Bibliotheca

11

Greeks, Latins, and

Intellectual History
1204-1500

Edited by

Martin Hinterberger and

Chris Schabel

PEETERS
LEUVEN - PARIS - WALPOLE, MA
2011

93690_Hinterberger_RTPM_vw.indd III 21/03/11 09:24

 CONTENTS

Preface ...................................................................................... 1
Introduction.............................................................................. 5
The Byzantines and the Rise of the Papacy: Points for Reflection
1204-1453 ......................................................................... 19
Aristeides Papadakis
Repercussions of the Second Council of Lyon (1274): Theological
Polemic and the Boundaries of Orthodoxy ......................... 43
Tia M. Kolbaba
The Controversy over the Baptismal Formula under Pope
Gregory IX ......................................................................... 69
Yury P. Avvakumov
The Quarrel over Unleavened Bread in Western Theology, 1234-
1439 .......................................................................................... 85
Chris Schabel
A Neglected Tool of Orthodox Propaganda? The Image of the
Latins in Byzantine Hagiography ...................................... 129
Martin Hinterberger
Les Prêcheurs, du dialogue à la polémique (XIIIe - XIVe siècle).. 151
Claudine Delacroix-Besnier
What Did the Scholastics Know about Greek History and Culture? 169
Sten Ebbesen
Hidden Themes in Fourteenth-Century Byzantine and Latin
Theological Debates: Monarchianism and Crypto-Dyophy-
sitism.................................................................................. 183
György Geréby
Cypriot Astronomy around 1350: A Link to Cremona? ............ 213
Fritz S. Pedersen
Textes spirituels occidentaux en grec: les œuvres d’Arnaud de
Villeneuve et quelques autres exemples .............................. 219
Antonio Rigo

93690_Hinterberger_RTPM_vw.indd 3 21/03/11 09:24

 4 CONTENTS

Divided Loyalties? The Career and Writings of Demetrius

Kydones ............................................................................... 243
Judith R. Ryder
Palamas Transformed. Palamite Interpretations of the Distinction
between God’s ‘Essence’ and ‘Energies’ in Late Byzantium... 263
John A. Demetracopoulos
The Western Influence on Late Byzantine Aristotelian Com-
mentaries................................................................................ 373
Katerina Ierodiakonou
Lateinische Einflüsse auf die Antilateiner. Philosophie versus
Kirchenpolitik ........................................................................ 385
Georgi Kapriev
Manuel II Palaeologus in Paris (1400-1402): Theology, Diplo-
macy, and Politics .................................................................. 397
Charalambos Dendrinos
Greeks at the Papal Curia in the Fifteenth Century: The Case of
George Vranas, Bishop of Dromore and Elphin ................. 423
Jonathan Harris

Index nominum ........................................................................ 439

Index codicum manuscriptorum ............................................... 461

93690_Hinterberger_RTPM_vw.indd 4 21/03/11 09:24

 THE WESTERN INFLUENCE
ON LATE BYZANTINE ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARIES1

Katerina IERODIAKONOU

The obvious place to detect a Western influence on late Byzantine

Aristotelian commentaries is George Scholarios Gennadios’ extensive
logical commentaries on the Ars Vetus, that is to say his commentar-
ies on Porphyry’s Isagoge and on Aristotle’s Categories and De inter-
pretatione.2 For Sten Ebbesen’s and Jan Pinborg’s 1982 article
“Gennadios and Western Scholasticism”3 succeeded in establishing,
beyond any doubt, a strong dependence of Gennadios’ logical com-
mentaries on Latin sources. In particular, they convincingly argued
that large chunks of Gennadios’ comments are nothing but mere
translations from the Quaestiones super Artem Veterem by Radulphus
Brito (ca. 1270-ca. 1320), a scholastic philosopher and theologian
from Brittany who taught Aristotelian logic at the University of Paris
around the beginning of the fourteenth century.4

