Plethon vs. Orthodoxy of Scholarius and the Catholicism of Aquinas

7/27/2019 Plethon vs. Orthodoxy of Scholarius and the Catholicism of Aquinas

1/37


2/37

252 Archiv XIX

IDOLIZING PAGANISM DEMONIZINGCHRISTIANITY: PROPOS: N. SINIOSSOGLOU,

RADICAL PLATONISM IN BYZANTIUM:ILLUMINATION AND UTOPIA IN GEMISTOS PLETHON

&+5,67,$$1:.$33(6

81,9(56,'$''(/26+(0,6)(5,2648,72

Dr. Niketas Siniossoglous hefty tome1 attempts to providethe reader with an intellectual history of Byzantium, while italso seeks to solve riddles of Gemistos Plethons thought andintellectual character. Plethons paganism, his place in thehistory of Byzantine thought (especially propos historical rivalmovements, e.g., Palamism), and other themes are touched uponin S.s work as the result of highly specialized research with an eye

toward enlightening the reader to obscure aspects of Byzantineintellectual thought.

is review will evaluate S.s contribution by bothcontextualizing his approach and noting his method. It willalso attempt to critique S.s hermeneutic by reviewing selectarguments within his work. Unfortunately, one foreboding aspectof this work is its price (originally priced at 70.00 or 91.00).

However, should an author successfully change the direction ofscholarly discussion in his field, the specialist may find that thebook price is well worth it.

1 N. Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium. Illuminationand Utopia in Gemistos Plethon (Cambridge Classical Studies),Cambridge, 2011.


3/37

CW. K

(U H, Q)

IDOLIZING PAGANISM DEMONIZINGCHRISTIANITY: PROPOS: N. SINIOSSOGLOU,

RADICAL PLATONISM IN BYZANTIUM:ILLUMINATION AND UTOPIA IN GEMISTOS PLETHON

1. An authors bibliography

may help the reader evaluate a book

as much as the text itself

roughout the book S. spends significant intellectual capital inorder to argue not only Plethons positions and influences, but alsothose of Barlaam the Calabrian; namely, their pagan-humanistic andoptimistic epistemology (inter alia). As one would suspect in thiscontext, the content of any such epistemology is heavily indebted

to Platonism. Investigation of Plethon and Barlaam through theprism of Platonism is S.s forte in this work. is likely stems fromhis doctoral dissertation on eodoret of Cyrrhus, which has alsobeen recently published as: Plato andeodoret: e ChristianAppropriation of Platonic Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual

Resistance.1 In this previous work, as in the present work underreview, a key advisorfor S.s thesis was Dr. Peter Garnsey,2 himself an

1 Id.,Plato andeodoret. e Christian Appropriation of PlatonicPhilosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance, Cambridge,2008 (Doct. Diss.).

2 http://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/faculty/staff-bios/research_staff/pe-ter_garnsey/ (access 02.08.2012)


4/37

211Idolizing Paganism Demonizing Christianity:...

expert on Platonism. In fact, inRadical Platonism in Byzantium, S.sadvisory team almost exclusively consists of experts on Platonism,

some of whom have also made contributions via studies of earlyChristianity and (to some extent) Aristotelian philosophy.3 For thisreason, it is no surprise that S. attempts to syphon out Platonicelements from both Plethon and Barlaams theology and philosophy(as well as from other authors and texts). is project is bothcommendable and interesting in itself.

Unfortunately, from the very beginning, such a nobleproject has no possibility of being brought to term withinRadical Platonism in Byzantium. To begin with, a short glanceat the authors bibliography alerts the reader to the fact that anyevaluation of Barlaam by S. can only be haphazard at best. Evenbefore a reader might want to consider engaging S.s arguments,this summary judgment can be rendered confidently. Such anevaluation is due to S.s apparent unfamiliarity with Barlaamsworks that should ordinarily be essential reading for interpreting

the Calabrians theological and philosophical vision. S. failedto consult two important compilations of Barlaams writingsrelevant to his arguments (both of which are available in printand in critical editions):Barlaam Calabro. Opere contro i Latini.Introduzione, storia dei testi, edizione critica, traduzione e indici,

and Dalla controversia palamitica alla polemica esicastica conunedizione critica delle epistole greche di Barlaam.4is glaringly

incomplete treatment of Barlaams corpus is coupled with a lackof any references to important modern studies, especially thoseof A. Fyrigos.5 It may be true that not all of Barlaams works can

3 Siniossoglou,Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf.supra, n. 1), p.xii. Nearly all the names listed by S. are easily traceable to a univer-sitys or professors site. Of course, the present judgments about S.sadvisors are the result of a perusal of each named professors Cur-riculum Vitae.

4 Op. cit.(cf.supra, n. 1), pp. 427429. 5 is omission is glaring and can be found wanting in the bibliography.

See: Id.,Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf.supra, n. 1), p. 435.Please note the following studies on Barlaam: A. Fyrigos, BarlaamCalabro tra laristotelismo scolastico e il neoplatonismo bizantino,


5/37

212 Christiaan W. Kappes (Universidad de los Hemisferios, Quito)

be said to contribute to his philosophical vision,6 yet both theintroductions to and the texts of many of his writings are essential

for understanding his thought and its progression. In additionto Fyrigos modern critical editions, there is not even a referenceto Schirs classic text of Barlaams epistles.7 On the contrary, S.merely employs Gregory Palamas comments on Barlaam (andthose of some of his followers). Clearly, the reader cannot expectany global presentation of Barlaam (which is actually essential forportions of the narrative proposed within S.s own work). Instead,S. relies heavily on Gregory Palamas critique of Barlaam. Of

course, it is legitimate for a scholar to seek to argue that Palamasperspective is the most insightful interpretation of the Calabrian.Still, the difficulty lies in the fact that the book leaves the reader withan interpretation of Barlaams thought drawn almost exclusivelyfrom the perspective of his most vehement adversary.

S. attempts to rectify this bias only to a limited degree. Hedoes so by relying on two critically edited texts of Barlaam by R.E.

Sinkewicz.8A panoramic view of Barlaam would be naturally more

Il Veltro 27, 1983, pp. 185194; ed. A. Fyrigos, Barlaam Calabro.Luomo, lopera, il pensiero, Seminara, 1999.

6 E.g., ed. P. Carelos, 7P`ZP[c^?PZPQ`^@^RXbcXY (Corpusphilosophorum Medii Aevi. Philosophi Byzantini, 8), Athens,1996. Still, the brief Introduction to these purely mathematicalwritings includes a crucial discussion of the epistemological statusof mathematics, geometry, and astronomy from an Aristotelian-Neoplatonic prespective.

7 Ed. G. Schir, Barlaam Calabro. Epistole greche. I primordi epi-sodici e dottrinari delle lotte esicaste, Palermo, 1954.

8 S. includes the following studies in his bibliography: R.E. Sinke-wicz, A New Interpretation for the First Episode in the Contro-versy Between Barlaam the Calabrian and Gregory Palamas, eJournal ofeological Studies 31, 1980, pp. 489500 (N.B., isthesis is at odds with Fyrigos positions in both his Contro i Latini...andEpistole greche...); Id., e Doctrine of the Knowledge of Godin the Early Writings of Barlaam the Calabrian, Mediaeval Stud-ies 44, 1982, pp. 181242. However, he fails to cite this importantstudy, by the same author: e Solutions Addressed to GeorgeLapithes by Barlaam the Calabrian and eir Philosophical Con-


6/37


cognizant of his sources in his Contra Latinos. ough heavilyindebted to Platonism, Barlaams Christian identity can in no way

be cast into doubt (contra Palamam). Furthermore, in his epistles,Barlaam believed that pagan philosophers (exceptPlatonici), andeven the rationalists like omas Aquinas, were possessed bydemons.9 Barlaams Platonism must be viewed from the opticof Barlaams own views of compatibility between Aristotle andPlato. Barlaam opted for compatibility, whereas Plethon upheld anincommensurability view. S.s simplification still leads the readerto render Barlaam an enemy of the allegedly anti-philosophical

Palamas. However, it requires a logical leap to further claim thatBarlaam is, thus, a crypto-pagan. is conclusion merely mimicsa traditional Byzantine category (and accusation) of Hellenizeragainst those who employ pagan learning. It should not naively beupheld without foundation and the necessary nuances.

