A Historical Outline of Byzantine Philosophy and its Basic Subjects

A Historical Outline of Byzantine Philosophy
and Its Basic Subjects

By Katelis Viglas
University of Thessaloniki

1. Introduction
We are going to present a panorama of Byzantine Philosophy. As starting
point should be considered the Patristic Thought, which preceded the
Byzantine Philosophy and was established in the first centuries A.D. into the
Greek-Roman world. It was based on the Old and New Testament, the apostolic
teachings, as well as on Judaism and Greek Philosophy. Also, the Ancient
Oriental Religions – especially those of the Greek-Roman period, i.e. the
Gnosticism- exerted an influence on it. The Patristic Thought and the Ancient
Greek Philosophy were the two main pedestals of Byzantine Philosophy. But,
we cannot separate completely Patristic thought from the Byzantine
Philosophy, first because the Byzantine Philosophy used all the corpus of the
preceded texts of the Church Fathers and second because the Patristic
Thought was continued to the end of Byzantium in interaction with Byzantine
Philosophy. When we use he term Byzantine Philosophy we refer to the
ideological currents that flourished from the 9th century till the 15th in the
geographical area of the Greek East. Its main task was the quest for truth
from the metaphysical point of view. In this era we have not only
commentaries and scholastic works, but also an assimilation of the previous
philosophical and scientific developments in purpose of an interior evolution.
The opposition to, and the use of, the Western scholasticism were also
another two special characteristics of Byzantine Thought. The use of the
logical works of Aristotle and the metaphysics of Plato made up its main
theoretical body, always in relation to the Christian dogmas. The logical,
metaphysical, cosmological, ethical, aesthetical and anthropological subjects
were closely connected with the fixed Christian view of the World, God and
Man. But despite the influence of the Christian religion and the Aristotelic,
Platonic, Stoic, Neoplatonic etc. teachings, today we can arrive at the
© Res Cogitans 2006 vol. 3, 73-105

conclusion that from the ninth through the fifteen century a relative
autonomy of Philosophy in Byzantium was emerged. Also, the Philosophical
thought in Byzantium gave some new solutions to the old problems and dared
sometimes to proceed in new rational, mystical or even empirical elaborations
of original philosophical questions.

2. Factors that have influenced Patristic Thought
Many factors influenced the development of Patristic Thought. Church
Fathers were well acquainted with Greek Philosophy, especially that of Plato
and Aristotle. They were also exposed to Pythagoreanism – especially to the
arithmology or other Neo-Pythagorean ideas of the first Christian centuries
C.E. - and the Stoicism, both of which were in conflict with the traditional
Christian doctrine. Other ideological influential factor was the Middle-
Platonism of the 2nd century A.D., of which the representatives brought out a
reform of the historical Platonism as an expression of the general tensions in
this era. Moreover, Neo-Platonism, which founded by Plotinus in 3rd cent.
A.D. was at first in opposition of, and later in alliance with, Greek Fathers.
Judaism and the Old Testament also exerted a great influence on the
formation of the Christian dogmas. Especially the historical dimension and
the personalistic element were two religious characteristics of Joudaism that
Christianism incorporated into its dogmatic life. With Philo of Alexandria in
the 1st century A.D., who wrote in Greek, the Greek culture was mingled with
the religion of Moses. Philo in his work On Theoretical Life introduced a
theoretical along with a practical attitude towards religion and life.
Also, the New Testament and the Truth of Revelation played the most
important role in the formation of the Christian dogmas. The Apostolic
teaching especially that of Paul created the cores from which the prophets and
the clergy were emerged. The institution of the Church was established after
the official domination of Christianism with the support of Constantine the
Great and the convocation of the Council of Nicaea (325). The completion of
the Christian dogma finished with the Council of Chalkedona (451), while its
interpretation started up from the 5th century A.D.
74

The diffusion of Gnosticism and the Oriental Mystery Cults were another
significant historical phenomenon that had an effect, as an antagonistic factor,
on the Christian thought. Gnosticism appeared in two forms – pagan and
Christian – and, by its complicated and hierarchical theogonies, it considered
the Demiurge as evil and the world as a bad joke against humankind. The
Mystery Cults developed, along with Christianity, a soteriology but, due to
their bloody sacrifices and their odd dogmas, they addressed to the aristocratic
elites and not to the large masses of people. On the contrary, Christianism
spread widely because it concerned all kinds of people, independently of their
origin, cultural level or race. Manichaeanism was also a manifestation of
Gnosticism which Fathers soon rejected, particularly because of its intense
diarchy. Finally, the Roman Legislation was an important element, which till
the era of the Emperor Ioustinian (6th cent.), had already been incorporated
into the civilization of the East Roman Empire and, in relation to other forms
of the Latin world, partly influenced the formation of Byzantine thought.