1. This paper would not have been written if it were not for the insightful work of
Sten Ebbesen in this scholarly field. Moreover, this paper would not have had its present
form if it were not again for Sten Ebbesen’s invaluable comments on an earlier draft. For
these reasons I would like to thank him wholeheartedly.
2. On Gennadios’ life and works see generally F. TINNEFELD, “Georgios Gennadios
Scholarios”, in: C.G. CONTICELLO and V. CONTICELLO (eds.), La théologie byzantine et sa
tradition, II (XIIIe-XIXe s.), Turnhout 2002, pp. 477-549 (with rich bibliography and an
annotated list of Gennadios’ works).
3. S. EBBESEN and J. PINBORG, “Gennadios and Western Scholasticism: Radulphus
Brito’s Ars vetus in Greek Translation”, in: Classica et Mediaevalia 33 (1981-82), pp. 263-
319.
4. On Radulphus Brito, see recently W.J. COURTENAY, “Radulphus Brito, Master of
Arts and Theology”, in: Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-Âge Grec et Latin 76 (2005),
pp. 131-158. His works will be listed in a forthcoming fascicle of Olga WEIJERS’ Le travail
intellectuel à la Faculté des arts de Paris: textes et maîtres (ca. 1200-1500), Studia Artis-
tarum, Brepols: Turnhout. Among them are question commentaries on the whole of the
Organon, Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics. For a list of his questions on the Organon,
cf. J. PINBORG, “Die Logik der Modistae”, in: Studia Mediewistyczne 16 (1975), pp. 39-97;
rp. in J. PINBORG, Medieval Semantics. Selected Studies on Medieval Logic and Grammar,
ed. S. EBBESEN, London 1984. Radulphus Brito’s Quaestiones super Artem Veterem were
first printed in Venice ca. 1499, but there is no critical edition of the entire text.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 373 21/03/11 10:30

 374 KATERINA IERODIAKONOU

My aim here is simply to reappraise the extent of such an influence,

to try to understand the rationale behind it, and finally to make some
brief remarks about its further impact.
Let me first introduce the text on which I want to focus. Genna-
dios’ logical commentaries were edited in Paris in 1936 on the basis
of three autographa as the first and biggest part of the seventh volume
of Gennadios’ complete works.5 The editors dated them around
1432/5, though more recently Theodore Zissis has suggested that the
date of their composition could be somewhat earlier.6 The three com-
mentaries cover approximately the same length — 106 pages on
Porphyry’s Isagoge, 123 on Aristotle’s Categories, 110 on the De inter-
pretatione —, and constitute the longest Byzantine commentaries on
these particular logical treatises of Aristotle.7 They were most probably
meant to be used for teaching purposes, perhaps covering the logical
training of students during their first year of philosophical studies.8
But what about the other treatises of the Organon which were usu-
ally taught as part of the standard Byzantine philosophical curricu-
lum? Did Gennadios produce any commentaries on them, too? In the
letter with which he prefaced his extant logical commentaries and in
which he dedicated them to the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine
Palaeologos, who at the time was still residing in Mystra, Gennadios
insinuated that he had no interest in commenting on the Prior Analyt-
ics, because he considered this Aristotelian treatise too technical for
his purposes (4.33).9 Concerning now the Posterior Analytics, Gen-
nadios reported in some length that he had decided, instead of com-
menting himself on it, to translate Thomas Aquinas’ commentary
(4.29-5.12); this translation, however, is unfortunately lost.10 On the
5. Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, ed. by L. PETIT, X.A. SIDERIDÈS, and
M. JUGIE, 8 vols., Paris 1928-36.
6. Cf. T.N. ZISSIS, Gennádiov B’ Sxoláriov, Thessaloniki 1980, p. 353.
7. Respectively pp. 7-113, 114-237, and 238-348 of Oeuvres complètes de Gennade
Scholarios, vol. VII, ed. by L. PETIT, X.A. SIDERIDÈS, and M. JUGIE.
8. Cf. ZISSIS, Gennádiov B’ Sxoláriov, p. 353. Zissis makes a much more concrete
suggestion: assuming that the students met for two hours twice a week and studied at each
meeting one of the lectiones into which these commentaries are divided, the three com-
mentaries could have covered the logical course of a whole year in three terms. However,
he does not adduce any textual evidence to support this suggestion.
9. The numbers in parentheses refer to page and line numbers in Oeuvres complètes de
Gennade Scholarios, vol. VII, ed. PETIT, SIDERIDÈS, and JUGIE.
10. Cf. JUGIE’s introduction to Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, vol. VII,
p. II.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 374 21/03/11 10:30

