosophy in the first place, and whether it makes any sense to talk about the development of philosophical thought in Byzantium. The general tendency among modern scholars is to believe that philosophy in Byzantium did manage to preserve its autonomy, that the borders between philosophy and theology were reasonably clearly defined, and that the view expressed by some Church Fathers (e.g. Clement, Origen) that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology (phi-
losophia theologiae ancilla) was not the dominant position in Byzantium, as it was in the medieval West.
To settle the issue, however, more research needs to be done in the following three directions. First, we need to investigate further what the Byzantine scholars themselves have to say about their understanding of philosophy as a discipline and its relation to theology. Second, we need to clarify that it is not peculiar to Byzantine philosophy to have been so closely connected with theology, since philosophers in other periods of the history of philosophy were also strongly focused on theological subjects; after all, in pagan antiquity theology after Aristotle was a philosophical discipline, and in late antiquity it came to be regarded as the most imporant, and most philosophical, part of philosophy. And, third, we need to analyse systematically the writings of Byzantine thinkers to show that their reasoning and argumentation was no less philosophical than the philosophical work of any other period in the history of philosophy.
The contributors to this volume follow, in general, the third direction. Their analysis of a small, but rather representative, selection of Byzantine texts strongly indicates that, although many of the problems with which Byzantine thinkers were concerned did arise in the context of a Christian theological tradition, these problems none the less constitute genuine philosophical issues which could or would be of interest to any philosopher, even if she or he did not believe in Christian dogma. Let me list, as examples, some of the philosophical questions which have caught the attention of Byzantine philosophers and for prolonged periods in the history of Byzantine thought generated intense disputes: the creation or origin of the world, the existence of God, the character of the perceptible world, the problem of evil and human free will, the relation between soul and body, the ontological status of universals, the connection between faith and reason, the sceptical challenge to knowledge, logical fallacies, the necessary requirements for a good life, the possibility of a just state.
These are all recognizably philosophical problems still discussed by modern philosophers. But if we really want to understand and appreciate the philosophical literature in Byzantium, it is important to refrain from just pursuing the questions which we ourselves find philosophically interesting. Instead it would rather be more productive to try to find out which issues exactly were addressed at the time, or in which general frame of reference these issues were examined. This is the only way, I think, to avoid misleading anachronistic interpretations, to adequately determine the relation of Byzan- tine philosophy to its theological and more generally cultural background, to realize the possible philosophical interest of nowadays neglected issues, and, finally, to acquire a better insight into the development and changes in Byzantine philosophical discourse itself.
Who are the Byzantine philosophers?
Let us suppose, then, that philosophy in Byzantium is an autonomous discipline, and that it is worth our study what the Byzantines achieved in this discipline. The next issue which needs to be considered is how to compile a catalogue of Byzantine philosophers who particularly deserve our attention. To adequately fulfil this task, though, some preliminary questions have to be raised and answered.
When does Byzantine philosophy actually begin?
This is a question familiar to everyone who has, at some point, tried to specify the beginning, or for that matter the end, of any period in the history of philosophy. That is to say, it is not much easier, nor more dificult, to decide
when exactly Byzantine philosophy starts, than to agree, for instance, on a particular date for the beginning of Hellenistic philosophy. The criteria which are standardly used to draw such chronological divisions do vary, and hence, not surprisingly, the answers vary too:
1. If one adopted a political hallmark, and let Byzantine history, as many Byzantinists do, start with the foundation of Constantinople, this would mean that Byzantine philosophy starts early in the fourth century.
2. If, on the other hand, one adhered to the view that Justinian’s closing of the Neoplatonist Academy in 529 roughly marks the end of ancient philosophy, the beginning of Byzantine philosophy would move from the fourth to the sixth century.
