Byzantium and Modernism -- The Slash (/) as Method -- CODA.

The ideas of Plato (429-347 BC) have exerted such an abiding influence on western philosophy and political thought that it is easy to forget that for many centuries, between about 500 and 1400, his works were almost unknown in western Europe. This was partly because very few people in Medieval Europe knew enough Greek to read Plato and even if they had, copies of the Dialogues were almost impossible to obtain, with only the Timaeus available in Latin translation. Scholars were (...) therefore largely dependent on earlier Latin authors such as Cicero and St Augustine for a second-hand knowledge of Plato's ideas. It was the rediscovery of the Dialogues in the original during the Italian Renaissance of the fifteenth century that set western thought off on new paths, a rediscovery that was made possible by the preservation and transmission of Plato's work by scholars in Byzantium. (shrink)

Byzantium has recently attracted much attention, principally among cultural, social and economic historians. This book shifts the focus to philosophy and intellectual history, exploring the thought-world of visionary reformer Gemistos Plethon. It argues that Plethon brought to their fulfilment latent tendencies among Byzantine humanists towards a distinctive anti-Christian and pagan outlook. His magnum opus, the pagan Nomoi, was meant to provide an alternative to, and escape-route from, the disputes over the Orthodoxy of Gregory Palamas and Thomism. It was also (...) a groundbreaking reaction to the bankruptcy of a pre-existing humanist agenda and to aborted attempts at the secularisation of the State, whose cause Plethon had himself championed in his two utopian Memoranda. Inspired by Plato, Plethon's secular utopianism and paganism emerge as the two sides of a single coin. On another level, the book challenges anti-essentialist scholarship that views paganism and Christianity as social and cultural constructions. (shrink)

As Hegel once said, in Byzantium, between homoousis and homoiousis, the difference of one letter could decide the life and death of thousands. As this article seeks to argue, Byzantine thinking was not only attentive to conceptual differences, but also to iconic ones. The iconoclastic controversy (726-842 AD) arose from two different interpretations of the nature of images: whereas iconoclastic philosophy is based on the assumption of a fundamental 'iconic identity', iconophile philosophy defends the idea of'iconic difference'. And while (...) the reception in the Latin West of the controversies over the image as a mere problem of referentiality of the letter explains why its originality has remained underestimated for centuries, reexamining Byzantine visual thinking in the light of today's 'pictorial turn' reveals its striking modernity. (shrink)

The Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met) recently hosted the blockbuster exhibition, Africa & Byzantium, which ran from November 19, 2023, to March 3, 2024. This long-anticipated show and accompanying catalogue1 represent one of the first major exhibitions to place the contemporaneous arts of Byzantine, Coptic, Nubian, Ethiopian, and Islamic traditions in Africa side by side. Showcasing medieval Africa’s rich cultural heritage, complexity, power, and transcontinental influence, Africa & Byzantium will become a standard resource for scholars reevaluating Africa’s role (...) in medieval art and culture. Head curator of the exhibition, Dr. Andrea Myers Achi, has kindly agreed to an interview as a supplement to the current Convivium issue on The Arts of Medieval Northern Africa. Dr. Achi is Mary and Michael Jaharis Associate Curator of Byzantine Art at the Met. She specializes in Late Antique and Byzantine art and archaeology in Northern Africa, particularly in Egypt. She previously worked on the Met’s exhibitions for Art and Peoples of the Kharga Oasis (October 11, 2017 – April 11, 2021), Crossroads: Power and Piety (March 6, 2020 – July 24, 2022), The Good Life: Collecting Late Antique Art at The Met (May 24, 2021 – January 7, 2024), and Afterlives: Contemporary Art in the Byzantine Crypt (2024), which recently opened and will be on display through January 25, 2026. (shrink)