3. Representative Fathers of Patristic Thought
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries we can see the gradual establishment of Christian
Dogma. Clement of Alexandria combined the Christianism with the Greek
thought, thus starting the Christian conquest of other dogmas. Ioustin also
accepted Greek Paideia and believed that it was a gift from God. Origen from
Alexandria, who lived in the same era with Plotinus, was a theologian who
interpreted the Old Testament and accepted the pre-existence of souls and the
restoration (apokatastasis) of everything at the Second Coming. Also, Origen
was the first Greek Father who undertook the effort to deal with a total
arrangement of the Christian dogmatic elements.
The division between the spiritual method of the School of Alexandria
and the literal-historical method of the School of Antiocheia concerning the
interpretation of the Bible is not today accepted. We cannot make a sharp
distinction between these two Schools because a. several theologians belonged
to both of them i.e. Basil the Great and b. both these Schools contributed to
the form of Patristic Thought, regardless of the many heretical developments
which emerged from the School of Antiocheia.
75

The older historians also included Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340 A.D.) in
the school of Alexandria. At the beginning of his career Eusebius continued
the work of his teacher, Pamphilus, who by his turn had continued the work
of Origen. But Eusebius was the one who introduced the first well formed
Christian philosophy of History. In his work Ecclesiastical History he expressed
the new historical consciousness of Christianity, becoming the forerunner of
Saint Augustine. Eusebius had also the honour to make a public speech
before the Emperor Constantine the Great, declaring the Christian Roman
Idea, during the royal festival for thirty years in power. After Constantinus
and his advisor Eusebius, a new political theology emerged, which had as its
ideological axis the belief that the Christian Empire was the image of God
upon earth.
It is in the 4th century that the three Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory of
Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and Basil the Great lived and created their
theological and philosophical work. They studied in Athens and they faced
vigorously many heretical manifestations of their time. The three
Cappadocians were the first theologians who dealt extensively with
Triadology. Also, they combined the mystical and the rational thought
speaking about the infinity and the incomprehension of God. Man was placed
in the centre of the Universe, while matter and evil lost their ontological
independency. The generosity of Christian God replaced the impersonal
neoplatonic One and everybody regardless of their origin or race was destined
to take part in it.
The Corpus Areopagiticum is a corpus of treatises written in the 5th century
by an unknown author, which has been preserved till our days under the name
of Dionysius the Areopagite, a historical person of the 1st century A.D. The
influence upon the Corpus by Proclus is obvious. The poetic language of
Pseudo-Areopagite, the theme of the mystical union with God, the two
hierarchies – the ecclesiastical and the celestial- and especially the apophatic
way of access to God are his main characteristics. The apophatism, that is the
formula “neither-nor”, and the divine names which don’t give us an
affirmative and definite meaning of God, have exerted a big influence on
many mediaeval intellectuals. This happened particularly after the appearance
76