 THE WESTERN INFLUENCE 375

other hand, there is plenty of evidence that Gennadios’ translation of

Aquinas’ comments on the Posterior Analytics was just one instance of
his more ambitious project to translate into Greek important logical
commentaries and textbooks from the Western scholastic tradition.
We have, for instance, his translations of Pseudo-Aquinas’ De fallaciis,
of Peter of Spain’s Summulae logicales (less the treatise on fallacies),
and the anonymous Liber de sex principiis, which in his time was
commonly attributed to Gilbert de la Porrée.11
Still, the Western influence on Gennadios’ logical endeavours was
not limited to the production of these translations. What is more
intriguing, from our point of view, is the way Gennadios tried to
incorporate in his own logical writings what he regarded as Western
wisdom; and it is indicative what he himself had to say about this in
his dedicatory letter to Constantine Palaeologos. More specifically,
there are three points which are worth making in this connection:
(1) Although Gennadios usually did not refer to his sources, he
explicitly mentioned in these prefatory remarks the ancient commen-
tators whose works he was well acquainted with and confessed to have
used, namely, Theophrastus, Alexander, Porphyry, Syrianus, Ammo-
nius, Simplicius and Themistius. Most interestingly, he also referred
to Avicenna, to Averroes and to the Latin scholars whose logical com-
mentaries he claimed to have found useful for the composition of his
own comments12 (3.4-22).13 He even stressed that it is exactly this

11. Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, vol. VIII, pp. 255-282, 283-337, and
338-350. It is now accepted that Gilbert did not author the Liber de sex principiis: see
L.O. NIELSEN, Theology and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century. A Study of Gilbert Porreta’s
Thinking and the Theological Expositions of the Doctrine of the Incarnation during the Period
1130-1180, Leiden 1982, p. 45. The three Latin treatises have now been critically edited:
PSEUDO-AQUINAS, De fallaciis ad quosdam nobiles artistas, ed. by R. MANDONNET and P. PETRI,
in S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Omnia, vol. 4, Paris 1927, pp. 508-534; PETER OF SPAIN,
Tractatus, called afterwards Summulae logicales, ed. by L.M. DE RIJK, Assen 1972; Liber
de sex principiis, ed. by L. MINIO-PALUELLO (Aristoteles Latinus, 1/7), Paris 1966.
12. Though in his prefatory letter Gennadios does not refer to any of his Western
sources in particular, in the main text of his logical commentaries we find scattered refer-
ences to Boethius, Aquinas, (pseudo-) Gilbert de la Porrée, Albert the Great and once to
Radulphus Brito.
13. ˆEhßtoun dè oû toùv äploustátouv, toútouv d® toùv tòn ˆAristotelikòn êzjtakótav,
ÿn’ oÀtwv e÷pw, floión (aûtoùv gàr æçmjn m¢llon ärmóttein to⁄v parérgwv êpixeiroÕsi
filosofíaç kaì dózjv eÿneka mónjv, kaì aûtoùv oÀtw kaì êk toioútwn logism¬n ™mménouv
toÕ prágmatov), âllà toùv sofwtátouv te kaì âkribestátouv, oŸ t®n ênteriÉnjn kaì tòn
karpòn aûtoí te êzéspasan kaì to⁄v ãlloiv ∂dwkan xr±sqai, toùv perì Qeófraston kaì
ˆAlézandron légw, Æ perì Porfúrion kaì Surianòn kaì Simplíkion. ‰Estjn dè oûdè méxri

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 375 21/03/11 10:30

 376 KATERINA IERODIAKONOU

dependence on the non-Greek commentators which may be said to

add extra value to his commentaries, as compared with teaching based
on the works of Leo Magentenos, Michael Psellos and John Philo-
ponus14 (3.31-34).15
(2) Gennadios clearly stated that the Latin logical works were par-
ticularly instructive to him both in terms of their content and in
terms of their method. He thought that some of the issues which the
Latins had previously raised, some of the views which they had
expressed, and some of the distinctions which they had made were
more sophisticated than the ones to be found in the Greek commen-
taries. Thus, according to Gennadios, the Latin commentators man-
aged two things; namely, (i) to overshadow (apekrupsan) some of the
interpretations of the ancient commentators by introducing more
subtle distinctions and better observations, and (ii) to develop (epêuk-
sêsan) Aristotle’s philosophy with their additions (3.22-30).16 More-
over, Gennadios explained that the way he chose to structure and
present his comments closely followed that of the scholastic tradition
in dividing the text into ‘lessons’ (anagnôseis ≈ lectiones) and each les-
son into an introduction (protheôria); then a broad analysis of the text
into sections (hê tou grammatos diairesis genikôs ≈ divisio litterae in