The attempts to interpret Russian and Southeast European history in light of a Byzantine background tend to focus on traditions of political culture, and to claim that patterns characteristic of the late Roman Empire have had a formative impact on later developments. But the effects attributed to political culture presuppose a civilizational framework, and arguments on that level must come to grips with evidence of historical discontinuity, during the Byzantine millennium as well as in later centuries and on the periphery (...) of the Byzantium cultural world. The path to a historically grounded civilizational analysis is, however, obstructed by persisting images of Byzantium as a stagnant culture, immobilized by a complete fusion of secular and sacred authority. The article discusses and criticizes some of the most influential versions of this view. (shrink)

The concept of “enhypostaton” was introduced into theological discourse during the sixth-century Christological debates with the aim of justifying the unitary subjectivity of Christ by reclassifying Christ’s human nature as ontically non-independent. The coinage of the term is commonly ascribed to Leontius of Byzantium. Its conceptual content has been recognized by contemporary scholarship as relevant to the core issues of Christology, as well as possessing significance for such philosophical questions as individuation and the nature of individual entityhood. Even so, (...) despite its role in the formation of classical Christological thought, the notion of “enhypostaton” is often regarded as obscure and not clearly defined. This paper aims to shed some light on the meaning of Leontius’ conception of it, in respect of its specifically philosophical import. (shrink)

Few aspects of social behavior tell us more about a culture than those practices that involve the roles it assigns to models and copies. Under interpretation, such conduct reveals its attitudes toward authority and antiquity, its sense of identity and regard for security, and the relative importance that it attached to imitation and invention. To varying degrees, all societies display these concerns, but in none were they so firmly grounded in a considered theory of the relation between prototype and derivative (...) as they were in Byzantium. An example from the domain of law will illustrate, though not explain, this cultural difference. As against the Roman tradition in which the use of copies as evidence in court was prohibited, at least from the tenth century on Byzantine tribunals accepted the legitimacy of certified copies of documents. The very word used for an official copy—ison, meaning equal— suggests the conceptual distinction between it and the terms copie, Kopie, kopiya, and so on, in modern languages, all derived from the Latin word for abundance. (shrink)

I detect a specific attitude to Byzantium (“the Byzantine Enlightenment”) in Ivan Kireevsky’ Slavophile article “On the Character of Enlightenment in Europe” (1852). I qualify this attitude as Byzantinocentrism. I take that as a focal point and, against this background, consider the image of Byzantium in Kireevsky and some thinkers of his social circle. It allows me to trace the most important lines of attitudes to Byzantium in the Russian historiosophical literature and opinion journalism of the nineteenth (...) century. I detect two opposite lines in perceiving Byzantium in Kireevsky’s early social circle: the anti- and pro-Byzantine ones. The first line goes back to an anti-Byzantine message, characteristic of the epoch of Enlightenment. It found its manifestation in G. W. F. Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of History. I point to the traces of the implicit polemics with Hegel’s anti-byzantinism in Kireevsky and identify the context of these polemics in Arist Kunick. As well, I outline how these lines worked in Pyotr Chaadaev and Alexander Pushkin. Then I distinguish between how the image of Byzantium was presented, first, in Kireevsky’s earlier Slavophile article “On the Character of Enlightenment in Europe” and, second, in his last article “On the Necessity and Possibility of the new Foundations for Philosophy” (1856). In the latter article, which sees Byzantium as bipolar, I find another view on Byzantium. I suggest that this view on Byzantium as a bipolar entity goes back to Alexey Khomyakov’s Semiramis. My point is that this difference in the views on Byzantium is paradigmatic and it reflects a division that was present in the Russian Slavophile-conservative milieu of that time. I suggest that this division stands behind another division within the same milieu, which was politically oriented, the one in relation to the Greek-Bulgarian ecclesiastical question. I analyze how both monopolar (Byzantinocentric) and bipolar views on Byzantium were reflected in the Greek-Bulgarian question as it was considered by Alexey Khomyakov and Terty Filippov. I find a context for developing Kireevsky’s attitude towards Byzantium in François Guizot’s historiosophic scheme as well. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThis paper proposes an intellectual history of the idea that the later Roman empire and, subsequently, the whole of Byzantium were less ‘free’ in comparison to the Roman Republic. Anxiety over diminished freedom recurred throughout Roman history, but only a few specific expressions of it were enshrined in modern thought as the basis on which to divide history into periods. The theorists of the Enlightenment, moreover, invented an unfree Byzantium for their own political purposes and not by examining (...) the facts about its political culture. The second part of the paper proposes that the Byzantines valorized a model of positive freedom as legal-institutional protection against arbitrary oppressive power, including against both barbarian domination and domestic abuses. In contrast to modern thought, which tends to see the imperial position as the chief threat to liberty, the Byzantines viewed it as its bulwark. Yet they too had remedies for oppressive emperors, suggesting that the otherwise well-attested invocations of freedom were not a mere rhetorical trope for them but an actionable cultural norm. (shrink)