of the Commentary to the Corpus by Maximus the Confessor in the 7th century
and the translation of the Corpus by John Scotus Eriugena in 9th century.
Leon the Byzantine (475-542) can be considered as another contemplator
of great value. He was famous for his accurate terminology and systematic
structure of his speculations. His work Three Books against Nestorians and
Eutychians is a model of methodological criticism. His attitude is nominalistic.
Other small spiritual movements were emerged at the same time particularly
in Gaza, under the guidance of two important philosophers as were Aineias
and Zacharias. The first speaks about the immortality of Soul and rejects the
Platonic preexistence of it. The second doesn’t accept the “world’s eternity
theory”, which is the main problem of the criticism to Proclus and Plato by
John Philoponus (6th cent.), specifically in his work On the Creation of the World.
Also, Stephanus of Alexandria, who was a student of Philoponus, transferred
the School of Alexandria’s movement to Constantinople and induced the
penetration of neoplatonic elements into the Christian spirit. In this period
one can find the ascetic and mystical work Climax of Paradise by John Sinaites.
The course towards God is accomplished through the continuous prayer and
the ineffable love, which are the main tasks of the monk.
We can find a genuine Christian spirit in the works of Maximus the
Confessor (580-662). Maximus was a monk from Constantinople who gave a
fight against the heresy of monotheletism that is the dogma according to
which Jesus Christ had one will. Maximus defended the two wills and
activities of Christ, speaking about the importance of the human freedom and
will inside Him which are equal with His divine freedom and will. Also, he
wrote many books on mystical theology, Christian love, anthropology and
ascetics. He spoke about the union of the self with the Godhead, while, by his
comments to the Corpus Areopagitucum he introduced a Christian surpassing of
Neoplatonism. But in opposition to the Neoplatonism he maintained the
element of historicity and focused on the theoretical and ascetical implications
of Christ’s Incarnation. The theory of cyclic time which survived till the
Neoplatonism had already been replaced in this era by the idea of a linear
course. Inside this linear course the facts of Creation, the Incarnation and the
Second Coming take the position of the most crucial dynamic points.
77

In the 8th century the system of John Damascenus was dominant. He was
a monk and priest in the monastery of St. Sava near to Jerusalem. His basic
work, under the title Spring of Knowledge is the first systematic work of the
Christian theology. In a part of this work, under the name Accurate Exposition
of the Orthodox Faith (Ekdosis Akrives tes Orthodoxou Pisteōs), he attempts to
present an encyclopedic synopsis of the entire knowledge of his era according
to the Christian Orthodoxy. He can be called scholastic and nominalist, since
he put special emphasis on the “existence” and not on “being” or “nature”.
Also Damascenus took an active part in the controversy on images
(iconoclasm or iconomachy), which troubled for a long time the Byzantine
Empire and finished with the restoration of the images and the victory of the
Greek spirit against the Orientalistic origin of iconomachy.

4. The relative autonomy of Byzantine Philosophy
The beginnings of Byzantine Philosophy must be placed in the 9th century
A.D., when the conflict between the Greek East and the Latin West arose for
the first time. The conflict from the part of the Byzantines was handled by
Patriarch Photius and resulted in the definite schism between the two
Churches in the 11th century. Until the 9th century the Patristic thought was a
unifying factor –and is still today- between the Latin West and the Byzantine
East, despite the problem of the language and the different political,
ecclesiastical and other evolutions. The first conflict revealed all these cultural
differences, although the varied relations between the two regions did not
cease, but rather multiplied. In Byzantium, after the capture of Constantinople
by the Crusaders in 1204, one can observe the division in two parts: the
friends of the Latins who insisted on the unification of the two Churches and
the opponents to the Latins who were against that. These two parts were
preserved till the fall of Byzantium by the Ottomans in 1453.
The 9th century must also be considered as the starting point of the
Byzantine Philosophy due to the awakening of a scientific interest. This took
the form of a philological inquiry and interpretation of the Ancient Greek
Philosophy. While sometimes a criticism on the ancient texts developed and
authentic solutions to difficult problems appeared. The philosophical tension
78

in this period, from 9th till 15th centuries, was not only towards a Christian
interpretation, either of Dogmas, or of the Ancient Greek Philosophy, but
took the form of a relative philosophical autonomy. During the period of
seven centuries of Byzantine Philosophy it is difficult to make divisions in
schools or movements, because only some distinguished personalities are
those who gave the directions and defined the limits of thought.