toútwn, âllà kaì t®n üperórion sofían, légw dè t®n Latínwn, sumbale⁄sqaí moi pròv tòn
skopòn málista üpeiljfÉv, êpeì t±v Latínwn fwn±v êtúgxanon êpañwn, oûk ôlígav êp±lqon
bíblouv latinikáv, pollàv mèn t±v ârxaiotérav, oûk êláttouv dè t±v mésjv, pleístav dè
t±v newtérav taútjv kaì âkribestérav aïrésewv· oï gàr t¬n Latínwn didáskaloi oΔte t¬n
Porfuríou te kaì ˆAlezándrou kaì ˆAmmwníou kaì Simplikíou kaì Qemistíou kaì t¬n
toioútwn ©gnójsan, kaì ∂ti tà ˆAberóou kaì ˆAbinkénou kaì poll¬n ãllwn ˆArrábwn te kaì
Pers¬n eîv t®n ºljn filosofían suggrámmata eîv t®n ëaut¬n metabebljména fwn®n
†panta prosanégnwn· ˆAberójn dè oûdeív, o˝mai, âgnoe⁄ t¬n êzjgjt¬n ˆAristotélouv ∫nta
tòn krátiston, kaì oûk êzjgjt®n mónon, âllà kaì poijt®n poll¬n lógou kaì spoud±v âzíwn
biblíwn.
14. It is interesting to note that Gennadios includes Philoponus in the same list
together with Magentenos and Psellos and not among the ancient commentators.
15. TaÕta toínun †panta êpelqÉn, eî mèn êkérdaná ti kaì aûtòv pléon t¬n Magentjnón,
Æ Cellón, Æ Filóponon mónon ên to⁄v toioútoiv prostjsaménwn, t¬ç Qe¬ç xáriv t±v dwre¢v·
êkeínou gàr toÕto d¬ron ânamfisbjtßtwv.
16. ÊAte oŒn êk poikíljv sofíav tà kállista sullezámenoi kaì pollà par’ ëaut¬n
êzeuróntev, ofia eîkóv êstin (tí gàr ãllo kérdov génoit’ ån toÕ pollà maqe⁄n Æ tò êzeure⁄n
pollà kaì kalà dúnasqai;), polla⁄v mèn prosqßkaiv t®n ˆAristotelik®n filosofían
êpjúzjsan, pleíosi dè kaì ücjlotéroiv hjtßmasí te kaì qewrßmasi kaì diairésesi lep-
totátaiv tàv t¬n ™metérwn kaì prÉtwn êzjgjt¬n âpékrucan êzjgßseiv. Taûtòn dé ti kaì
aûtoì pepónqasin ên sfísin aûto⁄v· oï gàr Àsteroi kaì ên aûto⁄v diá ge tà aûtà toùv pro-
térouv pareljlúqasin.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 376 21/03/11 10:30

 THE WESTERN INFLUENCE 377

generali); then a detailed analysis of the text into sections (diaireitai

to gramma eidikôs ≈ divisio in speciali) with interpretations of particu-
lar points (hermêneia ≈ expositio); and finally, ‘investigations’ (zêtê-
mata ≈ quaestiones) that he also structured in the Western way, by
first stating the problem to be discussed, then arguing against the view
expounded, and in the end settling the argument (5.13-26).17
(3) Gennadios expressed the wish to be read not only by his
Byzantine contemporaries but also by the Latins (6.6-9). In fact,
Bonifacio Bembo of Brescia translated part of his commentaries into
Latin during his time.18 It is also indicative that one of the autographa
of his logical commentaries belonged to Cardinal John Salviati (1490-
1553), the nephew of Pope Leo X, active in the first half of the six-
teenth century.19
According to Ebbesen and Pinborg, these prefatory remarks might
suggest that Gennadios’ logical commentaries are fairly independent
works in which “the author takes advantage of his vast reading and
reaps the fruits of Western scholarship without following any par-
ticular source slavishly”.20 But such an expectation is, in their view,
hardly fulfilled. For as I have said at the beginning, they actually
identify the Latin logical work which Gennadios translated and incor-
porated in his comments, namely Radulphus Brito’s Quaestiones super
Artem Veterem. Furthermore, Ebbesen and Pinborg claim that, if we
were to subtract the passages that stem from Brito, what is left from