3. Last but not least, if one underlined the signficance of the autonomous character of philosophical thought, but also on the basis of a variety of general historical considerations, the starting-point of Byzantine philosophy could move even further down, for example, into the ninth and tenth centuries. This is when Byzantine ‘humanists’ such as Photios and Arethas start again studiously to read, edit, and comment on the works of ancient philosophers, but also to form their own views on the matters discussed. Photios, for instance, follows neither Plato nor Aristotle in their views on universals, for all the importance he attributes to these authors and the preservation and discussion of their works.
Some of the articles included in this volume focus on philosophically interesting texts from the early period between the fourth and the ninth century. The main reason for this is that, whatever decision one takes as to the beginning of Byzantine philosophy, there is no doubt that the distinctive character of philosophical work after Photios and Arethas owes a lot to the influence of this early period, which undeniably is dominated by the thought of the Church Fathers.
Finally, a brief remark about the end of Byzantine philosophy. It is common practice to think that Byzantine philosophy, and in general Byzantine culture, ends with the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It should be noted, however, that even after this date some Byzantine thinkers, for instance George Scholarios or Bessarion, continued their philosophical work, either having moved to the West or staying in the East under the Ottomans. We also have to remember that, in the East, though often under dfficult circumstances, the Byzantine philosophical tradition lived on well into the seventeenth century, if we think, for instance, of Theophilos Korydaleus.
Who counts as a philosopher in Byzantium?
There were in Byzantium no institutions of higher education in which philosophers could be trained as philosophers. The main purpose of institutional higher studies was to train civil servants. Philosophical instruction was mainly private, but it sometimes received support from the Emperor and the Church, as in the case of the so-called ‘University of Constantinople’ which was founded in 1045 by Constantine Monomachos. Such support, however, also meant occasional intervention by the secular or ecclesiastical authorities, as when John Italos was put on trial and condemned for advocating the systematic use of philosophical analysis in clarifying theological issues. In general, the philosophical curriculum would start with Aristotle’s logic and ethics, and advance through physics and thequadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and harmonics) to Plato’s, or more precisely to Neoplatonic, metaphysics.
Thus, the figure of the Byzantine philosopher emerges as often somewhat of a polymath and an erudite scholar, who, moreover, might make use of his knowledge and rhetorical skill to play an active role in the political life of the times. This portrayal, of course, is not free of oversimplfications. For we do find among Byzantine philosophers the most diverse personalities, with different educational backgrounds and, most importantly, with completely different conceptions of their role as philosophers. In fact, it is, I think, impossible to draw a realistic picture of thefigure of the Byzantine philosopher, until we have studied in detail many more texts which provide us with the necessary evidence concerning the philosopher’s life and aims in Byzantine times—including, for instance, autobiographies, biographies, letters, orations, and sporadic relevant remarks in the philosophical works themselves.
The following list of Byzantine philosophers includes only some of the major figures in Byzantine philosophy. To be more precise, it includes those Byzantine philosophers whose work up till now has drawn the attention of modern scholars and, especially, those whose work is discussed in the articles of this volume. There are, of course, many Byzantine philosophers who are not included in this list, either because their writings have not been adequately studied, or because they have yet not been identified at all. In this catalogue the names of Byzantine philosophers are given in chronological order. There are no schools of philosophy in Byzantium, at least in the strict sense of the term in which we can distinguish different schools in antiquity and categorize philosophers accordingly. Surely there are groupings of philosophers in Byzantium, too, but our knowledge of Byzantine philosophy so far is not good enough for us to be able to recognize them. Therefore, Byzantine thinkers here are grouped together just on the basis of broad divisions either in the political or in the intellectual history of the Byzantine Empire. I begin with a group of authors usually categorized as Christian Fathers, not because they are Church Fathers, but because at least some of their work is distinctly philosophical.