4a. The “first Byzantine Humanism”
In the beginning of Byzantine Philosophy’s relative autonomy, a teacher of
Philosophy lived in Constantinople called Leon the Mathematician (or
Philosopher). His philosophical works have not been maintained till now
(except for his book Medical Synopsis), but he was famous in his time for his
scientific and mathematical knowledge. In our historical documents was
recorded a story about him. Caliph Mamun (813-833) of the Arabs had
promised to the Byzantine Emperor Theophilus a large amount of money and
a treaty of peace if Theophilus permitted Leon to visit the court of Caliph.
But Theophilus preferred to send Leon to Thessaloniki as a bishop to the
knowledge of the “real beings” to be learned by the Arabs.
In the circle of Photius (820-891), patriarch of Constantinople, an
encyclopedic and humanistic interest was dominant. Photius wrote the famous
Bibliotheca, where we can find the summaries of many historical books which
patriarch had read during his life. Also, he makes many subtle definitions on
the problem of universals. The genera and species are like bodies, but not real
bodies. They define the substance of the subjects, without being defined
themselves. They develop their substance, without constituting it. Photius
tries to conciliate the nominalism with realism, knowing the solution to the
problem that has been given by the Platonic scholiasts of Ammonius’s school.
The scholar who was born in Patras, but he is known as Arethas of
Caesarea (850-925) typifies the kind of Byzantine scholars in the mould
created by Photius. His work and activities belong mainly to Christian
apologetics and interpretation. He wrote many comments on Plato, Aristotle,
Euclides, Dion Chrysostomos, etc, but it is more proper to be called an
erudite rather than a philosopher.
79

At the time of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenetos (913-959) the
encyclopedic tension was maintained and reinforced. Emperor had a special
interest more in his intellectual work rather than in governing the empire.

4b. Psellos and his students (11th -12th cent.)
During the period of the dynasty founded by the emperor Comnenos in 11th
century, spiritual life was very intense. If the fist schism between the Latin and
the East Church took place in the time of Photius, now it resulted in the
definite division between the two Churches. The university in Constantinople
was reorganized and the eminent philosopher Michael Psellos (1018-1078?)
took over its administration. Psellos was called “first among the philosophers”
(hypatos tōn philosophōn) and is considered the most important and prolific
of the Byzantine polymaths. For first time we have the appearance in
Byzantium of scholars who had philosophy as their main occupation, along
with theology, as were Psellos and Ioannis Italos. Psellos had a very good
knowledge and gave lessons about the Ancient Greek Philosophy. His
knowledge of the ancient sources (Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Commentators of
Aristotle, Plotinus, Proclus e.t.c.) was immediate, but he combined them with
the Christian dogma (especially of Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of
Nyssa). Also, he wrote many works on rhetoric, history, mathematics,
astronomy, occultism, linguistics, ethnography, grammar, music e.t.c. He
combined mystical beliefs with rationalism and he assimilated neoplatonic
elements into the Christian dogmatic truths. He preferred Plato to Aristotle
and he bequeathed this preference to his students.
The student of Psellos, Ioannis Italos (1023-1083?) followed the
Neoplatonism especially of Proclus and he was the first who tried to criticize
the Christianism using an autonomous philosophical spirit. He paid for his
Neoplatonism and his criticism of the Christian dogma by his official
condemnation. The eleven articles of Italos’s teachings were condemned by
the Church on 13 of May 1082 and in the liturgical life of the Orthodox
Church are repeated every first Sunday at Lent. In the entire 12th century we
can find many dogmatic controversies that were provoked by the renovation
of an autonomous philosophy.
80

Many philosophers followed this movement of classicism as were the
scholiast of Aristotle Michael of Ephesos, Theodoros of Smyrna and
Eustratios of Nicaea, of whom the last also wrote many comments on
Aristotle, comments which already in the Middle Ages were translated into
Latin. Eustratios was a student of Italos and an admirer of the scholasticism
and Aristotelism. Also, in the 11th and 12th centuries a mystical movement was
emerged which goes back to Pseudo-Dionysious and Maximus the Confessor.
Its main representatives were Symeon the New Theologian and Niketas
Stythatos. Symeon was a mystic and an ascetic, and his more important work,
Hymns of Divine Love contains a kind of empirical theology focusing on the
personal love between God and man. The ecstatic character of his theology
prepared the Hesychastic spirituality of the 14th century in Thessaloniki, and
his mysticism is in some cases similar to the religious experience that was the
base of Plotinus’s philosophy. Nicetas Stethatos was also a mystic of the
virtue of apathy and for him the real science is an inspired science.
Another author of the 12th century was Nicolas of Methone, who wrote a
critical book on Proclus’s Elements of Theology, because at his time the interest
in the last great Neo-Platonist increased.