17. ˆEzjgßsasqai mèn oŒn, ºper e˝pon, t±v logik±v mérov toútwn eÿneka oûx eïlómjn·
eîv dè t®n Porfuríou Eîsagwg®n kaì t¬n déka Katjgori¬n tò biblíon kaì tò Perì
ërmjneíav, ° d® kaqáper tiv qeméliov t±v perì sullogism¬n pragmateíav kaì filosofíav
äpásjv e˝nai doke⁄, taútjn êkdédwka t®n êzßgjsin, eîv tría diairouménjn, Üv e÷rjtai, ˜n
∏kaston eîv ânagnÉseiv dieilómjn e÷toun ömilíav· ên afiv ânagnÉsesin ∂sti mèn proqewría
tiv ên ta⁄v pleístaiv, êpágetai dè ™ toÕ grámmatov diaíresiv genik¬v· e˝ta diaire⁄tai tò
grámma eîdik¬v kaì ërmjneúetai· e˝ta hjtoÕntai tinà ên t¬ç grámmati· e˝ta ºpou de⁄ hjte⁄n
kaì ∂zw toÕ grámmatov ∂nia, oûdè toÕto paríemen. Kaì pròv taÕta tà hjtßmata proxwroÕ-
men t¬ç latinik¬ç trópwç, tiqéntev te tò próbljma kaì êpixeiroÕntev eîv toûnantíon ên to⁄v
pleístoiv· e˝ta diorihómenoi tâljqèv kaì lúontev tà êpixeirßmata· Ω d® t¬n ™metérwn
êzjgjt¬n oûdeív pw méxri t±v ™mérav t±sde, ºsa ge êgÑ o˝da, tugxánei teqarrjkÉv.
18. Bembo’s translation is to be found in the late fifteenth-century manuscript BAV,
Vat. lat. 4560, which also includes an anonymous Latin translation of Psellos’ and Magen-
tenos’ comments on some of the Organon treatises. Cf. JUGIE, Oeuvres complètes de
Gennade Scholarios, vol. VII, p. III, n. 1; EBBESEN-PINBORG, “Gennadios and Western
Scholasticism”, pp. 314-317.
19. Cf. JUGIE, Oeuvres complètes de Gennade Scholarios, vol. VII, p. IV.
20. EBBESEN-PINBORG, “Gennadios and Western Scholasticism”, p. 265.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 377 21/03/11 10:30

 378 KATERINA IERODIAKONOU

Gennadios’ text is a so-called ‘literal’ commentary, or even three literal

commentaries, one on each of the works, consisting of divisions of
the text commented on into sections and some mini-quaestiones; and
although they do not detect the sources of these literal commentaries,
they think that they also constitute translations from the Latin, judg-
ing from some strange Greek sentences which Gennadios used. Thus,
Ebbesen and Pinborg conclude: “He was, in short, a compilator in
much the same way as Leo Magentenus had been; only his sources
were different”.21 In addition, Ebbesen makes an even stronger state-
ment in one of his more recent articles: “The lection-commentary is
a uniquely Latin phenomenon. The one Greek example I know, viz.
George Scholarios’ commentary on the Ars Vetus, is a translation from
the Latin”.22
But is it really the case that Gennadios’ logical commentaries are
nothing but mere translations from the Latin? It is certainly true that
in his dedicatory letter Gennadios proudly acknowledged the Western
influence on his logical writings. However, he did that only after hav-
ing paid tribute to the Greek commentators whom he clearly consid-
ered to be indispensable teachers for the better understanding and
interpretation of Aristotle’s Organon. Should we, then, insist that
Gennadios slavishly follows Latin sources? To settle this issue, one
would obviously need to study systematically all the passages from
Gennadios’ logical commentaries which do not stem from Brito’s
work and try to find out whether their sources are Greek or Latin.
Here, however, I have chosen to concentrate just on Gennadios’ com-
ments on the De interpretatione; for what immediately struck me is
the fact that this commentary includes, again according to Ebbesen
and Pinborg, translated extracts from Brito’s work only at two places.
In particular, it only includes two clearly marked quaestiones which
together are not more than five and a half pages in length (297.23-
300.31 and 347.7-348.29). So, what about the remaining 105 pages of
Gennadios’ comments on the De interpretatione? What are the sources
on which Gennadios relied here? Are they exclusively Latin sources?