Glimpses into Byzantium. Its Philosophy and Arts -/- This volume contains peer-reviewed articles published by the author either in hard-copy or in electronic format between 2019 and 2021. These focus on various aspects of Byzantine and Medieval culture. -/- It is not possible to upload an entire book here, but there are copies of it in libraries and it can also be bought from Amazon.

This work explores the paradigms which generated the state ideology before the modern times in the only case in which the genuine existence of it can be proven: the Byzantine State. Byzantium is the only pre-modern society that has fulfilled the criteria which define the existence of a state that has, among others, a vast bureaucratic mechanism, propaganda instruments and an ideology. This study targets, in particular, the meanings received by the ideological in the Byzantine horizon, the connotations which (...) the high official or the common people had when being the subject for the ideological message. These connotations cannot be understood if we do not take into account the meaning and use which philosophy had in the Byzantine cultural model, a different sense and use from what modernity accredited as philosophy. (shrink)

In middle to late Byzantium, one finds dogmatic-style sceptical arguments employed against human reason in relation to divine revelation, where revelation becomes the sole criterion of certain truth in contrast to reason. This argumentative strategy originates in early Christian authors, especially Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 CE) and Gregory Nazianzen (c. 329–390 CE), who maintain that revelation is the only domain of knowledge where certainty is possible. Given this, one finds two striking variations of this sceptical approach: a “mild” (...) variant (represented by Clement), where knowledge derived from human reason admits partial access to truths manifested in revelation, if imperfect; and a “strict” variant (represented by Gregory), where knowledge derived from human reason does not admit any access to truths in revelation. This paper analyzes the three Byzantines, Nicholas of Methone (d. 1160/66 CE), Theodore Metochites (1270–1320 CE), and Gregory Palamas (1296–1357/59 CE), who each display certain tendencies toward these two “poles” in their respective epistemological positions on knowledge through reason and faith. (shrink)

The article examines how Hegel’s negative view of Byzantium is different from the Enlightenment’s critique and especially from Voltaire’s criticism of medieval history. In order to account for the Hegelian specificity of interpretation an effort is made to translate the chapter on Byzantium from the Philosophy of History in terms of the analysis of the Phenomenology of the Spirit and, more precisely, on the basis of the chapters on sensible certitude and on the domination and servitude. Considering that (...) for Hegel every philosophical school possesses an autonomous value, one has to wonder why the Byzantine moment of the Spirit is destined to stagnation. The question about Hegel’s Neoplatonism, especially his affiliation with Proclus’s system, shows how the distance separating the Hegelian system from the Proclusian one explains the inadequacy of the latter as to drawing the consequences from the Byzantine spiritual stagnation. (shrink)

The Crusades, particularly the Fourth Crusade and the events that followed it, attracted many Latin warriors to the Aegean. During the first half of the thirteenth century, throughout the period of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, they provided the Laskarides of Nikaia and the Angeloi of Epeiros with a steady supply of mercenaries which these Byzantine successor states relied upon heavily. In the mid-thirteenth century, Byzantine sources began to refer to certain Latin soldiers by means of the evocative epithet kavallarios, (...) and for the next two hundred years this word was applied as a title to a variety of men in the service of the restored Byzantine Empire of the Palaiologoi. An examination of the meaning of the word kavallarios, as it was first applied to Latins, and in the course of its evolution during the last two centuries of Byzantium, illustrates the frequent interplay of Byzantine and Western institutions during the later Middle Ages. (shrink)