4c. Philosophers of Nicaea (13th century)
The temporary conquest of the Byzantine Empire by the Latin crusaders in
1204 was the cause of the flowering in literature away from Constantinople.
So in Asia Minor and especially in Nicaea the philosophers Nicephoros
Blemmydes and Theodoros II Laskares lived and worked. The theological
work of Nicephoros Blemmydes covers different subjects of the dogmatic
controversies between the great Churches of the East and the West. His
works on Logic and Physics are his most important intellectual achievements
along with his contribution to the educational activity of his time.
Theodoros II Laskares, emperor of Nicaea (1254-1258) represented the
illuminated monarch and his political and sociological interest was combined
with the philosophical research into the discovery of the quality of beings. The
philosophical movement in Nicaea was transitional for the Palaeologian
81

epoch, since many developments took place in Asia Minor at first half of 13th
century that prepared the last Byzantine Renaissance.

4d. Philosophical and Scientific movement (13th -14th century)
During the Palaeologian period (1261-1453), the last two centuries of the
Byzantine Empire, we can find a renaissance of philosophical and scientific
studies, especially in astronomy.
Maximus Planoudes (1255-1305) was interested especially in mathematics
and he became a monk, teaching all the lessons of the general education. As a
theologian he defended at first the union of the two Churches, but later his
attitude changed in the opposite direction. He was the first Byzantine scholar
who promoted the communication with the West. He translated many Latin
works of theology and philology, and it was him who introduced at first the
number zero in Greek Arithmetic. Planoudes and George Pachymeres were
two major representatives of the Palaeologian Renaissance, as were the
younger Nicephoros Choumnos and Theodoros Metochites.
George Pachymeres (1242-1310) was also an important Byzantine scholar,
theologian, philosopher, historian and mathematician who took part in many
ecclesiastical and political affairs. His occupation with the Aristotelic
philosophy resulted in the selection from the Aristotelic texts of many
philosophical explanations and significant definitions. So, he simplified the
dense Aristotelic style and many of his works circulated in manuscripts during
the Renaissance. In theology he tried to make known the subtle distinctions of
the Pseudo-Areopagite. The distinction between intelligible and mystical
knowledge was degraded in a distinction between sensible and intelligible
knowledge. The transference to the intelligible realm is achieved according to
him with the help of the mystical “ignorance” and the intermediary of God’s
grace and gifts.
Nicephoros Choumnos (1250-1327) criticized the Ancient Philosophers
Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus and he seemed to prefer the philosophy of
Aristotle. In his most known work with the title Against Plotinus on the Soul, he
rejects the pre-existence and the metempsychosis of the souls. He didn’t
accept, either, the Platonic and plotinian argument about the remembrance of
82

the intelligible world by the soul, although he used the argumentation of Plato
to support the Christian belief in the resurrection of bodies. A friend and a
disputer with Choumnos was also Theodoros Metochites (1260/1-1332).
From 1304 till 1328 he became a Prime Minister in Constantinople and in
general he took an active part in the public life of his country. We have a lot
of autobiographical texts for his life and action. His occupation with
astronomy and cosmology led him – especially after his meeting with the
teacher of astronomy Manuel Bryennios- to write many scientific works. He
accepted the practical utility of mechanics due to its relation with astronomy
and mathematics. Also, he opposed to the oriental superstitions of his time
which had an Indian origin. Metochites obtained fame as an astronomer
because he predicted accurately the Sun and Moon eclipses. In his book
Annotations and Gnomic Notes (Hepomnematismoi kai semeioseis gnōmikai) one can
find references to 70 ancient Greek authors; the feeling of Greek identity and
the anxiety for the future of the Byzantine Empire are obviously in his work
intense. Metochites had also a debate on astronomical matters with
Choumnos and criticized the philosophy of Aristotle. He claimed that it
wasn’t in complete accordance with the Christian teachings or even with
Platonism.
The student of Metochites, Nicephoros Gregoras (1295-1359/1360) was
also a polymath and tried to imitate Plato with his dialogue Florentios. In the
field of cosmology he accepts the stoic theory of Fate (Heimarmene), which in
a similar form will be repeated later by George Gemistos Plethon. Also, his
criticism of the Aristotelic theory targeted at the Western scholasticism and
opened a controversy between Aristotelians and Platonists, which will be
developed especially in the next century. His views on the possibility of
knowledge lead him in a kind of agnosticism but not skepticism. His belief
that our knowledge is a symbol of our ignorance was directed against the
sophistic arguments, without diminishing the importance of the religion. The
dialogue Florentios referred ironically to the person of Barlaam the Calabrian,
whom he presented as a superficial sophist. The Byzantine emperor rejected
Gregoras’s scientific conclusions as regards the calendar, but pope Gregory
XIII would accept them in 1578. Apart from a historiographical work, he left
83