A. Christian Fathers (4th—8th century)
Basil the Great (329-79)
Gregory of Nyssa (335-94) Nemesius (4th—Sth century) Pseudo-Dionysius (end 5th century) Procopius of Gaza (460-530) Maximus the Confessor (580-662) John of Damascus (c.650—c.749)
B. Byzantine humanism (9th—10th century)
Leo the Philosopher (the Mathematician) ¢.790—after 869) Photios (820-91) Arethas (c.850—944)
C. The period of the Comneni (11th—12th century)
Michael Psellos (1018-78)
John Italos (c.1025—82)
Theodore of Smyrna (end 11th century) Eustratios of Nicaea (c.1050—-1120) Michael of Ephesus (c.1050—1129) Nicholas of Methone (d. 1165)
D. The empire in Nicaea
Nikephoros Blemmydes (1197-1272) Theodore II Laskaris (1233-58) Manuel Holobolos (fl. 1267)
E. The Palaeologan period (13th—15th century)
George Pachymeres (1242-1310) Maximos Planoudes (c.1255—c.1305) Leo Magentinos (13th century) Theodore Metochites (1270-1332) John Pediasimos (d. 1341)
Joseph Philagrios (end 14th century) John Chortasmenos (1370-1436) Barlaam of Calabria (c.1290—-1348) Nikephoros Gregoras (1290/3-1358/61) Gregory Palamas (c.1296—1359) Gregory Akindynos (c.1300—48) Nicholas Kabasilas (d. 1371) Demetrios Kydones (c.1324—97/8) Prochoros Kydones (c.1333-69/70) George Gemistos Plethon (¢.1360—c.1453) George Trapezountios (1395-1472) Theodore Gazes (1400—76/8) Andronikos Kallistos (1400-86) George Scholarios Gennadios (€.1400—72/4) Bessarion (1403-72)
Michael Apostoles (1420-80)
How could one study the works of Byzantine philosophers?
The genres of philosophical writing in Byzantium are quite diverse. For teaching purposes the Byzantine scholars produced marginal notes and explanatory paraphrases on ancient philosophical works, but also extended commentaries, sometimes in question-and-answer form, small handbooks, and more detailed companions. They also wrote small treatises on specfic topics, or longer works, occasionally in dialogue form, with the aim to rebut the views of their opponents and to explain or defend their own theories. To all these, we should further add their letters and orations which frequently have philosophical content.
Most of the writings of Byzantine philosophers are still unpublished or are available only in old and often quite imperfect editions. But even when we do have reliable editions of the philosophical works of Byzantine thinkers, their philosophical contribution for the most part still needs to be critically
assessed. For although eminent scholars of the nineteenth and early twentieth century worked with great care on some Byzantine philosophical texts, their interest was not primarily philosophical; they rather were trying to preserve every aspect of the Byzantine intellectual heritage and, at the most, to grasp, in historical terms, how the work of Byzantine philosophers rdlected the society in which they lived. On the other hand, the philosophers of the nineteenth and early twentieth century understandably were discouraged both by the rhetorical style of the Byzantine writings and by the theological interests displayed in much of Byzantine philosophy. In addition to all this, the strong general prejudice that the Middle Ages, especially in the early period and in the Byzantine East, were the dark ages of human civilization, makes it even easier to understand why Byzantine philosophy was neglected.
After the Second World War, however, there is a signficant change in the study of Byzantine philosophy, clearly connected with the rediscovery and the startling changes in the appraisal of the Western medieval philosophical tradition as well as of certain areas in ancient philosophy, for instance the philosophy of Hellenistic times and of late antiquity. During the second part of the twentieth century, in general, the study of the early history of philosophy was transformed in two respects: (1) new ways of interpreting the works of ancient and medieval philosophers were introduced, and (ii) certain areas in ancient and medieval philosophy which before had been completely neglected or marginalized were brought to the centre of scholarly attention. The philosophers and scholars who studied ancient and medieval philosophy made an attempt gradually to free themselves from earlier preconceptions and prejudices. To begin with, they insisted on taking the theories and arguments of ancient and medieval philosophers philosophically seriously; their writings were no longer simply studied as works of the past of mainly antiquarian or historical interest, but rather were studied as philosophical works on their own merit.