21. EBBESEN-PINBORG, “Gennadios and Western Scholasticism”, p. 267.

22. S. EBBESEN, “Greek and Latin Medieval Logic”, in: Cahiers de l’Institut du Moyen-
Âge Grec et Latin 66 (1996), pp. 67-93, esp. p. 85; reprinted in IDEM, Greek-Latin
Philosophical Interaction (Collected Essays of Sten Ebbesen, 1), Aldershot 2008, pp. 137-
156, at p. 150.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 378 21/03/11 10:30

 THE WESTERN INFLUENCE 379

In his comments on the De interpretatione Gennadios referred twice

to Boethius (242.6; 293.28), once to Albert the Great (347.29), once
to the Latin scholars in general (250.8), and once to Averroes (337.3).
He never mentioned Thomas Aquinas by name, although John Dem-
etracopoulos has recently undertaken to compile a detailed list of
Gennadios’ comments that constitute translations from Aquinas’
commentary on the De interpretatione.23 Indeed, this list clearly shows
that Gennadios’ comments depend on Aquinas’ work to a great
extent. But even this influence cannot account for the whole of Gen-
nadios’ text; for there are also his explicit references to Greek
sources.
More specifically, apart from the subsidiary allusions to views put
forward by Aspasius (259.27), Alexander (254.37; 259.31; 264.5;
279.15), Porphyry (278.32; 338.30), and the grammarians (250.13;
253.31), allusions which constitute digressions rather than being
strictly relevant to the issues discussed in this particular Aristotelian
treatise, Gennadios seems to have taken into serious consideration two
Greek commentaries when composing his own logical comments,
namely, Ammonius’ commentary on the De interpretatione and
Psellos’ paraphrase of the same work. In fact, Gennadios referred by
name to Ammonius ten times (250.21; 251.12; 255.8; 319.26;
337.33; 338.11; 22; 26; 37; 339.5) and to Psellos twice (266.3;
338.9). And although some of the references to Ammonius are clearly
due to Aquinas (250.21; 251.12; 255.8), there is at least a substantial
passage (337.33-339.6) in which Gennadios engaged himself directly
in a lively dialogue with Ammonius’ comments, expressing a strong
disagreement with him. In particular, the issue discussed here con-
cerns the authenticity of chapter fourteen of the De interpretatione:
after having presented Ammonius’ position that Aristotle is not the

23. I am indebted to John Demetracopoulos for providing me with the list of Schol-
arios’ passages that are translations from Aquinas’ commentary on the De interpretatione.
A brief version of this list will be included in his lemma on Gennadios for the forthcom-
ing Ueberweg volume on Byzantine philosophy, edited by G. KAPRIEV. On Scholarios and
Aquinas, see J.A. DEMETRACOPOULOS, “Georgios Gennadios II - Scholarios’ Florilegium
Thomisticum. His Early Abridgment of Various Chapters and Quaestiones of Thomas
Aquinas’ Summae and His Anti-Plethonism”, in: Recherches de théologie et philosophie
médiévales 69/1 (2002), pp. 117-171, and IDEM, “Georgios Gennadios II - Scholarios’
Florilegium Thomisticum II (De fato) and Its Anti-Plethonic Tenor”, in: Recherches de
théologie et philosophie médiévales 74/2 (2007), pp. 301-376.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 379 21/03/11 10:30