us theological treatises which are connected with the Hesychastic controversy
of the 14th century and made him a serious adversary of Gregory Palamas.

4e. The Hesychastic Controversy (14th cent.)
The movement of Hesychasm initiated on Mount Athos by two monks,
Necephoros the Calabrian and Gregory Sinaite. These monks proceeded to
the definition of a method for prayer, which they called scientific method of
calling upon Jesus Christ’s name. The monk during the prayer should search
for the place where the heart powers are. One can reach to this sort of
meditation having the chin supported on the chest and having at the same
time a breathing control. The monks, who continued this sort of meditation,
were claiming that they could see a great light that is the glory and the
uncreated light of God. But this practice could come to a mechanistic prayer,
so the Greek monk Barlaam the Calabrian (1290-1350) accused them of the
absurdity that God’s light has a materialistic form. We cannot perceive the
uncreated God’s light by our corporeal eyes.
Barlaam did not separate the essence of God from His activities as
Gregory Palamas and the Hesychasts did. Following the humanism of the
Greek Thought, Barlaam believed that the scientific knowledge has the power
to purify our souls in order to proceed to the knowledge of God and the
union with Him. God’s being is not separated from God’s activities; it is
through these activities that we have a perception of God. Holding such an
attitude, Barlaam opposed to every mystical tension and reinforced a
Byzantine “scholasticism” on the basis of the writings of Thomas Aquinas
(whom the treatises criticized using the Corpus Areopagiticum). Many
philosophers took sides with Barlaam against the Hesychasts as Nicephoros
Gregoras already had done: Demetrios and Prochoros Kydonis, Manouel
Calecas, Ioannis Kyparissiotes and Gregory Akindynos. It is very
characteristic that in this epoch, Akindynos and Demetrius Kydonis translated
the most important works of Thomas Aquinas in Greek and promoted an
interest in philosophy – especially the Aristotelic – becoming the forerunners
of the Renaissance.
84

The leading theologian and philosopher of the movement of Hesychasm
was the episcope (Bishop) of Thessalonica, Gregory Palamas (1296?-
1359/1360). Palamas tried to refute the arguments of Barlaam and his
followers. It is true that he had a tension towards mysticism and it is very
probable that there is a neoplatonic element inside the movement of
Hesychasm (On the contrary Barlaamism made the use of Aristotelic and
scholastic philosophy). Palamas defended the Hesychastic method of prayer
believing that our intellect is not outside, but inside our body. In opposition to
every rationalistic objectification, he tried to defend the essence of
Christianism, which according to him is based on our heart powers. This
attitude is not subjective because even if our intellect is inside our body we
have to push it inside itself. It is only by this introverted pushing that we can
have a conversation with God. God can be perceived only as a light inside
heart. This light is not material, because the essence and the activities of God
are different. In these activities of God should be included the light of
Thabor, which comes out from divine essence. Neither the speculative
arguments, nor the geometrical proofs can help us to communicate with God.
The essence of God is incomprehensible and the followers of Hesychasm can
have an authentic religious experience only through a divine grace.
Another theologian and philosopher, who followed the mystical path of
Palamas, was Nicholas Cavasilas (1320-1371). Through his two main works,
On the life in Christ and Interpretation of Divine Liturgy, he followed the path of
Symeon the New Theologian, Maximus the Confessor, Pseudo-Dionysious or
even that of Origen. The lyrical style of his works gives a tone of the first
apostolic Christian years. He believed in a kind of empirical relationship with
God, but he is not interested in ecstasy or in the mystical religious
experiences. Every man is sacred, because God has already communicated
with our nature. The main activity of this personalistic spiritualism is summed
up in a sort of mysticism.