This new approach to the early stages of the history of philosophy has opened, I think, the path to a reassessment also of the writings of Byzantine thinkers. In fact, during the last decades of the twentieth century some of the treatises of Byzantine philosophers were published for thefirst time, or came out in better, critical, editions; several books and numerous articles began to be written concerning particular topics in Byzantine philosophy; interdisciplinary workshops and symposia were organized to discuss the general intellectual development in Byzantium and, as part of this, also touched on Byzantine philosophy. One gets some idea of this more recent development, if one looks at the following sample (in chronological order) of some general surveys and bibliographies which were produced in this period:
Tatakis, B. N. (1949), La Philosophie byzantine (Paris).
Oehler, K. (1969), Antike Philosophie und byzantinisches Mittelalter (Munich). Lemerle, P. (1971), Le Premier Humanisme byzantin (Paris).
Podskalsky, G. (1977), Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz (Munich).
Hunger, H. (1978), ‘Philosophie’, in his Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 1 (Munich), 3-62.
Wilson, N. G. (1983), Scholars of Byzantium (London).
Benakis, L. (1987), ‘“Grundbibliographie zum Aristoteles-Studium in Byzanz’, in J. Wiesner (ed.), Aristoteles: Werk und Wirkung. Paul Moraux gewidmet (Berlin and New York), 352-79.
—— (1988), ‘Commentaries and Commentators on the Logical Works of Aristotle in Byzantium’, in R. Claussen and R. Daube-Schackat (eds.),Gedankenzeichen. Festschrift fiir Klaus Oehler (Tibingen), 3-12.
— (1991a), ‘Commentaries and Commentators on the Works of Aristotle (Except the Logical Ones) in Byzantium’, in B. Mojsisch and O. Pluta (eds.), Historia Philosophiae Medii Aevi: Festschrift fir Kurt Flasch (Amsterdam), 45-54.
— (19915), ‘Bibliographie internationale sur la philosophie byzantine (1949-1990)’, in Bibliographie byzantine publie a l'occasion du XVIIIe Congres Internationale d'Etudes Byzantines (Athens), 319-77.
Of course, some of these works are already outdated again, since current research has come to question the views expressed in them, and more books and articles have been published in the last decade. Still, this short bibliography can at least serve as a first guide to a preliminary study of Byzantine philosophy; the general surveys and the bibliographical material which it includes provide valuable information for anyone who is interested infinding out where to look for the texts themselves and which books and articles to consult on specialized topics.
But most of the work still remains to be done, if we are to be able to understand and evaluate the distinctive character of Byzantine philosophy. Following the rising interest of the last decades, it now seems important to encourage further the systematic study and critical assessment of the original contributions of Byzantine philosophers. What we still need to do is to take their works seriously as philosophical writings; putting aside our prejudices and misconceptions, we need to make a renewed dfort to reconstruct and to do justice to Byzantine philosophy. This volume was conceived as at least a concerted attempt in this direction.
II
This volume, in fact, grew out of some of the papers read and discussed at a conference in Thessaloniki in 1997, which also had been devoted to Byzantine philosophy and its relation to ancient philosophical thought. It was guided by the thought that, if it is our aim to recover and rethink Byzantine philosophy, it also is crucial to examine in detail the influence of earlier philosophical traditions on Byzantine philosophers. What is more, Byzantium’s dependence in philosophy on its ancient heritage manifestly is an area of study which, in particular comparison with other aspects of Byzantine civilization, like the indebtedness of Byzantine to ancient art, has hardly received any
attention. However, there is no doubt that it is the Byzantines who copied, studied, commented on, and taught the texts of ancient philosophers, and that it is mainly because of their eforts that the philosophical traditions of antiquity were transmitted and kept alive.