Additionally, the bibliography is selective, not comprehensive.Many expected secondary sources are wanting with respect to

both updated and relevant studies on the historical figures that S.wishes to engage within his opus.

text,Mediaeval Studies 43, 1981, pp. 152199,which reveals a lotabout the identity of Barlaams so-called Platonism.

9 For an example of Barlaams consideration of philosophers er-rors as demonic in their origin, see: Barlaam Calabro, EpistlolaIII, 27.256264 (ed. A. Fyrigos,Dalla controversia palamitica allapolemica esicastica con unedizione critica delle epistole greche diBarlaam (Medioevo, 11), Rome, 2005, p. 320). For an example ofBarlaams arguments against the value of Aristotelian (and Platon-ic) demonstrations of divine things ad sententiam Patrum, see:op. cit., 75.68581.744. ere is a thorough assessment of Barlaamand his sources (gleaned from Fyrigoss two monumental studies)in: J.A. Demetracopoulos, Further Evidence on the Ancient, Pa-tristic, and Byzantine Sources of Barlaam the Calabrians ContraLatinos,Byzantinische Zeitschrift96, 2003, pp. 83122. Also, see:Id., Barlaam the Calabrian, in: ed. H. Lagerlund, Encyclopedia ofMedieval Philosophy: Philosophy between 5001500, New York,2011, pp. 141144. is last citation provides a summary of con-crete Neoplatonic texts used by Barlaam and serves as a preview toa forthcoming monograph included in the articles bibliography.


7/37


One small, illustrative example should suffice to alert thereader to peruse parts of S.s text cum cautela. Toward the

beginning of his work, S. proposes a precarious chronology forGeorge-Gennadius Scholarius (a key figure in S.s work). erein,S. leaves the reader with the impression that Scholarius was aformer disciple of Gemistos Plethon.10is proposition is bothan interesting and an exciting hypothesis, insofar as it introducesboth drama and a potential personal history between two rivalfigures (i.e., Plethon and Scholarius). Such an historical scenariocould add great weight to statements made by Scholarius about

Plethons personal history and thought. However, as his support,S. cites only two 19th century authors (and a spurious compositionattributed to Scholarius). S. notes that these two authors proposedthat Scholarius had ventured to the Peloponnese to study underPlethon.11 Interestingly, these two authors disagree amongthemselves on the possible date for such an alleged visit. In hiscitations, S. fails to alert the reader to the disagreement between the

two authors, nor does he attempt to solve the riddle of Scholariusvisit (which would have constituted a minor contribution toScholarius biography). Instead he simply chooses one of the twoauthors proposed dates as his preference and passes over theother in silence. S. even goes so far as to propose more persuasiveevidence for his hypothesis by referring to a text once attributedto Scholarius. Unfortunately, S. cites theEncomium of St. Leontius

10 Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf. supra, n. 1),pp. 130131.

11 C. Alexandre, Notice prliminaire sur Plthon, sur ses ouvrageset en particulier sur son Trait de Lois, in: EZWh\^aB[h\bdRR`PeacbhU[T\P5EZcV^\. Trait de lois, Paris, 1858, pp.xiv-xv. H. Tozer, A Byzantine Reformer,Journal of Hellenic Stud-ies 7, 1886, pp. 353380, esp. p. 359. N.B., Alexandre claims thistook place in 1427, whereas Tozer assumes it certain by his timethat it was 1428. It turns out that the real date is fall of 1428. See:George Sphrantzes, Chronicon XV, 8 XVI, 2 (ed. R. Maisano,Georgii Sphrantzae Chronicon (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzan-tine, 29), Rome, 1990, pp. 3436).


8/37


9/37


10/37


ough the bibliography is wanting and sometimes dated,there are some excellent and unique bibliographical references

e Slavi 7, 2005, pp. 195285. Here are but two articles establishingScholarius sojourn and relations in Constantinople that can nowbe attested to with certainty in the 1420s until 1426/7. Also, suf-ficient historical data currently exists to place him within the en-virons of Constantinople by 1430. Argyriou has finally allowed fora dating of one of Scholarius letters (viz., to Macarius Makrs) to

the winter of 1430. A. Argyriou, Macaire Makrs et la polmiquecontre lIslam (Studi e Testi, 314), Vatican City, 1986, pp. 8, 46.Woodhouse thinks it likely that Scholarius was part of the imperialretinue (1426/1428). However, without directly refuting previousclaims, he assumes that Scholarius never studied under Plethon.See: C.M. Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon. e Last of theHellenes, Oxford, 2000, p. 39. Because of Scholarius associationswith important political personages in the 1420s, evidence now ex-ists to support Alexandres and Tozers assertions that Scholariusmay have accompanied the imperial retinue to the Peloponnesearound 1428. A synthesis of all these facts leaves open the possibil-ity of travel between 14281430. Before these 20th century stud-ies, Scholarius visit was based on a couple of vague referenceswithin his corpus. is, coupled with an unknown chronology ofthe young Scholarius, allowed for any number of hypotheses. Onemodern argument for Scholarius as a possible former disciple of Pl-ethon can be found in: . N. Zesses,8T\\SXâ7Gf^Z`Xâ7â bdRR`[[PcP SXSPbYPZP (\ZTYcP7ZPcSh\, 30), es-sanoniki, 1979 (21988), p. 84. Zesses argues the possibility fromScholarius own words: Yea, with respect to myself, I myself do notdeem it unworthy to admit him to the post of teacher (translationmine). See: George-Gennadius Scholarius, ?Pcc\EZWh\â_^`X\_`Xbc^cZTX (edd. L. Petit / X.A. Siderids / M. Jugie,Oeuvres compltes de Georges Scholarios, Vol. IV, Paris, 1935, p.115, ll. 711). Still, the meaning of this sentence can safely be de-rived only in view of its context; Scholarius says that, if rumors ofPlethons desire not to be a Christian were ever falsified by Plethonhimself, Scholarius would be prepared to reconcile with Plethonand recognize his wisdom as if he were his teacher (at least in thecontext of the Plato-Aristotle affair). Obviously, this has nothing todo with the issue of Scholarius mentors in his youth.


11/37


that point to S.s philological background and studies. ese arevaluable, indeed, for any scholar who wishes to compile a replete

bibliography covering figures of late Byzantium such as Plethon,Palamas, etc.

2. Interpretive approaches

to philosophy and authorities

Before entering into the main thesis of the author (i.e., ahistorical revision of the personality and thought of Plethonin Byzantium), it first behooves the reader to consider otherrecurring oddities in the book so that s/he might be able to makea discerning read of it. Another important facet of S.s approachto the historical data can be illustrated by his use of terminologyand footnotes. S.s project in Radical Platonism in Byzantium isexpansive and ambitious. is, of course, can be a positive facet ofany work. However, the difficulty encountered in this ambitiouswork is found in the illusive nature of his categories to describethe intellectual commitments and thought of several authors whomay only tangentially or partially fall into a category or under aterm employed by S. For example, in medieval philosophy, thereexists the traditional category of omist (i.e., philosopher/theologian ad mentem omae). is is meant to convey, more

or less, a generic idea, which encompasses a philosopher ortheologians worldview or intellectual method. Additionally,Aristotelian and Platonic are examples of adjectives employedwithin ancient philosophy to categorize a thinker according to aspecific criterion. e historical difficulty with such labels is that,in the absence of a Rosetta stone within the authors own text tounderstand the essential doctrines denoted by such terms, each

category could end up as either equivocal (varying in meaningfrom author to author) or merely denote some peculiar univocalidea held by the author that must be gleaned from within his text.For example, an author could idiosyncratically define a omistas: anyone who admires the philosophy/theology of omasAquinas. In scholarship, however, a normative use of omist


