Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism

296 Pages·2017·1.875 MB·English

by  Sergei Mariev

Byzantine Perspectives on Neoplatonism
Byzantinisches Archiv –
Series Philosophica
Herausgegeben von
Sergei Mariev
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat:
John Demetracopoulos, Jozef Matula,
John Monfasani, Inmaculada Pérez Martín,
Brigitte Tambrun-Krasker
Band 1
Byzantine Perspectives
on Neoplatonism
Edited by
Sergei Mariev
ISBN 978-1-5015-1167-7
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-5015-0359-7
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-1-5015-0363-4
ISSN 1864-9785
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
♾ Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany
www.degruyter.com
Contents
SergeiMariev
NeoplatonicPhilosophyinByzantium | 1
SergeiMarievandMonicaMarchetto
TheDivineBodyoftheHeavens | 31
MicheleTrizio
Thewavesofpassionsandthestillnessofthesea:appropriatingneoplatonic
imageryandconceptformation-theoryinmiddleByzantinecommentarieson
Aristotle | 67
GraemeMiles
PsellosandhisTraditions | 79
JoshuaRobinson
ProclusasHeresiarch:TheologicalPolemicandPhilosophicalCommentaryin
NicholasofMethone’sRefutation(Anaptyxis)ofProclus’Elementsof
Theology | 103
MagdaMtchedlidze
TwoConflictingPositionsRegardingthePhilosophyofProclusinEasternChristian
ThoughtofthetwelfthCentury | 137
JesúsdeGaray
TheReceptionofProclus:FromByzantiumtotheWest(anOverview) | 153
FlaviaBuzzetta,ValerioNapoli
Elementididemonologianeoplatonicanell’opuscolobizantinoΤίναπερὶδαιμόνων
δοξάζουσινἝλληνες | 175
LelaAlexidze
PlethonontheGradesofVirtues:BacktoPlatoviaNeoplatonism? | 221
UdoReinholdJeck
Europaentdecktdiemittelalterlichebyzantinisch-georgische
Philosophie | 243
SelectedBibliography | 271

SergeiMariev
Neoplatonic Philosophy in Byzantium
AnIntroduction
UnresolvedtensionbetweenPlatonicheritageandChristiandoctrineisoneofthehall-
marksofthehistoryofByzantinephilosophy.Ontheonehand,Byzantinescholars
fromallperiodsshowedsignificantinterestinthedoctrinesofPlatoandthePlaton-
ists.Ontheotherhand,manyofthemperceivedthesedoctrinesasasourceoferror
andevenastherootofallheresies.Inconsequence,theyfrequentlymadeattempts
toharmonizeNeoplatonicdoctrineswithChristianity,butalsocriticized,refutedand
even condemned them. These attempts at harmonization, criticism, refutation and
condemnationwithregardtoNeoplatonictextsandauthorsconstituteafascinating
chapterinthehistoryofByzantinecivilization.Thefollowingpagesdonotpretendto
offeranexhaustiveoverviewofthehistoryofthereceptionofNeoplatonicphilosophy
inByzantium.Theobjectiveistosketchageneral“map”ofthisvast“territory”,which
is still being discovered by modern scholarship, by identifying the most important
figuresandtextsthatcanbeseenas“boundaries”and“milestones”.Theindividual
contributionscollectedinthisvolumewillthenprovideamoredetailedaccountof
somespecificepisodesandfiguresonthis“map”,andtherebycontinuethisongoing
processofdiscovery.