 380 KATERINA IERODIAKONOU

author of this part of the treatise, Gennadios argued in favour of the

contrary thesis; and it is in the same context that Psellos is also men-
tioned as following the erroneous position held by Ammonius.
Furthermore, there are occasions in his De interpretatione com-
mentary on which Gennadios clearly tried to differentiate his under-
standing of the Aristotelian text from the generally accepted one. In
such cases he first stated the interpretation to which most scholars
adhered, and then offered an alternative interpretation which he
regarded as better and thus favoured it over the others (e.g. 257.16;
283.32; 315.28). So, even if such alternative interpretations should
not always be thought of as Gennadios’ original interpretations, it is
reasonable to think of them as marking his attempt to take a critical
stance towards his sources and to present his own point of view.
But if the content of Gennadios’ commentary on the De interpre-
tatione does not simply follow a Latin source, what about its method?
Is it really the case that the structure of his logical comments repro-
duces that of the Latin commentaries on Aristotle’s Organon? It is
noticeable that at the beginning of most sections of the De interpre-
tatione commentary there are brief informative analyses of the issues
to be discussed in what follows (e.g., 256.4ff.; 260.11ff.; 262.32ff.;
270.12ff.; 282.18ff.; 289.37ff.; 301.6ff.). That is to say, Gennadios’
common practice was first to divide and subdivide the issues to be
discussed and then to focus on certain points and comment on them
in greater detail. But the fact that he did not add in this particular
commentary any quaestiones, apart from the two which he translated
from Brito’s work, as I have already mentioned, makes the structure
of his commentary very similar to that of the Greek commentaries
known as ‘praxis-commentaries’, which were also divided into sec-
tions, the praxeis, and started with an analysis of the argumentation
followed by detailed comments on specific points; such a commen-
tary, for instance, is Stephanus’ commentary on the De interpreta-
tione.24 Hence, it would be pertinent to suggest that the method of
Gennadios’ commentary has as much in common with the method
of some Greek logical commentaries as it does with that of the Latin
ones.

24. Cf. EBBESEN, “Greek and Latin Medieval Logic”, pp. 84-87; IDEM, Greek-Latin
Philosophical Interaction, pp. 150-152.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 380 21/03/11 10:30

 THE WESTERN INFLUENCE 381

To summarize, if Gennadios stressed in his dedicatory letter the

contribution of Latin scholars to the interpretation of Aristotle’s
logical treatises, it is because the inclusion in his commentaries of
their views constituted a real innovation in the Greek commentary
tradition. Nevertheless, he certainly did not want to imply that he
relied exclusively on Latin sources. For Gennadios, just like any other
Byzantine commentator, made ample use of the ancient Greek com-
mentaries as well as of those produced by previous Byzantine scholars,
and most importantly, he made no claim to originality. On the con-
trary, he presented himself, again in his dedicatory letter, as nothing
but a compilator who added at only a few places his judgement about
which interpretation he regarded as the most convincing (5.26-32);25
and this seems to have been his practice, at least in the case of his De
interpretatione commentary. It should, therefore, be no surprise that
he brought together comments from different authors, exactly like
Magentenos, though Gennadios’ sources were both Greek and Latin.
And it would be an oversimplification to claim that he slavishly
followed a Latin source, an oversimplification which may prevent us
from undertaking the interesting, though I acknowledge quite diffi-
cult, task of inquiring into the reasons that led Gennadios to choose
the different sources he actually did at the different sections of his
commentary.
Gennadios’ decision to make use of both Greek and Latin sources
admittedly constitutes the important difference which distinguishes
him from the other Byzantine commentators, a difference which calls
for some explanation and to which I want to devote some brief final
remarks. For the question which is particularly puzzling with regard
to the Western influence on Gennadios’ logical endeavours is the one
inquiring into the reasons which led a Byzantine scholar for the first
time at the first part of the fifteenth century to take into consideration
Western scholarship. Historians of the period would perhaps invoke
a series of political reasons that urged Gennadios to be open to the
Latin influence, especially such political reasons as those connected

25. ˆEn ôlígoiv mèn oŒn kaì diaforàv doz¬n tíqemen kaì kríseiv perì toútwn ™metérav
kaì gnÉmav îdíav, âll’ ên to⁄v pleíosin êktrepómenoí te kenodozían kaì sofíav dózan Økista
prospoioúmenoi, oΔte toùv ãllouv êlégxein, oΔte aûtoì êpideíknusqai ©ziÉsamen, âll’
©gapßsamen tàv âljqestérav êzjgßseiv dokoúsav e˝nai t¬n êgnwsménwn, taútav tiqénai,
oûdèn prosdiorihómenoi oœ te eîsì kaì ºtou xárin t¬n ãllwn pléon êdokimásqjsan.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 381 21/03/11 10:30