12/37


would ordinarily signify something like: a thinker who holdsx, y, and z philosophical and/or theological principles ad

mentem omae, or a thinker who employs Aquinas method tophilosophize/theologize.roughout his work, S. frequently attempts to impose

metaphysically and philosophically gravid labels on theologiansand philosophers, which often prove to be simplistic and/or idiosyncratic. Nowadays over-generalized and unqualifiedcategories have all but been abandoned by modern scholarship indisciplines like the history of medieval philosophy. Most scholarly

historical approaches to theologians and theology take intoaccount the limitations of a category to encapsulate the thoughtand worldview of any one individual author. Instead, historians ofphilosophy and theology tend to give the reader a working definitionfor any significant genus (e.g., Platonist) within defined limits or,at least, an author will alert his reader to the school of thought thathe espouses (e.g., neo-omist) in order to help the reader have

an idea of the authors semantic preference for terms with morethan one application/meaning. After providing the reader witha definition or a point of reference, a philosopher or theologianunder study can be collocated in said category to the degree towhich his thought corresponds to the essential content fallingwithin that same category. is helps the reader to have in mind aclear definition of any term, which may have various meanings or

ranges of application. For example, in medieval studies, scholarsearly presuppositions that a omist school of philosophy (i.e.,a school adhering to Pius Xs 24 theses)17 existed from the 13th

17 Scil., Sacra Studiorum Congregatio: eses quaedam, in doctrinaSancti omae Aquinatis contentae, et a philosophiae magistrispropositae, adprobantur(Acta Apostolicae Sedis 6,1914, pp. 383386). is paragraphs distinctions are quite necessary to make. S.spublished book-review (viz., N. Siniossoglou, Judith R. Ryder,e Career and Writings of Demetrius Kydones: A Study of Four-teenth-Century Byzantine Politics, Religion and Society,Specu-lum 87/4, 2012, p. 1248) argues that both nuance and objectivityconstitute a contentious concept and fictitious approach to scholar-ship, respectively. e entire review, in polemical terms, is more of


13/37


century on have proved unfounded due to the ahistorical natureof this modern anachronistic category.18 Instead, scholarship now

requires that each Scholastic authors thought must be studied andevaluated so as to discover each individual authors intellectualcommitments expressed within his works. Only after one uncoversa thinkers sources and core intellectual values, to the extent that it isapplicable, can a modern author designate a thinker as a omist,Aristotelian, etc. e effect of this sort of methodologicalapproach has destroyed many ahistorical myths about not onlyomism and theomistic school of the 13th and 14th centuries,

a manifesto for rejecting objective points of view. e difficultywith this assertion for many a philosopher (even some nominalists)lies in cross-culturalintelligibility of universal concepts (generals).S. contends: is widespread perspectivist assumption is anach-ronistic to the extent that, say, Kydones did not thusly [sic] brackethis self-understanding. It is also self-refuting, for it culminates inan awkward type of unconfessed realism: it is only by tacitly claim-ing access to reality (read: to the truthfulness of balanced andnuanced interpretations) that we can bracket the theological andhistorical categories of our historical agents. It is highly doubtfulthat most scholars hold nuance to be a virtue if clarity alreadyexists (thus it is not an absolute value in every instance). Howev-er, one can suspect that balance (i.e., looking at different actorsand sources presentation of the same material object) is a virtuein modern scholarship. Yet, it must be conceded that S. faithfullyapplies this (anti-)principle inRadical Platonism in Byzantium. Herejects possible divergences from his preset universal categories(without reference to historical figures own literary production)and picks a polarized interpretation of an author/event, generallydeveloping each as an instance of his pre-established divisions ofthought, etc. Of course, philosophically and historically, if scholarscannot arrive at universals through a gradual a posteriori process,such that general categories can accurately and objectively describetheir individual instantiations, doesnt scholarship in contingentmatter itself become a flatus vocis?

18 Among the last neo-omist attempts to defend this thesis, whichcan still be read with benefit, was: F. Roensch,e Early omisticSchool, Dubuque, 1964.


14/37


but even other alleged rigid intellectual movements. us, the so-called genetic method, which includes studying an authors entire

corpus, coupled with a comparison and contrast of his works tohis sources and various contemporary schools of theology/philosophy, supplies a modern reader with convincing evidence forcollocating a thinker of the Middle Ages and Renaissance within asupposed intellectual movement.19

Such nuance and investigation of individual authorsare at times lacking when S. categorizes personalities withinmedieval and Byzantine philosophy. For example, the famous

omist (Demetrius Cydones) is incorrectly overgeneralizedas a Platonizing philosopher at the beginning of the book.20e reader will wait in vain, in subsequent chapters, to see eitherauthorities or arguments presented for such a hypothesis.21ough

19 e winds have even changed within the Dominican Order (dedicat-ed to defending the life and teaching of omas Aquinas). ManyDominican heroes, or early omists, have been reevaluated inlight of modern scholarship, and these famous Dominicans haveoften been found to be quite eclectic. For example, the followingmay be consulted with profit: Saintomas au XIVe sicle. Actesdu colloque organis par LInstitut Saint-omas-dAquin les 7 et8 juin 1996 lInstitut Catholique de Toulouse (Revue omiste,XXVII/1), Toulouse, 1997.

20 Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf. supra, n. 1),p. 1. On the myth of Cydones Platonicus or semi-paganus, see:J.A. Demetracopoulos, omas Aquinas Impact on Late Byzan-tine eology and Philosophy: e Issues of Method or ModusSciendi and Dignitas Hominis, in: edd. A. Speer / Ph. Steink-rger, Knotenpunkt Byzanz: Wissensformen und kulturelle Wech-selbseziehungen, Berlin, 2012, pp. 333410, at pp. 339340.

21 One attempt at proof for this revisionism is the following: Ky-dones is usually presented as a omist, yet in his letters to Manueland John Kantakouzenos he moves in the opposite direction fromAquinase Rule of Princes. See: Siniossoglou,Radical Platonismin Byzantium...(cf.supra, n. 1), p. 375. However, later, S. attributesto Demetrius Cydones omist ideas within the limited scope ofecclesiastical union. Ultimately, the reader is simply left in limbowith respect to Cydones intellectual commitments; for even if


15/37


the theological and philosophical literature until present hascontinuously and firmly established Demetrius as a omist,22 S.

seems unwilling to subscribe to such a thesis, yet he fails to arguehis counter-thesis via reference to primary sources or secondaryliterature. Scholars typically apply the epithet omist (andthus Aristotelian, by extension) to Cydones from at least threeperspectives. First, Demetrius describes himself as a omist.23

some concessions are made to Cydones omism late in the book,S. attempts to dilute Cydones omism (once again) by attribut-ing Cydones omistic enthusiasm to pro-Latin political motives.Op. cit., p. 402. A study of Cydones philosophical and theologicalthought is badly needed and the recent monograph by J. Ryder,eCareer and Writings of Demetrios Kydones: a Study of Fourteenth-Century Byzantine Politics, Religion and Society, Leiden-Boston,2010, does not fill this gap. Still, S. does not seem aware of the dif-ferent degrees of progress in the research on Cydones (inter alios).