Theendofthe5thcenturyisthemostprobabledateforthehistoricallyenigmatic
figureofPs.-DionysiostheAreopagite,¹“whotransposedinathoroughlyorigi-
nalwaythewholeofPaganNeoplatonismfromPlotinustoProclus,butespeciallythat
ofProclusandthePlatonicAcademyinAthens,intoadistinctivelynewChristiancon-
text”.²Ps.-DionysioswasafigureofconsiderableauthorityformanyByzantineschol-
ars,not least because the pseudonym chosenby the otherwise unknown authorof
theCorpusareopagiticumidentifieditsauthorasDionysiostheAreopagite,anAthe-
niancitizenconvertedtoChristianitybytheapostlePaul,asreportedintheActsof
theApostles.³Theapostolicageofthesewritings,soestablished,wasoneofthedeci-
sivefactorsincementingtheirauthorityinByzantium.ThelinkbetweenProklosand
Ps.-Dionysioswasthusreversed:the“holy”Dionysioswasbelievedtobetheteacher
1 Animpressivelistofca.21hypotheseswithregardtothehistoricalidentityoftheauthorofthe
Corpusareopagiticum–possiblecandidatesincludeSeverosofAntioch,PetertheFuller,Peterthe
Iberian,SergiosofResh‘ayna–isassembledinHathaway1969,31–35.Ontherelationshipbetween
PlatonismandChristianityinthewritingsofPs.-DionysiostheAreopagitecf.Saffrey1982,Perl2007,
DillonandWear2007,Dillon2014a,Beierwaltes1997.
2 CorriganandHarrington2015.
3 Cf.Acts,17,16–34,esp.32–34.
DOI 10.1515/9781501503597-002
2 | S.Mariev
andnotthepupilofProklos.Asthelemma“DionysiostheAreopagite”intheSuda,
amassive10th-centuryByzantineencyclopedia,demonstrates,fortheByzantinesit
wasProkloswhoappropriatedsomeoftheteachingsofDionysiosandnotDionysios
whotransposedNeoplatonicteachingsintoaChristiancontext.⁴SomeByzantineau-
thorsevenwentsofarastoaccusethe“Athenianphilosophers”ofhavinghiddenthe
worksofDionysiosinordertobeabletopresentsomeofhisteachingsastheirown.⁵
AmanuscriptcontainingthewritingsofPs.-Dionysios,whichismostprobablytobe
identifiedasCod.par.gr.437,arrivedfromByzantiumintheWestinSeptember827as
apresentfromtheByzantineemperorsMichaelIIandTheophilostoCharlemagne’s
sonandsuccessorLouisthePious,⁶thusinitiatingtherichhistoryofreceptionofthis
authorintheLatinWorld.
IncontrasttoPs.-Dionysios,the“GazanChristians”,⁷andinparticularAineias
of Gaza,⁸ Prokopiosof Gaza⁹ and Zacharias (the Rhetor),¹⁰ attacked the Neoplaton-
istsandtheirideaoftheeternityoftheworld.¹¹Theirarguments–inasignificantly
lesssophisticatedandsystematicform–anticipatedsomeoftheargumentsthatJohn
PhiloponosformulatedinhistreatiseDeaeternitatemundicontraProclum.¹²
John Philoponos(ca.490–575),himselfastudentoftheNeoplatonicphiloso-
pherAmmoniosHermeiou(ca.435–517),wrotealargenumberofworksondifferent
subjects,includingcommentariesonAristotleandmedical,astronomicalandgram-
maticaltreatises.¹³Arabianscholars,whoweremainlyinterestedinPhiloponos’com-
mentariesonAristotle,firstnoticedanumberofcontradictoryopinionsinhiswritings
andsoughttoexplainthembyhypothesizingthatPhiloponoshadwrittenhisDeae-
ternitatemundicontraProclumeitherinordertodefendhimselfagainsttheChristians
whohadbeenthreateninghimorbecausetheChristianshadofferedhimmoneyinex-
changeforthecompositionofthiswork.Towardsthebeginningofthe20thcentury,
GudemannandKrollformulatedabiographicalhypothesisthatdistinguishestwope-
riodsinJohnPhiloponos’life,namelyaninitialpaganand,followingasupposedcon-
versiontoChristianity,alaterChristianperiod.Theyassignedalargenumberofcom-
4 Suda,d1170ΔιονύσιοςὁἈρεωπαγίτης,ed.Adler1928.
5 Makris2000,9f.
6 Cf.McCormick1987.
7 OnChristiancultureinGazaduringthelatefifthandearlysixthcenturiescf.Champion2014,Watts
2005,Hevelone-Harper2005.