4f. Platonists against Aristotelians (15th cent.)
As we saw, in the movement of Hesychasm a contradiction between the
platonism and the aristotelism was emerged, without obtaining an intensive
85

character. The reference to the two great ancient Greek philosophers had as
its main point the theory of knowledge. On the one hand Palamas used the
Aristotelic terminology, but in the end he was closer to the neoplatonic
mysticism and the Platonic intuition. On the other hand Barlaam was a more
genuine Aristotelic and he preferred the rational scholasticism. The anti-
palamists were them who first asked the question: who is closer to the
Christian dogma, Plato or Aristotle? Who is superior as a philosopher? And
who is more useful for studying? In this late period of philosophical
controversies the protagonists were mainly two great men, George Gemistos
Plethon and his adversary George Scholarios-Gennadios.
George Gemistos Plethon (1360?-1452) was the last great philosopher of
Bysantium before its fall. In his writings we can find a feeling of Greek
identity. He took part in the Council of Florence and the Council of Ferrara
(1438-9) with the emperor John VIII Palaeologus. Accompanying John VIII
were Plethon and his students Johannes Bessarion and George Scholarios. In
Florence Plethon as a secular scholar didn’t play any important role in the
discussions about the union of the Greek and the Roman Churches. But he
set up a temporary school to teach the doctrines of Plato. Plethon was him
who essentially made Plato known in the Western world, where mainly the
authority of Aristotle was dominating for centuries. One of the Maecenas in
Florence, Cozimo de Medici attended these lectures and later founded the
Academia Platonica (1459), in which scholars like Marsilio Ficino and Pico de
la Mirandola participated and worked.
The works of Plethon extend to a great number of small treatises, which
are dealing with different matters. In Florence he wrote the famous book De
Differentiis, a description of the differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s
conception of God. Also, before his journey in Florence he had already
prepared an important book under the title Treatises of Laws. It is this book
which George Scholarios (who became Gennadius II, Patriarch of
Constantinople) threw to fire and convinced the Byzantine emperor Manuel II
Palaeologus to confine Plethon in Mistra (Peloponnesus); however, Plethon
remained famous among his contemporaries even after the patriarchic
condemnation.
86

The work of Plethon De Differentiis was the cause of the division of the
scholars between Platonists and Aristotelists, not only in Byzantium, but also
in Italy. George Scholarios made the beginning with his effort to defend
Aristotle. Plethon wrote an anti-aristotelic treatise in two letters towards
Bessarion as a response to several difficulties. After these facts the
controversy was generalized: Theodoros of Gaza and Andronikos Kallistos,
two of the most well known Aristotelian of this epoch, George Trebizond and
his brother Andreas, Theophanis of Medeia (who died in 1480) and Michael
Sophianos (who died later in 1570) took over the defense of Aristotle. Michael
Apostolis, Gianandria, Nicolas Perottus and John Apostolis took sides with
Plethon. Bessarion became a Platonist and wrote a book in which he
expressed his sympathy to Plato. After all these controversies one could see
probably a justification of Plato in Italy, but after the fall of Constantinople
the Aristotelism was maintained in the former Byzantine geographical area.
Plethon had prepared a philosophical program for the social and political
reforming of his country. This program derived from his ideal of society, but
it wasn’t appreciated as he wished, in Peloponnesus, and especially in Mistra,
where he lived for the most part of his life. His theology and ontology are
based on a metaphysical determinism although man maintains his freedom by
the rational part of his soul. Man and his soul are in a middle position between
the intelligible and the sensible world. His ethics includes a wide theory on
virtues where one can find the four main Platonic virtues into many divisions.
His anthropological, social and ethical theory, as well as his Platonism had a
very big influence not only on his country, but also on the whole European
culture of the Renaissance.
George Scholarios (1405-1468), was born in Constantinople and became
the first Christian patriarch Gennadios II after the fall of Byzantium and the
enslavement of his country to the Turks. He translated many scientific works
from Latin into Greek and he was an admirer of Thomas Aquinas and
Aristotle. Of course he accepted Aristotelism to the degree that it was
compatible with the Christian dogma. He gave his fight against Plethon and
his neoplatonism by a series of texts. But in spite of his preference to the
Latin theology, he never proceeded to the adaptation of the scholastic
87