22 See: J.A. Demetracopoulos, omas Aquinas Impact... (cf.supra,n. 21), pp. 339341, 346347, 352354.

23 e Emperor John Cantacuzenus had admiredomas Aquinas andhis erudition. Because of Demetrius Cydones initial translations,the emperor even financed the entire translation of the Summacontra Gentiles. See: N. Russell, Palamism and the Circle of De-metrius Cydones, in: edd. Ch. Dendrinos / J. Harris / I. Harvalia /J. Herrin, Porphyrogenita. Essays on the History and Literature ofByzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides,London 2003, pp. 153174, at p. 155. However, Demetrius wentso far as to even recommend omas to the Emperor Manuel II,known as an anti-unionist (N.B., the identity of the recipient of theletter below is not known with absolute certainty, other than beingone of the three emperors that Demetrius served). Demetrius rec-ommends to the emperor the Master of the Dominicans who heclaims is the apex of theologians and that omas has taught onlywhat is best and greatest in the realm of the things of God. ZZcXc^[PYP`^d[T[\V[\â=h[\c^ch\f^àY^`deP^\

S]Pc^ YP \ ^Y \ Pbfd\^[V\ YP [TRbc^Xa SXSbYPZ^\

[Pdc^ _`^bTX_\ ^Y Tf^\ [ câ YT\^d f^`Tdca YP

eXZT\ YP PSTbWPX YP _\ _` c^ch\ ZRTX\ Y\ YT\^\

T_T\\[XbPZPQ\cPeh\\ (Epistle 399, ll. 1014). See: ed. R.-J. Loenertz,Dmtrius Cydons. Correspondance. Vol. II(Studi e


16/37


Secondly, following the studies of M. Jugie, many of Cydoneswritings have been analyzed by theologians and philosophers

and have been found to utilize

omistic theses and Scholasticterminology.24 Finally, Cydones confesses that he was personallymotivated to translate several works of Aquinas and his followersbecause of his devotion to the Angelic Doctor and his system.25 Ofcourse, possible exceptions to a purely omistic Cydones couldbe flushed out of some of his works, like his De contemnendamorte26and his apologetic writings employing the Fathers of the

Testi, 208), Vatican City, 1960, p. 354. Presuming that this letter isaddressed to Manuel II Palaologos, it may serve as the explanatorycause for Manuels latent uses of Aquinas theonymical doctrine informulating his own Palamism.See: J.A. Demetracopoulos,Pala-mas Transformed. Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction be-tween Gods Essence and Energies in Late Byzantium, in: edd. M.Hinterberger / C. Schabel, Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History12041500 (Recherches de ologie et Philosophie Mdivales,

11), Leuven, 2011, pp. 327341. 24 For example: M. Jugie, Dmtrius Cydons et la thologie latine

Byzance aux XIVe et XVe sicles, Echos dOrient27, 1928, pp.385402; M. Candal, Demetrio Cidonio y el problema trinitariopalamitico, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 28, 1962, pp. 76120;F. Kianka, Demetrius Cydones and omas Aquinas, Byzantion52, 1982, pp. 264286.

25 A. Glycofrydi-Leontsini, Demetrius Cydones as a Translator ofLatin Texts, in: eds. Ch. Dendrinos J. Harris I. Harvalia J.Herrin, Porphyrogenita. Essays on the History and Literature ofByzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides,London, 2003, pp. 175185. Demetrius, through the emperors pa-tronage, was able to both translate and distribute multiple copies ofhis Summacontra Gentiles to both his fellow Byzantine scholarsand his own disciples. In hisApologia pro vita sua he remarked witha certain degree of legitimate pride: us I provided our learnedscholars with the opportunity to become even more learned. Dem-etrius Cydones,Apologia, in: ed. J. L,Ending the ByzantineGreek Schism, New York, 1992, p. 26.

26 Ed. H. Deckelmann,Demetrii Cydonii De contemnenda morte ora-tio, Leipzig, 1901. N.B., Even though previous studies have referredto this minor opus as an example of Platonism, Cydones included


17/37


Church.27e former contains Platonic elements in some of itssections, while the latter argues from the perspective of patristics

and Greek (as well as Latin) authorities.is incorrect use of a Platonic epithet points to a puzzlingtendency of S. to make use of categories in an unexplained orconfusing fashion. It is highly doubtful, when looking at S.s passingdescriptions of Aquinas, that S. considers the Angelic Doctora Platonizer. Yet to a considerable degree Aquinas Platonicpedigree has also been firmly established for over half a century.28A modern analysis, employing nuance and analyzing Aquinas

sources, easily recognizes a more complex picture of Aquinas (andby extension his strictly omistic disciples like Cydones).

Like Cydones use of occasional Platonic elements, Aquinasutilizes Platonism frequently within his works. It is undeniablethat fundamental Aristotelian concepts dominate throughoutAquinas works (e.g., unicity of substantial form, matter asprinciple of individuation), but there is considerable influence of

Platonists within the omistic corpus.29 What is more, Aquinas(especially in ethics) also makes considerable concessions toStoic philosophy, viz., pace Cicero.30 On the contrary, S.s use

an argument for the immortality of the soul he borrowed fromAquinas as well as material from Gregory of Nyssa et al.is argu-ment was subsequently adopted by Plethon and Scholarius. See:

J.A. Demetracopoulos, EZWh\YP=h[aYdX\cVa_c\bc^`Pc^QdUP\cX\^Wh[Xb[^,Athens, 2004, pp. 3941, 5459,165168.

27 Ed. A. Koltsiou-Nikita, HY`^ac\EPc`h\ ca YYZVbPaAX\YS^cV_Xbc^ZXY_`PR[PcTPJXZ^b^eXYYPWT^Z^RXY

7XQZX^WYV, 42), essaloniki, 2000 (22002). 28 is seminal work is still the most authoritative on the subject. See:

R. Henle, Saintomas and Platonism. A Study of the Plato andPlatonici texts in the Writings of Saintomas, e Hague, 1956.

29 See: Henle, Saintomas and Platonism... (cf.supra, note 29), pp.7241. A quick perusal of these passages will easily result in a rathernuanced approach to omas attitude to Plato and Platonists.

30 An excellent study of the Stoic elements (inter alia) in Aquinas di-visions of the virtues in his ethics demonstrates this thesis convinc-


18/37


of undefined and summary categories (e.g., Platonizer) forpersonalities like Demetrius Cydones severely limits the readers

ability to understand Cydones, while simultaneously leaving thereader without arguments in support of S.s alternative view. Quitea number of S.s observations that employ metaphysical terms orphilosophical vocabulary requires more justification or a helpfulreference to support his presuppositions.

A second example of this is found where S. makes thegratuitous assertion:

As if in a purposeful effort to corroborate the suspicionsof Aquinas [...] that Platonism is the source of all thingsheretic[al], Plethon proceeds to a dechristianisation of Plato.31

In order to investigate this claim, a convenient resource existsfor uncovering each and every one of Aquinas references to Platoand thePlatonici. S. assumes that Aquinas held Plato responsiblefor being the source of every heresy. is is exaggerated, even

ingly. See: R.E. Houser, e Cardinal Virtues: omas, Albert andPhillip the Chancellor, Toronto, 2004.

31 Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf. supra, n. 1),p. 223. ough S. proposes this as Aquinas ideology, he providesthe reader with no reference for verification. If the readerdiligently searches for some evidence for this position, one mightsuppose S. is referring to his position on p. 17, wherein he notesScholarius affinity for Aquinas arguments against the Hellenesin Scholarius epitome of the Summa contre Gentiles. Both Aquinasand Scholarius associate Arius and Eunomius with theologiaplatonica on a particular theological question. In the Summacontra Gentiles IV,6, Aquinas writes: Est autem haec positio Ariiet Eunomii. Et videtur a Platonicorum dictis exorta, qui ponebantsummum Deum, patrem et creatorem omnium rerum, a quo pri-mitus effluxisse dicebant quandam mentem, in qua essent omniumrerum formae, superiorem omnibus aliis rebus, quam paternumintellectum nominabant; et post hanc, animam mundi; et deindealias creaturas. is is something much narrower: it only has to dowith the Trinitarian doctrine, not all things heretic [sic].