Investigating the ancient sources of Byzantine philosophy, we perhapsfirst should find out what the Byzantines themselves have to say about ancient philosophy, or, as they characteristically call it in contrast to Christian theology, ‘the wisdom from without’. It soon becomes clear that Byzantine thinkers are by no means unanimous as to the importance of ancient philosophy; their views greatly differ on this matter. Some, under the influence of St Paul and authors like Tatian, consider ancient philosophy as useless or even dangerous, because it corrupts the Christian view of things and leads to heresies. Others, in particular Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, claim that ancient philosophy, if used in a cautious and careful way, could be a preparation for the true faith, help in its elucidation, and serve as a dialectical weapon against heresies. After all, Pantaenus and Justin the Martyr had been philosophers. Clement of Alexandria clearly had been heavily irfluenced by Stoicism and Platonism. Origen had even taught philosophy to his students, and had gained a reputation as a philosopher, though precisely Origen’s example, once his orthodoxy had become suspect, fuelled questions about the usefulness of ancient philosophy. Finally, Byzantine philosophers, like John Italos and Barlaam of Calabria, undertake the task, in some cases at high personal cost, to defend ancient philosophy in its own right, but also asa means for a better understanding of Christian dogma.
Such conflicting attitudes towards ancient philosophy usually depended on whether the aim of the Byzantine author was to clarify certain philosophical issues, or to rebut the pagans, or write against the heretics, or explain Christian dogmas, but also on the knowledge of ancient philosophy which at the time was available to the particular Byzantine thinker. In general, Byzantine philosophers had some direct knowledge of the works of ancient philosophers. They certainly had access to most of the major ancient texts we still have, and the continuity of the Greek language, of course, made it possible for them to study the ancients in the original. To take the obvious case of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works, at least a thousand Byzantine manuscripts have survived which either preserve Aristotle’s text, or in addition also comment on it; in Plato’s case there are more than 260 Byzantine manuscripts of his dialogues. Nevertheless, although all of Plato and Aristotle was in principle available, certainly in centres like Constantinople, Trebizond, Thessaloniki, and Mystras, in practice only some works were commonly read; for instance, the works of Aristotle which were widely read during Byzantine times were the Categories, the De interpretatione, the Analytics, the Physics, and the Nicomachean Ethics.
It is not by accident, of course, that the Byzantines had a preference for certain ancient philosophers, or even for certain works of these philosophers.
Indeed, they were quite selective and generally chose only those ancient philosophical texts which they regarded as compatible with their Christian faith. Thus, they taught Aristotle’s logic as generally useful or as a preparation for more theoretical studies; but they disagreed with him on his theory of the eternity of the world or his understanding of God as thefirst unmoved mover who moves the heaven, but exerts no providence for individual human beings. Byzantine philosophers consider Plato’s metaphysics to be closer to the Christian world-view, especially on issues like, for instance, the immortality of the soul and the creation of the world; still, though, for doctrinal reasons they cannot accept the Platonic theory of metempsychosis or the existence of eternal ideas or forms. Hence, Byzantine philosophers follow the eclectic tradition of later antiquity and combine aspects of Plato’s and Aristotle’s theories, at least up until the fifteenth century, when they start contrasting them and believe that they need to take sides, presenting themselves either as Platonists or as Aristotelians. Important though it may be, the influence of Plato and of Aristotle is not the only one which shapes Byzantine philosophical thought. For it is crucial here to keep in mind that the Byzantines also engage in a limited dialogue with the other schools of ancient philosophy. For instance, they are interested in criticizing or appropriating elements from the doctrines of the Epicureans and the Stoics, but in particular of the Neoplatonists, and they examine the implications of the Sceptics’ views on the possibility of human knowledge.