 382 KATERINA IERODIAKONOU

with the attempts to unify the Churches. In fact, Gennadios attended

in 1438-1439 the Council of Ferrara-Florence, in which he took a
Unionist position, although he soon after turned into an avowed
opponent of the Union of the Churches and became the leader of the
anti-Unionist party.26
This is the historian’s perspective, which by no means excludes the
possibility to understand Gennadios’ interest in and use of the Latin
logical works on the basis of their philosophical merits. In other
words, it is more rewarding, from a philosophical point of view, to
single out the reasons which, according to Gennadios, made it par-
ticularly advantageous to incorporate in his logical commentaries the
scholastic tradition. And it becomes, I think, clear both from his
dedicatory letter and from scattered remarks in his De interpretatione
commentary that he opted for a combination of Latin and Greek
sources because, in this way, both the method and the philosophical
content of his logical comments could be significantly improved.
More specifically, the Latin method contributed to the clarity and
precision of his commentaries, qualities which enhanced their peda-
gogical value and greatly facilitated their teaching. As to the content
of Gennadios’ commentaries, the inclusion of the Latin views offered
a more comprehensive account of the different interpretations of Aris-
totle’s doctrines, and thus guaranteed a better stance from which one
would be able to recognize the best interpretation. But again, even on
the occasions on which Gennadios confessed the importance of Latin
influence, he did not fail to treat the Greek sources with comparable
respect. For instance, when he mentioned in his dedicatory letter his
translation of Aquinas’ commentary on the Posterior Analytics, he also
felt the need to point out that the views of the Greek commentators
should not be neglected, if we want to reach a clear, precise and bet-
ter interpretation of Aristotle’s thought (5.2-12).
So, when Gennadios was composing his logical commentaries, he
seems to have been well aware of the fact that he belonged to a long
commentary tradition. And he treated this commentary tradition as
part of the philosophical output, in the sense that he regarded the
views of the previous commentators as philosophically important. The

26. G. PODSKALSKY, “Die Rezeption der thomistischen Theologie bei Gennadios II.
Scholarios (1403-1472)”, in: Theologie und Philosophie 49 (1974), pp. 305-323.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 382 21/03/11 10:30

 THE WESTERN INFLUENCE 383

same awareness of the significance and variety of the previous com-

mentary tradition we find in the fourteenth century in the prefatory
remarks of Sophonias’ paraphrasis of Aristotle’s De anima (1.5-2.3).27
The crucial difference in Gennadios’ case, however, is that he con-
sciously added the commentary tradition inaugurated by the Latin and
Arab scholars, parallel to the established ancient and Byzantine tradi-
tion. Moreover, in Gennadios’ case it is interesting to note that,
although the commentator’s task still was, of course, to explain Aris-
totle’s text by offering interpretations of obscure passages, at the same
time the commentator took seriously and commented on the views of
his predecessors, views which were regarded by Gennadios as further
continuing Aristotle’s thought. For in his view, the role of the com-
mentator was not only to transform Aristotle’s thought for pedagogical
purposes, and thus to introduce a literary innovation, but to expand
on it in certain ways. And it makes sense to suggest, I think, that such
a development is closely connected to the fact that Gennadios con-
sciously presented the tradition inaugurated by the Latin scholars.
To conclude, Gennadios seems to have been the only author among
the Byzantine commentators on Aristotle’s logic who was open to the
influence of the scholastic tradition. This influence, however, should
not be seen as having the character of a mere translation or of a slav-
ish dependence on the Western tradition. Gennadios’ commentaries
on the Ars Vetus combine elements from both the Greek and the Latin
logical commentaries in an innovative manner, so that what becomes
intriguing is to examine carefully how the two traditions are brought
together in a coherent whole. Unfortunately, however, there was no
time left for his example to be followed by other Byzantine commen-
tators, who could have thus been able perhaps to breathe new life into
their fast aging commentary tradition. It is not until much later that
someone like Theophilos Korydalleus (1574-1646), who was trained
in Padua at the beginning of the seventeenth century (1609-1613),
could again produce in his works such an amalgam of Western scho-
lasticism and the Greek commentary tradition.28

27. Cf. B. BYDÉN, “Logotexnikév kainotomíev sta prÉima palaiológeia upomnßmata

sto Perí cuxßv tou Aristotélj”, in: Upómnjma 4 (2006), pp. 221-251.
28. Œuvres Philosophiques de Théophile Corydalée, vol. I: Introduction à la Logique,
ed. by A. PAPADOPOULOS and C. NOICA, Bucharest 1970; vol. II: Commentaires à la
Métaphysique, ed. by C. NOICA and T. ILIOPOULOS, Bucharest 1972.

93690_Hinterberger_13_Ierodiakonou.indd 383 21/03/11 10:30