19/37


if it approaches more to the truth than the opposite view.32 Aninformed study of Aquinas easily uncovers Aquinas more critical

utilization and inferior regard of Plato and Platonists (with respectto Aristotle) in his many works since he often had to purify themof fundamental philosophical errors. Although Aquinas may rejectmany doctrines that he believes are fundamental to Plato and thePlatonists, nonetheless, at times he recognizes Platos insights, aswell as those whom he designates Platonists.33

In a last example within the vein of omism, S. reaches astartling conclusion toward the end of his book. He writes:

In theDifferences as well as in theNomoi Plethon challengedapophaticism and the major proposition shared by Palamasand Aquinas that god is notin agenus, that the essence of godis ultimately inaccessible to the human intellect.34

is amazing assertion betrays the authors unfamiliaritywith the basic fundaments ofomistic theology and omisms

historical conflict with Orthodoxy vis--vis Palamism. WhereasGod may not be in any metaphysical genus of being for eitherPalamas or Aquinas, nonetheless, Aquinas is adamantly convincedand quite vocal that the human intellect can be capacitated tosee Gods essence via the lumen gloriae.35 After the translation

32 Henle, Saintomas and Platonism... (cf. supra, n. 29), pp. 347

350. Here the author provides the reader with several passages ofAquinas that clearly distinguish the errors of the pre-Socratics fromPlato. Apparently, Aquinas was quite aware that other philosophers,irreconcilable with Plato, had contributed to errors in philosophy.

33 Op. cit., pp. 421425. e authors conclusions recognize the criti-cal attitude of Aquinas to some central doctrines of Plato and Pla-tonists, as well as Aquinas utilization of Plato as an authority.

34 Siniossoglou,Radical Platonism in Byzantium...(cf.supra, n. 1), p.405.

35 J.F. Wippel, e Metaphysicalought ofomas Aquinas: fromFinite Being to Uncreated Being(Monographs for the Society forMedieval and Renaissance Philosophy, 5/1), Washington, D.C.,2000, p. 541. Instead of providing the numerous clear references toomas doctrine, it has been deemed preferable to use a reference


20/37


of Aquinas Summae into Greek, Palamites made this a pointof contention with omists.36e Council of Florence (1439)

marks a crescendo in the conflict between the

omistic schoolsassertion that man can see Gods essence and the Palamites denialthereof.37 e Palamites refused to concede this point at theCouncil.38erefore, a compromise formula had to be adopted toplease the Greek contingent present at Florence.39 Even before theCouncil, there already existed a consistent interpretive traditionof Palamas that pitted omism against Palamism precisely onthe point of the visio beatifica.40 So far as the present author is

to Wippel. S. himself utilizes Wippel approvingly as an authority forhis own interpretations of Aquinas. Here, however, Wippel clearlyasserts an interpretation that contradicts S. with regard to Aquinasview of the beatific vision. Cf. Summa eologiae, Ia, qu. 12, art. 6;De veritate X,12, Quaestiones quodlibetales VII,1. Of course, thereare numerous other works and places for Aquinas clear exposition

of the divine essence as the ultimate and direct object of the humanintellect.

36 Scholarius himself omitted references to the lumen gloriae in histranslation-summaries of the Summa contra Gentiles and Summaeologiae.is was an accommodation of Aquinas to Palamitetheology and its rejection of a habitus allowing it to see Godsessence. See: George-Gennadius Scholarius,An Abridgment of theSumma contra Gentiles III,58 (edd. L. Petit / X.A. Siderids / M.

Jugie, Oeuvres compltes de Georges Scholarios, Vol. V, Paris, 1931,p. 150, ll. 3538; id.,An Abridgment of the Summaeologiae, Ia,qu. 12, art. 113 (edd. Id., ibid.), pp. 346348).

37 Another source cited by S. notes the controversy on divine vision (etalia) between theomists and Palamites. See: J. Gill, e Councilof Florence, Cambridge, 1959 (repr. 2011), pp. 120, 206, 225, 285.

38 Op. cit., pp. 285286. Gill accurately describes the omist-Pala-mite antipathies (including the visio beatifica).

39 is conflict is ably treated in a study more recent than Gills. See:A. de Halleux, Bessarion et le palamisme au concile de Florence,Irnikon 62, 1989, pp. 307332.

40 is anti-omistic Palamism reached its zenith in Mark Eugenicusexplicit condemnations of Aquinas theological tenets (vis--visPalamism). See: Mark Eugenicus, On the Distinction between Es-


21/37


aware, interpretation of the Angelic Doctor on this point hasnever wavered, even withstanding Scotist attacks. Scotists

thought it absurd that an accidental quality could be added to thesoul to allow it to see an infinite essence, especially since omistsclaimed that the only adequate objects of the intellect are createdessences via abstraction.41

Even outside of the context of omism, S. seems unawareof important distinctions that must be made to comprehendScholasticism and the diverse Western approaches in theology.Within S.s bibliography, one work appears that should have

alerted him to understanding Scholarius Scotistic tendencies.Sebastian Guichardans Doct. Diss. (Le problme de la simplicitdivine en Orient et en Occident aux XVe et XVe sicles) is stilluseful for illustrating aspects of Scotisms role in the theologyof Scholarius.42 A quick perusal of its treatment of John Duns

sence and Energy: First Antirrhetic against Manuel Kalekas, ll. 57(ed. M. Pilavakis, On the Distinction between Essence and Energy:First Antirrhetic against Manuel Kalekas. Editio princeps(DoctoralDissertation), London, 1987, p. 187). DS\_YcVc^\c\WTh\SXh[ch\Y[\c^Xc\_^cTZTb[ch\SVZPSc\YcXb[ch\

YPcca\T`RTPacPcPaZZ^YPc^bP\=Ta`cPX Inop. cit., pp. 175176, Mark explicitly embroils Latins and Aqui-nas in a theological conspiracy to make the Holy Spirit into a crea-ture, etc. Aquinas is likewise his enemy in the passage just above(contra Calecam). Eugenicus had clearly explored Aquinas read ofboth Ps.-Dionysius and Damascene in Summa eologiae, Ia, qu.13, art. 2 and art. 8. He was not impressed by Aquinas argumentsthat we name the divine attributes from their effects since the hu-man mind can only process creaturely perfections, which are mul-tiple, while God himself is an indistinguishable principle. is iscoupled with Marks denial of Aquinas assertion that the intellectcan see the divine essence.

41 R. Cross,Duns Scotus, New York, 1999, pp. 149152.42 S.s puzzling presentation omism must be paired with the nota-

ble absence of discussion of Scotism, for S. cites an important studyon Scotism and Scholarius wthin his work. is published disser-tation should have alerted S. to the important role of theDe ente etessentia commentary for contextualizing the two subsequent trea-


22/37


Scotus would have led to the conclusion that all Scholasticism isnot the same. Furthermore, Scotism is particularly reconcilable to

Palamite sensibilities (with respect to ad intra divine attributes).M. Jugie had also made this philosophical judgment.43 In effect,a plurality of distinct energies/attributes within Gods essencerepresents a commonality between Scotists and Palamites(quoddamodo). is calls into question S.s assertion:

e principal objection of all major anti-Palamite intellectualswas that a plurality of divine energies comes dangerouslyclose to Proclan henotheism while in a sense re-sacralisingthe physical world. With one possible exception, CelticChristianity, this Hellenic connection was atrophic in the LatinWest.44

Had S. been aware of Scotisms (let alone via Guichardan)basic metaphysical premises, he still would have been able toclaim that anti-Palamites were intellectually opposed to a

metaphysical multiplicity of distinct perfections within thegodhead (since Scotists can interpret this in a manner favorableto Palamism). However, the rather large and sometimes dominantmedieval school ad mentem Scoti calls into question the atrophicevaluation of Western theology vis--vis a real distinctionbetween Gods essence and energies/attributes.45

tises on the essence-energies question. See: S. Guichardan,Le pro-blme de la simplicit divine en Orient et en Occident aux XIVe etXVe sicles: Grgoire Palamas, Duns Scot, Georges Scholarios, Lyon,1933, pp. 184199.

43 M. Jugie,eologia dogmatica christianorum orientalium ab eccle-sia catholica dissidentium,vol. 2, Paris, 1933, p. 148. Jugie referredto Scotistic ad intra metaphysics of the godhead asPalamismus infieri. ough one minor article of Jugie is cited in S.s bibliography,

vols. 1 and 2 of this important work are notably missing in S.s revi-sion of Plethon and his personality.

44 Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf. supra, n. 1),pp. 400401.

45 Vos spends some time emphasizing the reality of this distinction.In fact, the entire Franciscan tradition lays claim to priority of the


23/37


A thorough read of S.s work raises many doubts concerningS.s piecemeal presentation of medieval and Byzantine Scholastic

philosophy.

is leads one to the conclusion that S. would havebenefited greatly from at least one medievalist or Scholastic on hisadvisory team.

3.e authors method

for making references to previous studies

Another important consideration of S.s method is derivedfrom an occasionally unconventional way of employing footnotes.S. can sometimes be found asserting a fact in the text and thenfootnoting an authority for such an assertion, although the workcited actually contradicts his point in the text.

For example, S. relies on Paul Tavardons dated study onScholarius and Plethons interpretation of Aristotles statementthat being is said in many ways.46 S. argues that Plethon holdsfor the doctrine of univocity of being on the authority ofTavardons study (which itself has problems that other scholarsalways mention).47en, immediately following this citation, S.claims that Scholarius argues for equivocity of being in the same

thing over mind, and gives credit to the human mind for having rec-ognized something that really is distinct in the considered object.See: A. Vos, e Philosophy of John Duns Scotus, Edinburgh, 2008,p. 255.

46 Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf. supra, n. 1),pp. 230231. Also see: P. Tavardon, Le conflit de Georges GmistePlthon et de Georges Scholarios au sujet de lexpression dAristotec\ZRTcPX_^ZZPfa,Byzantion 47, 1977, pp. 268278.

47 E.g., S. Ebbesen / J. Pinborg, Gennadius and Western Scholasti-cism. Radulphus BritosArs Vetus in Greek Translation, Classicaet Medievalia 33, 19811982, pp. 263319; J. Monfasani, e Pro-Latin Apologetics of the Greek migrs to Quattrocento Italy, in:ed. A. Rigo,Byzantine eology and its Philosophical Background(Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization, 4), Turnhout,2011, pp. 160186.


24/37


breath. S. fails to alert the reader that his assertion of Scholariusequivocity of being is polar opposite to Tavardons study (which

he just cited as his authority). Tavardons study in fact arguesthat both Plethon and Scholarius hold doctrines of univocity.48More precisely, Tavardon attempts to demonstrate that Plethonand Scholarius hold for univocity of the concept of being. eeffect of this use of authorities confuses the reader into believingthat there is scholarly agreement about Scholarius equivocity,whereas, in reality, Scholarius may have indeed adopted (at leastin the 1430s) a concept of univocity very close to the one espoused

by John Duns Scotus.49is is further complicated by the fact thatS. accuses Plethon of pantheism claiming that all univocity leadsto pantheism. In reality, there are at least two kinds of univocityidentified by Tavardon (i.e., Plethonic-pantheistic and Scholarian-modist/Scholastic). A more thorough study of medieval modismwould even lead to nuances within the camp of univocity ofthe concept of being.50 Metaphysical univocity may well lead to

pantheism, yet the univocity espoused by many medieval Christianphilosophers and theologians has been convincingly argued to befree of any such danger. Considerable literature has been writtenon the subject since the renewed interest in univocity of being inthe 1930s until present.51

48 P. Tavardon, Le conflit de Georges Gmiste Plthon... (cf.supra,n.

47), pp. 268278. 49 S. Ebbesen, Concrete Accidental Terms: Late irteenth-Century

Debates about Problems Relating to Such Terms as album, in:ed. N. Kretzmann,Meaning and Inference in Medieval Philosophy.Studies in Memory of Jan Pinborg (Synthese Historical Library,32), Boston, 1998, pp. 107174, esp. pp. 120132. is article isinvaluable for comparing the various theories of univocity. Es-pecially pertinent to the present discussion is the comparison be-

tween Radulphus Brito and Duns Scotus univocities. 50 Ibid. 51 Parthenius Minges has been recognized as one of the first mod-

ern expositors of Scotus who has attempted to be faithful to theipsissima verba of Scotus, despite the lamentable lack of solidknowledge surrounding Scotus authentic corpus at the time. For


25/37


is important similarity between Plethon and Scholarius isclearly emphasized and argued in Tavardons study. Tavardon was

operating under the false assumption that Scholarius had himselfcomposed his logical commentaries. However, Scholarius didnot compose, but (for the most part) translated these logicalcommentaries from Radulphus Brito. is important pointwas unknown to Tavardon and represents a severe limitation toTavardons study.52 S. seems to be unaware of several limitationsof Tavardons study and misuses Tavardons main thesis tocontrast Plethons univocity to Scholarius equivocity. From S.s

bibliography, one may glean the reason why he is unaware of manynuances and facets of Scholarius thought. Both Ebbesen andPinborgs article, as well as Barbours study on Scholarius sourcesand translations, could have saved S. from misinterpretations

his clear defense of univocity, see: P. Minges, Ioannis Duns Scotidoctrina philosophica et theologica quoad res praecipuas propositaet exposita, vol. 1, Ad Claras Aquas, 1930, pp. 2240. A (now) clas-sic monograph on univocity followed the work of Minges with: C.Shircel, e Univocity of the Concept of Being in the Philosophyof John Duns Scotus, Washington, D.C., 1942. However, some ofShircels errors were corrected (passim) in: A. Wolter, e Tran-scendentals andeir Function in the Metaphysics of Duns Scotus(Philosophy Series, 3), St. Bonaventure, 1946. From this point on,Wolter to a large degree became the apostle of a Scotistic evan-gelization of the English-speaking philosophic world. His effortsbegan to bear significant fruits in the last quarter of the 20th cen-tury. One such beneficiary of these Scotistic forebearers, A. Vos,has made it a point to acknowledge Minges as a faithful expositorof the Subtle Doctor. See: A. Vos, e Philosophy of John Duns Sco-tus... (cf.supra, n. 46), pp. 120, 565. Lastly, some of Scotus philo-sophic inspiration on this point stems from a cultivation of seedlingbeneplacita in Bonaventures philosophy. See: E. Bettoni, Punti dicontatto fra la dottrina bonaventuriana dellilluminazione e la dott-rina scotista dellunivocit, in: Scholastica: ratione historico-criticainstauranda. Acta Congressus Scholastici Internationalis (Biblio-theca Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani, 7), Roma, 1951, pp. 517532.

52 Tavardon also thought that Radulphus was a Briton and not a Bret-on.


26/37


of Scholarius philosophy and intellectual tendencies.53 It ismost likely that S. misappropriates Scholarius two essence-

energies works, written against Latins and Latin theology, for theScholarius-Plethon debate due to his unfamiliarity with importantcontributions of secondary literature. ese grave errors callinto question S.s efforts to contextualize the real debate betweenPlethon and Scholarius. e result of such a trajectory inRadicalPlatonism in Byzantium is to undermine a readers confidence inany conclusions or observations that S. may have about the natureof the Plethon-Scholarius debate.

4. Methodological considerations

with respect to the relaton between

primary and relevant secondary literature

Within the narrative driven by S., Scholarius two essence-energies treatises are presented as works against Plethon and areimplicated as being a reaction against humanism-paganism.54is,of course, puzzles the reader since S. seems intent on designatingByzantine humanists as crypto-pagans (or at least unconsciousbearers of paganism).55 From the very first chapters of the book thisthesis is developed to some extent, but it conveniently ignores anyin-depth treatment of personalities like Photius of Constantinople

(and later Mark Eugenicus). Both are considered humanists and,simultaneously, pillars of Orthodoxy.56 In a section dedicated

53 Viz., Ebbesen / Pinborg, Gennadius and Western Scholasticism...(cf.supra, n. 48); H. Barbour,e Byzantineomism of GennadiosScholarios and His Translation of the Commentary of Armandusde Bellovisu on the De Ente et Essentia ofomas Aquinas (Studi

Tomistici, 53), Vatican City, 1996.54 Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf. supra, n. 1),

pp. 230247. 55 Op. cit., pp. 6466, 400401. 56 S. omits such a discussion, though he approves and is aware of Pod-

skalskys work on this exact subject. Podskalsky firmly places Pho-


27/37


to humanism, S. gives the reader the idea that humanism andPlatonic study were trends that went against the grain of the entire

ecclesiastical establishment during Photius time. However, S. failsto resolve for the reader how Photius can be both a humanist andthe leading figure of the ecclesiastical establishment within thesame period without being at war with himself.57e position ofPhotius (and, later, Mark Eugenicus) within S.s categorical divisionof Byzantine intellectuals into conscious or unconscious crypto-pagans (i.e., humanists), Palamites, and omists leaves someimportant figures in Byzantium in the position of intellectual exiles.

Furthermore, S.s belief in the anti-Plethonic nature ofScholarius two essence-energies treatises is a lesson to the scholaron the important role that secondary literature can play whenwriting a book that (meritoriously) prefers primary sources for thebulk of its discussion. No doubt S. has a solid grasp of the Greeklanguage and a specialization in Platonism. However, he is seeminglyunaware of the role that Scholarius translation-commentaryDe

ente et essentia (especially chapters 9495) plays in the genesis ofthe two essence-energies treatises. is translation-commentary(1445) predates the two essence-energies treatises, and has been

tius, Mark Eugenicus, and George-Gennadius Scholarius withinthe humanist camp. See: G. Podskalsky, Von Photios zu Bessarion:der Vorrang humanistisch geprgtereologie in Byzanz und derenbleibende Bedeutung (Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des stli-chen Europa, 25), Wiesbaden, 2003, pp. 1618.

57 Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf. supra, n. 1),pp. 6465. S.s only effort to contextualize Photius positive and/ornegative contribution to his theory happens when he notes one his-torical episode from Photius life, wherein he converts a waywardhumanist by appeal to Aristotle. From this, should one understandthat Photius was an Aristotelian with a disdain for Plato and (neo)Platonists? Photius, too, is a more complicated figure; for he seemsto have argued staunchly against the philosophical sustainability ofPlatonic ideasas well as against the Aristotelian formsand opt-ed for the Stoic conceptualist views of universals. See B.N. Tata-kis, Byzantine Philosophy (La philosophie byzantine, Paris, 11949),translation by N. Moutafakis, Indianapolis, 22003, pp. 101105.


28/37


amply explored by H. Barbour in the mid-1990s. A perusal of thismonograph would key the reader into the chapter whereomism

explicitly inspired Scholarius to plan to write a treatise on theessence-energies question due to Armandus of Bellovisus (andother omists) theory of second intentions in metaphysicallogic.58 Scholarius alludes to the fact that omisms theory ofsecond intentions and the divine attributes are suspect as beingAkindynist and that omas may even deserve the appellationBarlaamite. is is hardly new, for some aspects of this Palamiteaccusation against Aquinas, per S. Salaville, had already been noted

as early as the 1920s.59 Barbour has more recently discovered thesource text for Scholarius worries about omistic metaphysicallogic in Armandus commentary on theDe ente et essentia that ledto his two additional treatises.60 Even excluding the translation ofArmandus De ente et essentia commentary, in Scholarius lateressence-energies treatises, he explicitly condemns Barlaamites,Akindinysts, and Latin-thinkers (with no mention of Plethon

or pagans).61 Scholarius even explicitly cites Mark Eugenicus

58 See: George-Gennadius Scholarius, Commentary on Aquinas Deente et essentia(edd. L. Petit / X.A. Siderids / M. Jugie, Oeuvrescompltes de Georges Scholarios, Vol. VI, Paris, 1933, p. 283, ll.319). e De ente et essentia commentary was also studied indetail by another of S.s bibliographical references, well beforeBarbour. Guichardan draws attention to ch. 94 as well. See: Guich-

ardan, Le problme de la simplicit divine...(cf. supra, n. 43), pp.190195.

59 S. Salaville, Un thomiste Byzance au XVe s.: Gennade Schola-rios,Echos dOrient23, 1924, pp. 129136.

60 Here, Scholarius explicitly predicts the possibility of writing a fu-ture treatise on second intentions. See: Scholarius, CommentaryDe ente et essentia, (cf.supra, n. 59), p. 285. ?PcPcP[\`YT!chcRT\\f^\bcT\acTT`V[\Pa\YS`^[YP_Z^!

bcT`\_haa\_ZT^bX\YSVZPTV\SS_`PR[PcT_T`

c^ch\ \ =Ta WZ [QPWd\^[T\ c UVc[PcX c^c YP

bPST_T`Pc^\Xf\Tb^[T\YPWa\cW[\[_\TdbWTV

K^[[T\cP`g^\cVT9TT\cTTcTbbT\cXPXCIV, p. 285, ll. 1822). 61 See: George-Gennadius Scholarius in hisAgainst the Partisans of

Acindynus: propos a passage ofeodore Graptos (edd. L. Petit /


29/37


treatise against Manuel Calecas (and omas Aquinas) as one ofhis inspirations for his first essence-energies treatise. Scholarius

further argues based on his own Scholastic theory of secondintentions (which he mentions in theDe ente et essentia and hisfirst and second essence-energies treatise)62 within the realm ofmetaphysical logic. ere is no room in these treatises for anti-Plethon apologetics or themes. Instead, they are directed towardanti-Palamites ad mentem omae.

5. Observations on the authors arguments

and appeal to authorities

Sometimes in S.s work, it is difficult to understand thephilosophical commitments and perspectives that lead to hisconclusions. For example, in the medieval philosophical world(as well as the Byzantine), there are different philosophical andtheological tenets espoused by different thinkers for what doesand does not violate divine simplicity.63 S.s narrative assumes thatPalamas violated divine simplicity. He writes:

More evidence is apt here. According to Palamas, Akindynostaught that god possesses no energies but is pure divineessence. He merely is (TX\PX), which means that gods willis indistinguishable from his real essence. e inescapable

conclusion is that the Palamite distinction between energies

X.A. Siderids / M. Jugie, Oeuvres compltes de Georges Scholarios,Vol. III, Paris, 1930, p. 212, ll. 717).

62 See: id., Commentary on AquinasDe ente et essentia(cf.supra, n.59), p. , ll. 67; id.,Against the Partisans of Acindynus: proposa passage ofeodore Graptos (cf. supra, n. 62), p. 212, ll. 2526;id., On the Distinction between the Essence and Its Operations (edd.L. Petit / X.A. Siderids / M. Jugie, Oeuvres compltes de GeorgesScholarios, Vol. III, Paris, 1930, p. 230, ll. 910).

63 Siniossoglou,Radical Platonism in Byzantium...(cf.supra, n. 1), p.266.


30/37


31/37


Palamas are not privy. However, the reader is never clued into whatphilosophical principle guides S.s own evaluation.

6. Observations

on the revisonist history of Plethon

e reader may reasonably ask whether or not this reviewwill engage the main thesis of the author in detail. Unfortunately,

the answer must be in the negative. Due to the wide range ofdeficiencies in S.s approach to his revisionist history of GemistosPlethon, it is doubtful that he can accomplish the colossal task ofdeciphering both the context and content of Plethons thought(let alone his attempts to connect Plethon to modern andcontemporary philosophers).

is last section will illustrate clearly why this review mustcontinue to limit itself to methodological concerns about S.sapproach to the question of Plethon and his role in Byzantium.ough S.s work does recognize (to a limited degree) some waysin which Plethon is dependent on his intellectual predecessor,Michael Psellos, S. seems generally uninterested in integratingknown late Byzantine sources for Plethons literary production intohis synthesis of all previous scholarly work in order to enunciatehis revisionist historical conclusions.67

One outstanding illustration of this fact will be sufficientto alert the reader to be wary of the necessarily incomplete andhaphazard nature of S.s revisionist conclusions due to his tendency

67 ere are only a total of five pages of the entire work dedicatedto Psellos relationship with Plethon. is seems incredibly mod-est, especially given the discoveries of Plethons dependencieson Psellus in modern scholarship. For a good example notingPlethons textual dependence on Psellos, see: L. Brisson, Plthonet les Oracles Chaldaques, in: eds. M. Cacouros / M.-H. Congour-deau,Philosophie et sciences Byzance de 1204 1453 (OrientaliaLovaniensia Analecta,146), Leuven, 2006, pp. 127142.


32/37


to ignore known sources and important influences for Plethonstheological and philosophical production.

S.s work cites an important monograph, which is essentialfor understanding Plethons own approach to philosophy andtheology. is study has recently provided Byzantine scholarswith solid evidence demonstrating Plethons own reliance onomas Aquinas for important aspects of his own intellectualproduction.68 Numerous extracts from omass Summae werelifted by Plethon only to be incorporated into his theological vision.Demetracopoulos argues that Plethon has a discernible method

for employing these extracts within his writings.69 In a fascinatingexample of Plethons omistic bent, Demetracopoulos uncoversPlethons manner of arranging the four cardinal virtues adsentetiam omae, drawing his inspiration directly from theSumma eologiae.70 It comes as quite a surprise, even to thespecialist, that Plethon was a omist, albeit in a very bizarre(and admittedly limited) way. at Plethon would side with

Aquinas own approach to understanding some aspects of ethicsis quite significant. is should immediately raise questions as tohow much influence Demetrius Cydones and omas Aquinasboth had on Plethons ethical theory.

However, in S.s historical revision of Plethons characterand role in Byzantium, there is no real attempt to contextualizeor evaluate Aquinas role in Plethons thought.71 Not only does

68 Demetracopoulos, EZWh\YP=h[aYdX\cVa(cf. supra, n.27), pp. 4968.

69 Ironically, Demetracopoulos noted that in Woodhouses scho-larly work on Plethon (cf. supra, n. 17), he was correct to note thegenuine influence that omas Summae had on late Byzantinethought. Unfortunately, Woodhouse had not noticed that his ownobservation was especially pertinent with respect to Plethon. is

correction of Woodhouses oversight must have been missed byS.s reading Demetracopoulos work on the matter. See: Demetra-copoulos, EZWh\YP=h[aYdX\cVa... (cf.supra, n. 27),p. 49.

70 Op. cit., pp. 4143. 71 Siniossoglou, Radical Platonism in Byzantium... (cf. supra, n. 1),

pp. 99, 268.


33/37


Chapter ree ofEZWh\YP=h[aYdX\cVa provide dozensof pages where Plethon adopts omism, but its Appendix II

provides another dozen or so pages of Plethons works in whichextracts were lifted from Aquinas Summae.72ough S. makesa reference to Demetracopoulos study in his lengthy tome, thereader has no idea what real content and discovery lie hiddenamong the pages of that study. With respect to this samemonograph, the modern reader would encounter real obstacles toconsult this study on his own, for it is only limitedly available and,at that, only in Modern Greek. Still, there is a very useful 66-page

long English abridgement of the monograph available. 73 S. doesonce make reference to his own perusal of this important studylisted in his bibliography.74at Plethons omism fails to beconsidered in the historical revision of the personality and roleof Plethon in Byzantium is really unfathomable. is also drawsattention, once again, to the puzzling use of footnotes in S.s work.Any scholar who confronts Plethons omism will certainly have

to spill a considerable amount of ink explaining what effect thiseclecticism has on categorizing Plethon as both a philosopher anda theologian. One will simply look in vain within S.s revision of theintellectual character of Plethon to find any indication of what rolethis omist aspect of Plethons thought plays in his worldview.

Given this deficient approach to Plethons sources andthought, it remains to be seen how much of Plethons Platonism

reflects a direct dependence on Plato and Neoplatonists. Muchof what Plethon has to say come from indirect citations made

72 Demetracopoulos, EZWh\YP=h[aYdX\cVa... (cf. supra, n.27), pp. 145168.

73 See: Id., Georgios Gemistos-Plethons Dependence on omasAquinas Summa contra Gentiles and Summa eologiae, Archivfr mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur12, 2006, pp. 276341.

74 S. is non committal to whether or not Plethon is significantly in-fluenced by Aquinas. He ignores Demetracopoulos main thesisand merely alerts the reader that Demetracopoulos suggests thatPlethon may have been influenced by an anti-Palamite theologian,John Kyparissiotis. See: Siniossoglou,Radical Platonism in Byzan-tium...(cf.supra, n. 1), p. 268.


34/37


35/37


his thought and immediate influence, a reader would still do wellto concern himself first with Masais classic text and follow up

with Woodhouses more recent work on Plethon.

75

Now, an evenmore recent monograph is available by Brigitte Tambrun.76 Onewould expect that her approach to Plethon would be satisfactoryfor a scholar with S.s views; for she fully recognizes Plethons anti-Christian spirit and sincere adherence to Plato. She, furthermore,argues at length for Plethons optimistic and cataphatic theology.All the same, her research into Plethons thought does not occupythe place it deserves in S.s reconstruction of Plethons thought. In

fact, granted that both of their readings of Plethon harmonize onmany points, S. fails to provide his reader with any new views orsubstantial development of his intellectual predecessors thought.Until S.s basic methodological approach is adjusted, it will simplynot be able to contend with these well established works as astandard text for understanding the life, thought, and significanceof Plethons intellectual production in Byzantium.

As a last point, it may be helpful to draw attention to anobservation of a contemporary philosopher, who was also cited withapproval by S. Karl Poppers critique (and attempted corrective)of modern science, as well as its methods for theorizing, arguesthe validity of an important axiom.77e same is also useful forevaluating S.s ambitious project. Popper reminds the scientificcommunity repeatedly that the probability of falsification of

a scientific theory proportionally increases as more complexversions of the theory seek to explain more and more puzzles.In other words, the more expansive the theory is, the greater thestatistical probability that it will fail (i.e., falsification). is isespecially the case for all-encompassing theories built on series of

75 Scil., F. Masai,Plthon et le platonisme de Mistra, Paris, 1956; C.M.

Woodhouse, George Gemistos Plethon... (cf.supra, n. 17). 76 Scil., B. Tambrun, Plthon: le retour de Platon, Paris, 2006. is

work represents the culmination of her research from the 1980suntil 2006.

77 K.R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: e Growth of ScientificKnowledge, London, 1962 (72002).


36/37


unproven hypotheses. As such, a modest theory (distasteful as itmay be) establishes the safest path for the scientist to be successful.

In a similar vein, the attraction of S.s grand theory is that sucha theory claims for itself the capacity to answer all major questionsand to impose order on intellectual figures, complex movements,and history itself (pace paganism and its clash with Palamism inByzantium, paganisms culmination in the figure of Plethon as theprecursor to Spinoza, etc.). e weakness of S.s theory (after thefashion of Hegelianism) is that S.s a priori points of departureinherently risk ignoring any anomalies incommensurate with S.s

pre-established categories. Furthermore, a posteriori disciplines,which require a method of reducing a very complex and messyset of data either to a fewer set of probable principles or to likelycauses, can play only a tangential or auxiliary role (at best) toconfirm S.s paradigms. It is the present authors opinion that, incontingent matters like history, disciplines that favor a geneticand historical method to catalogue the history of philosophy are

far better equipped than an ingenious philosophy of history78 toproduce a study of perennial value for both the enthusiast andspecialist on Byzantine studies and other related fields.79

78 is criticism was also proferred by A. Johnson, when reviewing S.swork on eodoret. See: http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/20090505.html (access 2013). Among the reviewers personal com-ments, he draws attention to the fact that S. is more of a philoso-pher than a historian. He also correctly identifies S.s polemicallycharged arguments against Christian authors on behalf of pagans.In a similar way,Radical Platonism in Byantium is likewise phil-osophical in nature and tends to belie its objective investigationwith the same polemical spirit and equally one-sided readings ofthe sources.

79 I would sincerely like to thanks Mrs. Carol Kappes and Rev. Dr.Peter Damian Fehlner, FI, for their suggested corrections.


37/37

Plethon vs. Orthodoxy of Scholarius and the Catholicism of Aquinas

Documents

Transcript of Plethon vs. Orthodoxy of Scholarius and the Catholicism of Aquinas