But whatever attitude the Byzantines took towards ancient philosophy, and whatever the specific ancient sources which they relied on to form their theories, one thing 1s certain; it was impossible for Byzantine philosophers to escape altogether from the influence of ancient philosophy. For it was ancient philosophy which provided them with a well-articulated theoretical framework and with the philosophical language which had to serve as the basis for their own philosophical discourse. But does this mean that the Byzantines merely copied ancient philosophers, and hence that their philosophical writings altogether lacked originality? Do Byzantine philosophers interpret ancient philophical theories always in the same way, the way they had already been interpreted in late antiquity? Does Byzantine philosophy as a whole lack a distinctive character which differentiates it from the previous periods in the history of philosophy? Such general questions concerning the relation between ancient and Byzantine philosophy are constantly in the background of the articles of this volume. There is no doubt that these questions still remain open, but I think that the contributors to this volume manage to address some of them in the only way they at this point can be addressed, namely by thoroughly investigating particular topics which give us some insight as to the directions in which we should look for possible answers.
This volume contains eleven articles, mainly written by established scholars, but also by scholars belonging to the younger generation. They represent different disciplines, such as philosophy, history, classics, and medieval or Byzantine studies. The particular topics which they discuss range, in modern terms, from philosophy of language, theory of knowledge, and logic to political philosophy, ethics, natural philosophy, and metaphysics. As to the philosophers whose works our contributors study, they belong to all periods from the beginnings of Byzantine culture in the fourth century to the demise of the Byzantine Empire in the fifteenth century. In fact, the wide range of authors and texts which this volume covers becomes obvious when one just looks at the extensive indexes of names and of passages at the end of the volume. Perhaps the reader is introduced here, for thefirst time, to some Byzantine authors or to some of their writings. Most Byzantine philosophers definitely are not household names, not even among philosophers. So little attention has been given to their philosophical works that we do not even know whether they deserve to become a standard part of philosophical literature. This general unfamiliarity is rdlected by the fact that there is not even a standard way in contemporary scholarship of rendering their Greek names. Thus, to further guide the reader in his or her attempt to learn more about these more or less unknown Byzantine philosophers as well as about the more familiar ones, we have added an epilogue in which Linos Benakis presents the most recent publications on Byzantine philosophy; these include the new critical editions of Byzantine philosophical texts, the introductory surveys of Byzantine philosophy, the up-to-date bibliographies, the entries in recently published dictionaries or encyclopedias, and the new journals which specialize on Byzantium.
The main contents of the volume are these. The first article by Sten Ebbesen raises the more general issue of the relation, or rather, it turns out, the lack of relation, between Byzantine philosophy and the West. It discusses the different paths which the Byzantines and the Western medieval philosophers took, especially in connection with their reliance on ancient philosophy. The second article closely examines a particular philosophical topic which occupied Basil the Great, namely whether proper names only designate substances or have a descriptive content. Paul Kalligas’s treatment of the subject refers to the views both of ancient and of modern philosophers, in order to discover and elucidate the new elements which Basil brings into the ancient discussion. From the fourth-century philosophy of language we next move to the sixth century and to political philosophy in Dominic O’Meara’s systematic analysis of an anonymous dialogue of the Justinian period, namely ‘On Political Science’. The author of this dialogue, being concerned with the political problems of his time, suggests a new constitutional order; he seems to be very much influenced by Neoplatonism and by his own interpretation of the problems arising out of Plato’s political philosophy. The last article on the early period focuses on John of Damascus in the eighth century, and in particular on his attempt to integrate a notion of a will into Aristotle’s moral psychology and theory of action. The problem here is to explain why God would create human beings if they sooner or later would sin, but also to get a better grasp of the process of how we come to make a choice. According to Michael Frede, John’s account of human freedom is quite novel in some ways, and this novelty had an important impact on Thomas Aquinas, and thus on the further development of thought about the will in traditional western philosophy.