8 Cf.PLREII,“AeneasofGaza3”,p.17.
9 Cf.PLREII,“ProcopiusofGaza8”,pp.921–922.
10 Cf.PLREII,“Zacharias(theRhetor)4”,pp.1194–1195.
11 Cf.Sorabji2012,VII:“ThemainsubjectoftheTheophrastus[byAeneasofGaza]wasthehuman
soul[…].ButitoverlappedinonepartwiththesubjectoftheothertwoChristiantexts,theChristians’
creationoftheworldfromabeginning,asopposedtotheNeoplatonists’eternalcreationoftheworld”.
12 Cf.Sorabji2012,VIII.
13 Acomprehensivelist,includinglesseasilyaccessiblepublications,isfoundinScholten1997,vol.
1,35–43.
NeoplatonicPhilosophyinByzantium | 3
mentariesonAristotletothefirst,paganperiod,andtheDeaeternitatemundicontra
Proclumandsomeother,mostlytheologicaltreatisestothesecond.However,reliable
biographicaldetailsaboutJohnPhiloponos’lifearescarceintheextantsources,while
thenameJohnseemstosuggestthathewasborntoaChristianfamily,andsoGude-
mannandKroll’shypothesisfoundlittleacceptanceinsubsequentscholarship.¹⁴In
DeaeternitatemundicontraProclum,whichcanbesecurelydatedto529,JohnPhilo-
ponosmountedavigorousattackonProklos,rejectingtheideaoftheeternityofthe
worldandproposinginsteadasystembasedontheideaofcreatioexnihilooftheworld
andofmatter.¹⁵
ThecompositionofDeaeternitatemundicontraProclumisnottheonlymilestone
intherichhistoryofthereceptionofNeoplatonicphilosophyduringthe6thcentury.
Writingaround540,John,whowasthebishopofScythopolisinPalestine,became
oneofthefirstByzantinescholarstowriteacommentaryontheworksofPs.-Dionysios
the Areopagite. His scholia, or marginal commentaries, containing theological and
philosophicalobservationsonPs.-Dionysios’text,enhanceourunderstandingofthe
waysinwhichByzantinetheologiansreceivedtheideasofProklosthroughthemedi-
ationofPs.-Dionysios.¹⁶Inaddition,hisscholiaconstituteoneofthefirstinstancesof
thereceptionofPlotinosinByzantium.¹⁷
Maximos Homologetes orConfessor (580–662)wascertainlyoneofthe
most outstanding intellectual figures of the 7th century. He was a prolific author
whose theological works were widely read throughout the entire Byzantine period.
Theauthorityhewieldedandthereverentialawewithwhichhiswritingswereread
can be compared only to the renown that Ps.-Dionysios enjoyed during the Middle
AgesintheWest.Maximos’voluminouswritings,formanyofwhichtherearestillno
reliable modern critical editions, amount to – as von Balthasar aptly characterized
them – a “monumental synthesis” of the theological and philosophical traditions
14 Cf.theopinionofScholten1997,vol.1,30f.whopointedoutthatcontradictoryopinionsidenti-
fiableacrossmanyofPhiloponos’worksdonotconstituteareliablebasisforpostulatingdifferent
phasesintheauthor’slife,especiallysincethecommentariesasagenrewerenotmeanttoserveas
avehiclefortheauthor’sopinionbutrathertopropagatecommonandwidespreadviews.Verrycken
1990preferstogroupPhiloponos’worksintotwocategories,whichhesimplylabels“Philoponos-1”
and“Philoponos-2”,explicitlyrefrainingfromanyattempttoassigntheworksfromeithergrouptoa
periodinPhiloponos’life.Thegroup“Philoponos-1”containsworksthatshowtracesofNeoplatonic
views,especiallythosetaughtintheAlexandrianschool,whileworksbelongingto“Philoponos-2”
areclearlyChristianincharacter.
15 Cf.Verrycken2010,withbibliographyonpp.1143–1147.OnPhiloponos’Byzantinelegacy,cf.Bydén
2012,esp.82–85.
16 Parry2006b,224.
17 OntheuseoftheEnneadsofPlotinosinJohnofScythopolis’scholiatotheCorpusdionysiacum,cf.
O’Meara1992b,56.Cf.alsoPodolak2007,RoremandJ.C.Lamoreaux1998b,Frank1987,Beierwaltes
1972aandBeierwaltesandKannicht1968.
4 | S.Mariev
ofhistimes.¹⁸Withinthis“synthesis”MaximosfoundaplaceforsomecentralNeo-
platonicconcepts¹⁹thatwerefamiliartohimmostlybutnotexclusivelythroughthe
mediationofPs.-DionysiostheAreopagite,²⁰byadaptingNeoplatonicconceptstothe
exigenciesofhisown,Christianperspective.²¹
John of Damaskos (ca. 650 – after 754) was born to an influential Arabo-
Christianfamily,theMansur,whosemembershadheldimportantpostsinthefinan-
cialadministrationundertheUmayyaddynasty.Helivedhisentirelifeoutsidethe
politicalboundariesoftheByzantineempire,but,asaChristian,tookanactivepart
in the religious and intellectual life of Byzantium. The first half of the 7th century
wasaturbulentperiodinByzantinehistory.Arabinvasions,theconstantBulgarian
menace,internalpoliticaldisruptionssuchastherevoltofArtabasdos,and,mostim-
portantly,thefirstphaseoftheconflictoverthevenerationofimages(ca.726–787)
weresomeoftheeventsthatdominatedthepoliticalandreligiouslifeofByzantium.
ItisdifficulttodeterminewithprecisionwhichofhisworkswereknowninByzantium
duringhislifetime.Thathisnamewasindeedwell-knownwithintheboundariesof
theempireduringthisperiodisbeyondanydoubt.Asadefenderofvenerationofre-
ligiousimageshewasanathematizedbytheiconoclastCouncilofHiereiain754.The
factthatanecclesiasticalcouncilconvenedbytheEmperorConstantineVdirected
thishighestformofecclesiasticalcensureathimcanbetakenasareliableindica-
tionthatatleastsomeofhiswritingswerenotonlyreadbutalsoexercisedsignificant
influenceduringthetimeleadinguptothecouncil.JohnofDamaskoswascertainly
18 Cf.vonBalthasar1988.
19 Cf.Cvetković2015andPereira2011.ForareconstructionofthewaysinwhichMaximosreceived
andtransformedNeoplatonicconceptswithinhisownperspectivecf.Gersh1978b,204–260.
20 Louth2008,590observesthat“TheattributionofthescholiaontheDionysianwritingstoMax-
imusoncemadeitseemthatMaximushadbeenaclosestudentofDionysius.However,therecent
discovery(firstbyHansUrsvonBalthasar,andnowconfirmedbytheresearchofBeateSuchla)that
mostofthescholiawerecompiledbyJohnofScythopolis[…]haschangedthetermsofthedebate.[…]
TheinfluenceofDionysiusonMaximusis,however,manifest,evenifwediscountthefewscholiathat
maystillbelongtoMaximus.”Cf.Tatakis2003b,65:“toMaximosbelongsthehonorofhavingintro-
ducedintoChristianthoughttheNeoplatonismofPseudo-Dionysiosand,moreimportantly,hisdoing
sowithoutsacrificingthesubstanceofChristianity,thatis,itshistoricalimage”.Ontherelationship
betweenMaximosandPs.-Dionysios,cf.deAndia2015,Louth1993,Völker1961,vonBalthasar1988,
110–122,Sherwood1957.
21 Cf.Törönen2007,16.OnthethornyquestionofthesourcesofMaximosHomologetescf.VanDeun
andMueller-Jourdan2015.Intheconclusionofhisstudy,Mueller-Jourdan2005,193pointedtowards
“unecertainefamiliaritéduConfesseuraveclevocabulaireetlesidéesdelatraditionjamblichéenne
tellequ’elleàétéreformuléedansl’Ecolephilosophiqued’Athènesoùdominentincontestablementle
figuresdeProclus,deDamasciusetdeSimplicius”,admittingthat“lafréquentationdestextesnous
asouventpoussésànousdemandersilamédiationduCorpusdionysienrelativementbienadmisene
devaitpasêtrefoncièrementrévisée”.