Kein Gelehrter vor Irfan SHAHÎD hat sich so ausführlich mit dem Verhältnis zwischen Byzantinern und Arabern in der vorislamischen Zeit beschäftigt. Mit seinen Arbeiten, schon zwei Bände der Serie „Byzantium and the Arabs“ sind 1995 erschienen, begibt sich Sh. auf ein noch unzulänglich erforschtes, geschweige denn verstandenes Forschungsfeld: Die Geschichte der Araber im größeren Syrien des 6. Jh.s, welche durch „Die ghassânidischen Fürsten aus dem Hause Gafna's“ (so der Titel der grundlegenden Arbeit Theodor NÖLDEKES in den „Abhandlungen der Königl. (...) Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften 1887“, 1–62) geprägt wurde. Dazu verfügt der Verf. über seltene Voraussetzungen. Er beherrscht sowohl die klassischen westlichen Sprachen sowie das Syrische und ist ein hervorragender Arabist, der es vor allem vermag, das bei den frühen arabischen Autoren verstreute Material, ich denke dabei besonders an die frühen Dichter, zu deuten. Hohe Sachkompetenz und jahrelange Beschäftigung mit dem Thema bezeugen schon die 1995 erschienen zwei Bände, in denen Sh. die Geschichte der Ġassāniden und ihren Einfluss auf die Politik und das religiöse Leben sowie ihre Rolle in den Kriegen der damaligen Zeit im Detail beschreibt. An sie schließt sich die vorliegende, über 450seitige Arbeit an. (shrink)

The title led me to expect a somewhat different kind of book. What we are offered is not so much a dossier on Iconoclasm, like André Grabar's, as a dossier on the Dark Age of Byzantium. It falls into two parts: the first and more original is devoted to material culture, while the second is a checklist of written sources, largely overlapping the Prolegomena volume of PmbZ. Aimed at university students, this is essentially a work of reference. A further (...) volume of synthesis is promised. (shrink)

Callimachus,ep. 1 Pfeiffer (= LIV Gow-Page =AP7.89) relates an anecdote about Pittacus: when consulted by a stranger from Atarneus who was wondering whether to marry a woman of his own social class or one of a higher status, he suggests the question is answered by the cries of the children playing with tops, τν κατ ｃαντν ἔλα. The chequered history of the transmission and interpretation of the poem is beset by a number of unfavourable or patronizing judgements which, I hope (...) to show, have their origin in a series of misunderstandings. The poem seems to lack the sharp point characteristic of epigrams, and indeed Gow-Page go so far as to pronounce that it ‘has no claim to be called an epigram at all’. We now have a number of valuable parallels for the unusual length of the piece, but grave doubts continue to be expressed about the Callimachean authorship of the poem. While Diogenes Laertius (henceforth referred to as ‘D.L.’), who quotes the poem in his life of Pittacus (1.79ff.), explicitly attributes it to καλλμαχοఁ ν τοῖఁ ’Epsilon;πιγρμμαఁιν, in P and PI there is no ascription at all: there our epigram has been mistakenly consigned to the ’ɛπιτμβια simply becauseAP7.81 (= Antipater XXXIV Gow-Page), on the Seven Sages, is followed by some fifty epigrams on them and other philosophers, all (save three) derived from D.L. In the Palatine ms. there survive traces of the questions raised by this poem, though—surprisingly—both Pfeiffer and Gow-Page fail to report them. (shrink)

The paper deals with the reception of Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric in several Byzantine commentators of Hermogenes’and Aphthonius’ treatises. A justification of critical interpretationof this definition is to be found in the commentaries of Troilus and Athanasius as well as Sopatros and Doxapatres, Maximus Planudes and several anonymouscommentators. The Byzantine tradition has found Aristotle’s definitionof rhetoric to be all too theoretical and insufficiently connected topractical activity, which Byzantium identified with political life.