Next, we turn to the eleventh century, and to an anonymous logical text which here for the first time is analysed in detail by Jonathan Barnes. Although this is an elementary handbook of logic written mainly in the Peripatetic tradition, it includes interesting divergences, like for instance the discussion of syllogisms with singular propositions, which show that logic in Byzantium had an interesting further development, thoughfirmly based on Aristotle and the Stoics. John Duffy’s article turns our attention to perhaps the central figure of Byzantine philosophy, namely Michael Psellos. The specific subject which concerns him is the status of philosophical discourse in Byzantium from the middle of the ninth century to the appearance of Psellos around 1040. He argues that there is a signficant development from the rather humanistic character of Photios’ and Arethas’ interests to the way Psellos views the philosopher as someone with a hard-earned and unsurpassed knowledge in all branches of learning, and especially in the philosophy of the ancients. My article gives an example of Psellos’ own knowledge and appropriation of the ancient philosophical traditions. I closely study his paraphrasis on Aristotle’s De interpretatione, and try to show that, although Psellos’ main aim is to promote a knowledge of Aristotle’s logic, he also does express his own logical views, some of which originate in his attempt to reconcile the Christian tradition with the ancient philosophers.
The Palaeologan period is first represented by Theodore Metochites, and in particular by Bérje Bydén’s edition of and philosophical commentary on one of his shorter philosophical treatises, namely Semeiosis 61. In this text we find Metochites’ account of ancient Scepticism, in which he attempts to present it not as the perverse cultivation of argument for argument’s sake, and to vindicate it as the reasonable view that there exist things of which knowledge is impossible. My article also tries to shed light on some of the works of three Byzantine philosophers of the fourteenth century, namely Nikephoros Gregoras, Barlaam of Calabria, and Gregory Palamas. The issue here is the debate about the significance and use of Aristotelian syllogistic. Although Gregoras adopts an entirely negative attitude, Barlaam and Palamas disagree as to the limits of the use of logical reasoning in our attempt to understand God and his attributes. Their arguments and counter-arguments raise interesting questions as to the nature of demonstration and the connection between faith and reason. Polymnia Athanassiadi compares Michael Psellos and George Gemistos Plethon, another particularly important Byzantine philosopher, and like Psellos of an unusually independent mind. She considers their collections of the Chaldaean Oracles, which in her view from Iamblichus onwards served the Neoplatonists as the holy book par excel- lence. Psellos and Plethon give us a substantially diferent interpretation of these texts; whereas Psellos directly follows the Neoplatonists in interpreting the Chaldaean Oracles in their own context, Plethon’s account uses them as a companion to a new philosophical theology. George Karamanolis contrasts the work of Plethon with that of yet another major Byzantine author, namely George Scholarios Gennadios. In his article the general issue is thefifteenthcentury controversy over the primacy of Plato or Aristotle, a controversy which is not so much about how Aristotle’s philosophy compares with Plato’s, but rather about which philosophical authority comes closer to Christian doctrine. To better illustrate the philosophical reasons presented by Plethon and Scholarios, the discussion here focuses on two particular topics, namely Aristotle’s view about the world’s constitution and the nature of the human soul.
If these articles persuade the reader that Byzantine philosophy is worth investigating, this volume has achieved its aim. Needless to say, most of the questions concerning either the general character of Byzantine philosophy or the specific doctrines of particular Byzantine philosophers cannot be settled here. We rather hope that this attempt will be found to be inviting and promising enough for others to join us in the study of Byzantine philosophy. Only in this way will we manage to completely bridge the gap between ancient philosophy and early modern philosophy. In this connection we have to keep in mind the profound impact Byzantine scholars and philosophers of the fifteenth century had on the revival of Platonic studies and Platonism in the Renaissance in the West.
I would like to close this introduction by acknowledging the help I have received in completing this project. I would like to thank all those who organized and participated in the conference in Thessaloniki, especially V. Kotzia-Panteli and S. Kotzabassi; I also thank Myles Burnyeat and Richard Sorabji who read the first draft of this volume, and made invaluable comments not only on particular articles, but also on its composition as a whole; Oxford University Press, and in particular Peter Momtchildf who took the risk of publishing a collection of articles on as unusual a subject as Byzantine philosophy; finally, Michael Frede for his constant encouragement, but mainly for his unwavering conviction that Byzantine philosophers can be a pleasure to read and study, any time and any place.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق